Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity

When we speak in an absolute sense of His sovereignty, we may say that God kills all and everyone, whether he died naturally or not. The OT is written in such a sense of His absolute sovereignty.Humans were cruel and humanity was low in most parts of human history. And as a human, everyone dies once, it's a must. To die in a hospital won't guarantee that you will be less painful than in any other way.God is to save souls, not body in terms of priority. If the children died innocently, perhaps their souls are saved.God allowed the Jews to be just as cruel as their enemies, in order to survive the history for His salvation plan to be feasible. While in that part of human history, humanity is as low as illustrated by how the Egyptians killed the Jews' first born sons just because they perceived that the Jews would get over-populated.If everyone offended God's Law, he will be judged by His Law. If you don't want such a judging by Law, you are offered the Second Covenant, an offer which saves souls, not bodies.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Truth is evidence independent. Evidence is for a human brain (or rather human belief system) to recognise a truth. There's always a gap between what's inside a human's brain (belief system) and what the truth itself is. When the gap is reduced to 0, our brain hits a truth, yet we can never be sure about if it's truly a 0. That's where the Matrix advocate is coming from.Because each and every human belief system is unique, that's why what's evident to someone may not be evident enough to another.Science is a bit special. Science is about the discovery of existing natural rules. These natural rules can predict precisely for your brain (belief system) to reckon them as the truth. For example, water will decompose into oxygen and hydrogen. You can use this rule to predict that water everywhere inside this universe will decompose so. Before each and every experiment you can expect that the result is so, or to say that no experimental results can falsify your prediction, no experiments can falsify this rule.As a result, the so-called empirical evidence is actually an imaginary evidence which possesses the effect of fooling a certain mass of people's belief systems to belief in something is a truth.God is to give tailored evidence to everyone's belief system to allow it to choose to believe that whether He's a truth or not. He will not give the so-called non-existing 'empirical proof' to a mass of atheists, as people will not need the required faith this way. And without the required faith they can't be saved.Now assuming that you've met with God personally and are 100% sure about His existence, and how will you be able to show others that it is true that God exists?!?!?! You will find that there's not any efficient way for such a kind of truth to be conveyed among humans. Even when you are 100% sure about it, others will have to need faith either to accept or to reject what you said. To simply put, witnessing and testimony are already of the most efficient way for your truth to be conveyed. And coincidently this is what Christianity is, witnessing and testimonies.Moreover, your flying spaghetti may not be flying spaghetti at all if 1/3 human beings buy into your story, including the most intelligent ones such as Issac Newton. To that extend, a skeptic deserves human efforts in digging up the truth behind it.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Is science reliable, yet it is. Yet one needs to distinguish between what science is and what the scientists' faith is. The scientists POVs are not necessarily the truth.Humans based their faith on pass experience about how things work out in reality. That becomes their common senses. But no one can extend his 'pass experience' and 'common senses' into his afterlife.You applied your common senses instead of science to judge that I am just another human typing here to communicate with you. It is your faith that works instead of proof or evidence acquired that you continue your discussion here in the message board. And can't however extend completely this kind of faith/common senses into a realm of afterlife. You may need to build up your faith another way around.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

quote:

---

(2) Since you mention it, I don't see why we can't extrapolate from our experience to draw conclusions about the afterlife. We observe that when part of the brain ceases to work, this results in the loss of the corresponding mental function. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that when the whole of my brain stops working, as it will when I'm dead, I will have no mental functions whatsoever, i.e. that I will actually be dead. This is not a cheerful conclusion, but I don't see much of a way around it. of course one can imagine a miracle, but one could do that with respect to any question at all. Given a miracle, monkeys might fly out of my butt, but I don't expect that to happen either.

---

Can you experiement through this? That's just a human explanation by human speculation without experimental support to bring it into a scientific truth.Hate to burst your bubble here though, IT IS YOUR FAITH! So don't sound if it is a scientific truth that nothing exists after death. Or should you write some scientific reports to conclude that "void after death is proven"? Gee.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.