Evidence for God from Science

Hello to everyone on the forum. As some of you can tell from my username and my time on here, I mostly came here for help. I’ve been having issues with my religion, so I am here to try and settle the problems with my faith once and for all.
So, instead of creating several threads, with one per issue, I am making a single thread with all of them. I would really like you guys helping me out with them. There’s a lot of people on here who are really well informed on these issues, and I know you guys can help me out. This list isn’t currently complete, because some of my issues are hard to put in words currently. So, expect me to add more later on.

Question on the Covenant number 1: Why was Jesus’s Death REALLY necessary?
The issue boils down to this: God is omnipotent, correct? Literally all things are within his power, that’s the point of omnipotence. So, here’s the issue: couldn’t he not create a solution that did not involve everyone suffering vs His Son’s suffering? I looked a little into this, and so far none of the arguments I’ve found made rational sense to me. They all involve some limitations being set on God. For instance, the one that comes the closest to logical is that sins are a criminal act that push us from God and must be punished. Jesus took on that punishment. Problem solved. Except, why couldn’t God simply forgive? Why did He set things up like that to begin with? In a nutshell, why did He build a universe were he knew that His son would have to die?

Question on the Covenant number 2: Jesus’s crucifixion was equal to the suffering in Hell of everyone?
Yeah, not to make light of the sacrifice, but, hasn’t this ever seemed weird to anyone? Your sins would put you in Hell for all eternity, but crucifixion then dead for three days equals that? Now multiply your eternity by how many others have been saved. I feel guilty even asking this one, but I need to understand this. So, how can any temporary suffering equal an eternity of torment?

Question on the Covenant number 3: This deal sounds awesome, where was it thousands of years ago?
If this Covenant was coming, why even bother with the old one? It is was His plan all along, correct? Why not just open the deal up as soon as Adam screwed things up? It is the same God, He is unchanging. This wasn’t an upgrade with newly designed tech, or a software patch to add in a new cheat code, this was the known solution from the beginning. Basically: If God had a way to live with our current form of forgiveness, why not utilize it from the beginning? Less important question, before the crucifixion, what criteria was involved in picking your final destination?

Question about faith: Why is it so important to prayer?
Jesus talks about how important faith is in praying, mentioning it when he withered the fig tree. So, later, a child possessed by a demon shows up needing to be healed. The Apostles, who are previously acknowledged able to take out a demon are unable too, Jesus explains this is because of weak faith. Then He does it. Wait, what? The uselessness of a Faithless prayer was also mentioned in the Book of James. I even heard it used to explain the Iron Chariots problem in the Book of Judges (this is in the first two chapters, its infamous so I think you’re all familiar. If I’m wrong, please tell me). Soo… this leads to an interesting question, why is faith so important? Let’s say a child who is desperate prays over his mother’s deathbed. Naturally he is scared, confused, and doesn’t have much faith. Will his prayer not be answered because of this? If not, why? It seems kind of cruel to choose not too, God is merciful. However, if God can’t do it without us having faith (which the Bible has countless miracles to show us that no, this isn’t a limiting factor, at least not always), then why not?

Question about the Prophecies and Jesus: Did the OT ever actually say he was supposed to come twice? I ask because the Messiah in Judaism seems like he is only supposed to come once as a ruler. It seems weird that if this wasn’t the case, God wouldn’t make this clear. It certainly would have made things easier on Christ to convert people if they expected him to be more like a lowly prophet then a king on a throne.


(note: if any of these are unclear, ask me to clarify. These weren't the easiest to put into words.)

(EDIT: Question removed. I'll post another thread at another time, since this question is about something different then the others)

Very good questions Seeking. I will wait for more learned people to respond first - but just to let you know, I am going to use them for my Home Group tonight as we are having a Hot potato session. I will let you know the outcome.

Silvertusk.

Thanks, Silvertusk. I look forward to it.

