Part of our theodicy for the problem of evil includes the point that it was logically impossible for God to create a world in which humans enjoyed free will (a good thing), and yet were unable to use that freedom to choose evil as well as the good. I accept that as true, and yet Christianity proclaims there is coming a day in which there will be a world consisting of humans with libertarian free-will, who will never choose evil: heaven. The future hope of Christians seems to undermine one of the central premises in our theodicy. Can this be reconciled?
Some have suggested that we will not sin in heaven because we’ll be in the beatific presence of God. Presumably, the angels exist in the beatific presence of God, and yet many of the angels chose to rebel against God in that state. This alone, then, cannot explain why humans won’t sin in heaven.
Others have suggested that we will not sin in heaven because God will glorify our humanity. But this is not a solution; it is an admission of the problem. Glorification is being put forward, not to show that such a world cannot exist, but rather to explain how it will become a reality. If in the future God is able—through glorification—to make human beings such that they have free will, and yet will not choose evil, then it falsifies the claim that God cannot create a world in which humans enjoy libertarian free will, and yet never choose evil. Indeed, He will do so in the future. In light of such, we might ask why God did not do this from the onset. Why didn’t He create humans in a glorified state to begin with, if glorified humans can exercise free will and yet not choose evil?
This is a difficult question, but here is my current thinking on it. Could it be that the presence of sin—and our subsequent struggle against it—are necessary to create the kind of free creatures who will not exercise their free will to choose evil? Is God using evil as an immunization of sorts, in which our experience with it actually creates in us a hatred for it, to the extent that if our fallen nature were removed, we would always choose the good in the future—a choice we would not be able to make without first experiencing evil (a la Adam)? In this schema, the future world of freedom without evil is only possible because it was first preceded by world of freedom that included evil. Evil is used as a divine teaching tool in this world to create in us the ability to always and freely choose the good in the next world. Our present problem consists of our inability to actually perform what we presently will to perform because of our fallen nature. But in the end, God will restore humanity to its original state—removing from us our natural propensity toward evil—so that we can truly perform what we have learned to will in this life: the good.
On this proposal, evil is necessary to exercise our moral being to the point of maturity, so that in the next life we will only choose the good, and will do so freely. The purpose of glorification is not to remove the possibility of choosing evil, but to remove the barrier that is currently preventing us from choosing what we want to choose: the good.
William Lane Craig has echoed similar thoughts. In a debate with Ray Bradley, Craig said, “Heaven may not be a possible world when you take it in isolation by itself. It may be that the only way in which God could actualize a heaven of free creatures all worshiping Him and not falling into sin would be by having, so to speak, this run-up to it, this advance life during which there is a veil of decision-making in which some people choose for God and some people against God. … [I]t may not be feasible for God to actualize heaven in isolation from such an antecedent world.”[1]
While it is theoretically possible for those in heaven to sin, no one will ever choose it. J. P. Moreland illustrates this concept in a crude but powerful way. He notes that while he currently possesses the freedom to eat his dog’s poop, he will never choose to do so no matter how long he lives. Why? Because it is disgusting! Our experience of sin in this life will create in us such a hatred for sin in the next life that the likelihood of us choosing sin will be even less than the likelihood of us choosing to eat dog poop in this life.
Clay Jones makes a similar argument using a comparable illustration.[2] He notes that while he has the freedom to jab a pencil into his eye, he will never choose to do so because such an act “would be stupid.” Knowing the consequences of such an act, no one would willingly choose to do it. And so it will be in heaven. We will be too smart to use our freedom to sin.
Those who populate heaven will be limited to those who have demonstrated their willingness to submit to God and their desire for goodness in this life. While they still sin, their sin is a result of their fallen condition. Once their condition is rectified through glorification, they will always choose the good in the life to come.
One might object to this proposal citing the example of babies. Presuming that babies who die before they are morally accountable go to heaven, we would have a fairly significant population in heaven who have never experienced the horrors of sin, and who have not been “inoculated” against it. What would prevent them from sinning in heaven? If we say they will still not choose evil in the heavenly state because they will be glorified and in the beatific presence of God, then isn’t that an admission that 1) this earthly state was not necessary to ensure that people wouldn’t choose evil in a heavenly state or 2) that God could have ensured we would not have chosen evil simply by creating us in a heavenly state in which we were glorified and in his beatific presence?
Perhaps the answer to this objection is the Great White Throne Judgment. These babies would be consciously aware of God’s severe judgment on those who used their freedom to rebel against God, and such an example would be enough to motivate them to choose the good. In contrast to these babies, Adam had no example of judgment to consider before choosing to sin. Perhaps if Adam had witnessed the judgment of Satan or foresaw the kind of judgment sinners would receive, he would not have chosen to sin.
What are your thoughts?
____________________
[1]Debate transcript available from Reasonable Faith: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-a-loving-god-send-people-to-hell-the-craig-bradley-debate; Internet; accessed 06 January 2017. The 1994 debate audio is available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J9se6pMQso.
[2]Clay Jones, “Ehrman’s Problem 4: Why Won’t We Abuse Free Will in Heaven?”; available from http://www.clayjones.net/2012/01/ehrman%E2%80%99s-problem-4-why-won%E2%80%99t-we-abuse-free-will-in-heaven/; Internet; accessed 06 January 2017.
Thinking to Believe 
November 8, 2017 at 11:08 pm
Quite frankly, Adam did not sin. Sin is a construct decided on by a third party. For example the Clerics decided that if you did not keep holy the Sabbath Day, you were in sin and as such could be sentenced to capital punishment for disobedience. And how did they decide what was sinning on the Sabbath; well, picking up sticks on the Sabbath is still frowned on by the fundamentalists in Israel although they do not kill a sinner for that any longer. If Adam was by himself how could he sin, how could he even know sin? He could not.
Then enters the woman. How could Adam sin by exercising his man design anymore than pigeons sin by chasing the female pigeons in an exercise of their birdyness design.
Now comes a third party and that third party must learn what the parameters are that the first party set for himself and set for his woman counterpart as her champion to protect by his good love.
Sin is always in the eye off the beholder and to be candid only man has created sin by creating rules, lines and boundaries.
Does anybody seriously believe that a hermit is capable of sinning?
Forget the God Caricature Creation; sin is as much a made man invention as the commandment of keeping the Sabbath Day holy is a man made invention………Man makes the rule and decided the parameters of sin that obeys or disobeys and metes out the penalty that the inventor creates to enforce the line and rules of the Inventor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 9, 2017 at 8:01 am
You presume that angels and other heavenly Host are created beings. They are not. They’ve always been just as God has always been, King of a Kingdom that has ever been, populated by Host who have ever existed and always will exist. The concept of death and of being born were incomprehensible until God made it a reality. What we see as reality is not the greater reality of eternity not only present/future but past. No beginning and no ending. The religious idea that prior to the creation, “God” existed in an infinite void of nothingness is completely false. From such a scenario, one can only surmise the “creation” was born out of the insanity of sensory deprivation by a “God” driven mad from loneliness. Nothing could be further from the truth.
LikeLike
November 9, 2017 at 8:48 am
This is the essence of The Order of Worldwide Reverence for Life, the Sanctity of Life, the Preservation thereof and the search for the Source.
Angels are good people (beings); these do not reside in heaven; angelic concepts and other hosts reside in heaven, heaven is within you and where the Father (God) resides in that kingdom within you. That angels and other heavenly hosts are external to the human experience is false; those concepts do not exist externally. That is the Heaven within you as a human being. There are other Heavens spoken of metaphorically such as the Skyward Concept and the Heaven that is so-called in the vein of a reference of the Firmament.
The fundamental structure of the Cosmos is the where and the how and the why give rise to the big questions humans ask and explore as much as possible.
We know we are part of an evolving Cosmos. A Cosmos that is in flux, movement and constant interaction; where stars are born and eventually die to become something other than the fiery solar activity constituting their “alive” cycle such as we have in our own sun.
The God concept of the Cosmos is merely man’s idea from the imagination that has no knowledge os the how and why, what(that), where(there) and when(then). Brains need to question, conceptualize and explore to seek the source of itself in the same way that roots take hold and snake their way along the earth seeking nutrients and water to sustain life. They have it and know not how.
Humans search for a “whom” from the “womb” to find their source and it must be pursued; it is the natural course of evolving life; it is the way of the Universe; it is our design to search for a “designer”, or the elements and components of such, which we need to access so knowledge may set us free from belief.
Belief is the tyranny humans remain in thrall to until knowledge sets them free.
Call it what you will, seek ’til you find, knock ’til it is opened, persist in asking to be given; it’s what we call progress, civilization and evolution of the human experience as we understand it today; as the ancients understood it in their day and what our children will understand it in a future day. And find it we do little by little, piece by piece, from waterway mobility to horseshoe mobility to rubber tire mobility, to flying machine mobility, to space travel mobility……….
……….onward to the source if we survive our demons of ego exchanging them for diplomacy, peace instead of war, life in place of death, medical intervention instead of assisted suicide.
Even the Church is not a safe haven for some of the demons walking among us nor is the modern gathering places of Malls and Concert venues, indoors or outdoors. Wars are diminishing but not the egos that cause them but bully pulpits still persist for the masses who cannot participate in governance when dictators, monarchs, emperors and religious institutions that continually strive for power and influence and the desire to rule & reign by Absolute Certainty.
Thank goodness it is changing like 1 to 10 scale of degrees: gradual, slow, moderate, fast, exponential.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 9, 2017 at 9:38 am
belief is irrelevant and philosophical belief less so. I spoke of an acknowledgement of the existence of reality. The existence of such being universal, incomprehensible, outside of any concept of time and far beyond any perception by which belief might be established. I cannot say that I have proof of reality but I, like all of us intuitively acknowledge that reality exists rather than doesn’t exist. Philosophical belief attempts to define reality and fails.
LikeLike
November 9, 2017 at 12:58 pm
Dear Kimberly,
You wrote, “belief is irrelevant and philosophical belief less so.” What is this other than a belief? I believe that your post is a dogmatic oxymoron.
My belief is that science is closer to reality than any humanly conceived philosophical beliefs. Why? Because science acknowledges that scientific theories are approximations of reality that are useful to us. Do you think cyberspace was created by God? Are we really communicating or is it a dream? Can you drive? Do you understand that it’s the consistency and reproducibility that allows your car (if you have one) to follow Newton’s Laws of Motion, approximately but usefully?
Please try to be less dogmatic when you express your beliefs.
Peace and love to all humanity,
Dinos
LikeLike
November 9, 2017 at 1:16 pm
I was not expressing any form of personal belief. I was expressing an intuitive acknowledgement. Such acknowledgement is hardwired into the human genome regardless of personal belief. That is my choice and I can be as dogmatic about such an acknowledgement as I wish to be. I am a scientist and I’m fully aware of scientific theory which uses the same choice. Primarily, such a choice is to acknowledge existence over non-existence, even in the absence of any form of physical or meta-physical evidence that can be perceived. Then, to locate the perceptive evidence. The obvious acknowledgement made by science then, is that human perception is limited. Therefore, intuitive acknowledgement must take the form of scientific discovery rather than oblique non-acceptance based on an absence of perceptive evidence. The only exception to this approach made by scientific theory is to reject God based on the absence of perceptivity in spite of the self-acknowledgement pertaining to the limitation of human perceptivity. Consequently, the scientific assumption made is that no perceptivity exists at such a level. The logic of this double negativity is obvious and as we all know, a double negative is in effect a positive. Therefore, God exists and such existence is hardwired into the human genome. No group of humanity exists in which there is no concept of deity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 9, 2017 at 2:06 pm
Dear Kimberley,
Maybe you’re an angel?
