Could God have Created a Different Universe?

[cvanwey]

No one ends in hell who is not Satanic, ie totally given over to evil...the kind of person that would monster the most holy old man on earth (and his family) just because GOD spoke highly of him.

Those of our families who are our worst enemies will be seen for what they truly are, totally morally corrupt. The reason we live with them and get to know them so well is just this - to have us understand their evil and to come out for among them in our heart, as per the parable of the weeds, part one, Matt 13...

If one of your loved ones remains a Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, other, but strives to following the golden rule, are they deemed 'satanic' or 'morally corrupt"?

Please define 'evil'? Is 'evil' merely anything which disagrees with YHWH? If so, does this mean anyone whom does not adhere to John 3:16-18? Please clarify?

 

[cvanwey]

As for why no one will ever sin again...Everyone will know the horror and suffering caused by any and every little sin and they will avoid making any decision that will start that ball rolling ever again.

You would still not be you. People know 'right from wrong' now, prior to humanly death. They can choose not to do so now. And yet, God deems all humans sinners. And yet, God also chooses for some of these sinners to still go to heaven. It would be safe to say that even YOU will still continue to commit some sort of sin(s), prior to your death, right? Unless you are the only 'perfect' person on planet earth?

Thus, if some make it to heaven, what will be different? They already know 'right from wrong'. What is to keep them from choosing 'wrong' in heaven? Seems God would need to change/transform/modify these chosen humans in some way, so they will no longer choose 'wrong'. Humans cannot do this on their own. Hence, the reason God grants humans 'grace'.

So, if you are somehow 'changed', after passing this threshold, just allow everyone in

 

[TedT]

Yet we can believe in anything with faith. I can believe with faith that Allah is the true God or that Big Foot exists. It is not a reliable path to determine truth. It says a lot about God that He requires you to believe without evidence and if you don't you get hell.

Faith in GOD is what keeps us in the truth. Faith does not determine the truth, GOD does, for the faithful. We believe in the truth of Romans 1 where it is discussed that everyone knows the truth but some exchange it for a lie constantly because they love sin more.
And suddenly we exchange without proof for without evidence, great bait and switch.

The BIBLE IS EVIDENCE:
Acceptable to you or not it is the premier evidence and claim that GOD is involved with humans to redeem us from evil. The Book is there, it is real. I will give you a copy if you doubt its reality. It has had an amazing effect on the world out of proportion to its beginnings in a small dessert tribe from which it came.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST IS EVIDENCE:
Acceptable to you or not, the stories life of Christ have had a great impact upon whole cultures which proves its evidentiary status. Good evidence or insufficient evidence but it is evidence.

THE INDWELLING HOLY SPIRIT IS EVIDENCE:
Acceptable to you or not, those who experience a direct interaction / conversation / influence of God in their lives and thoughts have this experience as evidence. We will not be gaslighted by those who claim we are untrustworthy and making things up, (a favourite ploy of pedophiles) just because we accept the evidence we have seen which a skeptic has not yet seen.

THE CHANGE IN OUR VALUES SYSTEM IS EVIDENCE:
Acceptable to you or not, those who have been brought to repentance (had their eyes opened to their evil by being allowed to be evil until the suffering they have caused breaks them) and rebirth know they are different people and this metamorphosis is real and acceptable to them as evidence of GOD's work with them whether it can be argued it might be caused by other causes than GOD or not. All good things can be perverted to the use of evil, nothing is totally sacred on earth.

TTHE WITNESS OF PEOPLE WITH A SIMILAR EXPERIENCE IS EVIDENCE:
Acceptable to you or not, billions of people attesting to something is evidence. If they did not attest, there is no evidentiary value in their silence just like there is no evidence of a deity named HRUXIS because he has no book, no history of interaction with anyone, and no one attesting to his existence...no evidence!

