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?

[tam]

Peace to you Justin!

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

1. Is God perfectly fair and just?

God is perfect, fair and just, so I guess the only answer that follows is 'yes'.

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

I suppose.

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

Everyone is invited.

Some may have a better chance based upon the faith of their forefather(s) - such as Abraham. Someone might say that this is unfair, but is it really? Would Abraham - who is faithful to God - not deserve to have those he loves in the Kingdom with him?

But the number of those who enter into the Kingdom is not known, so some being almost guaranteed a place (such as the 144 000 as written in Revelation, for example, or any among the elect) does not adversely affect those who are not.


There are a couple of different 'positions' in the Kingdom as well. There are those who rule with Christ as kings and priests during the thousand years reign (these are those who belong to Him, whose faith is in Him, who love and obey and are loyal to Him here and now)

Then there are the subjects of the Kingdom (who did not belong to Christ and all that entails). They, too, are invited into the Kingdom and receive eternal life, due to how they have treated even the least of Christ's brothers. Not knowingly per se, but rather because the law of love is upon their hearts, which is made manifest in what they DO. So they are declared righteous by Christ and invited into the Kingdom, receiving eternal life, as well.

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

I see nothing unfair or unjust in the above. Especially when eternal life is a gift to begin with.

Man on the other hand can make it more difficult for his fellow man, including his own children.




Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[ttruscott]

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.

I gave all the evidence you will get back aways. I've repeated myself too many times to go look for it again. You keep asking for scriptural support and when I give it you just keep repeating your request for it which I guess means you don't accept it...

*[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?

I was told to use my common sense...

- 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

The fact that you can create another interpretation to mine [every truth can be reinterpreted to serve...someone] doesn't prove you are right. You asked, I answered...you make of it as you will and now we see what you did with it. Is memory loss actually the same things as a suppressed memory which is what I claimed?
A loss of memory is total, but these suppressed memories will surface, I guarantee.
You asked for my scripture support and then ignore it because of your own creative ability.

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 want to school me on what I've been fighting for 30 years??? If every orthodox version of what this verse means is followed then we can safely say that it is no more than Paul's meaningless pious platitude for none of them can be found in human experience. I can paste in the whole 2 page interpretation of the failures of orthodoxy to deal properly with this verse because they have a bias against our pre-conception existence. Won't take a minute...

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.

Indeed I have. Probably twice or even more.

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.

Nice twist of ideas to try for a deke... Of course we all scrutinized the evidence but what I said that no one would finalize their choice to reject HIM and chance hell without feeling personally assured they were making the right choice, HE was not god and they would not go to hell.

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 pray I only have to write this once...to accept GOD for any reason, even a selfish one, is good. Evil is that which is NOT in accord with GOD and rejects HIM. All who accepted God and followed him go to heaven from the start, AFTER THE JUDGEMENT DAY which was postponed because some elect rebelled against the damnation of their demonic friends. That is why they ended up here with the eternally sinful so they could learn that the eternally reprobate will never repent nor make good citizens of heaven nor good marriage partners.

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?

And you as a fine example of a materialistic mind understand all of quantum theory and how it relates to Einstein and string theory too? Oh I guess you are unreasonable too, eh?

As well, I went back to the quote you quote here and I wrote: "I start with the premise that GOD kept us free from coercion. Period. The details are not for me to know yet." ... which has nothing to do with your assertion "Your theology rests on the notion that those who reject God become evil, yet you don't even understand it yourself?" which is a pretty blatant twisting of my words, especially since I have said how those who reject GOD become eternally evil, many times. Do you remember me writing that is one of the offences for which I put people on ignore?

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?

If you think so then I obviously cannot communicate with someone so out of touch with...me.

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

Rejecting God and choosing evil are not the same thing.

I don't even care what you might think is evil or can cause evil but you are arguing against Christianity, not me.

Enough. Again.

[Justin108]

It is still closer to the Bible than your rewrite...

That's because mine isn't a rewrite, it's an outright rejection for a text that is horribly flawed.

GOD leaves nothing to chance. It only looks like chance to the unschooled. Your false premise makes the conclusion moot.