My understanding is that most humans are naturally inclined to be religious; not that we are hardwired to believe in a monotheistic God.
Our universe may be one many; it may exist without having been created. If humans have been endowed with God’s divine nature why do we need a universe? Why not just a single planet?
Intuition is driven by confirmation bias that ignores contradictions. Intuitively, having read both your posts, it seems to me that you know too much to be true. Are you an angel?
Peace and love to all humanity,
Dinos
LikeLike
November 9, 2017 at 2:30 pm
If we take Theological Determinism for granted then the scenario is quite plausible because in Theological Determinism God is already determining every human sin and evil on earth, so reversing polarity (so to speak) and determining the opposite – the environment of heaven would represent little difference. If we reject Theological Determinism, then we are faced with addressing how creatures CAN “do otherwise” but absolutely never do. Given what we know from pure logic, it doesn’t seem to plausible. However, one might imagine the believer’s cooperative relationship with the Holy Spirit, such that this affair can be plausible to the point of being 100% fulfilled. But then there is the additional question of how the angels in heaven fell in the first place – and would that same potential exist for humans. It seems with what we know now, we are speculating. However much fun that may be. :-]
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 9, 2017 at 4:39 pm
“Could it be that the presence of sin—and our subsequent struggle against it—are necessary to create the kind of free creatures who will not exercise their free will to choose evil?”
I don’t think that argument works because of the claim that God is all powerful and all knowing. First, if God is all powerful and all knowing, then he could create ANY universe. And if people can make choices (whether or not free will exists), then it must be possible for them to make the right decisions (otherwise the choice doesn’t exist). An all-knowing God would know which of the infinite variety of universes he could create would result in people making the right choices, and being all powerful he could have chosen to create one of those universes. But he didn’t. He chose the one where he KNEW Lucifer would choose to rebel, where he KNEW Adam and Eve would eat the fruit, where he KNEW humanity would become wicked and deserve drowning, and where he KNEW he would send billions of people to suffer in hell. Therefore he must have WANTED all these events to happen…because otherwise he would have chosen to create one of the other possible universes. This is the inescapable consequence of an omnipotent and omniscient God, isn’t it?
“Our present problem consists of our inability to actually perform what we presently will to perform because of our fallen nature. But in the end, God will restore humanity to its original state—removing from us our natural propensity toward evil—so that we can truly perform what we have learned to will in this life: the good.”
Then…why wouldn’t God restore each person born to his or her “original state” and thus remove the propensity toward evil and eliminate the countless pointless atrocities that have occurred throughout history? Why not simply GIVE us the knowledge he wants us to learn in life? That would be in keeping with his supposed desire for ALL people to be saved:
• 1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
• 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
What possible good can come from allowing horrific rape, torture, murder, etc. compared to simply giving us the knowledge we need to achieve our “original state”? It seems like gratuitous abuse, doesn’t it?
“Our experience of sin in this life will create in us such a hatred for sin in the next life that the likelihood of us choosing sin will be even less than the likelihood of us choosing to eat dog poop in this life.”
We already have an inherent disgust/revulsion/fear toward eating dog poop, murdering our loved ones, holding our hands in a fire, etc…so why in the world would a good God not give us the exact same response to sin? Why, in the case of some sins, like lust, would he give us the OPPOSITE tendency, an inherent allure? That seems like setting up humanity to fail.
“Presuming that babies who die before they are morally accountable go to heaven, we would have a fairly significant population in heaven who have never experienced the horrors of sin, and who have not been “inoculated” against it. What would prevent them from sinning in heaven?”
Well, according to the Bible, dead babies go to hell, since they are not old enough to believe and choose to be born again:
• John 3:3-18 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” … Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Also, the age of moral accountability doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bible. But the biggest problem would be that it would create theological justification for killing babies. After all, if only a few adults will make it to heaven…
• Luke 13:23-24 And someone said to Him, “Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?” And He said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.”
• Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
• Matthew 22:14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”
• Romans 9:27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved.”
…but all babies make it to heaven, then it makes sense to kill all babies before they can grow up and lose their salvation. Yes, I know God says not to kill, but he says not to do lots of things that people do anyway. He forgives anyone for almost any sin just the same:
• Matthew 12:31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
• Mark 3:28-29 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.
So killing babies achieves God’s desire to save everyone, and if the killer repents, he’s saved too. Thus, theological justification for murdering babies.
Of course, the alternative is sending dead babies to burn in hell, but that is about as evil an act as anyone could commit. The whole situation is a problem!
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 10, 2017 at 6:33 am
I didn’t say “humanity was hardwired to believe”. I stated humanity is hardwired to acknowledge that deity exists in contrast to does not exist. Maybe that will clarify it for you. Belief has nothing to do with it. And, in actuality, confuses the issue (ie/monotheism vs Hinduism vs paganism vs Christianity etc). My statement was scientific rather than religious. And, with respect to the universe…the creation wasn’t meant to bring mankind into existence. It was originally meant to be a test of obedience for certain of the Lord’s “Host” by assigning them as “caretakers”. Some failed that test and became the devil and his angels who decided looking after a bunch of Saurians was beneath them. Some passed that test and became the angels who now look over us. Mankind was created (the Genesis account is actually a re-creation of what was destroyed by angelic disobedience) to replace the disobedient angelic Host. Eventually, that will happen. If religion were actually a tool of biblical research as it should be, it would know this and how the absolute genius of our Creator put it all together. Humanity was “plan B”.
LikeLike
November 10, 2017 at 10:45 am
KIMBERLY, KIMBERLY, KIMBERLY, TSK, TSK TSK
……”It was originally meant to be a test of obedience for certain of the Lord’s “Host” by assigning them as “caretakers”………..
That has nothing to do with science and everything to do with belief.
What humanity is hard wired to do is to discover the source of his existing life and explore for that Source he shall do, until he finds it. Humans have always known that humanity came for a Source and that the Source was not Man. It use to be the Sun and the Planets and the Moon, after that it came from the elements and then it came from the Calf that is metaphorical for the life supporting milk and meat it gives. The animals and birds, the eagles are your soaring ancestors. You could get lots of laughs as a stand up comedian.
And of course you know with absolute certainty that Creation was originally a test:
” creation wasn’t meant to bring mankind into existence. It was originally meant to be a test of obedience for certain of the Lord’s “Host” by assigning them as “caretakers”.
Besides the fact that if it wasn’t for nonsense you would have no sense at all leads me to the next question….Of all the things you lost, do you miss your mind the most?
“Some failed and some did not”…..” angels assigned as caretakers…”
What a bunch of biblical baloney, belief; AKA, BS; AKA, Caca Del Toro…
OMD ………….OH MY DEITY…..
Did I just say What a bunch of biblical baloney, belief? Oh KIMBERLY,
You’re scientific alright.
You should buy some stock in the new Solar Windows, functionally transparent as a window while collecting electrical energy from daylight light and artificial light; now that is scientific.
http://web.streetauthority.com/m/gc/2017/05/transcript-b.asp?TC=GC5928&uid=%7b%7buserid%7d%7d
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 10, 2017 at 11:00 am
You’re made my point. In the absence of evidence, you’ve fully rejected every aspect of such speculation (again…NOT belief). I recall from history that scoffing/laughing at modern science was the general reaction in its infancy. I am involved in cutting edge research concerning matters of biblical interpretation and have a Dr. of Divinity to do so. Consequently, I’m not surprised at your wholly unscientific reaction in lieu of a more objective one.
LikeLike
November 10, 2017 at 11:12 am
Kimberly………You proved my point:
What’s the difference between a Doctor of Medicine and a Doctor of Theology? One prescribes drugs and the other may as well be on drugs. A theologian is somebody who is an expert in the unknowable. And has all the qualifications to prove it. Yeah, a real specialist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 10, 2017 at 12:06 pm
This is fun, at least the parts about what is scientific. Don’t stop now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 10, 2017 at 12:40 pm
again you prove my point. I said “Dr. of Divinity”. NOT Dr. of Theology.
LikeLike
November 10, 2017 at 1:45 pm
A cut from the same cloth nest ce pas?
Like a law or medical school, a divinity school is essentially a theological division within a larger university.
Is Doctor of Divinity a real degree?
A Doctor of Divinity is an honorary degree. The title is bestowed to individuals who have devoted their lives to theological pursuits or community betterment. … In order to apply, students must hold a bachelor’s and a master’s degree program in divinity, history, religious studies or a similar field.
In regards to the Doctor of Divinity degree that can be earned, it is not a requirement for any career. However, it can be earned as a means of bolstering a resume and simply becoming more studied in divinity. At least in America, a Doctor of Divinity is more so a degree to signify the ministry-related accomplishments and is given primarily as an honorary degree. It’s only really in the UK that a Doctor of Divinity is seen as the next step up from a Master of Divinity. As such, a Master of Divinity is the highest degree necessary in order to become an ordained minister at any denomination.
It is worth noting that In the United States, the degree is generally conferred honors cause by a church-related college, seminary, or university to recognize the recipient’s ministry-orientated accomplishments. For example, Martin Luther King (who received a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Boston University in 1955) subsequently received honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees from the Chicago Theological Seminary (1957), Boston University (1959), Wesleyan College (1964), and Springfield College (1964). Billy Graham (who has received honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees from The King’s College and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) is regularly addressed as “Dr. Graham,” though his highest earned degree is a B.A. in anthropology from Wheaton College.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 10, 2017 at 2:19 pm
“What humanity is hard wired to do is to discover the source of his existing life and explore for that Source he shall do, until he finds it. Humans have always known that humanity came for a Source and that the Source was not Man.”
I wouldn’t say that’s exactly true. Humans are predisposed toward religious belief for several likely reasons:
1. We have a long helpless childhood period where our survival depends on our parents. We have to look up to them and learn from them. That causes the selection of genes for essentially worshiping powers greater than us.
2. Our ancestors lived in a world of quick, brutal death from predators, and spotting predators first enhanced our survival. So seeing a bear shape in those trees, even if it turned out to be just a rock or a shadow, was genetically selective. That predisposes us to seeing life, purpose, power and danger where there isn’t necessarily anything there.
3. Not knowing what may be in that cave or in that forest could get you killed. Thus, curiosity was selected for in early humans, as well as a fear of the unknown. Unfortunately, some things are simply unknowable to primitive peoples (like what are the sun, moon and stars, what causes earthquakes and floods, and so on). So to allay fears, it makes sense to make up stories about phenomena to make sense of them.
These three driving forces alone could easily explain human predisposition to religious belief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 10, 2017 at 4:43 pm
Nonsense. I just came in from a night stalk through the woods. Carried a bow and arrow, a double-bladed throwing ax, a folding knife and across my back, I carried a katana sword (just in case). Night stalks literally raise the hair on the back of my neck when something comes out of the dark. It makes me think of devils…not God. But, the adrenaline rush beats watching re-runs of Seinfeld.
