God, justice, fairness and perfection

[Justin108]

For this debate, I need you to answer each of these questions in order.

1. Is God perfectly fair and just?

2. If God is not perfectly fair and just, does that mean God is by definition imperfect?

3. Does everyone have an equal chance in getting into heaven?

4. If everyone does not have an equal chance in getting into heaven, is God still perfectly fair and just?

[ttruscott]

- Did we witness God himself create the universe BEFORE making our supposed "free will decision" to follow him? You have said before that God did not prove himself until AFTER we made our decision. If this is the case then we have a very good excuse - which is God proved himself too late.

Of course it was after. If a person said: "Chose me as your creator GOD or perish but first look at this!" and then created the whole physical universe before our eyes, which way would you go? No one would go against HIM EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO because the perishing would have been proven.

PROOF BEFORE A DECISION DESTROYS FREE WILL.

Backup: Job 38:7 proves people were there at that occasion so why not us as I have said.

Job 38:7 "while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"
How does this prove that people were there on that occasion?

Do you not think that morning stars and Sons of God praising HIM does not refer to people because they are usually called angels? Angels refers to their job as messenger and the angels have names just like you do... if they are not people what are they?

Sheol and Tartarus, the place of the waiting spirits (often called the dead because they have no bodies), were built into the earth in its depths.

Scripture?

Numbers 16:33 So they and all that belonged to them went down alive to Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.

Twenty-two times the Bible speaks of going down or descending into Sheol. Matthew 12:40 "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth". The term "heart" refers to the core or center of the earth....Jesus went to Sheol/Hades in the heart of the earth as per Eph 4:9 Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? I conclude then that Sheol/Hades is located in the heart of the earth or the lower part of the earth.

You also need to demonstrate why it is that believing with proof is somehow being robbed of free will.

Done in my last post on this topic just before this one.

Only now could GOD begin to eradicate evil from all of creation by the redemption and sanctification of HIS sinful elect and the banishment of the eternally evil reprobate to the outer darkness.

This part I don't get at all. You claim that our rejection of God's claim to have created the universe (this is prior to his proving that he did) somehow gave birth to evil. How? I can't imagine this happening.

God: "...and so that's how I created the universe"
Man: "I don't know...sounds a bit far fetched. Woah! Anyone else have this sudden urge to sin?"

How exactly did this birth sin?

This effort is too messed up, I never said or implied any of the bolded parts - I'm out of here...

[Justin108]

- Did we witness God himself create the universe BEFORE making our supposed "free will decision" to follow him? You have said before that God did not prove himself until AFTER we made our decision. If this is the case then we have a very good excuse - which is God proved himself too late.

Of course it was after. If a person said: "Chose me as your creator GOD or perish but first look at this!" and then created the whole physical universe before our eyes, which way would you go? No one would go against HIM EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO because the perishing would have been proven.

PROOF BEFORE A DECISION DESTROYS FREE WILL.

Then Rom 1:20 cannot be used to support this

Rom 1:20 For since/FROM the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has [ed: just] been made, so that they are without excuse.

...clearly seen...so they are without excuse

If we only "clearly saw" AFTER we made our choice then we have a very good excuse, namely that we had no proof as our decision was being made. Rom 1:20 is pretty clear. Because you saw what you saw, you have no excuse.

...But you only saw it after you made the decision, so I see no connection with "you saw" and "you have no excuse". This would only make sense if we saw first, then made the wrong choice. THEN we would have no excuse, because his divinity was made obvious.


As for

No one would go against HIM EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO because the perishing would have been proven.

PROOF BEFORE A DECISION DESTROYS FREE WILL

I address this in post 59


Our choices may have been coerced, true. There may be some who follow God out of cowardice instead of desire for justice, but wouldn't an omniscient god be able to tell the difference between the sincere and the cowardly? If I follow god only because I fear him but not because I seek justice, god would know and judge me for it. But if I truly seek justice, god would know.

Your version, however, allows for the justice-seeking skeptic to be punished for his skepticism. Why? Why is simply not believing a claim evil?