Suppose your theology is true and we all had the same chance pre-earth. Well we don't all have the same chance now, do we? If earth is our prison sentence, then it is an unequal prison-sentence. This is strange considering that we are all supposedly guilty of the exact same crime (i.e not believing God). So why is it that some of us are sentenced to starve in Northern Africa while others are sentenced to be born with a billion dollar trust-fund? Why are some of us born in loving Christian families that will support us in finding salvation while others are sentenced to harsh Muslim parents that would beat us with the mere mention of Christianity?

Assuming your theology is fair pre-earth, it sure as hell isn't fair post-earth.

Our lives are predetermined therefore no chance

I was unaware that you were a determinist. Are you of the opinion that whether we go to heaven or hell after earth is already determined by the time we are born on earth? I understood your theology as earth being a kind of probation period where we are evaluated for a second time. Am I wrong in this?

The problem is found in your rejection of our pre-earth existence which accounts for the same abilities and opportunities for all to accept or reject GOD to receive heaven or hell AND the idea that they are are born as already subject to the punishments and rewards they should receive according to their choice of actions. By placing these requirements onto people who have self created themselves already as sinners, some condemned, you can never force it to fit. Gigo, you know.

Correct me if I misunderstand your theology, but in the beginning (pre-earth) God told us about his divinity. We then either accepted or rejected it (I believe there was a third alternative but I forgot). Anyway, the guilty reject him and is sentenced to earth (again, I am foggy on the details so correct me where I falter. It's been a year since I discussed this theology). Now everyone on earth is guilty of this SAME crime with maybe a bit of deviation, yet we are given millions of different sentences for this same crime. Some are sentenced to a life of luxury while others live in poverty. Some are sentenced to live through the Holocaust while others are sentenced to live lives of fame and fortune. How is it that the same crime can afford so many vastly different sentences? I understand there may be some deviation in our rejection, but THIS much deviation?

You demand proof from the believers but strut this emotionally based misperception of GOD without any proof whatsoever to back it up. And don't pretend this is not a declarative statement not needing proof. YOU said it - you prove it since you are the one who loves the truth so much and only operates from a position of fact based on proof.

Post 43 was addressed to a completely different poster. This poster (probably) does not follow your theology. This poster (probably) follows the widely accepted version of Christianity that is free from your pre-earth concept. I am operating under the accepted assumptions that are prevalent in Christianity outside of your own version.

I gave all the evidence you will get back aways. I've repeated myself too many times to go look for it again.

And with every piece of evidence you've provided, I explained why this evidence is lacking or simply not sufficient to be considered "evidence". For that reason, we cannot claim we "know" Angel is a job title. If there is a piece of evidence which you presented which i have yet to respond to, point me to it and I will gladly address it.

You keep asking for scriptural support and when I give it you just keep repeating your request for it which I guess means you don't accept it...

Yes because none of the scriptural support you provide confirms your position. There is not a single piece of scripture that refers to "Angel" as a job title.

I was told to use my common sense...

Maybe I lack the same "common sense" you do, but can you explain the thought process that lead you to conclude that
- Michael was the first to wholly commit
- Michael convinced Uriel, Raphael and Gabriel
- They were friends

"Use your common sense" is not an argument. If I opened a post titled "Atheism is true because I used my common sense", I suspect you would disagree

The fact that you can create another interpretation to mine [every truth can be reinterpreted to serve...someone] doesn't prove you are right.

I don't have the burden of proof. You are the one attempting to defend your theology. It is your job to prove you are right. The fact that I can present alternate interpretations is not to demonstrate that I am right, it is merely to demonstrate that you aren't justified in your conclusions when other conclusions are equally valid.

A loss of memory is total, but these suppressed memories will surface, I guarantee.

You guarantee? I would be careful in using such strong words. Didn't you once say that "all of this is my Christian opinion"? When you start using words like "guarantee" it stops being subjective opinions and starts being objective claims and objective claims need a lot of proof.

You asked for my scripture support and then ignore it because of your own creative ability.

MY creative ability? You come up with a theology that no one on this forum has ever heard of and you call MY interpretation "creative ability"?

I asked for scriptural support, not confirmation-biased hyper-selective interpretation. Unless you look at this text with the pre-conceived notion that we existed pre-earth after which we lost our memories, no one would conclude that this verse refers to memory loss. This fact makes it confirmation bias

You want to school me on what I've been fighting for 30 years??? If every orthodox version of what this verse means is followed then we can safely say that it is no more than Paul's meaningless pious platitude for none of them can be found in human experience. I can paste in the whole 2 page interpretation of the failures of orthodoxy to deal properly with this verse because they have a bias against our pre-conception existence. Won't take a minute...

