Hawkins

"We are not under Law" only means we will not be judged by Law on the Judgment Day. Or God still sees us as the righteous as He no longer measures us against Law. However the purpose of a covenant is not to abolish law. Law is still in place as a measurement for whoever sins. What is Law and Covenant ================================= A covenant basically serves its primary purpose in identifying the righteous by putting only the wicked under the judgment of Law. An updated covenant is thus needed if even the righteous have difficulties in keeping the Law specified in an older covenant. God will thus sign off a newer covenant such that only the wicked will be put to death by Law. A covenant basically has two parts, Law and Grace. The main message conveyed in a covenant is that "you keep the Law specified to an extent up to God's satisfaction such that you will be saved by His Grace". A human on earth (virtually earth is a realm of Satan) cannot be saved without a covenant and the Grace granted through the covenant. As Grace is granted only under the name of Jesus Christ (there's no other names), no human can thus be saved without Jesus Christ. No one can see the Father except through Jesus Christ. The reason why a human cannot be saved without a covenant: The Bible said, sin is the breaking of Law. Adam sinned in Eden. So what Law did Adam break? Obviously it's not Mosaic Law. It is the absolution version of God's Law (i.e., without attaching to any covenant). The Bible said, lust is a sin. Obviously, this is not found in Mosaic Law (which is attached to a covenant). Possibly it is also from the absolute version of God's Law. If a human, nearly perfect and was directly made by God, when living inside God's realm (living together with God Himself) failed to keep this absolution version of Law, then how can a human living in Satan's realm (i.e., planet earth) keep such an absolute version of God Law. No one can keep such a version of Law when put outside God's realm (such as humans on earth). Then why such a version of Law is put in place? In God's Ultimate Plan, an eternity called heaven will be built for humans and angels to live happily with God forever. As a result, a criteria is set up to qualify entities with free will to enter this eternity called heaven. Such a criteria is thus the absolute version of God's Law (Adam somehow failed). The meaning of Adam's Fall: Humans with free will cannot be directly put to heaven, as some of them will finally fall. Eden is a necessity for this point to be demonstrated openly as a witness. Angels and later humans thus know why Adam is not directly brought to heaven. Planet earth becomes another necessity. Here humans are divided as sheep and goats, wheat and weeds. It's more like sift or filter such that only the righteous will be brought to heaven under open witness (of the angels and chosen saints). Now Adam sinned and was driven out of God's realm (Eden), humans ever since are outside God's realm but in a realm of which Satan is said to be the god. Humans in this Satan's realm will not be able to keep the absolution version of God's Law. They will only go further and further away from God and God's expectation as set forth in terms of His absolute version of Law. The above has been demonstrated by Noah's event where all mankind became so sinful to be tolerable by God. However, Noah is considered righteous in God's eyes. Now the question becomes how can the righteous be separated from the wicked and be saved! That drives the need of a covenant with Grace. The righteous can thus be saved through God's Grace. God can grant Grace to save humans this way because in the end Jesus Christ will atone for their sins. God's Grace can thus be granted through Jesus Christ to each and every covenant. To put it another way, without a covenant containing Grace, no humans can be saved. As a result, God doesn't need humans' agreement to enforce a covenant as without such a covenant no humans can be saved. Other than the Law part and the Grace part, a covenant also specifies a scope of humans under the covenant. Today, there are 2 basic covenants enforced on humans. A covenant (possibly originated from Noah) covering the Gentiles (or rather all mankind). The Law part of this covenant is the Law written by God in our hearts. It is closely linked to our conscience and moral code we live by. The Jews can have an option of adapting another covenant (covering only the Jews and converters accepted by God). The Law part of this covenant is the Mosaic Law. The Jews need to be circumcised and to observe Mosaic Law in order to be covered by this covenant. God said if the Jews don't then they will be "cut off from his people". If a Jew doesn't observe Mosaic Law, he's not a Jew strictly speaking, he makes not much difference than a Gentile. All humans are thus put under these 2 covenants without exception by default. However you can see here that today's humans are pretty much dead, as the Jews fail to keep the Mosaic Law and Gentiles fail to keep the Law written in their hearts. That's why God signed off a New Covenant some 2000 years ago to cater for today's situation. The New Covenant is the final covenant as the Law part has already been minimized to 0. Under this covenant, humans are saved by faith alone (i.e., Grace alone but without Law attached). It is not a 'compulsory' covenant as the 2 old covenants mentioned above. It's rather an 'optional' covenant which you can choose when you have the consent as an adult (i.e., you are mature enough to make a choice). At last but not least. Other than the Law Part, the Grace part and a scope of humans, each covenant would have some core commandments acting as the foundation of the Law part of a covenant. I think that most of these commandments can be copied over from an older covenant to a newer covenant. The 10 commandments are thus copied over from the Old covenant to the New covenant but except for the Sabbath. You can speculate the effect by looking into the past. How many Christians (who are saved) in the past 2000 years ever observed the Sabbath. The answer is 'Few'? Have they all broken God's commandment for them? Or rather God already foresaw this and thus intentionally excluded Sabbath from the New commandment!!! Since the Law part in the New Covenant no longer exists, these commandments are no longer obeyed as Law, they are rather obeyed as Christ's teachings and His commands. Relevant verses: Romans 10:4 (NIV) Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. To the righteous, the Law no longer applied to the righteous as the primary purpose of a newer covenant is to put only the wicked to death under the judgment of Law. Romans 5:20-21 (NIV) The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Each older covenant brought in Law. Along time, sin increased that even the righteous may find difficulties in keeping Law. God however will grant Grace the more such that the righteous will be spared but only the wicked will be put to death under the judgment of Law.