Your version also allows for the gullible coward to be rewarded for his gullibility. What if someone who does not seek justice but who is still too afraid to go against the claims of this god decides to follow him?

Your theology suggests gullibility is the ultimate good while rational skepticism is the ultimate evil. I simply cannot agree with that.

Job 38:7 "while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"
How does this prove that people were there on that occasion?

Do you not think that morning stars and Sons of God praising HIM does not refer to people because they are usually called angels? Angels refers to their job as messenger and the angels have names just like you do... if they are not people what are they?

Dogs have names too. Angels are angels. If you make the claim that angels are humans then you will have to support that claim.

You also need to demonstrate why it is that believing with proof is somehow being robbed of free will.

Done in my last post on this topic just before this one.

If proof robs us of free will then free will can only truly be expressed in random guess work. If a claim is 100% free of any proof whatsoever, we can only guess if something is true or not. There is no logical alternative.

Our guesses may be motivated by appealing claims such as "believe me and you will have eternal life", but isn't this also robbing us of free will? Wouldn't our choices be "coerced" by our desire to have eternal life?

Only now could GOD begin to eradicate evil from all of creation by the redemption and sanctification of HIS sinful elect and the banishment of the eternally evil reprobate to the outer darkness.

This part I don't get at all. You claim that our rejection of God's claim to have created the universe (this is prior to his proving that he did) somehow gave birth to evil. How? I can't imagine this happening.

God: "...and so that's how I created the universe"
Man: "I don't know...sounds a bit far fetched. Woah! Anyone else have this sudden urge to sin?"

How exactly did this birth sin?

This effort is too messed up, I never said or implied any of the bolded parts - I'm out of here...

This is how I understood your point. If I am wrong, then excuse me. It is a rather...unique doctrine, you must admit. So you can either correct me, or (as you seem to prefer) you can run the other way. If you opt for the latter, then so be it. Your doctrine remains unsupported. You can assume I'm being insincere, but this is genuinely how I interpreted your claims. If I misunderstood them, please, by all means, correct me. You have claimed that our rejection of God led to our sinful nature, have you not? I simply lack understanding as to how it transpired.

On a different topic you stated...

I find most of this to be an agreeable summation of Christian reality...but not all. Yes, being sin free is actually impossible for humans without the grace of GOD. Yes, sin is part of our human nature.

NO HE DID NOT CREATE us this way with this nature because such a doctrine flies in the face of HIM creating us to join HIM in a true free will marriage. Free will is destroyed by sin so all our sin is self chosen, not a part of our creation. Only those who have chosen by their free will before the foundation of the world to be sinful in HIS sight are sent to live on the earth, that is, only sinners are born on earth so that is why all humans have a sinful nature and are born sinful, and not because of any blasphemy about HIM creating us this way in Adam.

This is what I don't understand. You claim our rejection of god somehow gave birth to our sinful nature. How? I am sincere in this confusion. I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm trying to explain to you why I don't understand your theology.

[JLB32168]

This has nothing to do with belief.

Huh?? Of course it has to do with belief – Christian belief, specifically Eastern Orthodox belief that A) all wo/men are created in God’s Image and Likeness regardless of their faith and B) all wo/men, because they are created in God’s Image and Likeness, possess a moral agency like God’s. They are able to determine if an action is good or evil. If they are invincibly ignorant, which means they never have the opportunity to hear the Gospel message, then Eastern Orthodox belief is that they will not be judged according to the Gospel but according to the truth they did receive – that existing in the conscience made in God’s Image and Likeness. Those who have the Gospel also have God’s Image and Likeness; however, they have more truth than the invincibly ignorant and will be judged by a higher standard, which is biblical – “To Whom Much Is Given, Much Will Be Required.�

What criteria do you follow in order to establish that someone has indeed received a revelation from God? If a man claims God spoke to him, do you immediately believe him?

I use the criteria of the Church as decided in council, which was precedent established in Jerusalem by the Apostles. I don’t hear a person if s/he deviates from previously determined doctrine/dogma that She (the Church) has proclaimed.