LikeLike
November 10, 2017 at 4:47 pm
You’ve quoted from Wikipedia. laughing my A off!
LikeLike
November 10, 2017 at 5:50 pm
Dear Kimberley
You wrote, “Nonsense. I just came in from a night stalk through the woods.”
It should have been good if you had provided a YouTube link to your adventure so that we could all acknowledge your supremacy. Did any Saurians come at you out of the dark? If so, that would have made a watchable video.
May you be blessed by all the acknowledged deities, past, present and those yet to be acknowledged. Perhaps you are a Deity yourself and we should worship you?
Reading your posts makes me wonder why I’m so sceptical. If only I was empowered to acknowledge the existence of all that you acknowledge. I’m missing out on so much. I’m green with envy – I hope I’m not mistaken for a lizard on one of your night stalks.
You wrote, “I am involved in cutting edge research concerning matters of biblical interpretation.” Please provide links to papers or books you have published. I want to read them so that I can be enlightened instead of sceptical.
I’m currently reading a book written by Peter Cresswell, link given below:
The book is making me doubt so much that I must have your work to read and provide me with a more balanced view. It’s just not fair that I’m bereft of your intuitive acknowledgement capacities.
Peace and love to you and all humanity,
Dinos
LikeLike
November 11, 2017 at 9:11 am
I yam writing a book actually. I wouldn’t trust what anyone wrote who went to Cambridge my dear. One thing you might consider. People like that try to sell you on the mistaken philosophy that lack of evidence means non-existence. So, they attempt in every way to discredit any evidence that might dispel their point of view. And, think on one other thing. Acknowledgement is your choice and mine. Not theirs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 11, 2017 at 9:22 am
derekmathias:
I don’t think you will find a solid answer to the question about religion being hard wired but we can speculate, and perhaps have some interesting discussions while doing so.
For examples, the dinosaurs and predators of the past would lay in wait, around the fruit trees when members of the community and other animals came to the tree seeking food, in much the same way the big cats and our modern-day alligator dinosaurs hide and wait at the watering holes for prey. Remember the old warning “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” The predators are waiting to eat you up, don’t go there.
You see, in ancient times, the Garden of Eden was no garden of eden; it was where the predators taught the community about life and death, good and evil, obedience and disobedience, where defiant children went and lost their lives and obedient children stayed away and lived to tell about lost friends and loved ones.
There is a difference between religion and spirituality. Spirituality is within and may have some remote relevance in the genome but religion is does not influence the genes; religion is too superficial and a construct of man’s hierarchy. The genes on the other hand are very basic and hardwired to and by the reptile brain which at a later stage the brain evolved:
Briefly the brain:
THE REPTILIAN BRAIN, the oldest of the three, controls the body’s vital functions such as heart rate, breathing, body temperature and balance. Our reptilian brain includes the main structures found in a reptile’s brain: the brainstem and the cerebellum. The reptilian brain is reliable but tends to be somewhat rigid and compulsive.
THE LIMBIC BRAIN emerged in the first mammals. It can record memories of behaviours that produced agreeable and disagreeable experiences, so it is responsible for what are called emotions in human beings. The main structures of the limbic brain are the hippocampus, the amygdala, and the hypothalamus. The limbic brain is the seat of the value judgments that we make, often unconsciously, that exert such a strong influence on our behavior.
THE NEOCORTEX first assumed importance in primates and culminated in the human brain with its two large cerebral hemispheres that play such a dominant role. These hemispheres have been responsible for the development of human language, abstract thought, imagination, and consciousness. The neocortex is flexible and has almost infinite learning abilities. The neocortex is also what has enabled human cultures to develop.
The powers within early “cultured” hierarchy were the Ministers of Magic in the King’s Court; AKA, the Sages of Divinity, Prophets and Oracles.
The most obvious biblical reference to Miracles as Magic Tricks is found in Exodus 7:1; 7:7-13 when Moses and Aaron were told to perform a “miracle” to impress Pharaoh that the Jewish God was more powerful than the Egyptian Gods. So together they went into Pharaoh’s Court to throw down Aaron’s staff that turned into a snake.
Wow, that was a cool trick until the Court Magicians performed the same tricks and Pharaoh laughed Moses and Aaron out of the palace and back to the drawing board from where other “miracles” were performed in an Ancient Magicians Run-off to win the heart and mind of Pharaoh.
And who was the Lord that spoke to Moses and Aaron to perform the miracle? Why the prophets in the the Jewish religious hierarchy, of course.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 11, 2017 at 10:48 pm
Dearest Kimberley,
Unlike you, I make no boasts about my achievements. I see no value in it.
If you have a PhD in Divinity, you must have submitted a dissertation. Please present it to us.
When do you think your book will be published? What will be its title, please? You are good at using plain English but will that be enough to persuade a publisher to publish your book or are you planning to self-publish? Do you write your posts to websites or dictate using voice to text apps? Some of your sentences do not qualify as true sentences, example, “Not theirs.” That’s from the last sentence of your most recent response to me which I’ve measured to have been written at a Flesch-Kincaid level of 4.9!
Good luck in your adventures in your work, the book you’re writing and your night stalking as Warrior Kimberley.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
November 12, 2017 at 2:06 pm
dinosaurs pre-dated mankind. They never developed a taste for man-meat or cows.
LikeLike
November 12, 2017 at 2:21 pm
I don’t boast. I really did do a night stalk. Today had me running from a pack of wild boar. My dissertation was titled “The origin of maggots”. As for my language, I lower myself to my audience and delve into my Appalachian background as appropriate. In the Appalachians, where the professors spit their tobacco onto your notebook as you take notes in class, is where I went to college. And, I sat in the front row in spite of the nicotine fallout.
LikeLike
November 12, 2017 at 4:51 pm
Another splendid article from you, Bro. Dulle. There were times in the past wherein this question had popped into my head several times but I always forget to jot them down for thorough investigation, sincere inquiry, and diligent ponderance.
Thank you so much for being a blessing. I have learned a lot from the Lord through you. This thing won’t have to boggle my mind again in the future. And should anyone raise this objection, I now know what so say and what article should I share with him.
With regards to additional support, I think the nation of Israel could be a good example. As a nation, they have been plagued with blatant idolatry by worshipping the false deities (Baal, Molech, etc) that their surrounding nations revere. This has plagued them for centuries even until the last monarch who ruled over them. But after being severly punished through the hands of the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Medo-Persians, they realized their sins and never bowed to those deities again. They then became zealous to YHWH that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes began to flourish and restored “Moses’ seat”.
But unfortunately, their zeal went excessive up to the point that they invented laws which were stricter than that which Moses gave them and prioritized the ritual more than the meaning and purpose of it. Though technically, they were still idolatrous by worshipping ego, money, power, etc., but nevertheless they learned their lesson to never again bow down to Baal, Molech, and the like.
Thanks again and God bless.
LikeLike
November 12, 2017 at 5:41 pm
“I don’t think you will find a solid answer to the question about religion being hard wired but we can speculate, and perhaps have some interesting discussions while doing so.”
That’s true, it’s all ultimately speculation…although it’s highly plausible speculation and does fit the predicted pattern of evolutionary theory.
“You see, in ancient times, the Garden of Eden was no garden of eden; it was where the predators taught the community about life and death, good and evil, obedience and disobedience, where defiant children went and lost their lives and obedient children stayed away and lived to tell about lost friends and loved ones.”
Well, I don’t think you’ll find many takers for this position, since it’s not alluded to anywhere in the Bible. And would it make sense for an all-knowing God to make such a metaphor-heavy story without clarifying its meaning in no uncertain terms so that EVERYONE who reads it will grasp it? After all, if the purpose of the Bible is to serve as a manual for the salvation of humanity, and God wants EVERY soul to be saved, as the Bible itself claims, ambiguity can only serve to confuse most of even the most ardent followers of God.
“There is a difference between religion and spirituality. Spirituality is within and may have some remote relevance in the genome but religion is does not influence the genes; religion is too superficial and a construct of man’s hierarchy.”
Perhaps, but if spirituality includes belief in and worship of God, then it’s religion. After all, this is the definition of a religion: “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” Spirituality, meanwhile, is “the quality or state of being concerned with religion or religious matters.” Granted, people often define spirituality in radically different ways, but the two concepts mostly overlap. It can include those who believe everything in the Bible but don’t adhere to any particular denomination or church, as well as those who merely feel a sense of wonder about the universe without attaching any supernatural connotation to it at all. So I think the word “spirituality” itself is almost meaningless.
LikeLike
November 12, 2017 at 7:14 pm
Dearest Kimberley,
I’m growing quite fond of you.
You wrote, “I don’t boast. I really did do a night stalk.” Below is a definition:
boast1
bəʊst/Submit
verb
1.
talk with excessive pride and self-satisfaction about one’s achievements, possessions, or abilities.
Did I use the verb incorrectly? The weapons you took with you were unusual and I honestly think you were bragging about it.
Your dissertation on “The origin of maggots,” is hardly relevant here and I can find no reference online. Can you provide a link as I’d like to check its scientific value, please?
You wrote, ” As for my language, I lower myself to my audience and delve into my Appalachian background as appropriate.” Are you intimating that you had to lower yourself to us or to me? The language level you used varied between your posts with the lowest (4.9) and highest (11.7) levels used in two separate posts to me.
This suggests to me that the language level you use has little to do with lowering yourself to your audience but depends on other factors, like how much time you have available or your mood perhaps.
I’ll write on topic in my next post
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
November 12, 2017 at 8:47 pm
How do you know that dinosaurs predated man? Don’y you know that Man wiped out the dinosaurs after man discovered the control of fire; this has been the conflagration scientists have stumbled over for decades trying determine the theory of the extinction.
LikeLike
November 12, 2017 at 9:24 pm
I do agree that spirituality is meaningless without a defined direction of the discernment of which the speaker speaks. Spirituality is a a common sense understanding, without supernatural skew, that mankind, humanity; indeed, life itself, exists and where we find ourselves ……………..within it.
The spirituality of which I speak, in my definition, accepts that concept but does not accept the notion that this life force is a personal god anymore than I would accept that gravity is a force designed as a personal human helpmate.
It seems to me that this spirituality falls within the analogous parameters that does not include religious indoctrination or superstitious ideas of which ritualism is the brand hallmark that denotes all the world’s religions. No ritualism guides my behavior; aka, by the haphazard dictates of fortunate or unfortunate chance through paranormal activity.
“Never pray to gravity or the universe or your supernatural gods, they do not and cannot respond to human requests for intervention. Gravity like the caricature concept of god on the one hand loves no more the man who defies it not; and on the other hand, loves no less the man who does.”
Some may think this is complicated but it’s not. A rain dance never brings rain and a drought has never ceased because the virgin child was ritually sacrificed. That is religion’s domain from where I sit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 12, 2017 at 9:26 pm
Not spirituality……………
LikeLike
November 13, 2017 at 9:40 am
it wasn’t just dinosaurs that predated mankind….it was an entire ecosystem. huge plants and other fossil evidence shows it wasn’t only animal life that previously existed but plant life. Mankind’s use of fire wasn’t even a consideration of why a mammalian ecosystem superseded a saurian ecosystem.