You are not answering my question. You are fighting against wikipedia. wikipedia, The Sadducees rejected the Oral Law as proposed by the Pharisees. Rather, they saw the Torah as the sole source of divine authority.[11] The written law, in its depiction of the priesthood, corroborated the power and enforced the hegemony of the Sadducees in Judean society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducees It only makes sense that the high court (composed of both Sadducees and Pharisees) keeps only the Torah, not the oral law. It also only makes sense that the Pharisees keep the oral law orally. You can't keep something ORAL in a great assembly of both Sadducees and Pharisees with the Sadducees rejecting it.

Wikipedia, The Mishnah was redacted between 180 and 220 CE by Rabbi Yehudah haNasi when, according to the Talmud, the persecution of the Jews and the passage of time raised the possibility that the details of the oral traditions of the Pharisees from the Second Temple period (536 BCE – 70 CE) would be forgotten. Wikipedia, It was also during this time that the high priesthood - the members of which often identified as Sadducees ...(a situation since 3 century BCE). Priesthood is basically in the hands of the Sadducees. High court is composed of both Sadducees and Pharisees together with others. However, since the Sadducees don't recognize the oral law, most likely the oral law isn't there. The oral law thus becomes the Pharisees' requirements for the Jews in general to follow under the help of rabbis who are responsible for general Jew education. Temples (under the control of Sadducees) may have nothing to do with the oral law. Nor is the high court. Oral law thus is most likely enforced by Pharisees with the help of the rabbis in the form of general Jew education (in mainly the Jerusalem area). In a nutshell, Talmud is an attempt to record down the contents of the oral law (authenticated by Pharisees before 70AD). Talmud is not responsible for recording down concepts developed from or outside the Oral law, such as the point of view of after life and the definition of sheol. It is more like a set of moral code you need to follow, instead of recording a school of thoughts about a specific sect. This is natural because the oral law isn't something developed by the Pharisees (they possibly added some rules though), it is originated from Moses. it is about oral LAW (even when rabbi commentaries and Pharisees may be recorded there) not concepts of souls or hell or such. At the same time this won't prevent the development of soul (afterlife) and hell concepts (such as that recorded in the book of Enoch) among a specific sect at a specific time, that is, the Pharisees at Jesus time.

This is a contradiction. They don't need to write it down if it's not facing the danger of losing it. They try to record it down most likely because they can no longer keep it if something isn't written down. So they were losing it because no one (the Pharisees) enforced it any more. Talmud is more of a rabbi stuff, for the purpose of teaching. The true oral law was formally held (and thus defined) by the Pharisees. The Jews were already losing the Pharisee stuff, they have to start the recording from what the rabbis have. It is like, you lost the formal materials and have to fabricate them from the training materials. The elites from both the Pharisee and Sadducee camps should have be gone after AD 70 siege. Later revolts may not be led by the most influential Pharisees and Sadducees (or their successors) living in Jerusalem before the siege. That's actually why most documents (including Mishna) were written by rabbis instead of a Pharisee. If the Pharisees were still there after 70AD, they would have perceived the needs of writing the oral laws down themselves.

The question is how "traditional"? How traditional after they lost contact with God since AD 70? Modern rabbinic teaching is based on Talmud which was only formed (in written form) in 200 ~ 500 CE. And modern Messianic concept is based on Maimonides' idea while he's born in 1135 CE. So there is a gap between the Jewish views in Jesus time and today's Jewish views. Even in Jesus time, the Jewish views of those in Jerusalem may be different from those living outside the Jerusalem area (especially between the Grecian Jews and Hebraic Jews). At that time, there were under 300k Jews living in Jerusalem while there could be 2~3 million in the whole Palestine area. Rabbis at that time were deeply influenced by the 6000 Pharisees (they disappeared after 70 AD). They both were mainly living in Jerusalem. And in 70 AD siege around 1 million Jews were killed (I believe this included most adult men living in Jerusalem). The teachings (and concepts) once driven and enforced by the Pharisees might have come to an end. The second question is, how large is the research base in studying the OT? And is such a research put under God's will? After AD 70, it seems Christians are the ones who seriously studied the contents of OT. Search the word "Hebrew" in chritianbook.com you will notice that there thousands of Hebrew translations and tools as a result of Christian effort in studying the Hebrew documents. On the other hand, the elites of the Jews (Pharisees, Sadducees, even rabbis etc.) died out in siege of AD 70. Jews were scattered since then. Judaism is more of a hearsay since then. Only the Christian research is in large scale under God's supervision. That's why we have tons of Bible translations, (KJV, NIV and etc.) and commentaries.

The point is, the people who are not a scientist may not know that the scientists have several models to ponder and cannot firmly confirm which should be the actual truth. They will worship the "science" to say that science says that big bang is the truth such that God doesn't exist. Worst still, they reject God this way in a much subconscious way perhaps without their own awareness. Similarly, they worship the "science god" the same way subconsciously thinking that this universe has already been well explained by science for them to reject other possibilities.

This is normal and part of human nature. However it has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity. What is worthy of more attention is that conveniently those things that are beyond of our microscopes and our telescopes etc are easily explained by the "all powerful/all knowing science".

Well. You can just leave it there. People will be able to get the point. As for the big bang, we need to first address where the controversy is coming from. Science can be efficient and accurate only in dealing with a repeating pattern. The big bang however never repeats in front of us. Science is usually futile about this. That's where the doubts and arguments coming from. Evolution is a claimed repeating pattern, but the pattern itself is not repeatedly available for examination. That's where the controversy coming from.

The point is that, even when rat to cat is a fact. It won't support that species are from a single cell. I point this out because a lot of people think that, say, macro-evolution supports the conclusion that species are from a single cell. However, if rat-to-cat can't support so, how can any macro-evolution be used to support it. That's the point.

The sun is a star...you can't have night and day or life for that matter without the sun. If you argue otherwise, you shun science and rest your entire argument on faith and the supernatural. Which is ok, jiust have the intellectual honesty to admit it. On the other hand, you need to admit the following, 1. our science is limited (mostly to a 3D space environment 2. we don't know what time-space is. We have some calculations though, such as relativity and quantum physics 3. it boils down to what assumption is made, God or no God. We don't know completely how time-space works in our 3D space, not to speak outside of it. We can't thus conceptually explain why 2 beams of light going towards each other will result in a constant relative speed of light. We only know that the calculation is so. Now the last part, what matters is the assumption which we cannot verify. Under the assumption that no God exists, it makes sense to say that you need a sun for day and night to be told. Under that assumption that God exists, while we don't know completely the nature of time-space, thus we can't even say for sure that if earth was created in our current space.

Evolution implicitly or explicitly hinted that all species are ultimately from a single cell. My point is to illustrate that this view is unsupported. Even the assumed strongest evidence (rat to cat) won't support the conclusion that "species are from a single cell" as evolution trying to conclude.

So, if a child disobeyed/disrespted his or here parents it would be ok if they were stoned to death? When did it become ok not to do that? Some law has no practical values, they are rather a serious measure for education. First, it's not up to the father to do the execution. He may hand over his son to a group of law keepers though, more like a council or court. It doesn't seem that such a council will do such a kind of execution. It doesn't seem that a father will hand over his son for such an execution in the first place. On the other hand, from a design perspective. I speculate that such a law has the effect of filtering out those wicked. That is to say, those who finally see hell will make use of this as an excuse to fight God, then to see their doom. So be warned!

There are 2 slavery systems co-existed here, one is the Hebrew slavery system which is a "work program" to help the poor out. The second is a worldwide practiced slavery system adapted by non-Jews. Again, comparatively, the Egyptians can kill the Jews' children on sight simply because the Jews got over-populated. You can't expect that all the Jews are saints and are totally isolated from their living world. God doesn't demand that either, that's not the priority at that moment. God spent 40 years in the wildereness just to train them to be obedient in order to carry forward God's message of salvation, and to treat each other well. That's the priority. Only after entering Canaan and educated through the 10 commandments and Mosaic law, the Jews changed to be better people. During Exodus there's not much difference between the Jews and their surrounding human groups.

First, the Jews are not allowed to actively enslave fellow Hebrews. In Exodus time, slavery is well regulated. Comparatively, the Egyptians killed the Jews' children on-sight simply because the Jew got over-populated. While in Jeremiah's time, all slaves should be freed. Lev 25:35 If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. So the first measure to be taken in case of a poor fellow Jew is to help him out. Even in the case that the poor Jew decided to sell himself out, do not treat him as a slave. Lev 25:39-44 39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 “ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. In the year of Jubilee, all slaves male or female will be freed. As for female slaves. They are free to go as male slaves. Deut 15:12-15 12 If any of your people—Hebrew men or women—sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. 13 And when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. 14 Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the Lord your God has blessed you. 15Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today. God gave them command to free male and female slaves alike. God reminded them that they should do so because God redeemed them from Egypt. However, there are technical difficulties when this is implemented in reality. As a result, there are some rules going into the detailed situations. The first of this is female slaves sold by their fathers. Under most circumstance, they are taken as wives one way or another. That's why they are not freed the same way as male slaves. However, the owners will have to do the following, The first option is to take them as wives or concubines, they need to treat them equally as the non-slave wives and concubines. The second option is to take them as wives of their children. The same applies that they should be treated equally as non-slave wives. The third option is to allow them to be redeemded to other owners will be able to do the above 2 options. If the owners failed to do the above three, they should allow the female slaves to go free. Exodus 21:8-118 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money. The second problem is that when the owners gave wives to male slaves, say in their sixth years of service. In the seven year the male slaves may go free together with the female slaves who could be new in service. As a result, rule is set that the female slaves will be freed this way along with the male slave. They are freed by other means, that is, the 3 points listed above with the final resolution that the female slave will finally go free. As you can see here, the slavery system in Israel is not like other slavery systems around the world at the time of Exodus. The motive is to help the poor out. And in Jeremiah's time, all slaves shall be freed. Jeremiah 34:8-9 8 The word came to Jeremiah from the LORD after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem to proclaim freedom for the slaves. 9 Everyone was to free their Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Hebrew in bondage.

That's rather about the doubt that how far evolution can drive. Assume that the following is the evidence, A rat does evolved into a cat. You can thus scientifically, repeatedly turning a rat to a cat. Now what conclusions can be drawn from this, 1. because a rat evolved to a cat, such that a rat must be from a single cell 2. because a rat evolved to a cat, such that a cat must be from a single cell 3. because a rat evolved to a cat, such that all species must have been from a single cell The above however are fallacies. A rat to cat change can never demonstrate how organs are formed, it thus can't lead to the above conclusions. No evidence can be stronger than "a rat evolved to a cat". So if the strongest evidence ever won't lead to those conclusions, how about other weaker evidence, such whatever macro-evolution could be?

To me, humans usually apply fallacious concepts without their own awareness. Science usually goes through 3 stages to determine a scientific truth, 1) observation Science is basically dealing with a set of rules behind a repeating pattern. Observation is achievable basically because the pattern itself can be repeated infinitively. Say, you can observe how the earth revolving around the sun because the number of times the earth revolving the sun is infinitive. 2) formulation Through the possibly infinitive observations, you can develop theories about how it repeats. You can then try to quantitatively describe how it repeats, say, using a formula. 3) prediction This is to put your quantitative descriptions (formulated rules) into tests. If they predict correctly, the set of rules discovered/formulated by you is considered a truth (a formal scientific truth). If the prediction fails or doesn't fail within an acceptable variance (say, due to equipment capability limit), the set of rules you developed is considered falsified. To simply put a set of rules behind a repeating pattern is considered "proven" when the prediction of the pattern using this set of rules doesn't fail. For an example, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. This holds true no matter what. That is, you make a prediction (that water must dissolve into H2 and O2) before each and every experiment and that your prediction will never fail. You deserve a Nobel Prize shall your this prediction actually fails. A human brain thus realizes/recognizes that it is a truth as the numerous predictions never fail. This is the nature (predictability and falsifiability) of what science is. As for gravity, the related laws are proven as its behavior is repeatedly predictable. However, we don't know yet the true nature of gravity. Plus that we don't have a united theory (super theory) for the 4 known field theories. I believe that what limits us to explore further is that we cannot penetrate into other time-space dimensions to observe, formulate and predict the outcomes. We are confined within a 3D ball-like universe. On the other hand, even when one day we discovered the true nature of gravity and we developed a super theory which works for all the field forces, it won't falsify today's gravitational theory as the theory is considered proven. There will be a paradigm shift though. Just like the discovery of relativity is not a falsification of the Newtonian laws, it's just a paradigm shift. The Newtonian laws stand by themselves under a certain paradigm where they can be repeatedly verified through their predictability.

To me, evolution only makes sense under the assumption that God doesn't exist. If God exists then anything is possible. It is actually a deceptive argument that evolution is evidenced. To give you another perspective; Please make a list of all species currently existing in planet earth, then examine each of these species carefully and answer the one question, 1. a Cat What evidence do you have which shows that a cat is formed by a single cell? 2. a bird same question. What evidence do you have which shows that a bird is formed by a single cell? 3. a toad same question. What evidence do you have which effectively shows that a toad is formed from a single cell? (make a list of all species then count to how many species ToE is evident) All people have is the discrete changes possibly made by the nature. They can try to imagine that the nature can gradually change a cell to a finished species (cat, bird, toad, etc.) but such evidence (i.e. from cell to cat) is never existed. It is a belief by faith that small changes have the added up effect (this however is never evident to an extent that cat can be formed from a single cell this way). Such an added up effect is faith based. In a null shell, evolution is the belief that humans have already known all kinds of driving force and thus conclude that natural selection is the one and only one driving force to cause a single cell organism to form a much more complicated, say, cat. Actually, certain schools of evolution already assume that natural selection may not be the sole force. The question is rather how many forces out there can contribute to an evolution. By the assumption that God exists, then anything is possible. For an example, if 10 millions years ago with all other species formed by evolution, God created one species then allow the nature to continue to hammer this species. Now 10 millions year later, can human identify which one species was originally created by God? We can't. Now if God created half of the existed species 2 millions years ago and allow other species to be created by evolution, can humans today identify which species were originally created? How if God created all species some 2 millions years ago then allow the nature to continue to drive. Can today's human recognise them as created or evolved? Another possibility is that God only created Adam and Eve. Since they left Eden, God no longer cares about our physical bodies, He cares only about our soul. He no longer maintain humans' body genetically. His focus is only on our souls. On the other hand, along the path humans fought their way to survive, they tried every way to survive. Once in a while they interbreed with all other possible species, including the ancient chimps and other homo-erectus. That could be what our physical body now. Moreover, by the assumption that God exists, if for a reason that God ever moved the earth to another space-time then back and forth, then how the dating methods shall work? Our theories usually lie on the assumption that planet earth must have always been in its current space/position all the times. This assumption is reasonable but only under the assumption that God doesn't exist. If God exists, you may have to confirm with Him to see if He has ever manipulated the earth at a time-space level.

All I can say is that you posses a twisted concept about what science that your fallacious concept is never convincing. You can be convincing only when you are capable of possessing a correct concept of what science is. A true science doesn't rely on evidence to convince people. A true is to discover the set of rules behind a repeating behavior (phenomenon). We can predict this behavior as it repeats. ======= There's a reason why science can prove things beyond doubt where faith is considered having no bearing. For a simplified example, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. You can make such a prediction before each experiment that "water will dissolve into hydrogen and oxygen disregarding when and where you do the experiment". If your this prediction shall failed, you can get a Nobel Prize because this is the way how the formula is falsified. You make predictions which will never fail (or else you can get a Nobel Prize), this is what the nature of science is. A human brain will know for sure (without faith) that it is a truth because the endless repeatedly made predictions will never fail. This is regarding to the predictability of science. Predictability depends on repeatability (things must be repeatable to make the predictions), and without predictability it's not a science. However, today's human call everything a science even that without any predictability. For another example, if you try to conclude that cat is a result of evolution, you need to make a cat from a single cell repeatedly till you can predict that "if you follow these procedures, the single cell will certainly be turned to a cat (but not a dog)". And your this prediction never fail, then you are holding the truth. This is what science is. However, humans (including scientists) know that the above (turning cell to cat) is not possible. That's why the scientists have already abandoned the true scientific approach. Instead of confirming a scientific truth by repeated predictions without failure, they start to use another approach to try to find out the truth of the origin of species. They try to look into the past to collect the so-called "evidence". However, this approach is hardly a science. You need to know what limits humans are facing, before you draw your own conclusion. Yet another example, why the Big Bang Theory is controversial because the Big Bang itself never repeats in front of humans. Strictly speaking it's not a science because you can never get the predictability out of it until it repeats. Subsequently, since it cannot be confirmed scientifically, you can have multiple theories about what it is. And you can choose one of them to believe with faith. ======= The "science" in the mouth of the atheists won't attain the same accuracy as a true science does in detecting a truth. Worst still, they can no longer tell what is a truth beyond doubt and what is an assumption requiring faith. They are the true religionists who believe whatever being called "science".

In the past, religion was in control over science, that is, science would have to give way if it violated a religious concept. This is no longer the situation. It is even in the very contrary that science is now in control over religion, that is, if a religious concept violates a scientific concept, people will demand the religion to give way. In the case, we need to review whether the "science" in this situation is actually a new religion advocating a "flat earth" then force it over an old religion.

People go to hell because they failed to abide by the Law 'bundled' with a covenant. The Jews may get rejected by God if they failed to abide by the Mosaic came with a covenant. The Gentile may get rejected by God when they failed to abide by the Law in Heart came with another covenant. God gave people who failed the Law another option such that they don't need to face the judgment and punishment of the Law are are bound to. This option is to accept Christ as their savior. It replies on humans to spread the message (the Gospel). If people reject the gospel or before the gospel can reach them, they are subject to the law given to them by a previous covenant. Fairness is built upon law, while the option of saving through Christ is a Grace, a Grace that God made a sacrifice for humans to get for free. To put it another, all humans are born to be bound by a covenant which contains the law they have to abide by. As history goes by, more and more people will fail the Law as more and more people are going away from God. For an example, those who failed to hear the gospel mainly because their ancestors after Noah decided to turn their back to God. When went out and their descendants formed other religions for them to believe to get their hearts more hardened. No mather how they change, they still need to abide by the Law God gave to them through an earlier covenant. The earliest covenant could be the one between God and Noah. They will be judged the Law if they failed to hear the gospel or decided not to accept it. It is humans' duty (God will help though) to spread the gospel to other fellows for them to make a choice (under the permission and guidance of God for one to become a believer though). That's my 2 cents.

To me, pre-destination refers to how we behave against time. We must know what time is before we can get to what pre-destination is. It seems to me that we failed to realize that no human ever understood what time is, that we think that we can understand what pre-destination is in accourdance to our concept of what time is. As a matter of fact, we can't comprehend precisely what time is, it thus is impossible for us to know precisely what pre-destination is. That said. To a certain extent, pre-destination could possibly mean that by our free will we already chose to be with sin and thus captive by the devil. God however chooses to wake some of us up such that we will be able to be saved through Christ.

I am still looking for an answer why the atheists behave so. By far there's no answer came to my satisfaction that perhaps I (and everyone) should believe what the Bible says. 2 Corinthians 4:4 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Atheism is comparison of Apples vs. Oranges. They apply the wrong tool to the wrong situation. This is regarding a truth can be detected by humans. Almost all historical truth (a one time event in a particular point in a timeline) are not supported by empirical data. A historical truth cannot reach humans through the means of empirical data. If you insist on empirical data about an event happened in a long past, then disregarding the event due to lack of evidence, this process is a self-deception process. it is because by the very nature of any historical event is that it lacks empirical evidence. That said, the deceptive leverage used over and over again by the atheists is that fossil records support the existence of, say, homo-erectus. So the same evidence should apply to the existence of any individual such as the gods. This is a truly deceptive approach, as the evidence can never be extended to support the existence of one in an individual level. For example, if you would like to gather the empirical evidence for the existence of a hom-erectus named John some 1 million years ago. And then refuse to believe his existence due to the lack of evidence, you are playing your own game. As in the first place that it is not possible to collect the evidence of an existence of a specific individual in that age. Then you make use of this impossibility to support your point of view the John never existed. This remains your own game. Just like any history, we have to rely on human witnessing to effectively approach a truth. We rely on books/documents written by other humans (i.e. historians) to approach such a truth, not empirical evidence which simply not available in most situations. What left is the question that how valid those human witnessing are. Moreover, the Christianity claim is more like a warning that "there's bomb under your house!". The one who made this claim is somehow dead (as a history). Under the assumption that he knew the truth, then how can this truth be passed to others for them to make a run ? No one has the burden to give you the proof. You run if you believe the message, you stay if you refuse to believe. The truth will come with the blast.

That's how free will works. God created a mechanism for humans to reproduce. Most humans are reproduced as a will of their parents.

Ezekiel 28:13-17 (NIV) 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. 14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. 15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. 16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. 17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. It is a Cherub in Eden. There's no direct linking between Satan and angel, however, the Cherub in Eden can be clear enough that the verses refer to Satan. The dragon/serpent in Eden is Satan. Revelation 20:2 (NIV2011) 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.