Not my theology. I'm an atheist. This is the Christian theology at face value without any unjustified alternate interpretation.

Perhaps that is sola scriptura Christian theology at face value but it isn’t Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian theology, which does not hold that Scripture is the only source of Christian revelation but only a part of it.

It's simple; if God did not plan on damning the unbelieving, God would not have mentioned it several times throughout the Bible. Ignoring this fact is simply dishonest.

And what logical process did you use to determine “The Bible doesn’t say X; therefore, X isn’t correct?� I have a feeling that it will be a conclusion entailed by at least one premise that is just as debatable as the conclusion – an example of begging the question. We both know that such conclusions are illogical since they’re informed by at least one false premise or the premise is merely a restatement of the conclusion you’re trying to prove.\
Let’s have the syllogism you used to arrive at the conclusion that [C] God would have mentioned it several times throughout the Bible if God didn’t desire to damn the unbelieving – invincible ignorance notwithstanding.

So basically your "support" is "because my Church Fathers said so". This is nothing but an appeal to authority.

The appeal to authority is valid if the authority is/are experts in the field being discussed, Dude. Prove the Church Fathers weren’t experts in the field and your point will have merit.

Unless you can give me actual reason for believing that your Church Fathers received revelation from God, then you cannot use them as support.

I can’t prove that God exists to how am I supposed to prove the Church Fathers received revelation from Him? When we debate these things we have to allow the hypothetical possibility that God exists and that He reveals things to men. Thus far you’ve made such an allowance in citing Scripture and arguing that it teaches the damning of all unbelievers regardless of their ability to hear the Gospel; furthermore, you’re asserting that the Bible is the only source for Christian revelation as revealed by this hypothetical deity that might exist. You can’t then turn around and say that someone else cannot also say that God might have revealed things to the Church Fathers in council. Instead, you must logically exclude that possibility using all evidence at your disposal.
And of course, all of this presupposes that a deity exists. If it doesn’t then all bets are off.

Appeal to authority

What evidence have you provided that the hypothetical Christian deity said he would only speak through Scripture? Crying “Fallacy!� when you bear an equal burden of proof is comical.

I am not bailing because I disagree with you. I am "bailing" because you offer no actual argument other than your opinion and an appeal to authority.

Again, the fact that you assert that the Bible is the sole revelation of a hypothetical deity (when the Bible clearly doesn’t say that), but accuse someone else of presenting no argument, is comical.

[JLB32168]

Do we? Everyone? Terrorists and other fundamentalists don't want to kill the fatherless?

People can deceive themselves. Even terrorists have a sense of what is fair and what is unfair.

Seems this is more of a modern concept than a eternal one. Meaning, for many ancient people, it was 'all for me' - it was about individual survival first, family came later.

You’re suggesting that all through the ages that the majority of people haven’t felt any sense of what’s right and what’s wrong that all norms and mores have been in a state of flux. Hinduism is one of the oldest religions in the world and it has taught the concept of Karma for millennia – what goes around comes around. That suggests that the concept of empathy – that one should do good if s/he wishes to receive a good reward – has been a common theme throughout all societies since the beginning of recorded history.
Why should we conclude that this moral agency appeared by fiat from out of nowhere?

[Justin108]

This has nothing to do with belief.

Huh?? Of course it has to do with belief – Christian belief, specifically Eastern Orthodox belief that A) all wo/men are created in God’s Image and Likeness regardless of their faith and B) all wo/men, because they are created in God’s Image and Likeness, possess a moral agency like God’s. They are able to determine if an action is good or evil. If they are invincibly ignorant, which means they never have the opportunity to hear the Gospel message, then Eastern Orthodox belief is that they will not be judged according to the Gospel but according to the truth they did receive – that existing in the conscience made in God’s Image and Likeness. Those who have the Gospel also have God’s Image and Likeness; however, they have more truth than the invincibly ignorant and will be judged by a higher standard, which is biblical – “To Whom Much Is Given, Much Will Be Required.�

Their moral agency has nothing to do with their belief. That is what I mean by "this has nothing to do with belief". Mark, John and Revelations talk about BELIEF. The moral agency of these people fall outside of what Mark, John and Revelations mean when they refer to non-believers.