LikeLike
November 13, 2017 at 10:01 am
I was in error on the last post dinos…..the herd of wild boar I was running from turned out to be a bear. I mistook my own fearful squealing for that of my pursuer. How can that be boastful? I’ve consigned my dissertation on “The Origin of Maggots” to the Monks who considered it too insightfully apocalyptic to disseminate. So, they keep it deep within a vault of their monastery. And, it was a golden Yak, not a golden calf. Regardless, I’ve enjoyed our conversations too. Even if I do have to “talk down” a bit. laughing.
LikeLike
November 13, 2017 at 11:57 am
Careful guys, you’re getting a wee bit off topic.
LikeLike
November 13, 2017 at 12:03 pm
Speculation has always fueled imagination; yours is no different than mine and no more valid. Oh you think it is but it isn’t nut mine in not skewed by the supernaturalism belief of religious zealots.
LikeLike
November 13, 2017 at 1:31 pm
What part of ghost don’t you know about? What part of Leprechaun don’t you believe in? Which Pasghetti Monster don’t you accept? hahahahaha. OMG, OMD, if there was one or more: What part of Darkness do you think might exist that prevents you from admitting it does not? In case I said that too fast; you see, we are past masters at complicating the issue because “NOTHING” turns us on!
If I agreed with you, we would both be wrong.
WHAT IS AN AXIOM?
A self-evident and necessary truth, or a proposition whose truth is so evident at first sight that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer.
In other words: If there was a God one would never have to say, ‘If there was a God’, again.
Now as to the topic in general and Kimberly in particular regarding heaven, heavenly hosts and entities within it having the ability to commit sin while exercising free will: The theory that a sinner’s life on earth acts as a vaccination against sin in heaven is unreasonable on it face as human reason goes but shows just how absurdly in thrall to the tyranny of religion its adherents have become trying to justify religious gods.
From the LTG Good Book chapter 1:
“[25] HIGHER POWERS? Almighty powers? Sure! stardust and forces, gravity and electricity, light, magnetism, big matter, small matter, black holes, dark energy, dark matter, no matter.
[26] BUT, personal supernatural gods that intervene in human affairs, occasionally, by prayer, hope, wish, dream, supplication, entreaty, petition, plea, request, do not exist except in the minds of men put there by religious miracle magicians perpetuated by clergy wannabe mediators.”
LET’S DEFINE GOD THE DIVINE:
All that is available of the powers of the cosmos that formed man, is available to the man who is available to all the powers in the cosmos; that is GOD—- the Maker; God—the Divine Logic; God—- the Master of Evolution; God—the Father, of which Jesus urged his disciples to accept and that the downtrodden victims of religion abjure traditional religion for Jesus’s revolutionary message of the Father that resides within the Kingdom that is “within you”. Lk 17:2.
You see the Lord Jesus came magnificently to demonstrate the proposition, the divine logic of which is absolutely imperative to a man’s humanity. And in explaining this to you, I’m simply preaching the gospel. Don’t please imagine that the gospel is simply come to Jesus and have your sins forgiven; that isn’t the gospel. You will only have your sins forgiven if you are prepared for the guilty sinner that you are, come to the Lord Jesus and accept him into your life for the savior he came to be but THAT IS NOT GOSPEL. That simply lets you off the hook; that simply changes your destination; that simply trades hell for heaven but Jesus Christ didn’t come into this world simply to get you and me out of hell and into heaven; he came into this world supremely to get God out of heaven in to you and to me.
You don’t imagine that God takes any pleasure in having a heaven filled with men and women redeemed in the blood of his incarnate son who will be as useless in heaven as they were on earth? Stacked in bundles of 10, dusted with DDT once a week by a bunch of angels, do you imagine that’s what heaven’s going to be like? Heaven is going to be populated with men, women, boys and girls, who’ve been restored to their redeemed and now true humanity because in the day that the Lord Jesus comes John in his 1st epistle 3rd chapter first 2 verses: beloved what manner of love the father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God; we never ever deserved it, we were guilty men, members of a fallen race, nasty caricatures, telling by what we do and say and are, nothing but lies about our (divine logic)maker and yet in infinite mercy reached a hand from heaven ….pierced with nails upon a cross that he might receive us back to himself, acquitted and forgiven that we might be restored to our true humanity and become by adoption members of his family.
Beloved what manner of love the father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God and he goes on in that 2nd verse of the 3rd chapter of his 1st epistle to say: We do not yet know exactly what we will be but this at least we do know that when we see him(his revolutionary message) we’ll see him as he is and we’ll be like him, we’ll be like him, forever.
Well, in the day that you see him as he is and you’re like him what have you got back to? Genesis chapter 1, for you were made in the image of (divine logic of evolution) his likeness. Simply means that salvation’s gone full cycle.
And thus have some of us arrived.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 13, 2017 at 4:28 pm
I’m not a guy and what is the topic please?
LikeLike
November 13, 2017 at 4:34 pm
There’s nothing speculational about admitting the fossil record accurately depicts an ecosystem the preceded the one we exist in currently.
LikeLike
November 13, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Firstly, let me declare that I’m sceptical about the supernatural view of Christ, the Holy Spirit and God, the Father. Everywhere we see how the natural world follows patterns and cycles that appear to be repeated in a predictable way. If God created everything it appears to me that He wants nature to work without any supernatural intervention from Him. It is we who have demanded that He takes a special interest in us humans and assign to Him attributes that are incompatible with each other, especially that He is just and good when our Creator has brought Homo sapiens onto a planet that we are destroying. Also, as a species we are crueller to ourselves than any other species is to its own species that is known to me, although I concede that we may show the most kindness to each other too.
Secondly, let me state that I do not accede to the general western view of the supernatural nature of the Trinity, nor any Unitarian view of the supernatural Persons – God the Father, Christ His Son and the Holy Spirit. Western Christianity is mostly dominated by the idea that the Holy Bible consists of scriptures that are God’s Word or that they are all God-inspired.
Martin Luther, Zwingli and others have contributed to this general view in an effort to remove the corrupt authority of the R.C. Church with its marketable ‘indulgences’ that helped to make it the richest Church of all. Generally, this has resulted in the substitution of the authority of the R.C. Church with the ‘authority’ of the Bible. The Good Book has been placed on a pedestal and is paraded in many churches that proclaim after a reading from it, “This is the Word of the Lord.” The response I’ve heard most often from the congregation is, “Thanks be to God,” and less often, after a passage of judgement, “Lord have mercy.” Making the Bible supreme in the way I’ve described is akin to worshipping the Bible as an idol and I’ve seen this in articles that refer to this practice as Bibliolatry!
I should add that I’ve attended churches here in Cambridge, England, that hold more libertarian views on the scriptures. Also, I’ve met clergy in Anglican churches who are similarly sceptical about the authenticity of some of the scriptural passages and certainly doubt that the Bible is inerrant throughout.
Can we rationalise the existence of evil if God is wholly good and just? TR has attempted to do just that by positing that God may be using evil as a form of immunisation. This would mean that God deliberately created humans knowing that they would disobey, even putting the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the Garden of Eden and despite His omnipresence and omniscience allowed Lucifer (Satan if you prefer) to tempt Eve. But according to the account, God instructed Adam and not Eve that He would become mortal if he ate the fruit from that Tree. Why didn’t He instruct Eve similarly?
The story is full of holes and I don’t think it deserves a place in the Bible and I can argue the reasons why more fully to those who think otherwise.
My opinion is that there was no original sin that caused ‘the fallen state of mankind.’ If God is just and wholly good, we should not be asking why He allowed us the freedom to sin but why He should allow the suffering of innocent children by those who sin against them. Why does He preserve the rights of the sinner but not those of the sinned against?
I’m not going to preach that the Eastern Christian Church should be followed because it is a much higher achievement to be good without a belief in a supernatural God. However, if you must believe there is more merit in understanding that a good and just God would make the nature of humanity robust enough to remain good despite choices to do evil deeds. Also, Adam and Eve are not reviled as they are in the west but commemorated as saints. Below is a link to quotes by St John Chrysostom that readers may find helpful:
http://www.azquotes.com/author/21940-Saint_John_Chrysostom
Believers in the supernatural God often refer to scriptures that condemn disbelievers. Some of them believe in predestination (that God has already chosen whom He will save); some believe that salvation is only through Christ ignoring that people who live in a Muslim theocracy are thus condemned; and Orthodox Christian doctrine tells us that ALL humanity has been saved by Jesus Christ and there are several scriptural passages that say this but the other groups keep quiet about this even though they are aware of it – why? Below is just one example:
John 4:42 King James Version (KJV)
42 And said unto the woman, “Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.”
Peace and love to all humanity,
Dinos
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 14, 2017 at 5:24 am
Kim(berly): While I went to grad school with a guy named Kim, I understood Kimberly to be female. I’m an old guy and still use traditional male pronouns to describe mixed male/female groups. If that offends you, tough. Deal with it, because I’m not about to change in order to accommodate some nonsensical PC notion of gender equality inclusion.
The last I checked, the topic of discussion was “Does heaven prove that God could have created free creatures who would not sin?” As you were the one who claimed to be a scientist, when I made my “scientific” comment in post 14 I was hoping for some exegesis or hermeneutic discussion of potentially relevant scriptures. I see now that that is unlikely.
I visit this website for the intellectual stimulation I get from trying to understand religious points of view, which are usually in sharp contrast to my scientific upbringing. Dinos has done a good job of returning to the topic at hand in his most recent post. Straying too far off topic will get your posts deleted by Jason. While it is not my job to be Jason’s policeman, getting your posts deleted or even getting yourself barred from the website altogether will not help satisfy my selfish desire for intellectually challenging discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 14, 2017 at 6:03 am
a couple comments: The phrase “God the Father” is a patriarchal phrase rather than familial. The Patriarch, in ancient societies from which the Bible came, was the Elder who passed down the tribal name (surname) and that “name” was generally given to the first born son (research “name of God” in the old testament and substitute “son” for “name”). There were never a “unity” of patriarchs in such a society. Consequently, “God the Father” is also a phrase that infers absolute singularity and uniqueness rather than unity. And, it is with regard to such patriarchy we read in the scriptures about the “Son of God” rather than “god the son”. With the conclusion that the “Son” was sacrificed in payment for avoiding the extermination of humanity in the sequence of judgment, condemnation and forgiveness, and finally salvation (from oblivion). But, one might ask, what about grace? What is commonly taught as grace being “unmerited pardon” is incorrect. Rather, grace is meant to show a delay in judgment and is an act of mercy on the Patriarch’s part by not showing up and immediately wiping out mankind. Simply because judgment is delayed doesn’t mean mankind won’t be judged however. The point is, the judgment is yet to come (we are under grace) and thus condemnation (we are NOT “fallen”, having never been elevated), then payment in full for the consequences of being mortal (Christ) and finally salvation (we are NOT YET “saved”). I point this out because the general consensus is that because the Son of God’s (who was sent from having ever existed to being born a mortal) sacrifice and value was sufficient to pay for the sins of all humanity does NOT infer that every person will attain salvation. Forgiveness is NOT salvation although it is required. The humbling fact is that some of us won’t have anything worth saving and consequently, the salvation event will be meaningless. One might ask “what is the event that brings salvation?”. If so, the answer seems obvious. It is what the Bible says is “the great and terrible day of the LORD” which is not the return of Jesus but the coming of God (yes, that same Patriarch). And in coming, the very Presence of this great Being who initially created all matter is so overpowering and brilliant that as He enters the universe, it will coalesce into one great molten lake (it will become a singularity, including the earth but everything). And as mankind stands watching this happen, all flesh will melt away and whatever remains will take on eternal life (life which has ever existed and will always exist…not simply immortality). So, one must ask oneself “what will I have remaining when my flesh is gone?”. If there anything of myself that will remain after I die? Will I dance for joy in the flames of a Being so underestimated by mankind on that day or will I simply burn in His Presence, lost to eternity in death rather than life? Religion so thoroughly underestimates who God is. Heb 12:29
LikeLike
November 14, 2017 at 6:35 am
Thank you for the explanation of what the topic should be. The answer is simple and based on misconceptions related to what is created (ie/physical) and what is uncreated (eternal). First, one must dispose of the preconception that all things (except God) were created. It is simply not true. If it were, God would have existed for all past eternity in an infinite void of nothingness, alone and without any sensory input. The logical conclusion to such a scenario is that God created the universe from having gone insane due to sensory deprivation. It one throws the trinity concept into the mix, then God is not only insane but has a multiple-personality disorder. I do not acknowledge this to be logically factual in any way. The obvious alternative is that God (in absolute singularity as God but not “being alone”) has existed for all eternity past as King in a Kingdom that has also existed for all eternity past, populated by an innumerable Host of equally immortal beings who have also existed for all eternity past. This is the reality of God as the Bible actually infers. A dynamic reality far greater than the small bubble of our universe that was created by such a Being. Consequently, free will is at the discretion of the King. Do the King’s subjects (that innumerable Host) have free will? Only if they wish to go against their King’s wishes. The perfect example of this is the devil and his angels who were given the task of caretakers for the creation (created for just such a test of “free” will). The devil and his angels failed the test and others passed it by obedience to their King. These beings had ever existed, yet for some reason God chose to test their obedience by assigning them a task that He knew they would think was beneath them. So, because of “free will”, we know of uncreated beings exercising their will in disobedience but suffering the consequences. We also know of angels, who were NOT created and have ever existed. And, we know of Jesus, revealed to be the Son of God, the right hand of God from eternity, who lowered himself to be born a man and the value of his eternal pre-existence (not as “god” but as “Son”) worth full payment for humanity’s mortal billions. And, we know of humanity, created but soon to replace those disobedient subjects in a reality far greater than the universe or earth and that so many underestimate as simple immortality rather than an inheritance of life which has ever existed. So, your question about free will is based on too many misconceptions to answer any other way.
LikeLike
November 14, 2017 at 9:41 am
Just a point of grammar in the use of infer as opposed to imply:
Commonly Confused Words: infer / imply. Both verbs have to do with the communication of information. The difference between the two is that imply refers to giving information, while infer refers to receiving information. Imply means to strongly suggest the truth or existence of something that is not expressly stated.
The speaker does the implying, and the listener does the inferring.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 14, 2017 at 1:31 pm
So unbelievable to the rational mind.
And what do you suppose the reason to be? “……yet for some reason God chose to test their obedience………?
Anybody positing what God did and what God will do regarding the molten lake should have an idea of “….yet for some reason…” what the reason was……..
“………it will coalesce into one great molten lake…..”
How to embellish fear is the domain of religion, its minions and proxies and robots of protocol without reason and discretionary insight
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 14, 2017 at 3:14 pm
there are inferences but few implications in reading the Bible. However, there are innumerable presumptions, presuppositions, conjectures, mistranslations, and self-aggrandized agendas in teaching the Bible. Too often I see the specificity of a particular passage presumed to be generic for some personal and/or organizational agenda. Usually, such an agenda is to gain power through the accumulation of someone else’s time and money.
LikeLike
November 14, 2017 at 3:19 pm
One doesn’t need religion to fear death. Once again, you’ve hit on something hardwired into the human genome and into any living creature. The fact that religion often uses such fear is irrelevant. If I were to say “an asteroid will eventually hit earth and wipe out the human race”, you probably wouldn’t object to that. Simply because it doesn’t have “God” in the sentence.
LikeLike
November 28, 2017 at 1:21 pm
“This is a difficult question, but here is my current thinking on it. Could it be that the presence of sin—and our subsequent struggle against it—are necessary to create the kind of free creatures who will not exercise their free will to choose evil?”
Yes a difficult question but I tend not to agree with the premise here for several reasons.
1) The notion that our free will on the other side hinges on our struggle against sin in the here and now is not supported by scripture. The reason we struggle against sin is because God has made us new creations with a new spirit. The reason we sin is because we are still living in physical flesh and patterns of thinking or addictions just don’t automatically disappear. Our salvation is at the heart level, but our behavior is carried out at the soul-ish part of us where our mind, will and emotions sometime gets the best of us.
2) Sin is described as a noun in the bible and you can think of it as a principle or power that is in the world. The phrase “power of sin” appears and it describes a principle or law that works in every human being. You can think of it like a parasite that is feeding off of our flesh in a metaphorical sense. While the parasite does not define who we are as Christians, Jesus does, it is yet still present and must be dealt with in the here and now.
Paul said it is no longer I that sin, but sin that lives in me….(Romans 7). This is a good explanation of the parasite called sin that trips us up. While we can’t just blame the parasite for our mistakes, nevertheless it is there, but we don’t need to obey or listen to it. We have a choice and the means to do otherwise. In another scripture, it says to not “let” sin reign in your mortal bodies since sin has no power over us. So while we still sin and struggle, sin ultimately has no power over us in that it cannot cause spiritual death because of Jesus. Yes, we can live miserable lives entertaining sin but what good will that do for us.
3) As for when we hit the pearly gates, the sin parasite will no longer be with us as our glorified state will be free from the parasite. I don’t like to use the term “nature” but you can think of it as the sin nature not being present with us any longer. There will be no earthly temptation that will appeal to our new existence so the concept of choosing good over evil is a moot point in the here after. Frankly, I don’t really know what the concept of free will will look like in eternity. Perhaps we simply cannot comprehend in our present state the glory that will be revealed when God’s people are resurrected from the dead like Jesus Christ. Perhaps all of our earth bound concepts of free will, choice etc.. will not be able to describe how it will be.
All I know is that I am looking forward to it…Amen.
Naz
LikeLike
November 28, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Hi Naz
I hope you are not disappointed.
Many people think they know what happens to humans after our earthly existence but the truth is nobody knows. One possibility is that we only exist after our earthly death in the memories of those who knew us and possibly in any notable works or writing.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
November 28, 2017 at 6:40 pm
Asking the question “why does God allow evil” is the same as blaming God for evil rather than recognizing that grace (a DELAY in judgment) presents the temporary appearance of individual “free will”. However, one must understand that such a perception is only possible because of grace (which means a DELAY in judgment). There is no such thing as generic/humanistic free will. God’s will continues to remain fully in effect regardless of grace and His will is the ONLY will from the perspective of universality. Mankind has no participation in determining God’s will nor can Mankind compete against it. Consequently, determinism is in effect and Mankind is proceeding to only one destiny…judgment, condemnation, payment of consequences, then (hopefully) salvation. Does such determinism mean an individual cannot currently choose to “watch pornography for 4 hours”? Obviously not. However, that individual is wholly and personally accountable for such an action. NOT God. If such an act was truly an act of inherent “free will” then there would be no consequence. Simply because accountability is delayed only gives the impression of inherent free will. It is only an impression. Each and every individual will die and rise to judgment. And, that judgment is based on adherence to God’s will. Mankind has no choice in the matter. So, is the concept of determinism accurate? Yes. Do we not pray “THY will be done”? Can one choose or be subjected to evil? Only by grace which will eventually end. And, with that ending, God’s will always has been and always will be all in all.
LikeLike
November 28, 2017 at 7:09 pm
Hi Kimberley
You wrote, “One doesn’t need religion to fear death. Once again, you’ve hit on something hardwired into the human genome and into any living creature. The fact that religion often uses such fear is irrelevant.”
I wonder what you meant when you used the word “any”? Below is an example of an organism that probably does not have fear hard-wired in its genome:
https://www.seeker.com/hungry-elephants-are-no-match-for-fearless-ants-1765100883.html
I would say that it’s quite relevant when religion uses fear to recruit converts; what’s the point if not persuaded through love?
“God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. ” (1 John 4:16b)
And below, access to a website you may wish to explore:
http://frimmin.com/faith/godislove.php
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
November 29, 2017 at 3:13 pm
I’m always rather puzzled when someone quotes “God is love” and completely ignores “God is a consuming fire”. Neither passage describes God. Instead, one speaks of salvation and the other judgment FROM God. Not AS God. The fear (acknowledgement) of death is within all flesh because all flesh dies.
LikeLike
November 29, 2017 at 4:09 pm
Hi Kimberley
I think you’re saying that your use of the word “any” should be taken to mean every living creature. Thank you for answering one of my questions.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
November 29, 2017 at 8:11 pm
Naz:
1) The notion that our free will on the other side hinges on our struggle against sin in the here and now is not supported by scripture. what scripture supports
what scripture supports the notion of “…on the other…..”
The reason we struggle against sin is because God has made us new creations with a new spirit. The reason we sin is because we are still living in physical flesh and patterns of thinking or addictions just don’t automatically disappear.
This might be a belief assumption for adults who have acquiesced to the “physical flesh and patterns of thinking or addictions that just don’t automatically disappear.” But it does not address children of whom Jesus said: “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”
And one more Luke 17 20-21: “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”
nor shall they say “ON THE OTHER SIDE” is a simple, natural extrapolation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 29, 2017 at 8:26 pm
Kimberly there are very few things that we do or do not that is based or has its founding on anything other than our very design.
If you did not assume the premise that God and all your definitions of Godliness actually exist then your conclusion could not possibly be true. So your belief is a figment of your imagination and that not without previous ancestral support from the ancients who never knew the world was not flat, that thunder claps was rapid air expansion from great lightening heat and the delay of the thunder after the lightening heat followed the physics of speed of sound:
The speed of sound is the distance travelled per unit time by a sound wave as it propagates through an elastic medium. In dry air at 0 °C (32 °F), the speed of sound is 331.2 metres per second (1,087 ft/s; 1,192 km/h; 741 mph; 644 kn). At 20 °C (68 °F), the speed of sound is 343 metres per second (1,125 ft/s; 1,235 km/h; 767 mph; 667 kn), or a kilometre in 2.91 s or a mile in 4.69 s.
The speed of sound in an ideal gas depends only on its temperature and composition. The speed has a weak dependence on frequency and pressure in ordinary air, deviating slightly from ideal behavior.
In common everyday speech, speed of sound refers to the speed of sound waves in air. However, the speed of sound varies from substance to substance: sound travels most slowly in gases; it travels faster in liquids; and faster still in solids. For example, (as noted above), sound travels at 343 m/s in air; it travels at 1,484 m/s in water (4.3 times as fast as in air); and at 5,120 m/s in iron (about 15 times as fast as in air). In an exceptionally stiff material such as diamond, sound travels at 12,000 m/s;[1] (about 35 times as fast as in air) which is around the maximum speed that sound will travel under normal conditions.
