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]

But without an implanted moral compass, how should we know what is actually right and what is actually wrong? On what can we possibly base our decision if we have no moral compass? Without a moral compass, choosing between right and wrong becomes guesswork.

Hardly guesswork when three persons who claim to be your Creator GOD tell you exactly what is right and what is wrong and asks you to choose which you think is best for you while explaining the full consequences of choosing each option.

You got to choose which definition of right and wrong you wanted to live by, the so called right way that GOD is right and anything against HIM is wrong or that HE is not right (that is, not GOD or even a god at all) and there is no wrong except what your and your friends decide is to be called wrong.

A choice as to which is best for you without any understanding of the options is not a choice but a guess. A decision to put your faith, your hope, in a particular definition of right and wrong with a full understanding of the consequences is not a guess, but a choice about which definition you really really want to live under.

Before anyone (but Satan) chose they all knew YHWH's definition of right and wrong, and Satan's also as the first off the block to dispute YHWH's definitions. Satan knew YHWH's definitions and he knew his own feelings about this definition that it must be wrong as it left no room for him to be equal with or better than the Three Persons of GOD.

So we didn't decide what was right or wrong so much as we chose which definition of right or wrong we most wanted to live under to achieve the most happiness in our lifetime.

Background on the definition of free will...a FREE will cannot be coerced by anything, anything in our created nature or any outside force nor constrained from any available option by anything in our created nature or by any outside force.

A created nature knowing right from wrong would force some (all) to choose only the right way thus denying us a free will. Since I have demonstrated that Christians must accept that we had a free will when we became sinners (unless you deny GOD's loving holiness) I am willing to say that we got to choose by our free will which definition of right or wrong we wanted to live under, YHWH as GOD or YHWH as a false god, a liar.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 52 by Justin108]

Another hole in your theology that I'm picking up is your belief that we suppress our own memory. You have said yourself that it is not God but ourselves that cause us to lose our memory.

Such a concept literally makes zero logical sense. In order to wilfully do something (in this case, do something to our memory), one must be aware of it on a conscious level. But...if we're repressing memory, we're no longer aware of it. So if yesterday I suppressed a memory through sheer force of will, how long does the suppression last? I'm not aware of what it was I forgot yesterday, so I can't continue the suppression.

[ttruscott]

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

3. It is possible. But then comes the extremely complicated part. How do you judge someone as worthy or not worthy of Heaven and set up life so that every single person from every walk of life has an equal chance to get into heaven? I certainly have no clue how to do that.

Consider:

Since the end of our earth is the heavenly state that is within us that is called the marriage of the Holy Church with the Lamb, and

since love, marriage and holiness must all proceed from a free will without coercion

then only a free will decision to accept YHWH's proposal of marriage would be a moral criteria for HIM to marry anyone...

Thus we would have those who put their faith in HIM to be who HE claimed without proof to be contrasted with those who put their faith in HIM without proof to be a liar and a false god, not wanting to be inferior to him so they rejected marriage with him.

By giving us the choice HE let us choose how we most wanted to live given HIS definitions of reality...we all set our own relationship with HIM by our free will and this is the criteria setting our being saved from our sin or having to bear the consequences of our sin by ourselves.

Every person does not have an equal chance to choose HIM on earth because only sinners are born on earth without a free will. We are not here to make the choice I set out but to work out the consequences of our choices already made, pre-conception, in Sheol.

So, "How do you judge someone as worthy or not worthy of Heaven" is to let them decide for themselves what they think is the best choice for their happiness forever, a life married to you or not, then to proceed in accordance with their own choices.

[Justin108]

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 do theists get so confused with the burden of proof? You made the claim that Angels are people. You need to support that claim. My disagreement with the claim is not the same as claiming Angels are in fact not people. There is a difference. Angels might be people, but your assumption that they are is not justified.

If I claimed that God was a sentient rooster, would it be your job to prove me wrong? If your assertion that God is not a rooster is stated so strongly, should you now have the burden of proof in proving that God is not in fact a sentient rooster?

None of this is necessary, however, since Job still exclusively mention angels and morning stars. If "angel" is a job title, then only those with said title were there to witness creation. This still excludes non-angel humans, unless you claim that angels also became earthly humans after rejecting God?