SeekingSanctuary wrote:Hello to everyone on the forum. As some of you can tell from my username and my time on here, I mostly came here for help. I’ve been having issues with my religion, so I am here to try and settle the problems with my faith once and for all.
So, instead of creating several threads, with one per issue, I am making a single thread with all of them. I would really like you guys helping me out with them. There’s a lot of people on here who are really well informed on these issues, and I know you guys can help me out. This list isn’t currently complete, because some of my issues are hard to put in words currently. So, expect me to add more later on.

Question on the Covenant number 1: Why was Jesus’s Death REALLY necessary?
The issue boils down to this: God is omnipotent, correct? Literally all things are within his power, that’s the point of omnipotence. So, here’s the issue: couldn’t he not create a solution that did not involve everyone suffering vs His Son’s suffering? I looked a little into this, and so far none of the arguments I’ve found made rational sense to me. They all involve some limitations being set on God. For instance, the one that comes the closest to logical is that sins are a criminal act that push us from God and must be punished. Jesus took on that punishment. Problem solved. Except, why couldn’t God simply forgive? Why did He set things up like that to begin with? In a nutshell, why did He build a universe were he knew that His son would have to die?

Question on the Covenant number 2: Jesus’s crucifixion was equal to the suffering in Hell of everyone?
Yeah, not to make light of the sacrifice, but, hasn’t this ever seemed weird to anyone? Your sins would put you in Hell for all eternity, but crucifixion then dead for three days equals that? Now multiply your eternity by how many others have been saved. I feel guilty even asking this one, but I need to understand this. So, how can any temporary suffering equal an eternity of torment?

Question on the Covenant number 3: This deal sounds awesome, where was it thousands of years ago?
If this Covenant was coming, why even bother with the old one? It is was His plan all along, correct? Why not just open the deal up as soon as Adam screwed things up? It is the same God, He is unchanging. This wasn’t an upgrade with newly designed tech, or a software patch to add in a new cheat code, this was the known solution from the beginning. Basically: If God had a way to live with our current form of forgiveness, why not utilize it from the beginning? Less important question, before the crucifixion, what criteria was involved in picking your final destination?

Question about faith: Why is it so important to prayer?
Jesus talks about how important faith is in praying, mentioning it when he withered the fig tree. So, later, a child possessed by a demon shows up needing to be healed. The Apostles, who are previously acknowledged able to take out a demon are unable too, Jesus explains this is because of weak faith. Then He does it. Wait, what? The uselessness of a Faithless prayer was also mentioned in the Book of James. I even heard it used to explain the Iron Chariots problem in the Book of Judges (this is in the first two chapters, its infamous so I think you’re all familiar. If I’m wrong, please tell me). Soo… this leads to an interesting question, why is faith so important? Let’s say a child who is desperate prays over his mother’s deathbed. Naturally he is scared, confused, and doesn’t have much faith. Will his prayer not be answered because of this? If not, why? It seems kind of cruel to choose not too, God is merciful. However, if God can’t do it without us having faith (which the Bible has countless miracles to show us that no, this isn’t a limiting factor, at least not always), then why not?

Question about the Prophecies and Jesus: Did the OT ever actually say he was supposed to come twice? I ask because the Messiah in Judaism seems like he is only supposed to come once as a ruler. It seems weird that if this wasn’t the case, God wouldn’t make this clear. It certainly would have made things easier on Christ to convert people if they expected him to be more like a lowly prophet then a king on a throne.


(note: if any of these are unclear, ask me to clarify. These weren't the easiest to put into words.)

(EDIT: Question removed. I'll post another thread at another time, since this question is about something different then the others)

First off, you asked a lot of questions that each would take sometime to adequately answer. I'll get back to answer some of these later in the day and the next few in a days or so too. Have some errands to run...

Blessings

Hi SeekingSanctuary,

I have all of the same questions you do and am in the same boat you are I think. The issues of covenant that you brought up are big things making me consider Deism at the moment, as they don't seem to have good answers. Jesus' sacrifice being necessary makes especially little sense if you don't believe in the Adam and Eve story or that sin is a force that physically entered humanity as opposed to just being part of human nature.

I'll be interested to see answers in this thread as well.

SeekingSanctuary wrote:Question on the Covenant number 1: Why was Jesus’s Death REALLY necessary?
The issue boils down to this: God is omnipotent, correct? Literally all things are within his power, that’s the point of omnipotence. So, here’s the issue: couldn’t he not create a solution that did not involve everyone suffering vs His Son’s suffering? I looked a little into this, and so far none of the arguments I’ve found made rational sense to me. They all involve some limitations being set on God. For instance, the one that comes the closest to logical is that sins are a criminal act that push us from God and must be punished. Jesus took on that punishment. Problem solved. Except, why couldn’t God simply forgive? Why did He set things up like that to begin with? In a nutshell, why did He build a universe were he knew that His son would have to die?

Question on the Covenant number 2: Jesus’s crucifixion was equal to the suffering in Hell of everyone?
Yeah, not to make light of the sacrifice, but, hasn’t this ever seemed weird to anyone? Your sins would put you in Hell for all eternity, but crucifixion then dead for three days equals that? Now multiply your eternity by how many others have been saved. I feel guilty even asking this one, but I need to understand this. So, how can any temporary suffering equal an eternity of torment?

Both of these questions are answered here

SeekingSanctuary wrote:Question on the Covenant number 3: This deal sounds awesome, where was it thousands of years ago?

The OT saints were given the chance to partake of this deal like everyone else. What makes you think they didn't?

SeekingSanctuary wrote:If this Covenant was coming, why even bother with the old one? It is was His plan all along, correct? Why not just open the deal up as soon as Adam screwed things up?

Good question. Along the same line of thought, why even bother with Adam and Eve? Why the fall? Why not create a perfect world? Volumes have been written on the subject but the short answer is two-fold, 1) love entails free will (choice), and 2) God did create a perfect world we can all partake of, but not in this realm.

SeekingSanctuary wrote:It is the same God, He is unchanging. This wasn’t an upgrade with newly designed tech, or a software patch to add in a new cheat code, this was the known solution from the beginning. Basically: If God had a way to live with our current form of forgiveness, why not utilize it from the beginning?

Same as above.

SeekingSanctuary wrote:Less important question, before the crucifixion, what criteria was involved in picking your final destination?

Same as after. Like I said, the OT saints were given the opportunity to be saved through Christ like everyone else.

SeekingSanctuary wrote:Question about faith: Why is it so important to prayer?
Jesus talks about how important faith is in praying, mentioning it when he withered the fig tree. So, later, a child possessed by a demon shows up needing to be healed. The Apostles, who are previously acknowledged able to take out a demon are unable too, Jesus explains this is because of weak faith. Then He does it. Wait, what? The uselessness of a Faithless prayer was also mentioned in the Book of James. I even heard it used to explain the Iron Chariots problem in the Book of Judges (this is in the first two chapters, its infamous so I think you’re all familiar. If I’m wrong, please tell me). Soo… this leads to an interesting question, why is faith so important? Let’s say a child who is desperate prays over his mother’s deathbed. Naturally he is scared, confused, and doesn’t have much faith. Will his prayer not be answered because of this? If not, why? It seems kind of cruel to choose not too, God is merciful. However, if God can’t do it without us having faith (which the Bible has countless miracles to show us that no, this isn’t a limiting factor, at least not always), then why not?

This is the classical confusion on the nature of prayer and what it actually is and what it's supposed to do. Suffice it to say that God is not a soda dispensing machine where you put a prayer in, and out pops a fulfilled wish. Prayers are meant to bring us closer to God and to one another as a community.

SeekingSanctuary wrote:Question about the Prophecies and Jesus: Did the OT ever actually say he was supposed to come twice? I ask because the Messiah in Judaism seems like he is only supposed to come once as a ruler. It seems weird that if this wasn’t the case, God wouldn’t make this clear. It certainly would have made things easier on Christ to convert people if they expected him to be more like a lowly prophet then a king on a throne.

Lol, if he was prophesied to come once and they still didn't believe, do you really think they would've believed if he were prophesied to come twice? Imagine what they would be saying right about now: "see, we told you he wasn't the Christ, he only came once so he didn't fulfill the prophecies". Sorry, but that's just a silly question as you can construct all kinds of questions and scenarios as to why people didn't and don't believe.