A LACK OF EVIDENCE IS NOT PROOF OF A LACK OF REALITY:
For a hundred years sailors who made it as far as Australia reported seeing black swans. They were scorned by the British natural societies as liars or hallucinators because there was no evidence! until there was. Someone finally got a carcass to Britain and this led to the the understanding of the logical fallacy that no evidence must mean no reality.

NO EVIDENCE is often seen to mean 'no proof' in those writings about Christianity. No proof is the obvious meaning of no evidence when there is abundant evidence for belief...but it is not universally accepted which seems to be the only proof that 'no evidence' accepts.

Peace, Ted

 

[TedT]

It says a lot about God that He requires you to believe without evidence and if you don't you get hell.

Free Will cannot stand on PROOF: but only on FAITH, an unproven hope:
When we all heard the proclamation of YHWH's deity and the gospel of salvation as found in the Son, (reported in Col 1:23), we were faced with a decision about how to view this event, to accept it or to reject it. Since HIS purpose was to have a heavenly marriage with HIS creation, we had to have been created with a free will, able to either accept or reject HIS marriage proposal because a forced marriage is not real and not a suitable base for real love.
Free Will cannot stand on PROOF:
All FREE means is uncoerced:
IF GOD set it up so HIS new creation had no coercion or constraints upon their choices, forcing them to choose anything, they had free will.
The Elements of a True Free Will Choice:
1. Free will can't be coerced:
Nothing in their created nature could FORCE them to choose love or hate, good or evil, including all genetics...
Nothing in their experience could FORCE them to choose love or hate, good or evil, including all, cultural or familial experience...
Nothing in their understanding or knowledge of reality could FORCE them to choose good or evil, love or hate.
In other words, they had to be completely and truly ingenuously innocent.
[Ref: definition of ingenuous: [URL="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ingenuousness"]ingenuousness[/url] as: 1. Lacking in cunning, guile, worldliness; artless. 2. Openly straightforward or frank; candid.
2. Consequences must be known but NOT PROVED:
The person must understand the full consequences of their choice or it is a guess, not a true choice. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?” must be answered in full detail.
But "PROOF" of the nature of the consequence of each option would compel or coerce the person to choose what was proven to be the best for them. If the answer “death here,” “life there,” was proven, which would you choose? The weight of knowledge would destroy the effect of a true ‘free will’ choice, no matter which option they might have favoured before seeing the proof.
If it were proven you would die if you went left, are you truly free to choose to go right? No, you are forced by your knowledge to go right. Therefore they must know, but without proof, the nature of the consequences of their choice, heaven or hell.
Only then are they following their desires, their deepest hope in the nature of reality, defining the reality they most hope to enjoy.
Peace, Ted

 

[TedT]

I like what you said but I'll disagree with that interpretation of Job. From what I've read I the term "bene Elohim" (sons of God) refer to members of the angelic host.

It was interpreted by some rabbis to refer to spirits working for GOD, ie, angels, and not all the spirits created in HIS image and it is translated this way by a number of bible translators BUT at least the rabbis never changed the words bene Elohim, sons of GOD, to melech, angels, like Christian bible producers did.

Why try to force their opinion upon us that only angels were there and not ALL the sons of GOD as written?? Because the Church councils agreed in the doctrine of our creation here on earth by traducianism or the creationism of the soul doctrines and labeled the pre-conception of the existence of the spirit to be heresy.

To force your own ideas into scripture is called eisegesis and this is clearly an eisegetical importation of the created on earth theory to steer people away from the fact that the words as written can certainly be accepted on face value to refer to everyone's existence at the time of the creation of the physical universe.

It CAN mean we were there without doing any damage to the words as written whether of not it does mean that but to change the Bible to sell your preconception of the truth is evil the core.

 

[TedT]

If one of your loved ones remains a Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, other, but strives to following the golden rule, are they deemed 'satanic' or 'morally corrupt"?

The only distinction is between satanic, ie the reprobate and elect. All people are equally morally corrupt or they wouldn't be sown into the world, Matt 13:36-39. But not everyone can be saved from their sinfulness and received back by GOD...