Job 38:7 "while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy"

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.

Can you provide an argument for this interpretation? Or do you forcibly interpret it this way in order for it to fit your theology? The latter would be confirmation bias.

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.

Yes. And I am saying that Matthew 13:38 - 39 is not enough to support this conclusion since "sowing" can fit both a pre-Earth creation or a post-Earth creation. Since Mat 13:38-39 is neutral on the issue, you cannot use it as evidence for pre-Earth existence.

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?

You have this entirely backwards. Just because the Bible does not specifically say "humans weren't here" does not mean it is a valid conclusion that humans were there. The Bible also does not explicitly state that Jesus could not breathe fire. Can I therefore conclude that Jesus could breathe fire?

The spirits mentioned in Job 38:7 are specifically angels. Even if I were to excuse your burden of proof and suppose that angels and humans are of the same spiritual species with "angel" merely being a job title, this verse exclusively allows those with the job title of "angel" to be there during creation. Unless you argue that all man kind once held the title of "angel", I don't see your justification for the assumption that Job 38:7 claims that humans witnessed creation.

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.

This assumption is simply not supported. It is an ad hoc attempt at solving an anomaly within the Christian faith. It would be no different to assert that Satan snuck into paradise one day and injected humans with evil sin-juice, which is the origin of our sinful nature. The sin-juice theory also solves your dilemma of how we came to have sinful natures. It is, however, a made up story to fix a dilemma. It holds no support. Your claim that we all made decisions prior to our existence on earth which then led to our sinful nature is just as likely as my theory that Satan injected us with sin-juice. They both are an ad hoc attempt at solving a theological anomaly and neither hold any support for the specific claims.

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.

You keep trying to sneak that it. Yes, we are born sinners. But this does not prove that we are born sinners due to our free will decision pre-conception.

Claiming that our being born sinners is somehow proof we made a pre-conception decision is the same as claiming the existence of AIDS is proof that evil scientists manufactured AIDS. You have proof for the condition (sinful at birth) but not for the cause (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.

There's that "self created" injection again. Is there support for different levels sin? Maybe. Does that conclude that sin is self created? No.

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.

This still does not conclude that our being divided into these two camps is the result of pre-conception decisions. It is an unsupported addition to the theology. You frankly made it up to consolidate the perceived gaps in the Christian theology.


No matter how well your theology "fits", it does not change the fact that you made it up. My sin-juice theory fits just as well as yours. I can highjack Mark 13:38 and reason that Satan got his hands on evil seeds after injecting them with sin-juice and stealing them from heaven. He then sowed them as Mark 13:38 states. This fits because this explains where our sinful nature came from without concluding that God made us sinful, as well as why Satan had evil seeds to sow. This even has an added bonus in explaining why sin is so addictive, because the sin-juice Satan used is a naturally addictive substance.

My outlandish ad hoc theory, unfortunately, has just as much support as yours. That is to say, none

[Justin108]

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?

The conclusion does not logically follow the premise

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.

This holds no more worth than if I were to say "God does not exist. Period". You lack any argument and simply reassert your position as though repeating it makes it true. I see no logical necessity in claiming that sin can only be created by the free will choice of the sinner. Furthermore, I fail to see how you reached the specifics of your conclusion built upon this, namely the when and where of our free will decision. Not only do you dogmatically claim that a sinful nature must be the result of free will decision, you somehow also know that this decision was made pre-earth in a confrontation with God who professed his godhood but was then denied. I don't see how you could possibly simply know so much detail with the few premises you have.

[Justin108]

But without an implanted moral compass, how should we know what is actually right and what is actually wrong? On what can we possibly base our decision if we have no moral compass? Without a moral compass, choosing between right and wrong becomes guesswork.

Hardly guesswork when three persons who claim to be your Creator GOD tell you exactly what is right and what is wrong and asks you to choose which you think is best for you while explaining the full consequences of choosing each option.

It is guesswork! If none of the three provide any proof and you have no moral compass, what do you have to base your decision on?? You CANNOT know which one is the right God and you CANNOT know which morality is right since you lack a moral compass. What do you have to use in considering each of their cases?

You got to choose which definition of right and wrong you wanted to live by

How would you make this choice? If you lack a moral compass, what method of reasoning would you use to choose which definition of right and wrong to live by?

A choice as to which is best for you without any understanding of the options is not a choice but a guess. A decision to put your faith, your hope, in a particular definition of right and wrong with a full understanding of the consequences is not a guess, but a choice about which definition you really really want to live under.

If you lacked a moral compass, why would you prefer one over the other? Without a moral compass, all matters of morality become equal to the perceiver.

I really really want to live under the definition of murder being wrong... but this is only because my natural moral compass led me to that conclusion. If I had no moral compass, the sentence "murder is wrong" would make no sense to me. I would have no way of even comprehending the notion of "wrong".

Background on the definition of free will...a FREE will cannot be coerced by anything, anything in our created nature or any outside force nor constrained from any available option by anything in our created nature or by any outside force.

This defeats your own theology. If a free will cannot be coerced by anything, what about the choice regarding which definition would make us the "happiest"? Isn't our pursuit for this happiness a coercion? Isn't God telling us that "if you follow me, you will be happy" a means of coercion? Isn't his telling us of the dire consequences of not following a means of coercion?

A created nature knowing right from wrong would force some (all) to choose only the right way thus denying us a free will.

Person A claims to be God. Person A then claims murder is bad

Person B claims to be God. Person B then claims murder is good


How do we choose which person to believe without any moral sense or any proof?

[ttruscott]

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 do theists get so confused with the burden of proof? You made the claim that Angels are people. You need to support that claim. My disagreement with the claim is not the same as claiming Angels are in fact not people. There is a difference. Angels might be people, but your assumption that they are is not justified.

Oh, a bit of backtracking I see? Will we be discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin next. What is a person, people?

I accept this:
Person
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, which in turn is defined differently by different authors in different disciplines, and by different cultures in different times and places.

Since angels show they have free will, to the ability to feel emotions, the ability to choose righteousness and to worship, wherein is it wrong to claim they are persons or in the plural, people???

You did claim they were not people yet in the same way you want to be free from claiming they are not sentient roosters... No matter what you meant, you claimed the claim and I called you on it. Whether it is a positive claim or a negative claim is immaterial...these fake rules should not be able to hide people for speaking too fast and making claims they can't back up. But who cares?

Angels are persons:

Angels worship GOD:
Hebrews 1:6 points out that angels worship the Lord. We also see the heavenly host praising God in Luke 2:13"14. Robotic praise and worship is a parody of the real thing and worthless in heaven.When you put on a dvd and listen to a worship song singing praises to GOD, do you think or allude to the dvd as worshipping? Of course you don't, because it was the person who made the recording that was worshipping.

Some angels are elect:
1 Timothy 5:21 - I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels. implying the fallen angels are demons and the people of the evil one, the tares, sown into the world by the devil. IF angels can choose to sin and become demons, they can also choose to be holy and work for GOD.

Let's look at The Sheep and the Goats

Matt 25:31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the PEOPLE one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Sheep and goats are people. Yet the goats are sent to the fire: 41 Then he will say to those on his left, [remember, the goats...on the left?] Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Since the goats are people but are in the fire with with Satan and his demonic angels, it suggest that these goats are some of his demonic angels also, living as humans.

Angels are holy:
Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels. This verse contrasts the evil of men with the holiness, that is, the righteousness of angels. Robotic holiness is a farce...a stone cannot sin but it is not righteous and a robot neither can be holy, that is, in the context of this verse, righteous. As well, Satan's fall is proof of his free will as he is not guilty of anything if he is a robot being and not a person.

Angels have emotions such as love, joy, desire, sadness, pride, and anger:
Luke 15:10 indicates that angels are joyous when one person repents. The devil has great wrath in Revelation 12:12. The angels and the devil have desires (1 Peter 1:12; John 8:44). Since we can put these emotional beings together with a strong intellect as per Satan in the garden or when talking to GOD about Job, we should accept they are people in the ordinary sense.