Now given the state of the human mind in the days of ancient mankind why would you think that that mind had any special conduit to the omnipotent when he could not even understand earthly physics….did they have anything more special than yourself or myself or things known to any reasonable school child going to Elementary school?.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 29, 2017 at 8:36 pm
Kimberly:
“The fear (acknowledgement) of death is within all flesh because all flesh dies.”
Uh uh….The fear of death is within all flesh because all flesh does not want to die, not that all flesh acknowledges death because all flesh dies. If it was that simple why would all flesh run from death as fast as an antelope being chased by a big cat or as all flesh and take flight as fast as possible from the fire that will consume all flesh in its path?
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 29, 2017 at 8:41 pm
Even religion offers its followers salvation from death and appeals to everyone who has the desire not to die but you have to have some unreasonable belief indoctrination to accept an religion espousing their version of nirvana just in case you do die.
Immortality has been the dream of every man woman and child since the year dot
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 30, 2017 at 7:07 am
You’ve made one inaccurate presumption. “Ancient” men were actually more advanced in their ability to think than modern men. The idea of an evolution from “Neanderthal” to modern men where “ancient” men were little more than grunting mammals is false. The exact opposite is true. At the Genesis creation, mankind was uniquely made in the image of gods (plural…not in the image of God singular). As such, mankind was perfect in both body and mind. This is evidenced by the record of how long they lived in those days..often living for thousands of years. Methuselah was notably long-lived but was probably of average life-span. And, due to such longevity, many began to practice a form of eugenics by breeding with hundreds of their own successive generations in an attempt to improve their lineage over others. Consequently, mutations were born with unique abilities including gigantism, speed, and all manner of physical abnormalities. But, the pendulum swung both ways and “Neanderthal” were among such stunted peoples born. Many driven from civilization to live in caves, which is where we find their evidence. So, “Neanderthals” were not precursors to modern man. They were genetic abnormalities and deviants due to genetic damage from inbreeding. And, with such extensive inbreeding, mankind was destined for extinction except that God intervened by working with Noah (a man chosen because he was “perfect in his generations”) to correct the human genome. Consequently, the great flood was to save humanity rather than destroy it. Yet, tales of prediluvian civilization carried through the flood to be evidenced in the mythology of many subsequent civilizations. And, in those tales, we can get a glimpse into what it was like prior to the flood. There might actually have been “gods” named Odin, Thor, Zeus, etc. Men with great abilities but men nonetheless. Based on the evidence, one cannot presume that “ancient” men were less advanced than modern men. Quite the opposite.
LikeLike
November 30, 2017 at 9:50 am
Kimberly:
Ellen Bennet argued that the Septuagint Genesis 5 numbers are in tenths of years, which “will explain how it was that they read 930 years for the age of Adam instead of 93 years, and 969 years for Methuselah instead of 96 years, and 950 years for that of Noah instead of 95 years”…
I submit that man counted moon phases as years which explains the so called “longevity” so in fact one year was actually one month and one year was read in 12ths, not as tenths as argued b y Ellen Bennet; thus, Methuselah’s 969 years divided by the moon cycles would work out to a little more than 80 years.
Today we also have gigantism, caused by a malfunction of the Pituitary gland.
The ancients lived in caves to avoid predators, not the least of which were his own fellow man.
And Noah with a keen insight was able to see the rising water from the mountainous terrain he visited and believed, rightly so, that the reservoir up in the mountain he visited had an annual cycle that was building over the years and if it burst one had to be ready for such an event..and he was.
Noah was a common sense guy but after the flood, it seems that his son Ham did not inherit his father’s common sense and as Genesis records uncovered his father’s nakedness and from that incestuous relationship with his mother, the accursed Canaan was born and the Semitic tribes have been warring ever since.
Based on the evidence, one cannot reasonably assume that “ancient” man was more advanced than modern men; indeed, men who believed the world was flat, that they were the only people in existence on earth.
Sam Harris put it this way:
“f the basic claims of religion are true, science is so blind that science is underlying reality. And the laws of nature are so susceptible to supernatural modifications as to render the whole enterprise of science ridiculous. If on the other hand the basic claims of religion are false, most of the people on this planet are profoundly confused about the nature of reality and beset by quite irrational hopes and fears. And many people are simply wasting their lives and spreading delusions, often with tragic results. It seems to me no thinking person can be indifferent between the two sides of this dichotomy.
And to subscribe to one of the iron age religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam is to make the tacit claim that, that is impossible. That there is in fact no way to understand our circumstance using the tools of our modern understanding of the world. That some measure of superstition is necessary, some measure of mythology, that we have to lie just this much.
The point is we can place our confidence only in human conversation and the question is; do you want to place it in the 21st century conversation where we have all of the world’s literature and learning available to us; or, do you want to place it in a 1st century or a 7th century conversation as preserved in one of our holy books?”
I want to return to this core issue, which is belief, because without belief religion evaporates; without belief science evaporates. We’re talking about claims and their evidence. We’re talking about what you think is true about the nature of the universe. Presumably you don’t believe in Zeus, if someone stood here and said Zeus was the greatest scientist, you would not have applauded.
Let’s talk honestly about what we think is true. The truth is that religion as we speak of it, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, is based on the claim that God dictates certain books. He doesn’t code software, he doesn’t produce films, he doesn’t score symphonies, he’s an author. This claim has achieved credibility because these books are deemed so profound they could not possibly have been written by human authors. Please consider for a moment how differently we treat scientific claims, text and discoveries:
Isaac Newton went into isolation for 18 months starting in the year 1665. When he came out of his solitude he had invented the calculus, he had discovered the laws of motion and universal gravitation, he had single handedly created the field of optics. No one thinks this was anything other than a man’s labor. And it took two hundred years of continuous ingenuity for some of the smartest people who ever lived to substantially improve upon Newton’s work.
How difficult would it be to improve the bible? Anyone in this room could improve this supposedly inerrant text scientifically, historically, ethically, spiritually, in moments! If God loves us and wanted to guide us with a book of morality, it’s very strange to have given us a book that supports slavery, that demands that we murder people for imaginary crimes like witchcraft.
The true basis for hope in our world is open ended conversation and religion has shattered our world into competing moral communities. What we have to convince ourselves of is that love and curiosity are enough for us and intellectual honesty is the guardian of that.
And the message of Jesus for anyone who is intellectually honest enough to receive it, is exactly that!
There is not a single line in the bible or the koran that could not have been authored by a 1st century person. There are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves about who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, about the principles of infectious disease.
There’s nothing particularly useful and there’s a lot of iron age barbarism in there and superstition. This is not a candidate book. I mean I can go into any Barnes & Noble blindfolded and pull a book off a shelf which is going to have more relevance, more wisdom for the 21st century than the bible or the koran. I mean it’s really not an exaggeration.
Every one of our specific sciences has superceded and surpassed the wisdom of scripture, from cosmology, to psychology to economics. We know more about ourselves than anyone writing the bible or the koran did and that is a distinctly inconvenient fact for anyone wanting to believe that this book was dictated by the creator of the universe. Think BIG.
LikeLiked by 2 people
November 30, 2017 at 10:30 am
Dino, thank you, but I wholeheartedly know that this is what awaits those that have become children of God through the Spirit of Christ.
If I could put it in a bottle and give it to you I would, but I can’t. I just know and that’s good enough for me. It’s a great hope and our only hope to make this existence worth the effort. I hope you and everyone here are there with me on that day ! We could probably have a few laughs about the countless hours we spent on this blog ….
Peace.
Naz
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 30, 2017 at 12:17 pm
“You’ve made one inaccurate presumption. “Ancient” men were actually more advanced in their ability to think than modern men.”
Kimberly, with all due respect, as someone with a degree in evolutionary science, a certified naturalist from the Charles Darwin Research Station in the Galapagos Islands, and almost four decades of experience in evolutionary science, I have to say that your understanding of human evolution is completely incorrect. There simply is no credible evidence to support any of those claims. Mutations are something all people are born with, but none allow for the extremes you’re referring to. Genetics doesn’t work that way. I could lay out the evidence in detail here, but I’ve found fundamentalist Christians have little interest in scientific evidence.
However, you mentioned the Noah’s flood story, and that’s something I think I can debunk in a manner that should make sense to you:
• A handful of people somehow used stone-age tools to build a large wooden ship in which to cram potentially MILLIONS of animals, along with their many specific dietary and other requirements for an entire YEAR. That much cargo would have sunk the ship immediately. Not only that, but even with today’s advanced tools and engineering it would be impossible to build such a large wooden ship without it immediately breaking apart in rough flood waters.
• Most animals would have had to travel IMMENSE distances to get to the ark, including many like termites, snails, sloths, koalas and penguins that have limited mobility, or that can only tolerate a narrow range of environmental conditions, or that have highly specialized diets.
• ALL the many diseases and parasites specific to each species would have had to be carried by at least one of each animal. Tens of thousands of diseases affect humans alone. I wonder which of Noah’s family members carried all the venereal diseases exclusive to humans….
• For nearly all existing fossils to have been created by the flood, right before the rain started falling there had to have been an average of over 2,000 vertebrate species–ranging in size from tiny shrews to massive dinosaurs–for EVERY ACRE of land on the planet. That’s not even counting the more than 90% of species that are invertebrates.
• If the rain came from a vapor canopy, it would have had to be superheated. If it came from ice falling from orbit, it would have become superheated upon entering the atmosphere. Add to that the water coming from the “fountains of the deep,” as the Bible describes it, which from even just a mile down would be boiling hot, and there’s easily enough heat to have vaporized the oceans and destroyed virtually all life on Earth.
• The seismic activity pulling the continents apart, forcing up mountain ranges, and causing nearly all the world’s volcanoes to erupt at the same time would have poisoned the atmosphere, generated enough heat to vaporize the oceans, and once again destroyed virtually all life on Earth.
• The amount of sedimentation that would need to have been mixed into the water to account for all the sedimentary layers being laid down at once would kill virtually all marine life. And most of the remaining life would have died from the radical changes in water salinity.
• After the flood, the water covering the entire Earth’s surface would have had to go somewhere, but there is no mechanism for getting rid of anywhere near that much water.
• After spending a year in cramped quarters without exercise, the animals would have had to travel up to many thousands of miles across often inhospitable terrain and vast oceans to reach their natural habitats. This includes all the animals that move extremely slowly or can only survive in limited environments.
• Almost no land plants or their seeds can survive immersion in water for a year, so after the flood the land would have been barren, providing no food or habitats for the newly released animals.
• Just eight stone-age humans would have had to repopulate their former lands across the planet, reviving all the lost languages, writing, religions, professions, technologies and other unique societal developments of their former cultures, without showing any interruptions in their historical records, nor mentioning anything about a global flood AT ALL. And those eight people would have had to reproduce so incredibly rapidly that in just 150 years (fewer than eight generations) they would have had enough people to build Stonehenge, the pyramids and numerous cities mentioned in the Bible, as well as populate all of Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, China, and the Americas with MILLIONS of people. All this while experiencing war, disease and global famine during a migration across the entire planet. Even using a global growth rate TWICE as fast as the most rapid ever recorded in human history, there would be fewer than 5,000 people in the entire world in those 150 years, which is nowhere near the MILLIONS of people required to match even the most conservative historical estimates.
