iano writes:
We inherited his knowledge of good and evil - i.e. we do know what is good and bad for our society.
If you had put an eg: instead of an i.e. then I might have even wholeheartedly agree with you here too
The "i.e." is correct. The two are equivalent - there is no example involved.
Gods laws are a reflection of his holiness.
No, they are a reflection of
our needs.
Why should He care if we kill each other? We're all going to die any way - our deaths effect us, not Him.
They are put there so that in our breaking them we might come to recognise what we are: sinners.
No, they are put there to help us get along with each other.
If the law was only for purposes of entrapment, it could be any arbitrary nonsense: don't drive over 100 klicks on Tuesday afternoon when the temperature is over 20 degrees Celsius. Since the commandments
make sense, it is clear that they were made to be kept, not broken.
What chance a sinner to sin if there was no law to break huh?
Sin is not the same thing as "breaking the law", as Jesus pointed out:
quote:
Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Lust is "equivalent" to adultery because it can lead to adultery. But lust is not an enforcible - or even detectable - offense under the law.
quote:
1Jo 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Hate is the "equivalent" of murder because it can lead to murder. But hate is not an enforcible - or even detectable - offense under the law.
So how can the law convict us of sin?
-------------
As for the OP: the chances of cavediver seeing Hitler in heaven depend on two things:
- Will Hitler be in heaven?
- Will cavediver be there to see him?
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC