Evidence for God from Science

madscientist wrote:In all honesty this argument makes me... sick (puke). As if to say that because i was predestined, i cant have choice. So what's this all about!?

Predestined not in the sense of choosing, but rather in the sense of know your choices before hand. The only "flaw" in the creation of man is the power of choice. God knew this before creation and made provisions for it. If He knows your choices, you are predestined for eternity with Him.

madscientist wrote:The argument that "God didnt have to save anyone" is not one i like either.

I'm with you on this somewhat. It seems to me that God, if He is LOVE, is compelled to save and so that argument goes right out the window. At least in my mind. He can't turn His back on that which He loves without doing everything in His power to save. (lawfully)
.
.

Ghandi wasn't perfect. He man have been a very "good" man by comparison to alot of other people alive to today, but he had his own faults, committed his own sins. He worshipped false gods and practiced idolatry for starters. You said yourself, he practiced Hinduism. He broke the first two commandments. You can select any individual and you'll find that they have sinned many times.

Heaven is a place for perfect beings. No one tainted by sin may enter. It's not graded on a curve. It's righteous or unrighteous. And every single person is unrighteous. The only way to be cleaned of your sin is through Jesus and His grace. That's what we Christians mean when we say that Jesus is the only way to heaven. Fact is, there isn't any way to be good enough for heaven.

Imagine you just bought yourself a brand new pair of clothes, and the only way you can get into this party in eighty years is if your clothes are spotless, but the catch is you have to wear these clothes every day until then. There's no way anyone on the planet wouldn't get at least some dirt on these clothes. You'd have to get them cleaned before then by the best clothing cleaner on the planet. This metaphor make sense? These clothes are your soul, the dirt/stains are sin and the clothing cleaner is Jesus. God made the rule that your soul has to be spotless of sin because his holiness demands that beings in his presence be just as holy.

As for children, the Bible mentions an age of accountability (although no specific number is given) where if you're too young and die you are considered too innocent and mentally undeveloped to truly know right from wrong yet, so you would go to heaven. The Bible also mentions that each man will be judged accordingly and that God is righteous and fair and merciful. If a man never had the opportunity to learn about Jesus, but in his heart looks around at creation and understands there must be one true God, like Abraham did, then God may judge this person based on the knowledge they had available to them, or how they would have reacted had they heard the news, since he knows what would have happened.

Good points Someguy20

However, with children- it seems quite complicated. Then, surely, how is it "fair" in our view that someone who wass never given a chance to sin goes to hevaen? I mean, surely, would not WE have rather wished to have never been given a chance (say, been killed before age of acountablitiy or been aborted etc) so then we could not have messed anything up? How is it fair to us that we have to endure hardships and suffering and make our choices while others never had to say yes or no and go to heaven "undeserved"? What then is the gift of life - this life here full of misery and pain and suffering (+ some joys, but there IS pain and evil) or the true life which follows after this one? On what basis can a baby go to heaven, if we people who had to suffer and make choices have a chance to mess up on our way to heaven?
I know many would say abbies go to heaven; some believe in limbo but i think that's unbiblical nor it is supported by the Church.

And as no-one is perfect, then, isn't it rather to do with our inherent nature as human beings rather than something individual? i mean, if you take an analogy: a person A falls asleep at lectures when professor X teaches. If no-one else but person A falls asleep at X's lectures, and person A also falls asleep at other lecturer's lectures, we can make an attribution about person A that he may be uninterested, and infer something from A's behavior; that is, we say person A is "faulty" in some way. However, if person A falls asleep on person X's lectures and other people also fall alsep at |X's lectures but not in others, surely that has to do something with person X? So, if we go by that, if EVERYONE is sinful and NOONE is perfect, then, isn't rather something to do with how the things are in the world, the situation, as well as our inherent nature, something about humanity IN GENERAL rather than something for which we should be blamed as individuals? imean, if jesus werent god, he would have not been perfect; if I or you were god then we would be perfect. God cannot be imperfect simply because of His nature. But because we are sinful by nature and cannot really help it, then is it really ok that we are still held responsible for it? Sure, God gave us His SOn (and thanks im for that!! ) but i still dont understand why we should feel somehow ashamed for having such a nature, i mean; if God wanted to create us sinless then we would have been, so it has to do something with our nature and the situation rather than us as individuals.

Also, if we then consider that babies go to heaven because they never had a chance to sin, then that is not something to do with them as individuals but rather due to their nature - that because they hadn't reach AoA then they are not responsible; however I am 100% sure that as soon asthey would have reached AoA then they would have sinned, so if we were all given a chance we would've sinned; so how are we any different and why should the babies be somehow "better off" than we are in this sense just because they were never given an oportunity to be evil due to their nature??

Ofc, im a believer etc but it is one of the things i dont fully understand, so if u have some insight please share it

madscientist wrote:....Ofc, im a believer etc but it is one of the things i dont fully understand, so if u have some insight please share it

Mark 10:14, "But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God." ESV

Matthew 18:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, "Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven…. 14 Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." NKJV

From: AMG Word Studies wrote:παιδίον (Strongs: 3813)

paidí­on; gen. paidí­ou, neut. noun, a diminutive of paí­s (3816), child. A little child, either male or female; pl. tá paidí­a, the little children.

(I) A child or children recently born, a baby, infant (Mat 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:16-17 [cf. Luke 18:15 where it is tá bréphē {1025}, the infants]; John 16:21).

It appears that the Lord has his own reasons...
-
-
-