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]

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.

I came here from a later post having forgotten my miff. I will stay and answer. I am used to people pretending to paraphrase my comments but always getting them wrong, or even opposite that which I contend for. That habit or an insulting attitude are the only reason I put people on ignore.

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.
...
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.

When a person who was an innocent chose to rebel against GOD they became an embodiment of the need to express that rebellion again and more and more as if enslaved or addicted to rebellion, and the pleasures and profits of sin. If this has no meaning to you, I guess we are stuck.

[ttruscott]

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.

"There is no free will without such proof." since such proof forces us to chose for HIM, what definition of free are you using??? My definition is free means uncoerced by anything, even proof.

[Zzyzx]

.

My definition is free means uncoerced by anything, even proof.

It is not surprising that a religious definition of "free" includes meaning free of proof.

Proof is the antithesis of religion. If proof was required before belief there would be no religions. None have proof of their claims, stories, and proposed supernatural characters or events.

[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.

I accept the word of the bible on such things and the bible says that:
1. some angels worship GOD: Hebrews 1:6 A machine cannot worship in truth but only sing as it is programmed. A dvd is not worshipping when playing worship songs.
2. Some angels are elect: 1 Timothy 5:21 A thing cannot be promised heaven or salvation.
3. Some angels are holy: Mark 8:38. Holiness, that is being in accord with GOD, is only by choice. A stone cannot be holy.
4. Some angels have emotions such as love, joy, desire, sadness, pride, and anger: lots of scripture allude to their emotions. Things cannot have emotions.

You seem to have a knee jerk response against knowing that angels are people, that is emotional and self aware etc which indicates your assumptions have been tweaked...

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?

What is a morning star? And before your nose gets too twisted over angels in this passage please find relief in the fact that angel is an interpretation of the editors, not a transcription of the Hebrew which reads sons of GOD. bə·nê, בְּנֵ֥י the sons of ’ĕ·l�·hîm, �ֱלֹהִֽי� GOD.

Are not humans sons of GOD? And if we were created as spirits in sheol before the creation of the physical universe, might not we be in the group sons of GOD who watched the creation as Rom 1:20 hints?

All spirits ever created in HIS image, the holy elect angels by their free will choice, the demonic angels of Satan by their evil choice and the sinful elect who rebelled against the judgement by their free will could be contained within the label of morning star and sons of GOD. And we know that the sinful people of the kingdom (elect) and the people of the evil one, the reprobate non-elect, are both sown as humans into the world presumably after their song of praise ended.

Storage? Not necessarily. If anything, the fact that souls were sown onto Earth suggests, or rather clearly indicates, that the Earth was already there.

It seems like the details though obtuse are that we were created in the spirit world called Sheol which after the creation of the earth was moved into the centre of the earth as a waiting place for non-corporeal souls. It is funny how those who hate the bible find things in it so clear but bible scholars still only have opinions.

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.

I can use it to show we were somewhere else before we became human and in conjunction with our probably being at the creation of the world in Rom 1:20 (no other interpretation of this verse has any foundation in the real world) it certainly carries weight about our pre-existence.

If our sowing does not refer to our being moved here to be human, then it must refer to our creation here as humans...and the devil has the powers of creation.

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.

Interesting...

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

Wrong. They are not called angels but called the sons of GOD. Your arguement is moot.

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 assumes nothing; it is a bible based argument based on a logical analysis of the attributes of GOD which you have ducked with sophistry. It stands.

[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

Then you misunderstand either HIS loving holiness or sin...

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.

Since I have expressed my logic for this assertion in this thread already I was not here making a simple assertion but making a reference in short to that previous place. As I recall, you denied the reality of my premises as based on the bible not proven by materialism so why should I go through them again.

I see no logical necessity in claiming that sin can only be created by the free will choice of the sinner.

that is because you do not know about or dispute the revealed attributes of GOD which make the idea that GOD creates us as sinners without our free will a blasphemy against HIS loving kindness. You also seem to have no idea of HIS holiness, HIS hatred for and endless animosity to evil ,when you suggest HE might have created us evil rather than we must have chosen to be evil by our free will. As holy, HE cannot create evil as there is no evil in HIM to come out of HIM: 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. oh and don't get weird about light creating its own dark, these are symbolic for light as goodness and dark as evil.

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. ... I don't see how you could possibly simply know so much detail with the few premises you have.

You mean "could possibly simply know so much detail with the few premises" that I have given you? I don't think you really care to know what I think except to collect stones to throw at my head and I'm tired of batting practice. Later...

[Zzyzx]

.

Then you misunderstand either HIS loving holiness or sin...

Show us that it is not YOU who misunderstands -- that your "interpretation" of scripture is superior or shows greater understanding of "God" and "sin".

[Justin108]

What do we know?
...Angel is a job description, not a race.

We do not know this. This is part of your own theology and it still requires scriptural support.

*[As Michael was the first to wholly commit HIMself to accepting YHWH's claims to be our creator GOD and bowing in full allegiance to HIM, becoming the first elect, bringing his friends Uriel, Raphael and Gabriel after him.]

- How do you know Michael was the first to wholly commit?
- How do you know Michael convinced Uriel, Raphael and Gabriel?
- How do you even know they were friends?

Rom 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since 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 people are without excuse. ...proves that the Bible states the proof has been given. Since no sinner remembers this proof either the memory was wiped by an outside force or it was self wiped as who suppress the truth by their wickedness emphatically supports.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools They knew GOD's proof but their thoughts of this proof were futile as their emotions grew angry and dark and they become foolish...

25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, They had seen the proof with their own eyes...they could not then call it a lie if they did not repress the memory of that proof.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. Look again, they did not ... RETAIN the knowledge of God,

- Suppressing the truth is not memory loss. Suppressing truth only implies an action taken to prevent the truth from being known. It may well be memory loss, but since this is one of many possible meanings, one cannot confidently say Romans 1:18 refers to memory loss
- Rom 1:20 was addressed in post 52
- "Fools" does not mean memory loss
- "Darkened" does not mean memory loss

Look again, they did not ... RETAIN the knowledge of God

Actually, the text says they "they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge". Again, this might mean memory loss, but it could also mean they made no effort to record the knowledge. They made no effort to pass this knowledge on to later generations. The moment a text has more than one possible interpretation, one cannot say "this text means X". This is especially the case when the text could easily spell it out for you, i.e "and man lost all memory of witnessing the creation of the universe".

Referring back to Rom 1:18- "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness"

This suggests, as most theists interpret this, that the existence of the world is what is being referred to when Romans talks about "being understood from what has been made". Many theists look at the world and say "clearly a God must have made this". "Being revealed" clearly indicated that it is not something that happened pre-earth as your theology claims.

You mean a lack of proof - everyone got the same evidence.

What evidence did they get? From what you've been saying, God provided no evidence whatsoever. Just a claim.

Some found it acceptable and some did not.

Some people are more gullible than others. God seems to value the gullible

The crux of the problem is that the person contemplating that he did not want to bow to YHW knew that IF YHWH was GOD then HIS claims were true that to make such a decision was to become permanently addicted to evil

- You have yet to explain why not bowing to God suddenly makes us addicted to evil.
- If a seemingly crazy person comes to you and says that you have to go with him to his spaceship or else the lizard people will kill you, yet provided no proof for any of this, would it be YOUR fault if you were killed by lizard people? Would you deserve this over your reasonable skepticism?

your commitment to that decision was absolute, no wondering about evidence, no wishy washy maybes in one's mind

What is so wrong with wondering about evidence? What is so wrong with contemplating maybes? When it comes to belief, people aren't persuaded by how good it is, people are persuaded by how believable it is. Granted, this does not describe everyone, but it certainly describes me.

If a man came to you and said that he will end all suffering with his alien powers, will your disbelief of his claim suggest that you do not wish to end all suffering? Or does it merely suggest that you do not believe in his claim of having alien powers?

You are suggesting that one could reject the claim of GOD's deity out of a sense of justice??

No I am claiming that one can reject God's divinity despite being just. A man can reject his divinity out of reason alone. A man can think to himself "wow, if only this guy were for real. It would be amazing if an entity existed that is perfectly just. But since I have no reason to believe his claims, I cannot believe his divinity is real".

I am an atheist. I wish God existed. I wish an entity existed that would judge all evil-doers. I wish an entity existed that would reward the good. I believe that these desires of mine make me just.

However, my reason prevents me from believing this entity exists. I am an example of someone rejecting God's existence despite being just.

As for GOD accepting all those who accepted HIS deity, it did not matter the reason why.

I have a problem with that. If a man only sides with God out of fear, is he really a good man? Suppose God suddenly disappeared... this guy would go around doing evil all he likes. He does not follow God out of a sense of justice, he just follows God out of self-interest. He is afraid of God and so decides to not make him man. This man is merely a coward, yet he is rewarded for his.

I believe I was scamming YHWH when I accepted HIS deity just to avoid hell while planning to go my own way after, one of the cowards, but HE accepted it and let me dig my hole which ended me here.

Wait so you're saying that those who accept God for evil reasons still do not go directly to heaven, but ends up here with us sinners? I thought all who accepted God and followed him go to heaven from the start?

I don't know.

Your theology rests on the notion that those who reject God become evil, yet you don't even understand it yourself? This whole time you've been claiming that your theology is based on reason. If you cannot understand it yourself, how can you call it reasonable?

The best analogy that I have is the two year old and the first time they say no. They realise for the first time they have the power to say no. Some learn it is not a real power though it feels so powerful. Others only learn that their will can be overridden but they never give up that rush of feeling powerful in rejecting another's will. This is sin, the rush of power in being rebellious that permeates every decision to a lesser or greater extent and is practiced with every decision so that it grows as the person gains in experience.

You seem to suggest that the mere concept of choice is itself evil?

Now I expect contrariness to this but please don't argue against the analogy as if that was an argument against the situation. Such a waste of time...

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying I should not question the implications of the analogy?

It is in the nature of people that when they choose evil...

Rejecting God and choosing evil are not the same thing.

THEY are against GOD's will, THEY are evil as that feeling of liking the rebellion grows, their nature can be said to have become evil, no more just an abstraction.....the stink of rebellion will taint every decision they will ever make until they are saved from its enslaving power.

This deterministic outcome of rejecting God does resemble a literal nature. The fact that one seems to be unable to make moral choices in the absence of God suggests we are naturally driven to immoral choices just as sharks are naturally drawn to the scent of blood. It is in the shark's nature to follow blood as it seems it is in our nature to follow evil. This seems like a literal nature and not just an abstract metaphorical one.

If we truly had free will and were not driven by an evil nature, surely we will be able to make both good and evil choices?

Luke 12:2 There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed

If we are the ones doing the concealing, why is God the one doing the disclosing? We supposedly suppress our own memories. It should be in our power to remember it. Why isn't it so?

The memories come back when we see the proof of the truth of our evil but our love of sin caused the repression so the end of the repression has nothing to do with our continued love for sin when we are there before the GLORY of GOD.

You said we already witnessed this truth and managed to suppress it. Why will repeating this revelation make a difference? Won't we just end up suppressing it again because of the love of our sin?

I went back. I don't think so.

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.

In between proof and randomness lies our desires and all the information about the choice and the influences of others...influences being things that urge us in a direction but without coercing that direction.

Keep in mind these are beliefs about reality. You make it sound like an election. Elections are often driven by desires and the influences of others, but when it comes to our beliefs about reality, not everyone is persuaded by desire and the influences of others.

- I believe in gravity not because I wish it to be true. I do so out of reason.
- I do not believe in God not because I wish he wasn't real. I do so out of reason
- I do not believe in magic not because I wish it wasn't real. I do so out of reason.

If my beliefs were driven by my desires as opposed to reason, I would believe in both God and magic. If my beliefs were driven by the influence of others, I would be a Christian because my whole family is and so are most of my friends.

If we were truly tabula rasa as your theology claims, we would have no desires. How can we base our decision on desire if we had none?

Our choices were influenced by the promises made but they were NOT coerced by the promises (or a no one would have rejected them).

You seem to imply that unless coercion is 100% effective then it is not coercion.

coercion
kəʊˈə�ʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats

Essentially, God is saying "believe me or die". This sounds like a threat to me. Regardless, there is nothing in the concept of coercion to support your claim that "they were NOT coerced by the promises (or a no one would have rejected them)"

However, providing proof is neither forceful not threatening. All it does is reinforce the threats made before. Basically what I'm saying is that God's claims are the coercions. Proving his claims are not

The promise of eternal life without hell is not a coercion without the proof and without the proof it only has the status of an influence.

If I call the Whitehouse and say that I planted a bomb and demand money be placed into my bank account, I am coercing the Whitehouse. My lack of proof for the existence of the bomb does not mean it's suddenly not coercion. The moment you claim there is a bomb, you are trying to persuade someone by making a threat. This is coercion as per the definition of the word.

If your definition of coercion is true, then the bomb scenario would not be coercion but going to science class is coercion.

When a person who was an innocent chose to rebel against GOD they became an embodiment of the need to express that rebellion again and more and more as if enslaved or addicted to rebellion

This again implies an inherent aggressive and prideful nature. Under the creator paradigm, such a nature can only exist if the creator made us with said nature as he would make a shark with the nature to desire blood. If we were free from an inherent nature, we would be able to reject God without gaining a lust for rebellion.

To explain it further, if I got a taste of pain, I would not suddenly love pain. It is in my nature to shy away from pain. Yet once I get a taste of rebellion, I crave it. This implies that rebellion is appealing to our pre-existing nature just as pain is repulsive to our pre-existing nature. It seems to be in our nature to lust after the taste of rebellion once we've tasted it, yet we do not lust after pain once we've tasted it. There is no explanation for this other than an inherent nature that admires rebellion just as a shark admires blood.

I accept the word of the bible on such things and the bible says that:
1. some angels worship GOD: Hebrews 1:6 A machine cannot worship in truth but only sing as it is programmed. A dvd is not worshipping when playing worship songs.
2. Some angels are elect: 1 Timothy 5:21 A thing cannot be promised heaven or salvation.
3. Some angels are holy: Mark 8:38. Holiness, that is being in accord with GOD, is only by choice. A stone cannot be holy.
4. Some angels have emotions such as love, joy, desire, sadness, pride, and anger: lots of scripture allude to their emotions. Things cannot have emotions.

In post 79, I officially retracted my claim that Angels are not "people". However, Angels being "people" and Angels being "human" (as your theology suggests) are still two different claims as post 79 explains in the elves analogy. So why Angels may be "people" according to the definition of the term, they are still not necessarily "human".

this passage please find relief in the fact that angel is an interpretation of the editors, not a transcription of the Hebrew which reads sons of GOD. bə·nê, בְּנֵ֥י the sons of ’ĕ·l�·hîm, �ֱלֹהִֽי� GOD.

Assuming this refers to the "sons of God" as including humans, does this exclude women from this scenario? Or are you going to further your selective interpretation and change "sons" to "children"?

It seems like the details though obtuse are that we were created in the spirit world called Sheol which after the creation of the earth was moved into the centre of the earth as a waiting place for non-corporeal souls.

Can you provide a verse to support this idea that we were created in Sheol before the earth existed and that Sheol was moved to the centre of the earth? I am completely unfamiliar with any of this.

It is funny how those who hate the bible find things in it so clear but bible scholars still only have opinions.

Yet you profess these opinions as though they were fact.

I can use it to show we were somewhere else before we became human

Yes but you cannot use it to show that the earth did not exist before then. What if God made the earth, THEN made us in Sheol, THEN placed us on the already-existing earth?

no other interpretation of this verse has any foundation in the real world

This is what I meant when I said you profess your "opinion" as fact.

Most Christians I know look at Romans 1:20 as suggesting that the existence of creation is proof of God just as an artist is understood by the existence of his works. The fact that you dismiss this opinion and alternate interpretation makes you somewhat of a hypocrite considering your claim that

It is funny how those who hate the bible find things in it so clear but bible scholars still only have opinions.

Wrong. They are not called angels but called the sons of GOD. Your arguement is moot.

In this case, they were specifically men so no woman has witnessed creation.

It assumes nothing; it is a bible based argument based on a logical analysis of the attributes of GOD which you have ducked with sophistry. It stands.

Refer to my sin-juice analogy in post 73.

You are presented with the anomaly of how sin can exist if God did not create it. You offer a possible solution. However, your solution is of your own making. It succeeds in explaining the anomaly (at least in your mind) but it is still your own creation. For that reason, it is an assumption. You assume that your explanation is the right one yet there is not sufficient scripture to support your explanation.

I once used Toy Story as an analogy. I don't know if you recall?

So in Toy Story, the toys are all alive. A viewer might question "how is it that these human-shaped pieces of plastic suddenly come to life?". This is an anomaly. Then a viewer theorizes "they are probably possessed by ghosts". This explanation solves the anomaly of how these toys can be alive, but just because it sufficiently explains things does not mean that this explanation is canon.

Similarly, just because your theology explains the anomaly of sin does not mean your explanation is canon. Your explanation is an assumption.

Then you misunderstand either HIS loving holiness or sin...

This is a cop-out. With this, debate is entirely pointless because once we come to a disagreement, you can merely claim that "you simply do not understand his loving holiness". What if a Muslim used this to support the Quran? How would you respond?

As explained in post 78, my claim that the conclusion does not follow the premise is not just a matter of my subjective opinion, but an objective observation using the rules of logic.

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

This conclusion is not necessarily based on the premises and is therefore not a valid conclusion.

If I said that...
Premise 1: God is loving and holy
Premise 2: we are conceived with sin
Conclusion: Satan injected us with sin-juice

...would my argument be valid?

Since I have expressed my logic for this assertion in this thread already I was not here making a simple assertion but making a reference in short to that previous place

Point me to that "previous place" and I will point you to where I argued against it. Since I have already argued against it, I fail to see why you insist on repeating it

As I recall, you denied the reality of my premises as based on the bible not proven by materialism so why should I go through them again.

No I denied them as not being supported by scripture or logic

that is because you do not know about or dispute the revealed attributes of GOD which make the idea that GOD creates us as sinners without our free will a blasphemy against HIS loving kindness.

Your version allows gullible cowards into heaven while condemning just skeptics. This also goes against his supposed loving kindness so your theology is apparently just as blasphemous as the alternative.

As holy, HE cannot create evil as there is no evil in HIM to come out of HIM

Why is rebellion so appealing to us then? Why do we lust after it? We are so naturally attracted to it that once we get a taste, we cannot stop. This strongly suggests a designed nature. If we were truly as tabula rasa as you say, rebellion would be no more appealing than chewing a twig is. The fact that some things are more addictive than others suggest a designed nature in which some things are attractive while others are not.

I don't think you really care to know what I think except to collect stones to throw at my head and I'm tired of batting practice.

"You don't really care. You just want to argue"
Am I paraphrasing this right?

As I explained before, this is a debate forum. People come here to debate. Your refusal to do so makes me question your presence here. This is not a book-club where we discuss what we think about the Bible. This is a debate forum where we make claims, support them and argue against opposing views.

[Justin108]

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

No, but everyone will be given an equal chance of obtaining eternal life.

Is this "eternal life" something other than heaven?

Equal access to every opportunity is not necessarily evidence of being just or fair

So if the law said that black people are not allowed to vote, you would deem this as perfectly just and fair?

For example humans cannot fly unaided but birds can. Is that unfair or (presuming both were created) would that make God unjust? Men cannot conceive and don't have wombs is this injustice?

Strictly speaking this is unfair, however people have made peace with this as for the most part it is rather trivial, but being prevented from getting into heaven just because you weren't lucky enough to be born into a Christian family is no trivial matter.

Fairness and justice implies treating individuals without prejudice, making the correct and right decision in their regard according to their circumstances and without bias or favoritism.

If I sent my one child on vacation to Paris, while sending my other child to a concentration camp, would I be a fair and just parent? If I paid for one child's university education, but kicked the other child out to make his own living at 18, would I be a fair and just parent?

God does exactly this. He sends some people to loving Christian homes while others are sent to harsh and strict Muslim parents. The Christian child is prompted, motivated and rewarded for following Christian ideals while the Muslim child is beaten and threatened if he dares to go against the Quran. How is this fair or just?

In fact I would argue giving everybody everything equally would be unjust and unkind.

But it's ok to give some people everything while withholding everything from others? How is this any better? If it is a bad thing for god to give someone everything, then why does he give some people everything?

For example giving a child the responsibility of paying the household taxes would be beyond their ability and unreasonbly demanding for them, even if their father had the opportunity to do so.

For obvious reasons... but we're not talking about children vs. adults, we're talking about one child being born in luxury with good, loving parents and a supportive, Christian environment while another is indoctrinated by harsh Muslim parents. Chances are the Christian child will grow up to be a good Christian while the Muslim child will probably stay a Muslim. This is where your analogy fails for obvious reasons... Both people in my example are newly-born children

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 87 by JLB32168]
We last left off at post 64. Those are the issues that remain unanswered. If you want to participate in this trip down memory lane, I suggest we continue where we last left off

[JLB32168]

The moral agency of these people fall outside of what Mark, John and Revelations mean when they refer to non-believers.

Your source also speak of Gentiles who don’t have the law but by nature do what the law requires. They love God by loving their neighbor. It isn’t just about belief – your protests to the contrary.
I’m not sure what this has to do with the four questions of which you claimed to have received no answers.

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

If one claims to have received revelation from God then s/he doesn’t “reveal� things that are diametrically opposed to what God has previously revealed. One may have his/her personal theological opinion on things that the Church has not dogmatized but any revelation contrary to dogma is to be rejected as not originating in God.

Again, I’m not sure what this has to do with the four questions of which you claimed to have received no answers.

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

I’ve already explained that. The Church Fathers taught things. If they were controversial they were brought to council, which presumably is where God speaks. If the council decides X, it is presumably under God’s direction. If God doesn’t exist then all bets are off.

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.

The Church has dogmatized the wrongness of murder by accepting canons that proscribe punishments for it.

Why do you suppose God failed to mention an exception?

The Bible wasn’t meant to be exhaustive and there are many cases where killing might be required – such as if a group of marauders is attacking a village. There are plenty other cases. The Bible wasn’t meant to address everything. That is why Christ said He would remain with the Church.

Lastly, how exactly do you define "invincibly ignorant"?

That term can be readily understood via a simple, rudimentary search of it.

You can infer the answers to the rest of your questions from my above responses that I think cover them.