Originally posted by Jay PeateaNo answer old chap ?
Fair enough, pity & forgiveness are not the same. But what if the rich man had asked for forgiveness? would he have been forgiven & then accepted into heaven ?
I can understand why it is a loaded question. If we say yes, then that would make a mockery out of christian belief that only accepting jesus now can save us. If we say no we are back again to our question of god not follow his own rules of forgiveness. The only other answer that i can think of is that once in hell god cannot forgive, but this cannot be so because the universe was made with intelligent design, and god being the surpeme being, would have taken this into account. So if he had done it delibrately then again we are back to the not following his own rules of forgiveness.
OK lets move on
Going back to this business of choice, it seem to be that there are only two choices.
1) accept jesus and go to heaven
2) do not accept jesus and go to hell
do you agree ?
Originally posted by Jay PeateaSorry, I just forgot about the post, the question isn't difficult at all.
No answer old chap ?
I can understand why it is a loaded question. If we say yes, then that would make a mockery out of christian belief that only accepting jesus now can save us. If we say no we are back again to our question of god not follow his own rules of forgiveness. The only other answer that i can think of is that once in hell god cannot forgive ...[text shortened]... s.
1) accept jesus and go to heaven
2) do not accept jesus and go to hell
do you agree ?
God can forgive those in hell, but chooses not to because it is His nature to be just. Is it not just to tell people what is required of them, tell them what will happen if they do not, and then follow through on your word? He's willing to forgive them for the time He tells them He is, I don't see how He isn't following His rule.
Accept Jesus, go to Heaven.
Deny Him, go to hell.
Rather straightforward.
Originally posted by Jay PeateaActually, once in hell, the person cannot ask for forgiveness - his soul is in a permanent state of dissociation with God and can no longer perform acts which require grace - such as penitence. IMO, after death, human souls do not have free will.
No answer old chap ?
I can understand why it is a loaded question. If we say yes, then that would make a mockery out of christian belief that only accepting jesus now can save us. If we say no we are back again to our question of god not follow his own rules of forgiveness. The only other answer that i can think of is that once in hell god cannot forgive ...[text shortened]... s.
1) accept jesus and go to heaven
2) do not accept jesus and go to hell
do you agree ?
Originally posted by DarfiusForgiveness is one of the fundimental teachings of Jesus. If the rich man in hell asks for god forgiveness, but god does not forgive he is being a hypocrite. How is it "just" to keep the rich man in hell if he has truely repented for his sins ?
Sorry, I just forgot about the post, the question isn't difficult at all.
God can forgive those in hell, but chooses not to because it is His nature to be just. Is it not just to tell people what is required of them, tell them what wil ...[text shortened]... s, go to Heaven.
Deny Him, go to hell.
Rather straightforward.
Originally posted by Jay PeateaHe is in hell, you are lost.
Forgiveness is one of the fundimental teachings of Jesus. If the rich man in hell asks for god forgiveness, but god does not forgive he is being a hypocrite. How is it "just" to keep the rich man in hell if he has truely repented for his sins ?
In hell he finally saw the truth.
God is a far and just God he had his chance when he was physically alive.
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow can the souls be dissociated from god? Afterall does not god still give them love?
Actually, once in hell, the person cannot ask for forgiveness - his soul is in a permanent state of dissociation with God and can no longer perform acts which require grace - such as penitence. IMO, after death, human souls do not have free will.
Originally posted by RBHILLLet us say that the rich man is the sort of person, that in his life time he does many charitable deeds, he is a good fellow, almost saint like, his only sin was that he wouldn't accept god. So he goes to hell anyway. When he gets there he suddendly realised that he was wrong, and truely repents. Would it be justice for god to keep him in hell ?
He is in hell, you are lost.
In hell he finally saw the truth.
God is a far and just God he had his chance when he was physically alive.
Originally posted by Jay PeateaYes, because the rich man knew the truth but denied it. He also knew the consequences. You're asking for both free will and a disregard for that free will at once.
Let us say that the rich man is the sort of person, that in his life time he does many charitable deeds, he is a good fellow, almost saint like, his only sin was that he wouldn't accept god. So he goes to hell anyway. When he gets there he suddendly realised that he was wrong, and truely repents. Would it be justice for god to keep him in hell ?
Decide which you want.
Wow! That is some claim you make! Would you mind backing up the statement?Djbecker -
Sure. I'll have to put some time into it though. I don't have that time at this moment.
Let's start with some basics. Do you agree that unless there's evidence suggesting otherwise, that it's the standard scientific assumption the laws of nature remain constant? That is, gravity always does what gravity does, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, the Laws of Thermodynamics hold, etc. Now as the last century showed us, sometimes laws of nature that we hold to be incredibly reliable can be shown to be imperfect; the example I am referring to is how the flaws in Newtonian Mechanics led us to Quantum Mechanics and the Theories of Relativity (General and Special).