What criteria do you follow in order to establish that someone has indeed received a revelation from God? If a man claims God spoke to him, do you immediately believe him?

I use the criteria of the Church as decided in council, which was precedent established in Jerusalem by the Apostles. I don’t hear a person if s/he deviates from previously determined doctrine/dogma that She (the Church) has proclaimed.

You'll need to be more specific. What are the criteria established by the Church as decided in council?

Not my theology. I'm an atheist. This is the Christian theology at face value without any unjustified alternate interpretation.

Perhaps that is sola scriptura Christian theology at face value but it isn’t Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian theology, which does not hold that Scripture is the only source of Christian revelation but only a part of it.

And the rest is what your Church Fathers say? You still need to explain why they hold authority over what is considered true.

It's simple; if God did not plan on damning the unbelieving, God would not have mentioned it several times throughout the Bible. Ignoring this fact is simply dishonest.

And what logical process did you use to determine “The Bible doesn’t say X; therefore, X isn’t correct?� I have a feeling that it will be a conclusion entailed by at least one premise that is just as debatable as the conclusion – an example of begging the question. We both know that such conclusions are illogical since they’re informed by at least one false premise or the premise is merely a restatement of the conclusion you’re trying to prove.\
Let’s have the syllogism you used to arrive at the conclusion that [C] God would have mentioned it several times throughout the Bible if God didn’t desire to damn the unbelieving – invincible ignorance notwithstanding.

Suppose I wanted the Bible to allow murder. Unfortunately, it doesn't. However, if I used your method, include an exception to the rule never before mentioned and just assume that God is fine with this exception.

So your method looks like this:
The Bible says the unbelieving is damned.
I don't want it to damn ALL unbelieving, so I'm assuming God makes an exception for the "invincibly ignorant"
My assumption that this exclusion exists is enough to then conclude that God damns the unbelieving...as long as they are not invincibly ignorant.

Now let's try this method again:
The Bible says murder is wrong.
I don't want murder to ALWAYS be wrong, so I'm assuming God makes an exception for Justin Bieber.
My assumption that this exclusion (murder is wrong unless you murder Justin Bieber) exists is enough to conclude that murder is wrong...unless you murder Justin Bieber.


As for my syllogism:
God mentions the damning of the unbelieving several times throughout the Bible.
God does not once mention an exception to this rule.
Therefore, it is unjustified to assume there is an exception

Why do you suppose God failed to mention an exception? If there is an exception to this rule and if we are free to interject exceptions to God's rules, where else can we add exceptions? The fact that the vast majority of the "unbelieving" falls into the "invincibly ignorant" catagory. It makes no sense for the Bible to then skip this exception if this isn't really an exception at all but rather a norm. Why would the Bible repeatedly mention "the unbelieving" which at the time was the vast majority of the world if "the unbelieving" only refers to a hand full of the unbelieving while the rest get leeway for being "invincibly ignorant"? You just assume too much in the face of what has clearly been said repeadedly with no justification other than an appeal to your Church Fathers.

Lastly, how exactly do you define "invincibly ignorant"? Are the invincibly ignorant those who have never heard the Bible? If so, how much of the Bible must one hear to no longer be invincibly ignorant? If I read the Bible once over to someone in India, would he immediately stop being invincibly ignorant and suddenly become a bonafide unbeliever who is then subject to judgement for his lack of belief?

So basically your "support" is "because my Church Fathers said so". This is nothing but an appeal to authority.

The appeal to authority is valid if the authority is/are experts in the field being discussed, Dude. Prove the Church Fathers weren’t experts in the field and your point will have merit.

Oh is that how it works? Okay. I know this one scientist that says there is no god. He's an expect in the field of science, so I guess he's automatically right. Wow and all this time I've been wasting my time with "arguments". Silly me

Unless you can give me actual reason for believing that your Church Fathers received revelation from God, then you cannot use them as support.