I’d be happy to provide you with the evidence to support these claims, if you’d like. But it should be pretty clear that the Noah’s Ark story couldn’t be true, at least not as described in the Bible.
LikeLiked by 2 people
November 30, 2017 at 12:18 pm
You forget that the age of man was changed after the flood. That would not have been necessary if ages had not been as described (ie/hundreds of years…not moons).
LikeLike
November 30, 2017 at 12:39 pm
I’m as schooled in genetics as you are and being a scientist myself, I understand your scenario to be filled with so many additional leaps in logic as to remain implausible, including the complete absence of God’s intervention.
First, the saurian ecosystem did not coexist with modern mammalian ecology and lasted far longer than when mankind was created to the present. It was consequently, that time period when sedimentation occurred. It preceded everything we know of, including the Genesis creation which also involved a burial of the dead saurian ecosystem, to eventually percolate into fossil fuels. Consequently, the flood had nothing to do with dinosaurs or sedimentation. And, you of all people should know that Darwin considered the cell a simple blob of protoplasm rather than the highly complex unit it has been discovered to be. The incredible story of the Ark illustrates that mankind was hardly stone-age at that point in history. It took 150 years to build the Ark and not even Noah would have done that task rather than simply moving out of the path of some impending flood if he could. And, a “family” in those days would have included hundreds of people so Noah and his eight sons might have actually numbered up to 1,000 people. Then, you presume the races began with Noah but that isn’t biblically accurate either. The races began at the tower of Babel in which God gave mankind different languages and with each language, a race began, leading to what we see today, which includes a corresponding variety of mammalian life.
LikeLike
November 30, 2017 at 1:03 pm
Derek, scientific evidence can be interpreted in many ways and Christians are not scared of it but rather welcome it.
Furthermore, all of your points are speculation and conjecture, you have no way to scientifically debunk the flood with any accuracy. There can be many explanations to debunk each of your points, but I will refrain for the sake of time.
Naz
LikeLike
November 30, 2017 at 3:07 pm
“I understand your scenario to be filled with so many additional leaps in logic as to remain implausible, including the complete absence of God’s intervention.”
Name even one.
“First, the saurian ecosystem did not coexist with modern mammalian ecology and lasted far longer than when mankind was created to the present.”
Primitive mammals coexisted with dinosaurs, but there is zero credible evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans. In fact, multiple radiometric dating tests have shown the dinosaurs went extinct at the KT boundary 65 million years ago, whereas modern humans didn’t exist before 200,000 years ago.
“It was consequently, that time period when sedimentation occurred.”
Sedimentation has ALWAYS occurred, and continues to this day.
“Consequently, the flood had nothing to do with dinosaurs or sedimentation.”
Tell that to young-Earth creationists who claim the dinosaurs were on Noah’s ark and that all the sedimentation was laid down as a consequence of the flood.
“And, you of all people should know that Darwin considered the cell a simple blob of protoplasm rather than the highly complex unit it has been discovered to be.”
What does what Darwin may or may not have thought have to do with whether or not evolution is true?
If you’re talking about abiogenesis, then the evidence that it occurred is pretty strong. If you replicate in a lab the various possible molecular and environmental conditions likely present on the prebiotic Earth–or even in outer space–it doesn’t take long for inorganic molecules to automatically produce dozens of the complex organic molecules necessary for life. The repeated heating, cooling and irradiation of these molecules, as would be expected on a prebiotic Earth, can also cause the spontaneous formation of ribonucleotides, which are the precursors of RNA and DNA. And exposure of those ribonucleotides to certain natural clays causes them to spontaneously assemble into RNA strands. And RNA is capable of duplicating itself, which is a fundamental requirement for life. These discoveries have led researchers to suspect that the first life may have been based on RNA. Indeed, some viruses–which are the most primitive life on Earth today–are based on RNA rather than DNA.
Meanwhile, simple fatty acids that also form naturally in prebiotic conditions automatically assemble into structures resembling cell membranes. And DNA inserted within those cell membrane-like structures can successfully replicate under the right conditions. This doesn’t mean we know all the steps that led to the formation of the first life–at least not yet–but clearly many of the initial steps occur automatically under completely natural conditions. I’d say that’s pretty strong evidence.
“The incredible story of the Ark illustrates that mankind was hardly stone-age at that point in history.”
People in China were using primitive bronze tools 4300 years ago, but the rest of the world was neolithic. Regardless, they didn’t have shipbuilding technology anywhere near as advanced as later centuries, and no wood ship in ANY century could survive rough flood waters.
“And, a “family” in those days would have included hundreds of people so Noah and his eight sons might have actually numbered up to 1,000 people.”
Genesis 7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark.
Where do you get 1,000 people out of just eight mentioned in the Bible? Furthermore, 1,000 people would have only made the limited accommodations in the ark even more problematic.
“The races began at the tower of Babel in which God gave mankind different languages and with each language, a race began, leading to what we see today, which includes a corresponding variety of mammalian life.”
Where does it say in the Bible that skin color changed after the Tower of Babel? How does that square with ancient artwork that shows racial differences long before the tower was supposedly built? And putting off animal diversification until after the tower was built requires even MORE rapid speciation than the already impossible example I mentioned. There are no records ANYWHERE of such a rapid worldwide speciation event.
The problem all stems from assuming the Bible is true and then looking for evidence to support it, while ignoring all the evidence that contradicts it. The evidence should ALWAYS determine the conclusion, not the other way around. If you’re a scientist, you should know that is one of the most fundamental rules of science.
LikeLiked by 2 people
November 30, 2017 at 3:18 pm
“scientific evidence can be interpreted in many ways and Christians are not scared of it but rather welcome it.”
Sure…if one is not scientifically trained one can interpret evidence in many ways (most of them wrong). There’s a reason why 99.85% of all life and earth scientists accept evolutionary theory and reject creationism…because they actually study the evidence for a living and are aware of what it means.
This cartoon shows the fundamental difference between how science works vs. how creationists interpret the evidence:
“Furthermore, all of your points are speculation and conjecture, you have no way to scientifically debunk the flood with any accuracy. There can be many explanations to debunk each of your points”
Perhaps you can find ways to refute some of the points I made, but I’ll bet most of them require you to resort to inserting miracles that are not even mentioned in the Bible. But if all those points are overwhelming, just take that last point I made. How can one POSSIBLY account for such a massive repopulation of the Earth and resuscitation of cultures in just 150 years…without any historical record of such a thing happening?
LikeLiked by 2 people
November 30, 2017 at 11:09 pm
Hi Leo
From your post #54, readers understand that the speed of sound varies according to the medium it’s traversing and that it moves much faster through iron than it does through air, i.e. the denser the material the quicker it travels through it; conversely, light travels more slowly through denser mediums.
It would have been useful if God had revealed to the ancient Hebrew shepherds that the speed of light (about 186,000 miles/sec) is so great that the time it took for them to see lightning was negligible. The speed of sound was such that it took about 5 secs to traverse a mile. They might have even deduced this by counting after clapping in mountainous areas, over a known distance, until they heard the echo.
With this combined information, they could have an idea of how far a storm was by counting in seconds. Every 5 secs between seeing the lightning and hearing the thunder would represent a mile. How useful might it have been to them to have known that?
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
November 30, 2017 at 11:44 pm
Hi Leo
I like the points you make and the information you give is easy to read and useful.
Looking at your #58 about the possible use of lunar months, I’ve done some calculations based on what I found online. There are 12.37 (2DP) lunar months in an average earth year. If Methuselah was considered by the ancients to be 969 years old when he died, then:
969/12.37 = 78.33 years.
By this frame of reference, Methuselah would have been a little over 78.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 1, 2017 at 12:45 am
Hi Naz
You wrote in post #59, “Dino, thank you, but I wholeheartedly know that this is what awaits those that have become children of God through the Spirit of Christ.” You went on to write that if you could put it in a bottle and give it to me, you would. I thank you for your considerations, sincerely.
I liked that you want me and others who have blogged on this website to be with you in a heavenly afterlife. However, it should be clear from my posts that I’m a sceptical Christian. Also, that my belief or lack of belief in a supernatural God to be irrelevant to whether I might have a heavenly afterlife. If there is a heavenly afterlife I think we’ll all enjoy it – every human being.
I have posted a link supporting universal salvation many times. I’m not convinced that people open links often enough and I do believe that most read very little before they dismiss it if it contradicts their current beliefs, mostly elitist beliefs. The link is given again below:
http://frimmin.com/faith/godislove.php
I ask only that you try to read the whole article and put aside your beliefs while you read. If you like, you could explore the website more fully. Then you will understand that I believe that God works on us through natural and not supernatural means. That’s why we have learned so much about the natural world through science.
Peace and love to all humanity,
Dinos
LikeLike
December 1, 2017 at 6:14 am
abiogenesis is so improbable as to be impossible. Dawkins speculates that probability to be 1 in one billion billion billion (10 to the 27th power). There comes a point where improbability cannot be statistically distinguished from impossibility and estimates of abiogenesis statistics is just that. Yet, that estimate of impossibility is precisely what evolutionary science purposely ignores when speculating on the origin of life without God. In spite of a complete LACK of evidence that God does NOT exist and the genomic evidence within humankind in general that God DOES exist, the scientific acknowledgement is the former rather than the logical latter. This is precisely the opposite logic when speculating about extra-terrestrial life. In spite of the LACK of evidence, science chooses to acknowledge it DOES existence and continues to waste time and resources in searching out even infinitesimal evidence. Yet finding none, stubbornly continues to say extra-terrestrial life is “out there”. In spite of the improbability of abiogenesis! I’m not a “Christian”. I find that “Christianity” is not based on the Bible or on the God described in it. Consequently, if someone has attempted to say the earth is only 6,000 years old then they have no idea of scientific OR biblical reality. They might as well be saying the earth is flat. Why would you be focused on skin color? Most racial differences are non-physical rather than physical by design used to force humanity to expand over the entire planet. Simple observation of different cultures (ie/different language-speaking peoples) show many subtle differences in not just the language. Its logical to speculate these subtle differences originated with the language at the tower of Babel. And, how can you presume that “ancient” artwork preceded the tower of Babel? Such conjecture shows a predilection to the “Christian” idea that mankind has been in existence for only a few thousands of years. Nothing in the Bible implies that and the fossil record contradicts it.
LikeLike
December 1, 2017 at 8:25 am
Anthropologists have debated what constitutes the earliest evidence of controlled fire use — and which hominin species was responsible for it. Ash and burnt bone in Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa suggests human ancestors used fire at least 1 million years ago.
That interpretation is at odds with the predominant view that modern humans, the only human species alive today, originated about 200,000 years ago in Africa before dispersing to other parts of the world.
SOURCE: https://www.livescience.com/42861-early-human-campfire-found-israel.html
LikeLike
December 1, 2017 at 9:41 am
You fail to recognize the possibility that some animal spontaneously combusted in the Wonderwerk Cave in presuming it was of human origin. Or, its not beyond the realm of evolutionary science logic to speculate that some prehistoric Saurian species had the ability to breath fire or in some other way generate fire (flatulence?). There really isn’t any concrete evidence of the span of time involved the predominance of saurian ecosystems. Nor is there concrete evidence of the span of time involved between the Genesis creation and the biblical flood. Its therefore logical to speculate that the former time span was millions of years and the latter was more than 100,000 years based on the fossil record.