The satanic are those who can't be saved from the legal and natural consequences of their sin because they made themselves unforgivable by their free will rebuke of YHWH as a liar and a false god, denying HIM interference in their free will decision which was promised to be held as sacrosanct. The yare not MORE morally corrupt than the sinful elect, their sin is not worse because all or any sin has an equal and ultimate disvalue in the sight of GOD! But they chose to repudiate HIM, the only power in creation that could save them from the consequences of their choosing to be sinful, knowing that if HE was our creator GOD they would be going to be banished to the outer darkness.

The sinful elect are just as morally bankrupt as the satanic but they can be and were promised to be saved from all consequences of choosing to be sinful. Some accepted HIM as GOD and HIS interference with their self chosen sinfulness because they wanted to take no chances on hell, a ploy the satanic scorned as unworthy of their rebuke of HIM.

YHWH knew that some of the elect only accepted HIM to get HIS promise of salvation then they were planning to go their own way....and HE could work with that. These elect when called to come out for among their friends who were now condemned, ie, the satanic, and they rebelled becoming sinful themselves which forced the postponement of the judgement day so they would not be
damned with their friends as explained in the parable of the weeds, Matt 13:24-30.

The problem is that these people for whom the elect were willing to become evil in GOD's sight are now (most probably) found amongst their family and close circle of friends here. WE do not live together as the parable says to come to see how wonderful we are and how horrible they are in the least but to understand that they can never change, will never change, nor ever seek holiness by faith in Christ, the only method of salvation.

Does that seem impossible? But the bible seems to say that it can happen in one lifetime of living with them...

Please define 'evil'? Is 'evil' merely anything which disagrees with YHWH? If so, does this mean anyone whom does not adhere to John 3:16-18? Please clarify?

Evil is the definition of anything that is not in accord with GOD's nature. Anything in accord with HIS nature is for HIM, with HIM, acceptable to HIM. Anything not in such accord is against HIM, apart from HIM, unacceptable to HIM in the highest degree.

This is a good thing because HE is not just defining good and evil by intellect or arbitrary choice but weighing all things against what HE is at HIS core of GODliness. Thus HE creates only that which resonates with HIMself.

HE is a GOD undivided: light with no dark, live fruit without rot, pure life giving water without brackishness or stagnation. Anything not in accord with HIS nature is then a corruption of that nature to be destroyed one way or another as soon as possible.

 

[TedT]

You would still not be you.

I would be the me who put my faith in YHWH and the Son.
I also remember just how evil I was as a sinner and how much that has changed so I strongly suspect that when I am perfected I will sing HIS praises for centuries that I am not THAT sinful human, that me, anymore!!!

Halleluyah!!

Doesn't it seem strange that someone might refuse to repent and be willing to go to hell just to remain in their sin as their definition of their core person?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

We believe in the truth of Romans 1 where it is discussed that everyone knows the truth but some exchange it for a lie constantly because they love sin more.

I know of at least one person for whom that is false - me. Any atheist can prove this to themselves, using the same intrapersonal means.

So the best case scenario for you is that you've misinterpreted Romans 1. The worst case is that you've interpreted it correctly, and the Bible itself is wrong, and therefor cannot be the word of Yahweh.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I know of at least one person for whom that is false - me. Any atheist can prove this to themselves, using the same intrapersonal means.

So the best case scenario for you is that you've misinterpreted Romans 1. The worst case is that you've interpreted it correctly, and the Bible itself is wrong, and therefor cannot be the word of Yahweh.

It's astonishing, isn't it. I've pointed this out more than a few times.

Whether Christians believe Paul was divinely inspired or not, whether they believe therefore that it is correct, this can only be evidence to the non-believer that the Bible is wrong (at least on this point).

This argument only reinforces the non-believer's position.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

It's astonishing, isn't it. I've pointed this out more than a few times.