I can’t prove that God exists to how am I supposed to prove the Church Fathers received revelation from Him? When we debate these things we have to allow the hypothetical possibility that God exists and that He reveals things to men. Thus far you’ve made such an allowance in citing Scripture and arguing that it teaches the damning of all unbelievers regardless of their ability to hear the Gospel; furthermore, you’re asserting that the Bible is the only source for Christian revelation as revealed by this hypothetical deity that might exist. You can’t then turn around and say that someone else cannot also say that God might have revealed things to the Church Fathers in council.

I never said "prove". I said "give me a reason".

How many hypotheticals should I allow you in order for you to have a position? If you said that you yourself spoke to God, should I just go with it? You are setting impossible standards. If I am to allow the hypothetical that you know someone who spoke to God just because you say so, then what is the point of debating? You can simply pull the "this guy spoke to God, so he's right and you're wrong".

I gave you enough hypotheticals. God hypothetically exists. The Bible hypothetically is the product of divine intervention. God CAN hypothetically still reveal himself to modern man, but this is where that hypothetical ends. You need to give me a reason (not necessarily proof) that God did in fact reveal himself to your Church Fathers.

What if I countered your claim to revelation with the claim to revelation of a different group? If you can claim your Church holds authority because the leaders have received revelation from God, then how do you respons with the Mormon or Muslim claim to devine revelation in their religions?

Instead, you must logically exclude that possibility using all evidence at your disposal.

Wrong. You made the claim. The purden of proof is on you.

And of course, all of this presupposes that a deity exists. If it doesn’t then all bets are off.

Yes. I gave you that much, but now you ask for more and more assumptions in order for your position to hold any merit. Doesn't that show you how weak your position is?

Appeal to authority

What evidence have you provided that the hypothetical Christian deity said he would only speak through Scripture? Crying “Fallacy!� when you bear an equal burden of proof is comical.

I never said he speaks only through scripture. But you also can't just assume that anyone who claims God spoke to them is automatically right. The Bible makes plenty of mention of false prophets.

So God speaks to modern man? Okay. Now how do we distinguish between who God actually spoke to, and who simply claims God spoke to them.

The fact of the matter is there are SO many denominations that if God spoke to all of them, it would not make any sense as to why they hold so many different doctrines. To argue that the Church Fathers is one of few to actually receive revelation from God needs to have at least some justification. If God did speak to the Church Fathers of the Eastern Orthodox, then what about all the other denominations?

What "equal burden of proof" do I have?

I am not bailing because I disagree with you. I am "bailing" because you offer no actual argument other than your opinion and an appeal to authority.

Again, the fact that you assert that the Bible is the sole revelation of a hypothetical deity (when the Bible clearly doesn’t say that), but accuse someone else of presenting no argument, is comical.

I did not assert that. But any revelation outside of the Bible needs some justification for why you believe this revelation came from God.



You know what? Let's make this much much simpler. My OP deals with the notion that God is unfair if we all do not have an equal chance to receive salvation. Let's scrap the matter of unbelief and focus instead on the issue of the death of newborns.

I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that all newborns that die go directly to heaven. Am I right in this assumption?
If this is the case, those who die as newborns have an unfair advantage as it becomes impossible for them to end up in hell.
If newborns have an unfair advantage, then God is not fair.

Can you refute this argument? Excuse the morbid topic but it perfectly illustrates my point

[bluethread]

"What's fair is fair" is literally circular reasoning and actually an appeal to common sense. Both of those are fallacies. Special pleading is only a fallacy if there is no significant difference. If you will look back, you might notice that I addressed your appeal to morality and justice. I am specifically questioning whether all morality and justice must be egalitarian. Do you contest the fact that what is moral for a dog is different than what is moral for a man, or is that a special pleading?

The unfortunate reality is that morality is not objective. A dog would have a different morality, yes, but this is a result of a secular world view. A world view in which morality is supposedly objective, which is the typical theistic position, there would be no different morality. Right and wrong would be set in stone.[/quote]

Can you name one theist that believes that dogs are subject to human morality?