LikeLike
December 1, 2017 at 2:14 pm
“abiogenesis is so improbable as to be impossible.”
Oof, there are several problems with this claim. First and foremost, abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory explains the diversity of species AFTER the appearance of the first life. A god or an alien or some other being could have created the first life, and it would have zero impact on the evidence that life has evolved from that simple ancestor.
Second, it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine statistical probability with a set of just ONE when we don’t even know all the steps in the process. Anyone who claims to know the odds of such a singular event doesn’t understand how statistics works.
Third, the odds that creationists give are for the completely RANDOM assemblage of a living cell. To borrow one of their favorite analogies, it’s like expecting a tornado to hit a junkyard and randomly assemble a working jet plane. But that’s NOT how natural systems evolve because it’s ignoring the critical element of natural selection. A more accurate (but still imperfect) analogy would be for billions of people to randomly put together parts in a massive junkyard one at a time, and when parts fit together properly they stay together, otherwise the parts are tossed back into the mix. Eventually, given enough time and enough components, you are essentially guaranteed to assemble something useful.
And finally, the first life was likely NOT a fully functioning cell, but instead nucleotides dripped across a clay substrate, forming self-reproducing RNA, which then ended up in a pool containing lipids that naturally form into membrane-like structure. Once the fatty acids enveloped RNA, crude cellular reproduction may have started up, eventually evolving into the first DNA-based cell. Given hundreds of millions of years, that’s not much of a stretch, but the point is that the first life was likely far simpler than the complex cell creationists use to come up with their statistics.
“In spite of a complete LACK of evidence that God does NOT exist and the genomic evidence within humankind in general that God DOES exist, the scientific acknowledgement is the former rather than the logical latter.”
The first part of that sentence is called a “shifting the burden of proof” logical fallacy. It is NOT incumbent on the atheist to prove the nonexistence of God, because the atheist is not making the positive claim. The burden of proof ALWAYS rests on the person making the positive claim, since it is impossible to disprove a universal negative. If I were to claim that Vishnu exists, it would not be up to YOU to disprove it, it would be up to ME to prove it.
The second part (“genomic evidence”) is based on fallacious reasoning, as I pointed out in the abiogenesis claim above. Furthermore, when we don’t have an answer to something, the default answer is NOT “God done it,” it’s “We don’t know.” The lack of evidence for the entire process of abiogenesis is not evidence for God. The existence of God must STILL be supported by evidence. Claiming otherwise is called an argument from ignorance fallacy.
“In spite of the LACK of evidence, science chooses to acknowledge it DOES existence and continues to waste time and resources in searching out even infinitesimal evidence.”
It only seems to be an absurd task IF you are working from the faulty assumptions you’ve mentioned above. Before we had ANY evidence for abiogenesis, researchers wondered if it would be possible to create life given the predicted conditions of a prebiotic Earth. They didn’t expect success, given that the evidence shows life took hundreds of millions of years to form, but they ran the experiment…and discovered in only took a few days to build most of the amino acids fundamental to life. They tried different prebiotic recipes and came up with even more amino acids and other organic chemicals. Since then we’ve found those same chemicals forming in comets and even in space dust. So if the basic building blocks of life are so easy to form, and they can be found throughout the solar system…doesn’t it makes sense to consider that life may indeed have formed on other planets? And wouldn’t it make sense to search for it? That’s what science DOES. Do you really think the most brilliant minds in the world don’t have a clue what they’re doing?
“I’m not a “Christian”. I find that “Christianity” is not based on the Bible or on the God described in it”
Ah, in that case my bad. I assumed you were a Christian, based on your creationist claims, your evident belief in God, and the fact that you posted such statements on a Christian blog.
“Why would you be focused on skin color?”
That IS one of the main characteristics of race, which you brought up when mentioning the tower of Babel. But since there is no credible evidence that the tower of Babel even existed, any claims can be nothing more than conjecture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 1, 2017 at 4:03 pm
“nucleotides dripped across a clay substrate” does NOT fit the definition of life or even a precursor to life as you have stated. Such a presumption involves evolution as you’ve also stated. Regardless of your denial the two ideas are not connected. The only evidence of any kind about abiogenesis is that it “might” produce insignificant (less than 1%) amounts of alanine and glycine…but mostly tar. Not RNA. Not DNA. Not a cell. Not all 20 amino acids required for life. Experimental abiogenesis was “successful” due to contamination of the medium and gases back in the 1930s. Modern attempts of the experiment with better quality materials have produced even lower results and have never been quantitatively duplicated. And, it certainly didn’t produce anything fitting the definition of life. Instead, it has shown that a racemic mixture which would have been toxic to any further “advancement” would be produced. And it would not be “easily” since the statistics are near- infinitely prohibitive. Then, “science” has the audacity to presume without any evidence at all that a statistically improbable event has happened multiple times under completely different conditions? That isn’t science. Its a religion for the express purpose of DIS-proving God. I, as a scientist, observe life and choose to intuitively acknowledge the existence of God based on the FACT that all the way back to its origins, humanity has not only been hardwired to such intuition but have at times encountered clear evidence of God. The latest having been a mere 2,000 years ago with the coming of Jesus, who revealed God and in doing so, gave indication of an existence far greater than our created universe. An existence of life which has ever been, having never had a beginning and obviously will have no end. Quite unlike our existence.
LikeLike
September 12, 2018 at 8:19 am
A very good book that might answer your question about sin in heaven is Ronald L. Dart’s “The Thread: God’s Appointments With History”.
It can be read here:
http://www.protorah.com/the-thread-by-ronald-l-dart/
Kevin McMillen
304-376-1727
LikeLike
September 12, 2018 at 9:24 am
I knew Ron Dart many many years ago….was a minister in the cult of Herbert Armstrong. Mankind has only the appearance of free will simply because of being mortal. The commandment by God is clear however. Obey or die……and whether that commandment is followed or not, mankind will be judged by accountability and there isn’t any way to avoid that day. We are saved from annihilation only by grace which is a delay in judgment. Not an “unmerited pardon” as that cult taught.
LikeLike
September 12, 2018 at 11:50 am
Obey or Die is not from God. Jesus said quite rightly of religion and its tyranny and let me please tell you that the bible is no excuse for denying that Jesus campaign was against religion for the fraud that it was and is…….
Frauds! Isaiah’s prophecy of you hit the bull’s-eye:
These people make a big show of saying the right thing,
but their heart isn’t in it.
They act like they’re worshiping me,
but they don’t mean it.
They just use me as a cover
for teaching whatever suits their fancy,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
September 12, 2018 at 2:10 pm
Actually, that applies to Israel. A more appropriate passage that applies from the day Jesus left and continues to apply to this day is Luke 21:8
And he (Jesus) said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name (ie/as “brothers”…”brethren”….”Christians”), saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and the time draweth near (for my return): go ye NOT therefore after them.
Ron Dart is big into looking at “prophetic events” just as Armstrong was. Mis-interpreting “watch ye” to mean other than “watch YOURSELF” for his misguided religion. Taking the specificity of carefully selected passages and applying them generically for his own agenda. That agenda is to collect tithes of his people (not 1, not 2 but 3 tithes including offerings) in direct opposition to Heb 7. A passage he and others of his ilk avoid like the proverbial plague.
LikeLike
September 12, 2018 at 5:42 pm
Let’s just say Israel is merely the metaphorical giant of religious tyranny, for it was Jesus after all who brought up Isaiah’s lamentation of how “They pay me lip service only” as they did before Jesus, during Jesus and after Jesus’ time, as they continue to express the same rituals, sacraments, offerings and sacrifices which are deplorable.
This new plan I’m making
isn’t going to be written on paper,
isn’t going to be chiseled in stone;
This time “I’m writing out the plan in them,
carving it on the lining of their hearts.”
Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired. Instead you have presented me a body, a body to do your will oh Lord…….” to do the will oh Source, oh Highest Power. Is the body made to exploit itself?
LikeLiked by 1 person
October 10, 2018 at 11:57 am
FODDER FOR THE FOLLOWERS IN THE ABSENCE OF.
What is more amazing than the power of the weather is the fact that we saw it coming, we watched it rise and fall and rise again, we accurately advised the population to evacuate to safety and we watched its fury: the hurricane zone in Florida today as we read and write.
And what we know today, the Ancients never knew at any time in their entire life, nor could they ever know as they remained in the tyranny of belief and lack of knowledge that hurricane weather is not the wrath of God, that it is not the result of sin and that prayers for protection are dismissed as irrelevant absolutely.
Ancient Prayers and God wrath seem light years away to many today. But the real force of “Belief Revealed”, is in the power of indoctrination in the face of knowledge, technology and understanding as billions of people around the world so chained in thrall by Ancient Belief still, just don’t get it, don’t want to get it, and those who do want to get it, the truth is kept hidden from them by their mentors, read (Tor-mentors)
Read:
OLD TESTAMENT.
Isaiah speaking: This is what you religious scholars, experts and lawyers of the Law are like: “What you give is like a letter in a sealed envelope. You give it to someone who can read and tell her, “Read this,” she’ll say, “I can’t. The envelope is sealed.” so you take the sealed envelope away and you give it to someone who can’t read and tell him, “Read this,” he’ll say, “I can’t read. And you take the sealed envelope away. Woe to you! You pretend to have the inside track but you shut truth out and work behind the scenes, plotting the future as if you knew everything, acting mysterious and pious, in chants and prayers, yet never opening the envelope, never showing your hand, never revealing the letter. You have everything backward; you slight the poor for your own purse, pence and power! (Isaiah 29:10 &15)
NEW TESTAMENT. JESUS speaking: “You’re hopeless, you religion scholars! You took the key of knowledge, but instead of unlocking doors for the masses, you locked them. You won’t go in yourself, and won’t let anyone else in either.” (Luke 11:52)
“And the religion scholars and Pharisees went into a rage.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 30, 2018 at 5:29 pm
[…] A challenge to the free-will defense: Does heaven prove that God could have created free creatures w… […]
LikeLike
June 26, 2022 at 2:53 pm
My brother William Craig has helped me much. However, there is 1 more plausible way that God could have created the angelic host as well as humanity. And that is with the same volition, and free will that eternally exists in the Godhead. Exactly the same will that is in Father, Lord Jesus,Holy Spirit. They always choose the good and they are not robots. Same state as when the saved are in heaven. He really could have created us just like they are. It is very simple to come to this conclusion. He could have done it. All could have been well from the creation through all eternity. Yes Bill, He could have
LikeLike
July 24, 2023 at 12:01 am
[…] Article original : DULLE, Jason. A challenge to the free-will defense: Does heaven prove that God could have created free creatures who would not sin? In : Thinking to Believe [en ligne]. 2017-08-11 [consulté le 2023-04-03]. Disponible à l’adresse : https://thinkingtobelieve.com/2017/11/08/a-challenge-to-the-free-will-defense-does-heaven-prove-that… […]
LikeLike