Let me begin with each question individually involving several frames to do so…

SeekingSanctuary wrote:Question on the Covenant number 1: Why was Jesus’s Death REALLY necessary?

The issue boils down to this: God is omnipotent, correct? Literally all things are within his power, that’s the point of omnipotence. So, here’s the issue: couldn't he not create a solution that did not involve everyone suffering vs His Son’s suffering? I looked a little into this, and so far none of the arguments I’ve found made rational sense to me. They all involve some limitations being set on God. For instance, the one that comes the closest to logical is that sins are a criminal act that push us from God and must be punished. Jesus took on that punishment. Problem solved. Except, why couldn't God simply forgive? Why did He set things up like that to begin with? In a nutshell, why did He build a universe were he knew that His son would have to die?

Answer: How would we know what sin really unless it is first exposed?

What event would be best for God to use to do this and in the process prove himself true to himself and nature?

I suggest that you read Matthew 26:47-75 and Matthew 27:1-45, then Luke 23:1-56. Ask yourself, who have you betrayed, plotted against, schemed, lied about in life? Who have you struck, beaten, mocked, put on trial in your mind? What relationships have been murdered and put to ruin – how so? How many times have you demanded God to perform for you or accused him that his ways are all wrong? What speech do you or have you used to accuse God and others of wrong? How do we all justify doing these things to each other and God? Now read this principle found in Matthew 25:40…

That is sin and for that, Jesus went to the cross, exposing it in a manner that transcends time and, yes, cultures. He did that for you and I. Oh what Love would do that? Come into this mixed up world of crazy families, pride, hurt, woes to reveal the true nature of sin the way He did? Displaying that God’s profound love is true by going into the depths to rescue those lost in enslaving all consuming sin by a cross!

God did this work for us, paying the price of that death sentence for us who simply believe in Him and thus will be set free from the nature of sin within by His work/hand alone…

How would we know God if not for the cross and what He accomplished? Remember, Jesus is both 100% God and 100% Man – the second person of the Divine Trinity – the Word – the Messenger YHWH of God’s one essence. That God would go to such lengths to wake us up to what sin really is and does dealing with it, paying the price and the debt we could never pay to be redeemed from sin’s dark hold that robs, murders, destroys all it touches…

What other way could He do so? Can you not see how your point made after your question, in some degree puts God on trial seeking that He should have done it another way? What does that reveal to you?

Next two questions below:
-
-
-

Next Two Questions:

SeekingSanctuary wrote:Question on the Covenant number 2: Jesus’s crucifixion was equal to the suffering in Hell of everyone?

Yeah, not to make light of the sacrifice, but, hasn’t this ever seemed weird to anyone? Your sins would put you in Hell for all eternity, but crucifixion then dead for three days equals that? Now multiply your eternity by how many others have been saved. I feel guilty even asking this one, but I need to understand this. So, how can any temporary suffering equal an eternity of torment?

Isaiah 26:10 NKJV answers this. If all are allowed in the only upright land – heaven – heaven would be corrupted by the sin exposed by the cross mentioned in my answer to the first question.

There is no such thing as temporal sin.

What folks mistakenly do is assign the fruits of sin such as stealing adultery, etc as what sin is. But that is not sin but rather the fruits of sin. Sin was exposed during the events leading too and during the cross. It is for that reason Jesus conquered it for us who believe and are then what – sanctified during this mortal sojourn by whom – the third person of the Divine Trinity – the Holy Spirit sent to establish.

Why the three days? This is mostly lost but according to OT law it takes three witnesses to put to death a criminal. Next, Three represents the number denoting completion – sealing a matter in this case. Again one God in his full essence did what for us who place our trust in His grace (Jesus) on the third day? No wonder the Holy Spirit was sent… sealing us as Ephesians 1:13, 14 so states, think about it… Three, the Father’s decree satisfied, the Son’s work completed, the Holy Spirit’s resurrecting power unleashed. Reject this and with what judgment seals a person? Accept his work and what judgment seals one as his?