Again, however, this is not a debate on morality. This topic addresses fairness specifically. In the case of fairness, it is the same for a dog as it is for a man. If one dog is killed off for being weak, it would not be fair. From a natural morality stance, it might not be immoral within the pack to kill off the weakest member but it would still not be fair. Fair is far more universal than morality in general.

Again, this debate isn't whether God is moral in general, it is whether God is fair.

If by fair you mean equitable, as wiki defines it, how is that not equitable. A weak dog is not equivalent to a strong one. If a dog has to die, why not the weak one?

If you are asking why Adonai would require us to have a morality that does not apply to Him, I think I made that clear. It is the same as us not only recognizing that dogs have a morality that is different than our own, but requiring it.

The difference is that we did not implant a dog's moral understanding. In the theistic world view, our moral understanding comes from God. God placed a sense of instrinsic moral understanding within all of us. That is the origin of guilt and why most would agree that murder is wrong. This is all implanted into us by God (within the theistic paradigm of course). If God implanted in us a sense of fairness and an understanding that fair is good, why would he do so if he himself did not agree that fair is good? Why would he have us believe in a false moral principle?

Oh, you are talking about feelings. There are a lot of things that I feel are unfair. Personally, I don't think it is fair that Taylor Swift is not my wife. Is Adonai to be blamed for the fact that I feel that way?

If you are asking why egalitarianism is not part of the morality that Adonai applies to man, I would say that you are incorrect regarding that being a universal human morality. Many moral codes do not accept egalitarianism. Does that make them unjust or imperfect? You seem to think so, but that does not make it so.

I gave up debating morality years ago. It's a lost cause. There simply is no pure rational argument for why ANYTHING is immoral that does not either come down to appeal to common sense or circular reasoning. This is, however, true for everything in the larger scheme. How can I even argue for the existence of reality without circular reasoning or appeal to common sense?

It is a lost cause. Arguing why fairness is moral to you is about as useless as arguing why murder is wrong to someone who worships a murderous, sadistic god. Your world view is that what god says, goes.

That is why, again, I am NOT debating morality as a whole. I am debating fairness. Your position here is clear: God is not fair but he doesn't have to be. Okay great. If you believe that fairness is not a good thing then no amount of reasoning would persuade you otherwise because morality is simply not a reason-only topic. If fairness is not intrinsically evident to you as a moral good then we simply speak a different moral language that cannot be bridged by rational discussion.

I hereby conclude our debate; God is not fair. Do we both agree on this point?

I agree that Adonai is not as equitable as you feel He should be. However, nothing is truly equitable, because no two people are the same. So, fairness, like morality is dependent on the standard one uses. If it is based on how one feels, then not only does fairness mean different things to different people, it can mean different things to the same person, at different times. So, saying that a deity is not fair is pretty much meaningless, even if that deity is not considered fair by definition. By the way I never asserted that Adonai was fair by definition, in this discussion.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by JLB32168]

Christian theology teaches that He is and that while some occurrences might seem to question that fairness and justice it is only because we do not have all of the information that God has; therefore, some inscrutable summum bonum exists for why these enigmatic things could accomplish the highest good.

How is it you can call these occurrences 'fair and just' when you admit you lack the necessary information?

[ttruscott]

Job 38:7 "while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" There is no mention of sheol here so I'm not sure what you mean

What does that matter? My point is that people were singing GOD's praise for the creation of the physical world implying the spirits were created before the universe so they could see it.

No no no, ANGELS were singing God's praise, not people.

Since your assertion is stated so strongly, I request that you provide your proof that angels are not people (individual self aware spirits) made in the image of GOD who are with HIM working a messengers - the meaning of angel - rather than on earth in a body. People does not refer to just humans, eh?

I contend that using the definition of the word angel as a job description rather than a race of beings is more acceptable than your leap of faith.

Why not us?

Because the text doesn't say anything about us.

It does if we are either the morning stars or the Sons of GOD.

To Sow does not mean to create since the devil does it also and no one thinks he can create people so it must mean to move from a place of storage to a place of growth.

Storage? Not necessarily. If anything, the fact that souls were sown onto Earth suggests, or rather clearly indicates, that the Earth was already there. Whether the souls came before earth or whether the earth came before the souls is a chicken-or-the-egg debate.

I clearly said that people came first, then the earth, then the movement of sinners to sheol in the centre of the earth and then some moved up to the surface to inhabit human bodies.

Your version
Creation of souls > Creation of Earth > Sowing
...Is just as likely as
Creation of Earth > Creation of souls > Sowing

Just because God "sowed" the souls after making them does not mean that he necessarily made them prior to the existence of the Earth. All it suggests is that God made the souls in heaven, and then placed them on the Earth afterwards as opposed to directly creating us on earth.

My version is based upon created people witnessing the creation of the whole of physical reality with no reason offered to prove this did not include the spirits of those who later were conceived as humans. People does not refer to just humans, eh?

It is also a theological necessity based upon the doctrine that only sinners are born on earth so their time of making free will decisions must have been pre-earth since I contend most strongly that GOD creating us as sinners by any means at all is blasphemy. All sin was created by the sinner choosing it by their free will and as enslaved to sin, no human has a free will unless GOD frees HIM from that addiction.

In other words, claiming we have free will and that there are two levels of sin is not enough support for your claim that we rejected God after an interaction with him in which he made a proposal to us

Support for my claim that we rejected God: (acknowledging that no verse is proof of any reality but only of Christian thought)

John 12:48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. proves Christians believe some have rejected HIM.

Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. implies that we are sinful at birth.

Genesis 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD. ...in which struggled is a biased rendering of the Hebrew which is 'to crush each other to pieces', a bias against our being evil in the womb as this suggests, that is, that we are conceived as evil.

Since I base all evil on the free will choice of the person, the only way that a person can be conceived as a sinner is if he made his free will decision pre-conception.

Support for my claim there were two levels of sin is found in the attribute of HIS self revealed loving nature which would ensure that IF anyone who could be saved from their addiction to sin and the consequences of sin they would be so saved implying that if any are not saved, their sin must have been of a different order or level that self created them as eternally sinful and unredeemable, that is, they are unable to be saved. In Christian terms this logic is inescapable unless HIS perfect love is denied.

Matt 13:38 ...the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the people of the kingdom; and the tares are the people of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil... as you know this to me suggests there are not only two levels of sin but we have been separated, that is we separated ourselves by our free will decisions, into these two camps before we are sown into the earth, that is, conceived as human. Sown cannot be created as the devil does it also.

John 3:18 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. suggests in line with Matt 13:38-39 that we come to earth already separated into those who are not condemned and those who are, two levels of sin.

[ttruscott]

All are born as sinners means that only self chosen sinners are born on earth

There's a giant leap. Why does being born a sinner automatically mean we chose to be sinners?

Answered post #24...

Maybe I'm blind or just otherwise ignorant, but could you highlight the part where being born a sinner automatically means you chose it yourself?

Sin in contrast to GOD's loving holiness proves we chose it our self...it is being conceived in sin that proves we must have chosen it pre-conception....ok?

Highlighted as per request:
Support for our free will: it is a necessary concept TO KEEP GOD AT ARM'S LENGTH FROM THE CREATION OF EVIL, to ensure the true guilt of sinners and to be able to fulfill the heavenly marriage since without free will both love and marriage are denied.

Sin can only be created by the free will choice of the sinner. Period: in a most Christian dogmatic fashion of belief though disputed by Calvinists.

[Jolly_Penguin]

Of course it was after. If a person said: "Chose me as your creator GOD or perish but first look at this!" and then created the whole physical universe before our eyes, which way would you go? No one would go against HIM EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO because the perishing would have been proven.

PROOF BEFORE A DECISION DESTROYS FREE WILL.

This is dead wrong. If you don't believe there is a genuine choice to be made, how can you make a genuine choice? Proof and believing the choice is real is a prerequisite for free will. There is no free will without such proof.

If what you say is true, and nobody will go against him given the real choice, then this is nothing but a test of one's ability, credulity or gullibility to believe the claim, and has nothing to do with whether or not the person will obey.