I asked you a simple question. Why does this reference explicitly use the word "being" in the present tense when referring to something that supposedly happened pre-earth?

Your response is nothing but an attack on the opposition (the Orthodoxy) and is utterly meaningless to this discussion.

Indeed I have. Probably twice or even more.

And every time, I responded and explained why it makes no sense

Of course we all scrutinized the evidence but what I said that no one would finalize their choice to reject HIM and chance hell without feeling personally assured they were making the right choice, HE was not god and they would not go to hell.

And if they do reject him, all it suggests is that they do not believe him. We have gone full circle. Why does this disbelief deserve hell? Why is not believing a claim deserve hell?

I pray I only have to write this once...to accept GOD for any reason, even a selfish one, is good.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Let's put this in human terms so everyone can relate: suppose a corrupt man supports a heroic and noble leader because the heroic leader pays his salary. Suppose the corrupt man never betrays his leader because he knows the leader will find out about it. Suppose the corrupt man desires to rape the leader's wife and would gladly do so, but fears the consequences if he is ever caught. Will you call this man a good man? Let's use your marriage analogy here. If an otherwise evil, cruel and selfish woman marries a good man for his money, would you call this a good woman?

You believe a gullible coward is better than a just, kind and moral skeptic? This is not a rhetorical question. I expect an answer to this.

And you as a fine example of a materialistic mind understand all of quantum theory and how it relates to Einstein and string theory too? Oh I guess you are unreasonable too, eh?

The difference is I didn't come up with quantum theory, not have I ever professed it. I won't even confidently say evolution is a fact. But if Darwin went around professing evolution but said "yeah I don't understand it either", no one would take him seriously. This is what you're doing. You're professing a theory that you yourself do not understand.

"I start with the premise that GOD kept us free from coercion. Period. The details are not for me to know yet."

And then you redefined coercion to include presenting facts but exclude making threats and promises, which is contrary to the actual definition of coercion.

"Follow me or die"
- this is coercion according to the definition of the word

"Here is proof for the claims I have made"
- this is not coercion under any definition of the word

... which has nothing to do with your assertion "Your theology rests on the notion that those who reject God become evil, yet you don't even understand it yourself?" which is a pretty blatant twisting of my words

Is it not true that you believe that those who reject God become evil? And did you not admit in post 88 that you do not know how this process happens? How is this a twisting of your words when you said exactly what I claim you did?

especially since I have said how those who reject GOD become eternally evil, many times.

And every time, I presented an argument for why your explanations make no sense. This lead us to post 88. The one where you falsely accuse me of twisting your words when I merely repeat them.

If you think so then I obviously cannot communicate with someone so out of touch with...me.

"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"

Correct me if I understand this wrong, but this seems to suggest that every decision we ever make is tainted by our lust for power, and it all started from our first decision

"The best analogy that I have is the two year old and the first time they say no"

So after making our initial decision pre-earth, every decision we make after is tainted by our lust for power. This is why it seems like choice itself is evil because when given a choice, we become power-hungry.

[Justin108]

God's purpose is that obedient humans live forever right here on this our planet earth.

Can you quote scripture to support this?

Isaiah 11: 9
There shall be no harm or ruin on all my holy mountain; for THE EARTH shall be filled with knowledge of the LORD, as water covers the sea." -- New American Bible

Ecclesiastes 1: 4
"One generation goes and another comes; but THE EARTH is forever*."

Proverbs 2 v 21, 22 Douay-Rheims Bible
"For they that are upright shall dwell in THE EARTH, and the simple shall continue in it. But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and the transgressors shall be rooted out of it. -- King James Bible

Matthew 5: 5 American Standard Version
"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit THE EARTH."

Matthew 6 v 10 Young's Literal Translationn "Thy reign come: Thy will come to pass, as in heaven also on THE EARTH."

Isaiah 11: 9 " They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain; because THE EARTH will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea." NWT

Psalms 115:16 "The heavens belong to the LORD, but he has given THE EARTH to all humanity." New Living Translation (2007)

PSALMS 72v8
May he also rule from sea to sea And from the River to the ends of THE EARTH. New American Standard Bible (1995)

Psalms 37:29 "The righteous themselves will possess THE EARTH, and they will reside forever upon it."