Would you, the reader, like to be His own or demand that you can’t believe in a God who holds people truly accountable for their sin – that sin that would corrupt heaven? Demanding one’s own ways over God’s? What manner of three fold judgment awaits you?

People send themselves to hell for their own reasons.

I suggest to the readers, don’t send yourself there. God made humanity to be eternal. The bible teaches this. God is a God of the living and not the dead. He would violate his gift of life to humanity to utterly annihilate them into non-existence and thus go against his own word and promises if he did so. This he will not do. So as Matthew 25:41 states, a holding center was made for those enslaved to sin (note the principle stated in Isaiah 24:22 and Revelation chapter Twenty).

It is true as Job 34:11 and Galatians 6:7 states – God renders to each person according to his or her own ways and if found controlled by, sold out to sin exposed by the cross – well – so be it then. You really want an unredeemed person living next door in heaven to you? You think they could change in heaven – how could they if they will not behold the majesty of the Lord but instead seek to manipulate it for their gain as proven by how they lived on earth? The proverbs states a dog returns to its own vomit… Those that reject His ways here on earth will do so in heaven. This God will not allow… Amen

SeekingSanctuary wrote:Question on the Covenant number 3: This deal sounds awesome, where was it thousands of years ago?

If this Covenant was coming, why even bother with the old one? It is was His plan all along, correct? Why not just open the deal up as soon as Adam screwed things up? It is the same God, He is unchanging. This wasn’t an upgrade with newly designed tech, or a software patch to add in a new cheat code, this was the known solution from the beginning. Basically: If God had a way to live with our current form of forgiveness, why not utilize it from the beginning? Less important question, before the crucifixion, what criteria was involved in picking your final destination?

See answers to question one and add this:

Since God renders to a person a reward for their own ways then how could he pick one’s final domain without one’s full consent?

You comments are more in line against the Hyper Calvinist doctrine and not based upon scripture. Which declares that God judges with equity, truth, righteousness as Psalms 96:13 and Psalms 98:9 NKJV reveal.

As for the Old Covenant it is written in Romans 7 that by it, we learn about sin, and it defines the fruit of sin. That needed to come first or how could God really judge with equity?

There needed a New Covenant of Grace that deals a death blow to sin and its ruler opening the door of reconciliation wide to those who place their faith and trust in the law givers death, Jesus Christ. That death exposed sin, paid the full penalty for it, and resurrection power to new life to overcome it.

The other questions forth coming but enough for now…
-
-
-

As for the Old Covenant it is written in Romans 7 that by it, we learn about sin, and it defines the fruit of sin. That needed to come first or how could God really judge with equity?

There needed a New Covenant of Grace that deals a death blow to sin and its ruler opening the door of reconciliation wide to those who place their faith and trust in the law givers death, Jesus Christ. That death exposed sin, paid the full penalty for it, and resurrection power to new life to overcome it.

First, I always love your posts. They are always full of useful info and I haven't even scratched these yet, sadly. I promise I will get to them. I do appreciate the work you put into them.

Second, I don't think I was specific enough here. I wasn't questioning the purpose of the LAW. Me and you have had that discussion before and thanks to you I understand that a lot better (really, thanks). However this was more focused on the other bits and pieces, like animal sacrifice. I really don't get this (sadly pretty ignorant here), I have always heard that it was either a temporary forgiveness for sins or a representation of Christ to come. Which is right? Or is it both/neither? This is the kind of thing I'm struggling with.

SeekingSanctuary wrote:

As for the Old Covenant it is written in Romans 7 that by it, we learn about sin, and it defines the fruit of sin. That needed to come first or how could God really judge with equity?

There needed a New Covenant of Grace that deals a death blow to sin and its ruler opening the door of reconciliation wide to those who place their faith and trust in the law givers death, Jesus Christ. That death exposed sin, paid the full penalty for it, and resurrection power to new life to overcome it.

First, I always love your posts. They are always full of useful info and I haven't even scratched these yet, sadly. I promise I will get to them. I do appreciate the work you put into them.

Second, I don't think I was specific enough here. I wasn't questioning the purpose of the LAW. Me and you have had that discussion before and thanks to you I understand that a lot better (really, thanks). However this was more focused on the other bits and pieces, like animal sacrifice. I really don't get this (sadly pretty ignorant here), I have always heard that it was either a temporary forgiveness for sins or a representation of Christ to come. Which is right? Or is it both/neither? This is the kind of thing I'm struggling with.

Okay, looks like I misunderstood your law question...

How deep an answer would you like?

Make it simple - foreshadowing the need of God's intervention to be free from the rule of sin is one reason. Another reason: to point to Jesus Christ, the divine God-man as that intervention (Isaiah 53:1-12, Romans 5:15,18.

As for temporary forgiveness of sins - what does the bible say to you about that:

Heb 10:1-4, "For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." NKJV

Sounds.....what... to you?

There is not just one easy answer but several to what you asked, hope this helps...
-
-
-

Would you, the reader, like to be His own or demand that you can’t believe in a God who holds people truly accountable for their sin – that sin that would corrupt heaven? Demanding one’s own ways over God’s? What manner of three fold judgment awaits you?

Like I said, I'm working through these slowly.

I never said that it was unsatisfactory. I never wanted to imply it did not meet some lofty standards, if it came across that way I am sorry.

It is more like a kid in math class watching a teacher do a long math problem, wondering why you would carry the two or something. I'm trying to 'get' it.

The question stems from my thoughts about what an atheist might say about the Bible. I've spoken to some, this hasn't came up yet, but when I think of it I have no answer. How does three days on a cross make up for the evils I have done? Don't get me wrong I am thankful for it, very much so. Its just, what would I say to that?

Add to that, most things in the Bible I can find a logic to it. Either the event is similar to something else that I can relate too, or there are very legitimate reasons that would be obvious until later. But here I've got nothing.

I have a theory or two. None seem Biblical to me that I know of. I was hoping someone could point me in the right direction for what I can actually say.

B. W. wrote:

SeekingSanctuary wrote:

As for the Old Covenant it is written in Romans 7 that by it, we learn about sin, and it defines the fruit of sin. That needed to come first or how could God really judge with equity?

There needed a New Covenant of Grace that deals a death blow to sin and its ruler opening the door of reconciliation wide to those who place their faith and trust in the law givers death, Jesus Christ. That death exposed sin, paid the full penalty for it, and resurrection power to new life to overcome it.

First, I always love your posts. They are always full of useful info and I haven't even scratched these yet, sadly. I promise I will get to them. I do appreciate the work you put into them.

Second, I don't think I was specific enough here. I wasn't questioning the purpose of the LAW. Me and you have had that discussion before and thanks to you I understand that a lot better (really, thanks). However this was more focused on the other bits and pieces, like animal sacrifice. I really don't get this (sadly pretty ignorant here), I have always heard that it was either a temporary forgiveness for sins or a representation of Christ to come. Which is right? Or is it both/neither? This is the kind of thing I'm struggling with.

Okay, looks like I misunderstood your law question...

How deep an answer would you like?

Make it simple - foreshadowing the need of God's intervention to be free from the rule of sin is one reason. Another reason: to point to Jesus Christ, the divine God-man as that intervention (Isaiah 53:1-12, Romans 5:15,18.

As for temporary forgiveness of sins - what does the bible say to you about that:

Heb 10:1-4, "For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." NKJV

Sounds.....what... to you?

There is not just one easy answer but several to what you asked, hope this helps...
-
-
-

Don't worry, I'm the one who should have been much more clear. My fault, not yours.

So, to me the verse says that the animal sacrifice was a weaker substitute of what was to come. They only had any effect of what they represented and what they made people think of/remember what was promised to come. Is this even half right?

Thanks for explaining it. I had heard it was a representation of Christ before, but not much in the way Biblical example so I wasn't sure. I've heard a lot of nonbiblical stuff over the years, and its hard to separate fact from bull.

That's covers most of the important part of it, a few minor questions which are far less important.

I know that in different situations different animals were used, was this ever explained?