In that case, there was experimental evidence that Newtonian Mechanics was not perfectly correct. New scientific theories came into being which gave more correct explanations of reality and which under normal circumstances were effectively identical to Newtonian Mechanics.
The only reason Newtonian Mechanics was doubted was because it utterly failed to explain certain things. In the absence of such observable failures, should we not assume the laws of nature hold? Isn't this the correct scientific approach?
Djbecker -
One major source of evidence for the TOE is that it made predictions about what sort of fossils would be found in the future. It predicted that fossils of animals similar to existing animals but not identical would be found. These fossils could be arranged in such a way as to show a definite progression of changes from one fossil to another to the current animals, including humans. The TOE predicted that the ages of these fossils as calculated by various methods (and I know that you probably dispute the correctness of these methods) would correspond to the progression of changes in the fossils.
That is, the more human a fossil might seem to be, the younger it would have to be (as calculated by whatever method was used). Fossils that seem very similar to human skeletons would tend to have a maximum age, while fossils that seem more ape like could be older.
Now if there were discovered to be a correspondence between the apparent age as calculated by radioactive dating or other means and the level of similarity to humans, this would be evidence suggesting the TOE might be the correct model.
Another bit of evidence is that many animals have body parts that they don't use. For example, some snakes and whales have very small hind legs as part of their skeleton. These legs are not used in any way and I don't think they even make much of a bulge in the skin, but they are there. This meshes in perfectly with the Theory of Evolution. Likewise, there are bats which do not chew anything but have molars.
Dj2becker -
More evidence is the phenomenon of microevolution. Now, most creationists I've encountered have been quick to point out that this is not macroevolution, which is what they dispute. However, the phenomenon of microevolution taken over long, long periods of time is how the TOE claims macroevolution occurs. I don't know the history, but I bet that microevolution was not known about when Darwin published his book. I will try to check into this later.
Miller's experiment in which he synthesized organic molecules from electricity and simple inorganic acids showed that one step in the hypothesized beginning of life was possible. Despite the claims of many creationists, this experiment has been repeated many times with many variations on what energy source was used and what molecules were in the atmosphere used. As long as certain elements are present in the atmosphere (regardless of what molecules they are in), oxygen gas is excluded and a certain amount of energy is supplied, the experiment works.
Biochemists have discovered natural phenomena in which the length of genes is increased; in which genes get replicated; by which genes get changed from one to another; by which DNA is inserted into genomes; in which chromosomes get doubled; etc. These phenomena easily explain how the genome could slowly change and increase in complexity by natural means.
Dj2becker -
After much of the other evidence was examined and it was found to support the TOE, comparisons of genomes supported it again. For example, chimpanzees are found to be extremely close to humans genetically (relative to the differences between the human genome and other animal genomes).
Artificial selection, both in the lab and with animals like dogs, also supports the TOE.
Bone structure of forelimbs also supports the TOE. Birds, bats, and pteronadons all have the same number of bones in their wings arranged in roughly the same way, though some are longer or shorter than the corresponding bones in the other animals. Other animals like humans, sheep and dogs all have the same bone arrangement in their forelimbs with modifications for different uses. If you look at a pteranodon's wing bones, you can see that they use their "pinky" as the frame for the wing.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHas it ever occured to you that it is very easy to make predictions about what kinds of fossils "will be found" and then to construct fossils that are identical to your predictions. Take for example the fossil of the "Nebraskan man". It was later discovered that the entire "fossil" had been constructed around the tooth of an extinct pig.
Djbecker -
One major source of evidence for the TOE is that it made predictions about what sort of fossils would be found in the future. It predicted that fossils of animals similar to existing animals but not identical would be found. These fossils could be arranged in such a way as to show a definite progression of changes from one fossi ...[text shortened]... h the Theory of Evolution. Likewise, there are bats which do not chew anything but have molars.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDon't you think that the case for Evolution would be made convincingly if someone were to produce a sequence of fossils from a sequence of adjacent strata (such as ammonite species or sea urchins) showing indisputable signs of gradual progressive change on the same basic stock, but above the species level (as opposed to subspecific variation)? Ideally this should be demonstrated in a long sequence, ten or twenty or fifty successive fossil species, showing major generic evolution -- but a short sequence would be enough. But this simple relationship is not what is shown in the sequence of the rocks. Nowhere in the world has anyone met this simple evidential criterion... even the world's foremost paleontologists have failed to do so with the whole Earth to choose from and the resources of the world's greatest universities at their disposal.
The TOE predicted that the ages of these fossils as calculated by various methods (and I know that you probably dispute the correctness of these methods) would correspond to the progression of changes in the fossils.
Originally posted by dj2beckerSure, that's possible. Are you claiming that corruption is that widespread?
Has it ever occured to you that it is very easy to make predictions about what kinds of fossils "will be found" and then to construct fossils that are identical to your predictions. Take for example the fossil of the "Nebraskan man". It was later discovered that the entire "fossil" had been constructed around the tooth of an extinct pig.