Psalms 37:11:
"But the meek ones themselves will possess THE EARTH, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace."

Fair enough. I'll concede this point

So that everyone will eventually be given a chance for this God has purposed to ressurrect (bring back to life on earth) all those that, through ignorance or lack of opportunity have not obeyed him.

I'll again ask you to quote scripture to support this?

REVELATION 20:12
"I saw the dead, both great and small, standing before God's throne. And the books were opened, including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had done, as recorded in the books." - NLT

This mentions nothing of giving those who lacked opportunity through ignorance another chance. All this tells us is that the dead will be judged.

ACTS 24:15
"having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked." NAS

Again, all this tell us is the dead will be resurrected. This mentions nothing of them getting another chance due to their lack of opportunity or ignorance. Assuming this is somehow tied to Revelations 20:12, it may very well be they are resurrected to be judged. There is no mention of them spending an eternity on earth until they get it right.

LUKE 23:43
"And he said to him: Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise" - NWT

Jesus was talking to the criminal being crucified next to him... I fail to see how this supports your claim at all

[Justin108]

Some may have a better chance based upon the faith of their forefather(s) - such as Abraham. Someone might say that this is unfair, but is it really?

Yes. You said it yourself. He had a better chance.

But the number of those who enter into the Kingdom is not known, so some being almost guaranteed a place (such as the 144 000 as written in Revelation, for example, or any among the elect) does not adversely affect those who are not.

This does not change the fact that it is unfair. Some are almost guaranteed a place while others are not. Some are given proof while others are damned for their disbelief. If some have an advantage over others then it is by definition unfair.

I see nothing unfair or unjust in the above. Especially when eternal life is a gift to begin with.

If your dad gives your sister a gift for Christmas but not you, then it is still unfair. The fact that it's a gift doesn't change anything.

[tam]

Some may have a better chance based upon the faith of their forefather(s) - such as Abraham. Someone might say that this is unfair, but is it really?

Yes. You said it yourself. He had a better chance.

No. Abraham is the forefather. His offspring and children have a better 'chance' because of his faith and the promises God made to him concerning his offspring BECAUSE of his faith.

Among his father's people, however, Abraham was the only one who heard God and obeyed. Abraham's father did not give Abraham a better'chance'. Yet Abraham became a man of whom God called, friend.

But the number of those who enter into the Kingdom is not known, so some being almost guaranteed a place (such as the 144 000 as written in Revelation, for example, or any among the elect) does not adversely affect those who are not.

This does not change the fact that it is unfair. Some are almost guaranteed a place while others are not. Some are given proof while others are damned for their disbelief. If some have an advantage over others then it is by definition unfair.

Well I am not of the 144 000 and I do not thin it is unfair. Because not being one of the 144 000 does not prevent me - in the least - from having a place in the Kingdom or even in the Body of Christ. I must concentrate on my Lord and what I do. If God wants to be even more merciful to someone else then GOOD! I am glad for that person.


And who said anything about different levels of proof or anyone being 'damned' (by which I assume you mean 'to suffer in hell') for their disbelief? None of that is in my post. People who do not believe in Christ, are not Christian, are also invited into the Kingdom based upon what they DO. At the separation of the sheep and goats (neither of whom are Christian), those who are counted as sheep are invited in on the basis of the good they did to Christ, unknowingly, doing good to even the least of His brothers. They prove that they have the law (of love) upon their hearts and so do naturally the requirements of that law, and so are declared righteous.

They may not have known Christ, but He has known them from what they have done.

I see nothing unfair or unjust in the above. Especially when eternal life is a gift to begin with.

If your dad gives your sister a gift for Christmas but not you, then it is still unfair. The fact that it's a gift doesn't change anything.

The gift of eternal life is offered to everyone.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

So that everyone will eventually be given a chance for this God has purposed to ressurrect (bring back to life on earth) all those that, through ignorance or lack of opportunity have not obeyed him.

I'll again ask you to quote scripture to support this?

REVELATION 20:12
"I saw the dead, both great and small, standing before God's throne. And the books were opened, including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had done, as recorded in the books." - NLT

This mentions nothing of giving those who lacked opportunity through ignorance another chance. All this tells us is that the dead will be judged.