Angels are Persons in the image of GOD:
In the resurrection, man will be as the angels of God.
Matt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. In the resurrection, man is restored to the image of God in which he was created. The angels of God must, therefore, bear the image of God.

The image of GOD cannot contain sin therefore for man to be a sinner, the image must be broken. In the resurrection we will be restored to the full image of GOD and like the angels as this verse hints, who therefore must also be in HIS image. When did they receive the image of God unless it was at their creation?

The image of GOD? I think it means things like personhood that is, self awareness, intelligence, emotional ability, curiosity and creativity and the ability to make true free will decisions. Therefore any being that fits this description fits the image of GOD as a person...

Not only does the ability to worship, to praise, to be elect and to be holy imply personhood, they also imply they have free will and if you combine free will with election of some and the fall of others, you get angels going through an Adam like choice with some staying holy and satan and his crew choosing that which made them evil in HIS sight.

You have your interpretation, I have mine and the day will never come when I accept an atheist's interpretation over the Holy Spirit.

My version is based upon created PERSONS 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?

The spirits mentioned in Job 38:7 are specifically angels.

It is true that the world 'elohiym has been interpreted by some translators to refer to angels but there is no support for this dogmatic assertion, another claim I request you prove.

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
of God H430 'elohiym
rulers, judges
divine ones
angels
gods
(plural intensive - singular meaning)
god, goddess
godlike one
works or special possessions of God
the (true) God
GOD

Only 3 of 19 Bible versions have chosen angel over the sons of GOD...so I think I am on fairly solid ground.

Even if I were to excuse your burden of proof and suppose that angels and humans are of the same spiritual species with "angel" merely being a job title, this verse exclusively allows those with the job title of "angel" to be there during creation. Unless you argue that all man kind once held the title of "angel", I don't see your justification for the assumption that Job 38:7 claims that humans witnessed creation.

No, I argue that between the morning stars and the sons of Elohim all created
spirits are included, some who might have been working as angels and some already self chosen sinners. I find support for all sinners to have been at this event from Romans 1:20 For since / from the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that they are without excuse. since interpreting this verse as a study of nature doesn't fulfill the condition that it proves that all those under GOD's wrath are without excuse for rejecting YHWH's divinity and power but seeing the creation of the physical universe certainly would and is available from the language.

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.

This assumption is simply not supported.

Nothing is assumed. It is a logically reasoned conclusion given the Christian definitions.

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.

You keep trying to sneak that it. Yes, we are born sinners. But this does not prove that we are born sinners due to our free will decision pre-conception.

Where did I ever contend that I was proving anything??? We life by faith, not proof. I teach what I have been taught by the Holy Spirit, however much that thought dismays others, and I believe it because it is a more rational interpretation of GOD's self revelation and our circumstances than orthodoxy.

There's that "self created" injection again. Is there support for different levels sin? Maybe. Does that conclude that sin is self created? No.

The conclusion that we self created our sinfulness is based upon the necessity of our free will NOT that there are obviously two levels of sinfulness. This unravelling how my words are being twisted is getting boring...

[ttruscott]

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?

The conclusion does not logically follow the premise

This is a one liner that carries no debate so is meaningless.

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.

This holds no more worth than if I were to say "God does not exist. Period".

I have written my rational too many times to bother repeating the whole process here again so I sum up my beliefs for brevity.

Good bye.

[Justin108]

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?

The conclusion does not logically follow the premise

This is a one liner that carries no debate so is meaningless.

Saying a conclusion does not logically follow the premises is not a "meaningless one liner" in the same vein that "you're wrong" is a meaningless one liner. Saying "(he conclusion does not logically follow the premises" is an objective observation. It is as much a one liner as saying "2+2 does not equal 5" is a one liner.

For a conclusion to logically follow a premise, the conclusion MUST be the ONLY possible explanation for the given premises. Otherwise, it does not logically follow.

For example:
Premise 1: Pablo Picasso is a good painter
Premise 2: the Mona Lisa is a good painting
Conclusion: there Mona Lisa was painted by Pablo Picasso

My argument is flawed because my conclusion does not logically follow my premises. The premises are both true but the conclusion is false.

Suppose the argument looked more like this:
Premise 1: Leonardo da Vinci is a good painter
Premise 2: the Mona Lisa is a good painting
Conclusion: the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo da Vinci

My argument looks pretty much the same. This time, however, both the premises and the conclusion are true. Does the conclusion logically follow the premises? No. Because it is possible for an argument of this structure to lead to untrue conclusions (such as the case with Pablo Picasso), the conclusion does not logically follow the premises.

Your argument (correct me if I'm wrong)
Premise 1: God is loving and holy
Premise 2: we are conceived with sin
Conclusion: we chose sin pre-conception

As with the art example, your conclusion does not logically follow the premises. Understand? Just because we are born with sin, does not mean we chose it. Your argument is invalid

[Justin108]

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 do theists get so confused with the burden of proof? You made the claim that Angels are people. You need to support that claim. My disagreement with the claim is not the same as claiming Angels are in fact not people. There is a difference. Angels might be people, but your assumption that they are is not justified.

Oh, a bit of backtracking I see? Will we be discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin next. What is a person, people?

I accept this:
Person
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, which in turn is defined differently by different authors in different disciplines, and by different cultures in different times and places.

Since angels show they have free will, to the ability to feel emotions, the ability to choose righteousness and to worship, wherein is it wrong to claim they are persons or in the plural, people???

Currently we only recognize humans as constituting "people", but suppose we imagined a fantasy realm where elves co-existed with humanity. They would also be considered "people". However, "elves" and "humans" are still separate species. So if a text read "all the elves witnessed God's creation of the universe" would it be fair to conclude that humans also witnessed this event? No. The text exclusively mentions elves. In the case of the Bible, even if angels were "persons", the text still exclusively mentions "angels" as witnesses of creation. No humans were mentioned. So while angels can be considered "persons", it still does not conclude that they are of the same species as humans.

You did claim they were not people yet in the same way you want to be free from claiming they are not sentient roosters... No matter what you meant, you claimed the claim and I called you on it. Whether it is a positive claim or a negative claim is immaterial...these fake rules should not be able to hide people for speaking too fast and making claims they can't back up. But who cares?

If I did make that claim then I hereby retract it and make a new claim: while angels may be persons, there is no support for the belief that angels and humans are of the same species.

Some angels are elect:[/b]
1 Timothy 5:21 - I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels. implying the fallen angels are demons and the people of the evil one, the tares, sown into the world by the devil. IF angels can choose to sin and become demons, they can also choose to be holy and work for GOD.

I thought the term "angel" was a title describing the role of the person as messenger of God? If this is the case, shouldn't all angels be "elect"? Did some "messengers of God" make the choice to not follow God after the interaction in which God claimed his divinity prior to supporting it? Or did they only officially become angels (messengers) after this interaction?

Angels are holy:
Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels. This verse contrasts the evil of men with the holiness, that is, the righteousness of angels.

Are you saying all angels are holy? If so, then only the "holy angels" witnessed creation. If men are wicked and angels are holy, then this separation is enough to exclude ourselves from witnessing creation as that account mentions "angels" only

The image of GOD? I think it means things like personhood that is, self awareness, intelligence, emotional ability, curiosity and creativity and the ability to make true free will decisions. Therefore any being that fits this description fits the image of GOD as a person...

Emotional ability? Can't that be considered a "coercion" in your theology as well? If proof "forces" our free will, then doesn't emotion? If I am sad, I did not choose to be sad. So if something makes me sad, I am robbed of my free will, am I not? And if I can choose my emotion, then thay cannot be considered true emotion.

You have your interpretation, I have mine and the day will never come when I accept an atheist's interpretation over the Holy Spirit.

Why bother debating if you blatantly admit that you will never be persuaded, no matter what argument I present? This is a debate forum, not a book club. We don't come here to tell each other what we think, we come here to debate theology. To say "I interpret it as such" is not an argument. You need to tell me WHY you interpret it and WHY your interpretation is valid. Bringing the Holy Spirit into this is utterly pointless. Just because you think your unsupported theology is validated by an equally unsupported Holy Spirit, does not mean it has any merit in this debate. I could just as easily call my reasoning the result of the influence of the All Father from Nexus 9.