Whether Christians believe Paul was divinely inspired or not, whether they believe therefore that it is correct, this can only be evidence to the non-believer that the Bible is wrong (at least on this point).

This argument only reinforces the non-believer's position.

It's like someone who claims to be a psychic saying to me, "just now, you were thinking of pink elephants."

If I wasn't, I now know for certain that they aren't psychic.

It is extremely unwise to predicate an assertion on the one thing I not only know for certain, but actually cannot possibly be wrong about - the content of my own thoughts.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It's like someone who claims to be a psychic saying to me, "just now, you were thinking of pink elephants."

If I wasn't, I now know for certain that they aren't psychic.

It is extremely unwise to predicate an assertion on the one thing I not only know for certain, but actually cannot possibly be wrong about - the content of my own thoughts.

Yes, very arrogant and condescending. But they just say we suppress our belief due to our unrighteousness. So somehow we know god exists but we don’t know we know. Can’t argue against that logic.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When God created the universe, did He create a universe that is the only one that He could have created or did He choose to create this universe over other different universes knowing all that would happen in this universe?

While I find it doubtful that he would make another universe, I'm sure that he could if he wished; but at present we have no way of knowing if he did or if he didn't, nor —and this is what is most interesting to me— do we know enough to say what is, and what is not, 'universe'.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So, for love to exist, evil had to be possible, and so would happen plenty, right along with the good things.

You are saying that Evil had to exist before God could love?

 

[cvanwey]

The only distinction is between satanic, ie the reprobate and elect. All people are equally morally corrupt or they wouldn't be sown into the world, Matt 13:36-39. But not everyone can be saved from their sinfulness and received back by GOD...

The satanic are those who can't be saved from the legal and natural consequences of their sin because they made themselves unforgivable by their free will rebuke of YHWH as a liar and a false god, denying HIM interference in their free will decision which was promised to be held as sacrosanct. The yare not MORE morally corrupt than the sinful elect, their sin is not worse because all or any sin has an equal and ultimate disvalue in the sight of GOD! But they chose to repudiate HIM, the only power in creation that could save them from the consequences of their choosing to be sinful, knowing that if HE was our creator GOD they would be going to be banished to the outer darkness.

The sinful elect are just as morally bankrupt as the satanic but they can be and were promised to be saved from all consequences of choosing to be sinful. Some accepted HIM as GOD and HIS interference with their self chosen sinfulness because they wanted to take no chances on hell, a ploy the satanic scorned as unworthy of their rebuke of HIM.

YHWH knew that some of the elect only accepted HIM to get HIS promise of salvation then they were planning to go their own way....and HE could work with that. These elect when called to come out for among their friends who were now condemned, ie, the satanic, and they rebelled becoming sinful themselves which forced the postponement of the judgement day so they would not be
damned with their friends as explained in the parable of the weeds, Matt 13:24-30.

The problem is that these people for whom the elect were willing to become evil in GOD's sight are now (most probably) found amongst their family and close circle of friends here. WE do not live together as the parable says to come to see how wonderful we are and how horrible they are in the least but to understand that they can never change, will never change, nor ever seek holiness by faith in Christ, the only method of salvation.

Does that seem impossible? But the bible seems to say that it can happen in one lifetime of living with them...

This response does not look to answer my direct question(s)? I'll ask again -- (paraphrased, based upon the information you have given):

1. Does this mean a Hindu, Buddhist, wrong Christian beliefs, or other, are then being sent to hell by YHWH, even though they thrive to follow the golden rule?

2. And if so, and if any of these folks were your close friends and/or family, you would not be sad or miss them when you are in Heaven, and you know they are burning in hell eternally?

3. You can avoid sin now, since you already know sin is against God's nature. Thus, how are you going to do any better, when in Heaven? Seems as though God would need to change you, before you enter Heaven. And if He needs to change you, just allow everyone into Heaven; since He must change anyone anyways?

 

[cvanwey]

Doesn't it seem strange that someone might refuse to repent and be willing to go to hell just to remain in their sin as their definition of their core person?

I doubt most atheists, skeptics, agnostics follow such a mantra, by mere definition. Such folks are not like 'demons', who know He exists, and choose to rebel. We doubt He exists, period. -- Maybe just like Big Foot.

Case/point: I doubt such a God exists, due to my perceived lack in evidence. Hence, I am a skeptic. If God knows, for me to even possibly choose to follow Him, I must at least believe He is real; and He chooses not to lay forth the evidence He knows I need, then this would mean He is deliberately holding out --- (to keep me a skeptic).

For Him to expect that I take it on blind faith alone, would seem to be nonsense. Why not also take the claims of Xenu, Brahman, Thor, Odin, Shiva, etc., on blind faith? And as soon as you begin to 'justify' why I should only take Jesus' claims on blind faith, and not the others, means you are laying forth 'evidence', which then rebukes the entire concept of 'blind faith' to begin with...

The 'divine hiddenness' argument then soon gets raised, in defense for YHWH

 

[TedT]

I doubt most atheists, skeptics, agnostics follow such a mantra, by mere definition. Such folks are not like 'demons', who know He exists, and choose to rebel. We doubt He exists, period. -- Maybe just like Big Foot.

I think most Christians would not accept that this ignorance has any real difference from the demons or has any value as a non-culpable reason for not accepting a belief in HIM ...

because Rom 1:20 says we all clearly saw the proof of HIS deity and power so no one has an excuse for not accepting HIM then goes on to say that they exchange this truth for a lie in a culable manner because they love sin more than the truth.

Edited to add:
This was written to explain why GOD does not wait for them to repent as it clearly says that the enslaving addiction to evil that filled them when they chose to be evil in HIS sight will always corrupt their minds and souls no matter what their learn or know in their minds, intellectually...

 

[TedT]

the content of my own thoughts.

Rom 1 does not pretend to know the content of your thoughts as they skip along minute to minute but it speaks to the content of your deep subconscious motivations.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Rom 1 does not pretend to know the content of your thoughts as they skip along minute to minute but it speaks to the content of your deep subconscious motivations.

No it doesn’t. It says, as you’ve pointed out earlier, that I am “without excuse”.

If this was referring to subconscious activity, rather than conscious, deliberate activity, that would be an excuse.

It really doesn’t matter much, though. Neither you nor Paul have access to ANY of my thought content, conscious or subconscious.

So which is it - is your interpretation of this Bible passage wrong, or is the Bible itself wrong?

 

[TedT]

You are saying that Evil had to exist before God could love?

Had to be possible does not necessarily mean that it had to be experienced.

Our free will was an absolute necessity to be able to fulfill the purpose for our creation ie to have loving marriage with GOD.

A free will could not be constrained from not choosing the option GOD did not want us to choose, that is, to reject HIM and HIS purpose for us and descend into evil. Evil had to be an option for our free will to actually be free.

But the option to choose to be in total accord with HIM and HIS purposes was available to everyone from the start, not just the holy elect angels who chose it, so it is a fact that everyone might have chosen to be holy and there would have been no fall, no sin and no hell.

GOD had no need for sin to fulfill HIS purposes of a heavenly marriage with us - to think HE did need sin is a blasphemy - but HE did need to make it an available option for our free will to be really free.

We each created evil in ourselves and changed our intellectual understanding of it to the full experiencing of it by eating of the tree of the of the knowledge good and evil by our free will.

 

[cvanwey]

I think most Christians would not accept that this ignorance has any real difference from the demons or has any value as a non-culpable reason for not accepting belief HIM ...

because Rom 1:20 says we all clearly saw the proof of HIS deity and power so no one has an excuse for not accepting HIM then goes on to say that they exchange this truth for a lie in a culable manner because they love sin more than the truth.

I'll await your response to @Eight Foot Manchild ... Were you planning on answering my questions in post #114?