ACTS 24:15
"having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked." NAS

Again, all this tell us is the dead will be resurrected. This mentions nothing of them getting another chance due to their lack of opportunity or ignorance. Assuming this is somehow tied to Revelations 20:12, it may very well be they are resurrected to be judged. There is no mention of them spending an eternity on earth until they get it right.

LUKE 23:43
"And he said to him: Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise" - NWT

Jesus was talking to the criminal being crucified next to him... I fail to see how this supports your claim at all

Yes, with these scriptures a certain amount of reasoning and deduction will be necessary. As Jesus said "let the reader use discernement" so finding out how scriptures fit logically together is not always evident upon the first reading; you are right on that.


JW

[Justin108]

No. Abraham is the forefather. His offspring and children have a better 'chance' because of his faith and the promises God made to him concerning his offspring BECAUSE of his faith.

Yes, they are rewarded for the faith of their father. They are rewarded for the actions of another. They have not earned this. It is therefore unfair

Among his father's people, however, Abraham was the only one who heard God and obeyed. Abraham's father did not give Abraham a better'chance'.

No but God appearing before Abraham did. If God appeared before me, I would still be a Christian. I wasn't as lucky as Abraham though

Well I am not of the 144 000 and I do not thin it is unfair. Because not being one of the 144 000 does not prevent me - in the least - from having a place in the Kingdom or even in the Body of Christ.

It may not outright prevent you, but it does hinder you. The fact of the matter is some have a lesser than to end up in heaven than others due to their circumstances. This is unfair by definition

I must concentrate on my Lord and what I do.

That's because you were probably born in a Christian family in a Christian country. If you were born in a harsh Muslim family, you would probably not be concentrating on the Lord (at least not the Christian lord)

If God wants to be even more merciful to someone else then GOOD! I am glad for that person.

Good for you. The gladness you feel towards these people is, however, irrelevant. The situation is still unfair. This means God is not perfectly fair and just.

People who do not believe in Christ, are not Christian, are also invited into the Kingdom based upon what they DO.

According to Mark 16:16, those who do not believe are condemned. Mark makes no exception for the moral atheist. Mark is clear on this. Those who do not believe are condemned.

[Justin108]

Yes, with these scriptures a certain amount of reasoning and deduction will be necessary. As Jesus said "let the reader use discernement" so finding out how scriptures fit logically together is not always evident upon the first reading; you are right on that.

It's not a matter of several readings, it's a matter of the specifics of your belief (i.e that non-believers are given a second chance on earth) is not mentioned anywhere. Interpretation can only go so far. A verse might mean one of several things, but there is not a single verse that would conclude this second chance of the non-believers.

But suppose this were true... suppose all atheists are given a second chance to repent if their crime is disbelief. What would be the point? Suppose an atheist is an otherwise good man in every way. God resurrects him and judges him for his disbelief. He stands before God for his crime of disbelief. As he stands before God, he immediately believes and is no longer guilty of the crime of disbelief.

Why is disbelief a crime if you immediately become innocent of this crime the moment you step into court and see God? It makes no sense whatsoever for this to be condemned if you are immediately innocent the moment you go to trial for it

[tam]

No. Abraham is the forefather. His offspring and children have a better 'chance' because of his faith and the promises God made to him concerning his offspring BECAUSE of his faith.

Yes, they are rewarded for the faith of their father. They are rewarded for the actions of another. They have not earned this. It is therefore unfair

They benefit from the faith of their father, sure. But it is Abraham who received the blessing, which included a blessing for his children. If you love someone, you take care of their loved ones, their children, their offspring as well.

That was the covenant made with Abraham due to his faith. How is that not fair?

You want that kind of covenant, or to be in that kind of covenant, then what is stopping you? The covenant with Christ offers a promise for you and for your children.

Among his father's people, however, Abraham was the only one who heard God and obeyed. Abraham's father did not give Abraham a better'chance'.

No but God appearing before Abraham did. If God appeared before me, I would still be a Christian. I wasn't as lucky as Abraham though

You're assuming that God never spoke to anyone else. But Abraham is simply the one who HEARD, and BELIEVED, and OBEYED.

Well I am not of the 144 000 and I do not thin it is unfair. Because not being one of the 144 000 does not prevent me - in the least - from having a place in the Kingdom or even in the Body of Christ.

It may not outright prevent you, but it does hinder you.

No, it does not.

Explain how it hinders me or you or anyone else.

Even if God did give more to one person - as is HIS right (or is God not permitted to be fair to himself?) - it does not take away from someone else. Its not like in this world where there are limited resources. There isn't 'only so much room' in the Kingdom.

The fact of the matter is some have a lesser than to end up in heaven than others due to their circumstances. This is unfair by definition

Due to circumstances that they or their father/forefathers/ancestors have created for them.

Take that up with your father/forefather/ancestor then.


That being said, I am brought back to Abraham. Abraham was called to leave his father's people. Because they are not worshiping or listening as they were supposed to be. They had gone astray. So that is what Abraham was working with.

Do you suppose Abraham is the only person of his father's people who was forewarned? The example we have from Israel would tell us no; God forewarns all the time. But of his father's people, Abraham is the only one who heard, believed, and obeyed. He overcame. Because of his faith; a faith that others did not have or exercise.

**

Everyone is invited. Not everyone even wants to answer that call, as it comes with a cross. But even those who are not Christian will be invited into the Kingdom as subjects of the Kingdom, and given eternal life.


How much more fair do you want things to be?

I must concentrate on my Lord and what I do.

That's because you were probably born in a Christian family in a Christian country. If you were born in a harsh Muslim family, you would probably not be concentrating on the Lord (at least not the Christian lord)

This responses missed the point that instead of looking around at what others might receive more than me, I am to keep my eyes upon myself, and my Lord. Not worry about what others are doing or receiving.

Not look around and say, "Oh, no fair! So and so is getting more than me or so and so had a better pole position in life." Especially when with God and Christ, you don't have to take first place to receive the prize. Just finish the race.

And do you not recall what is written?

From those who have been given much, much is expected of them?

How is that not fair?


If God wants to reserve a portion of Israel due to his love for Abraham, due to Abraham's love and faith for God, then He has that right, and how is it unfair? God has not taken away from someone else, because no one else showed that same faith.



Say a rich man (once poor) worked hard his whole life so that his children and their children, etc, won't ever have to work that hard, but will be secure (financially at least). Is it somehow unfair that these children have a financial advantage over the children of a man who never did that, who might even have sold them into poverty instead?

We are responsible for what advantages or disadvantages our children have in this life and the buck does not start with us; it goes all the way back to our forefathers.

The Egyptians who left with Israel gained an advantage for their children that the Egyptians who remained in Egypt did not. But whose fault was that? God's, or those who chose to remain and deny Him?

People who do not believe in Christ, are not Christian, are also invited into the Kingdom based upon what they DO.

According to Mark 16:16, those who do not believe are condemned. Mark makes no exception for the moral atheist. Mark is clear on this. Those who do not believe are condemned.

Condemned to what?

To death, to taste death? People were already under that condemnation (already condemned). Faith in Christ gave them a way out from under that, and He also gives them the right to become children of God, and more than that, He also offers to share His rule with them in the Kingdom.



But everyone else also receives a resurrection at the resurrection of the dead, however - some are resurrected to life (based on their deeds), and some are resurrected to judgment and the second death (which is eternal - also based on their deeds).


Personally, I think God is more than fair... and more than just. Because he is merciful and of love; and such things surpass being fair and just. Allowing one to be more than fair. So perhaps I should revise my answer to that.


**

But as for fair and just:

"By the measure you use, it will be used against you." "Be merciful and mercy will be shown you".


I don't know what could be more fair or just than that? But on top of that, God offers more (including no judgment at all) to those who believe in, love, and obey His Son.

Yet He must honor His covenants with those who came before, who entered into covenants with Him. Such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel). It would not be fair otherwise, would it?


I realize that some of your argument is resting upon the (incorrect) teaching that unless one is in Christ, one is doomed to eternal hell. Because if the argument was with regard to what position one has in the Kingdom (and some do have a higher position than others), then that would be petty and jealous. Because the gift is eternal life, regardless of position in the Kingdom. No more tears, no more sorrow, no more death. I realize that is not your argument though (I am being sincere). I do not know if your opinion would change or not, depending upon the 'fate' of all people, in or out of Christ.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy