Thursday, October 1, 2009

Dimensions of Truth

The Bible has several levels of revelation and requires several levels of acquiring that revelation. There is the straightforward reading of the text that anyone can read as reading any other history or literature book. One can interpret things in context of the whole and in the context of the culture in which it was written. Furthermore, one can study it in its original language of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. The principals therein can be helpful to a person even when only learning about them in this manner.


However, no matter how far one studies in this manner there will be a vital missing element to understanding the fullness of Scripture. The Bible says that there are things that are spiritually discerned and the man without the Spirit cannot discern them. It is like it is muddled to that person and makes little sense. There is a deeper revelation that is not contradictory to the surface exploration of the text that can only come from having the Spirit of God. For His Spirit witnesses with our spirit and reveals truth that is locked away and only revealed through that relationship with Jesus.


Why is this? It is because if it were even possible for us to know the truth fully without God’s aid it would not be good for us to have such knowledge apart from His life flowing through us. The Scriptures are to point us to Him and when we are connected to Him the Scriptures take on a whole new dynamic previously not available to the man without the Spirit. Even without the Spirit the Scriptures are sufficient to point to the truth of needing Christ, but once that truth is taken hold of and that relationship begins, deeper revelation begins to be made available. This deeper revelation is more than ethereal; it is more than intellectual for a third dimension opens up of experience. Once one experiences the truth through the person of Truth, Jesus, the truth of Scripture can be experienced in a whole new reality. The mystery begins to be unveiled and the seeker steps into more and more truth the more they seek it out for it is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of Kings to search it out. We are those Queens and Kings destined to search out the truth and find and reveal the glory of God.


The path of truth doesn’t stop with finding God; it starts afresh with finding God. It’s like opening the wardrobe to another world complete with beautiful and fascinating things to explore. In the fantastical movie InkHeart, a few people have the special ability to read a book and bring what they read to life so that they are not just reading words on a page and imagining the story for the story is coming alive as they read. When a person reads the Scriptures without the presence of God breathing the life into them, it is like watching a 3D movie without the glasses. One can still see and hear the movie, but something is missing, something is cloaked until one watches through the 3D lenses. We need to see with Jesus so that we can experience greater depths of truth.


Jesus told the religious leaders in his day that they search the Scriptures, because they think in them is life, but the real life was Him whom the Scriptures are about, and not the Scriptures themselves. They only point to Him and reveal Him further once He is connected with the reader. Even the Scriptures can be used to bring bondage and harm to people, if they are used without the life giving true revelation that comes from relationship with Jesus. When we use them solely with human reasoning apart from Jesus we enter dangerous grounds of harming people and stealing their life and only giving them empty religion and life-less doctrines. This is why a person, Jesus, is eternal life and not a belief in proper doctrines. Life is tangible and requires tangible experience to gain it, and does not rest upon intangible doctrines of the mind, for God looks not on the mind, but on the heart. The aim is our heart to be intertwined with His so that all the life that is He is also apart of us for He is where our hope rest secure.

275 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 275 of 275
boomSLANG said...

Karla: Belief and fact can be the same thing. If I believe I get off work at Noon and I do indeed get off at Noon that is a fact that I believe.

It is also a fact that you can prove with empirical evidence if anyone doubted it. Of course, we have no reason to doubt it, because all sorts of people work, and many get off work at noon. Hence, it is by no means an extraordinary claim. Claiming that you have a "relationship" with an invisible man, on the other hand, *is* an extraordinary claim.

The statement above could be a fact, I believe it to be so, or I wouldn’t believe it at all.

You are essentially saying that you believe what you believe. 'A bit redundant, and also, believing a "fact" that can be objectively demonstrated to be true is different from believing a "fact" that *cannot* be objectively demonstrated to be true.

Now, I agree it is not evidenced to you.

Again, no one is doubting that you get off work at noon. And even if someone doubts it, they are perfectly free to do so without any threats of bodily harm. You cannot say the same about doubting your belief in the deity of the Christian bible.

I’m going to work up a post on “spirit” as soon as I get time for both you and BoomSlang.

Not to be cynical, but until/unless you provide a coherent *definition* of what this *thing* you call a "spirit" is, anywhere/any time you attempt to use it in a post, it will inevitably be meaningless to me. So far, you've told us what a "spirit" is not, e.g.."non-flesh", etc., and you've use it in the context that assumes your premise true. Neither of which has any meaning, whatsoever, to someone who remains unconvinced.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: If science hasn’t disproven it, then a you as a scientific person wouldn’t rule it out yet would you?

I don't rule it out. I just think that there is no evidence to support it. Show me some evidence & I'll see about changing my mind.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Are you, or are you not, able to "sin" when/if you are "linked up" with God's supposed "Righteousness"?”

I am able to sin. When I sin I live from my old nature and not from the new nature of righteousness God has placed in me.

BoomSlang “Yes, you most certainly were making the same claim; you've just worded it differently. I'm saying that preachers and ministers, etc., claim to be "linked up with God's Righteousness" just like you claim it, but they "sin" no less than anyone else, and many times, more so.”

Yes Christians are still able to sin. We can live in freedom from sin or we can still live from an old nature. We are forgiven of sin, but we can still sin. Pastors have no greater ability to not mess up than any other Christian.

You are correct thought that this shouldn’t be so widespread amongst Christians that it is antithetical to what we hold to be true, and it does call into question whether we really believe what we claim to when we do mess up big time. No argument with you there.

BoomSlang “ Please notice that when/if I say that you are innately "good" that this isn't meant to suggest "perfection". I'm saying that while we are evolved biologically, and socially, to know what "good" is and that it ensures our survival, that humans are still, by nature, fallible beings.”

Please describe more of what you are talking about when you say “good.” How do you know what is good?

BoomSlang “It is you, per your chosen religious philosophy, who buys into this "black or white" mentality...i.e..all "good" or all "evil". It is you, the Christian, who suggests that a one-time decision to choose "wrong", or "right", makes one inherently one way, or the other.”

Actually I don’t believe that. I think Christians have made a mistake to make coming to Jesus a response to an alter call or saying a “sinners prayer.” While it is true it is a decision to follow Christ, it is also a transforming encounter with Him. That can happen at an alter call or saying a prayer or crying out to God or a number of other ways. Then it’s a walking out that new reality.

BoomSlang “ It is this mentality that violates our "freedom" to choose..i.e..our free will. You promote "freedom" to choose, but the system of ethics you endorse makes "freedom" obsolete.”

I think we have different perspectives about what true freedom is.


Boom Slang “i.e..by making the wrong choice, right? Isn't that what you are suggesting?...that making the wrong choice is "abusing" the "freedom"?”

Yes.

BoomSlang “ If so, you are wrong. The only way to ensure that the "right" choice be made, would be to REMOVE the "freedom", altogether. 'See the problem?”

True. Freedom would be removed if no one could choose the wrong thing. Thus having freedom means you have the ability to do the wrong thing. Living in that freedom is choosing the right thing over the wrong thing. The wrong thing is wrong because it is harmful to us in one or more of a myriad of ways—hence it is the not good thing.

BoomSlang “You can't on the one hand say "freedom" to choose is necessary, but then on the other hand say that said "freedom" was abused when/if the "wrong" choice is made. That is self-defeating.”

Again I think we have a different idea of freedom.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “But the minute the Theist uses "God" as a "Spiritual license" to talk down to me, yes, I may cop an an attitude, and *I* believe, rightfully so.”

Do you see me doing that?

BoomSlang “Karla, you. do. not. listen. I have never, ever said that there's an *Objective*, *Universal* standard for "right" and "wrong". I've only used the word "standard" as a current guideline. When will this sink in? If I don't believe in said Ultimate "standard", then it's pointless to ask me things like, "By what other standard would you judge God?"”

I know you don’t. But you seem to judge God’s actions as recorded in the Bible as wrong. How can you make that judgment if you have no objective standard by which to make it?

BoomSlang “YOU are the one arguing that "God's Word" is *intrinsically* "good"(look it up if you don't know what it means)”

I am arguing that God is good.

BoomSlang “This means that no matter how "God" rules or commands, it *MUST* be seen as "good", *even* if it is something that we, as humanity, see as harmful or unethical..i.e. NOT "good".”

You’ve already pointed out that humanity without a God has no objective standard of goodness. So unless He does exist and is that standard of goodness we are left with amorality. So you haven’t provided me with grounds for us to be able to judge anyone much less God.

If we are created and finite and do not have all knowledge and if God is eternal, all knowing, and good then it would follow that we might not always understand things, but need to trust him. Just as a child doesn’t understand that the spanking His father gave him was good until later in life.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “I don't believe *ANY* tenet of the Christian philosophy is "Truth". I find said belief-system to be too abhorent to be worthy of my belief. However, I argue under the *pretense* that it is "true" to illustrate to people like you that it is not worthy of your belief, either, and should be denounced.”

No tenet? Not even that we ought to love our neighbor as our self?

I can’t denounce something I’ve experienced as true. I’ve seen the works of God in my life and in many lives. I’ve seen way to much not to believe in Him and His truth. No argument could change that.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Say, if you lost your "faith" and decided that you wanted to kill the person who took your parking place, you are free to go against the democratic agreement that this is "wrong"!!!! You will likely end up in prison for life, but hey, that's your choice! 'See how it works?”

There are some societies where infanticide is a common and accepted practice. Does that make it right?

The Western world established their legal laws on God’s law. Read American history. Read John Locke. It was because of our heritage of believe in a higher law common to all man that we have written laws that apply not only to the citizens but to the leaders of this nation.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “It is also a fact that you can prove with empirical evidence if anyone doubted it. Of course, we have no reason to doubt it, because all sorts of people work, and many get off work at noon. Hence, it is by no means an extraordinary claim. Claiming that you have a "relationship" with an invisible man, on the other hand, *is* an extraordinary claim.”


What I can prove and not prove doesn’t make something a fact or not a fact. Truth is that which is true regardless of who believes it, I aim to believe what is true rather than making what I believe that which is true. My belief in something doesn’t make it true, but I can believe it because it is true. That was the point of my illustration.

Karla said...

Cyber “I don't rule it out. I just think that there is no evidence to support it. Show me some evidence & I'll see about changing my mind.”

There are other ways to seek out truth than through science. The spirit being non-physical, could not be measured or quantified by science. I will try to do a post on this topic more as soon as I get some time to put my mind to it. I haven’t really had to explain it before to people who don’t have a frame of reference for it.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: There are other ways to seek out truth than through science.

Of course. I don't think I've ever said that the only truth is scientific truth.

karla said: I haven’t really had to explain it before to people who don’t have a frame of reference for it.

So, first we need a frame of reference we can both relate to - otherwise you're pretty much wasting your time.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: “Are you, or are you not, able to 'sin' when/if you are 'linked up' with God's supposed 'Righteousness'?”

Karla responds: I am able to sin. When I sin I live from my old nature and not from the new nature of righteousness God has placed in me.

Wow. I don't how else to ask the question, so I'll just ask it again the same way, and hope that I don't get the same nebulous answer:

Are you, or are you not, able to "sin" when/if you are "linked up" with God's supposed "Righteousness".????

Christians are still able to sin. We can live in freedom from sin or we can still live from an old nature. We are forgiven of sin, but we can still sin. Pastors have no greater ability to not mess up than any other Christian.

So, in other words, "Christians" are no better-behaved than anyone else, the difference is, their imperfections are pardoned in exchange for belief, which underscores what I've been saying all long: "Christianity" is favoritism.

Karla: Please describe more of what you are talking about when you say “good.” How do you know what is good?

'Funny, I thought we'd been over this at least a dozen times.

Karla, "good" is simply the avoidance of unnecessary harm. I know that avoiding unnecessary harm is "good", because it ensures that the group, and thus, that I, will survive.

Me, previously: “It is you, per your chosen religious philosophy, who buys into this 'black or white' mentality...i.e..all 'good' or all 'evil'. It is you, the Christian, who suggests that a one-time decision to choose 'wrong', or 'right', makes one inherently one way, or the other."

Actually I don’t believe that. I think Christians have made a mistake to make coming to Jesus a response to an alter call or saying a “sinners prayer.” While it is true it is a decision to follow Christ, it is also a transforming encounter with Him. That can happen at an alter call or saying a prayer or crying out to God or a number of other ways. Then it’s a walking out that new reality.

Oh, my goodness.

Please.....please tell me how one single word of that lengthy paragraph should lead me to believe that you don't endorse the notion that the human race in "inherehtly sinful" because of Adam & Eve's ONE-TIME decision to choose "wrongly".

Me, previously: "It is this mentality that violates our 'freedom' to choose..i.e..our free will. You promote 'freedom' to choose, but the system of ethics you endorse makes 'freedom' obsolete."

You respond: I think we have different perspectives about what true freedom is.

Most definitely. Mine makes sense in writing; your does not(to date).

Repeat: Labeling a person "inherently sinful" because of a one-time decision to choose wrongly attempts to remove future freedom to make choices. It *suggests* that we can never choose "good"....EVER.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Karla, "good" is simply the avoidance of unnecessary harm. I know that avoiding unnecessary harm is "good", because it ensures that the group, and thus, that I, will survive.”


What constitutes “unnecessary harm.” And who decides what is unnecessary harm?

BoomSlang “Are you, or are you not, able to "sin" when/if you are "linked up" with God's supposed "Righteousness".????”

Yes Christians can still sin. My previous answer was to also explain why this still happens.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: "The only way to ensure that the 'right' choice be made, would be to REMOVE the 'freedom', altogether. 'See the problem?"

Karla responds: True. Freedom would be removed if no one could choose the wrong thing. Thus having freedom means you have the ability to do the wrong thing. Living in that freedom is choosing the right thing over the wrong thing. The wrong thing is wrong because it is harmful to us in one or more of a myriad of ways—hence it is the not good thing.[bold added]

When you say "living in the freedom", you are reverting back to your metaphorical, godspeak that has zero real-world meaning. Notwithstanding, while you state the obvious(again, redundantly) - that is, why the "wrong choice" is "wrong" - you still haven't illustrated how making the "wrong choice" is "abusing the freedom" to choose. The "freedom" is *NECESSARY*. If a teen is handed the keys to the family car, he or she has been given a privilege to take the car. Since we have free will(because otherwise we'd be robots), he or she might use the car respectfully, or they may not. If they don't, they have abused the privilege, not their free will.

Me, previously: “But the minute the Theist uses 'God' as a 'Spiritual license' to talk down to me, yes, I may cop an an attitude, and *I* believe, rightfully so."

Do you see me doing that?

No, which is why I used the general term, "Theist". Although, you have inadvertently said some demeaning things while trying to translate your apologetics into real-world terms.

...you seem to judge God’s actions as recorded in the Bible as wrong.

Yes, that's right, Karla---dashing children against rocks, stoning rebellious teens, killing women who marry but aren't virgins, keeping slaves, and slaughtering entire ethnic groups, women and children included, is wrong. I am not afraid to call any person or deity who condones these things, into question.

How can you make that judgment if you have no objective standard by which to make it?

How can I make it? You mean, how can *WE* make it? Here's how: Because we, including *you* and your Christian constituents, have democratically determined that these things are "wrong" in this day and age. Why? Because such things cause unnecessary harm to other human beings. This "standard", while not "Objective", is not something I see changing any time soon. This is not to say that it won't.

I am arguing that God is good.

Yes, I get that. Now, will you please pay close attention?

(assuming yes)

Karla, is whatever "God" commands "Good", even if it something that we as society see as harmful? If not, then it MUST have an external standard of "GOOD" in order to KNOW to not to "command" those things! Either one senario, or the other, is true(assuming "God" exists). You cannot have it both ways, even though you attempt to do just that.....

You’ve already pointed out that humanity without a God has no objective standard of goodness. So unless He does exist and is that standard of goodness we are left with amorality.

WRONG! The standard, while admittedly not Ultimate/Objective, is the AVOIDANCE OF UNNECESSARY HARM!!!!!! I can only conclude at this point that you are being deliberately obstinate on this matter, which is really sad that you'll keep defending a demonstrably flawed premise.

If we are created and finite and do not have all knowledge and if God is eternal, all knowing, and good then it would follow that we might not always understand things, but need to trust him.

BEGGING THE QUESTION(fallacy)

Just as a child doesn’t understand that the spanking His father gave him was good until later in life.

Another thoroughly inadequate analogy.

Fathers, a) don't claim to be all-knowing, and b) aren't disputed to exist.

And I guess it should be no shock to any of us that you support physical violence when it comes to "teaching". Do you "spank" your Sunday school students when/if they misbehave?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: What constitutes “unnecessary harm.”

Whatever we democratically decide, which is rooted in how we'd expect/desire to be treated.

BTW, "Do unto others.." yada, yada.. is common sense---it certainly is NOT exclusive to any one religious philosophy. Does every person in the democracy agree? No...mentally ill people might not agree, which is why we lock them up, and/or, keep them on meds.

Now, does every person who believes in "God" agree on what is "Moral"? No, of course not...so again, you are in the same subjective boat that you bend over backwards to put Atheists in.

And who decides what is unnecessary harm?

For what seems like the millionth time, WE DO.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “When you say "living in the freedom", you are reverting back to your metaphorical, godspeak that has zero real-world meaning.”

Okay. I appreciate you pointing out that that phrasing doesn’t communicate well. What I mean is that freedom is given us so that we freely do what is right, not so that we make the wrong choice and do what is wrong. The wrong thing harms us, it removes freedom because it causes limitation and entanglement in things that are not good. One bad thing leads to another and these things are bad because they are not good for us. So when we use our freedom to do the wrong thing, there are consequences and we need help coming back into true freedom of freely doing the right thing.

However, in order for us to freely choose the right thing, we have to have the ability to choose the wrong thing.

Now I know I often get the response at this point that if there is no ability in heaven to do the wrong thing, then we don’t really need to be able to do the wrong thing to be free to do the right thing. The thing is that when we freely choose to leave behind the sin nature and step into God’s righteousness we embark on a new road of right things leading to more right things until we are free from desiring the wrong things. We begin to taste true freedom where we are not enticed or hindered by things that are not good and we freely enjoy the good things without the bad being in the mix. The process is complete in heaven, there is no longer sin, because the process has purged it and removed it from the equation, the process we freely choose or freely don’t choose. For those who choose life, life is given, for those who choose sin and death that leads to more of the same.

Karla said...

Karla: What constitutes “unnecessary harm.”

BoomSlang “Whatever we democratically decide, which is rooted in how we'd expect/desire to be treated.”

So if Nazis decide that Jews should be exterminated is that okay? Is this what the world democratically decides, or just one culture or region in a culture? Or is it limited to generation, or all of history? What happens when there is disagreement between people groups? Should slavery in the Sudan continue because it is okay there?

BoomSlang “BTW, "Do unto others.." yada, yada.. is common sense---it certainly is NOT exclusive to any one religious philosophy. Does every person in the democracy agree? No...mentally ill people might not agree, which is why we lock them up, and/or, keep them on meds.”

I don’t think people need to agree to make something true or wrong or right. If every person on the planet believed it is okay to practice euthanasia, I don’t think that would make it right. And I’d imagine that the elderly wouldn’t think it okay.

BoomSlang “Now, does every person who believes in "God" agree on what is "Moral"? No, of course not...so again, you are in the same subjective boat that you bend over backwards to put Atheists in. “

No. But we do agree that there is a good that we are aiming for that is objective which gives meaning to things being not good, or evil. There are values, more so than rules, we can live by that can enhance life.


BoomSlang “For what seems like the millionth time, WE DO.”

Whose “we” the government leaders? Those in power? The people? Remember I am trying to understand your worldview, I don’t think this way, so you’ll need to be more detailed on how all this works.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I appreciate you pointing out that that phrasing doesn’t communicate well. What I mean is that freedom is given us so that we freely do what is right, not so that we make the wrong choice and do what is wrong.

Once more, you are being redundant. You are stating what is blatantly obvious. Of course!...of course we aren't given freedom "so that we make the wrong choice".

The wrong thing harms us, it removes freedom because it causes limitation and entanglement in things that are not good.

This is false. Doing the "wrong thing" might harm us, yes, but it does *not* "remove freedom". Why?... because the "free choice" was already made, hence, how it resulted in the "wrong choice" to begin with. If "freedom" is "removed" after the fact(for making the "wrong" choice), then one is stuck making "wrong" choices according to your reasoning.

What you just proposed, above, is nonsensical, as are your closing remarks on the subject.....

So when we use our freedom to do the wrong thing, there are consequences and we need help coming back into true freedom of freely doing the right thing.[bold added]

The "freedom" isn't any less "true", whether one makes the "right" choice, or the "wrong" choice.

Now I know I often get the response at this point that if there is no ability in heaven to do the wrong thing, then we don’t really need to be able to do the wrong thing to be free to do the right thing. The thing is that when we freely choose to leave behind the sin nature and step into God’s righteousness we embark on a new road of right things leading to more right things until we are free from desiring the wrong things. We begin to taste true freedom where we are not enticed or hindered by things that are not good and we freely enjoy the good things without the bad being in the mix. The process is complete in heaven, there is no longer sin, because the process has purged it and removed it from the equation, the process we freely choose or freely don’t choose.

Not one word of that lengthy apologetic refutes the notion that once this state of "Righteousness"("Perfection") is acheived, that one is impervious to "sin", or "evil". Your own previous statements effectively illustrate that "Heaven" and this so-called "fallen world" can coexist.

For those who choose life, life is given, for those who choose sin and death that leads to more of the same.

False Dichotomy(fallacy)

What happens if I don't choose this so-called "life", NOR do I "choose" this so-called "death"?(which is just a Christian's way of saying "Hell")

Here's what happens: I get the latter "choice", by DEFAULT.

That isn't a "free choice", Karla; it's an ultimatum.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: So if Nazis decide that Jews should be exterminated is that okay?

No, of course not, which is why, in this day and age, if a person or group of persons decided such a thing, we and our allies would denounce it, just like we should denounce "Yahweh" if it returned in this day and age and decided that all nonbelievers should be killed. But of course, you wouldn't denounce the latter, would you? No, you'd have no choice but to follow orders, because "God" is "Good" whatever it commands; it has no external standard of "Good", according to your argument.

Is this what the world democratically decides, or just one culture or region in a culture?

There is cultural relativity, yes. And yes, this causes conflicts in some instances. However, please note that those who believe that Absolute, Objective "Morality" comes from "God" are no less prone to having conflicts. Theists cannot agree on what they say that "God Says" is "Moral". They can't even agree on what "God" is God.

Moreover, take any social issue of the day, Karla...abortion, right to life, war, assisted suicide, and on and on, and you'll see Christians in our *own* nation falling on opposite sides of the fence. This is very revealing.

Should slavery in the Sudan continue because it is okay there?

No. Should it continue there because its "okay" in the bible? If it used to be "okay" in the bible, but it isn't any longer, then evidentally, the bible isn't the Ultimate, Objective, Unchanging source of "Morality", is it? No. Moreover, do you think that telling the people of Sudan that, "Jesus says slavery is wrong!!!!", would convince them any better than us approaching them from a secular standpoint? Be honest.

I don’t think people need to agree to make something true or wrong or right.

Right, and did I say they did? No.

Me, previously: "Now, does every person who believes in 'God' agree on what is 'Moral'? No, of course not...so again, you are in the same subjective boat that you bend over backwards to put Atheists in."

Responds: No. But we do agree that there is a good that we are aiming for that is objective which gives meaning to things being not good, or evil.

Believing that there exists a goose that produces golden eggs, and being able to produce such a goose, are two entirely different things. As are, believing that there is an invisible, conscious being who dictates an "Objective Morality", and being able to demonstate that there is such a being and its "Morality".

Until Theists can put forth this demonstrable evidence, the "Morality" they extol is subjective.

Whose “we” the government leaders? Those in power? The people? Remember I am trying to understand your worldview, I don’t think this way, so you’ll need to be more detailed on how all this works.

Seriously? Would it be too much trouble to ask you to probe into how our government, constitution, etc., works on your own time?.. since this is time-consuming enough as it is, and I don't feel safe in that taking the time to explain it to you would make a drop of difference.(sadly)

Karla said...

Boom, I will respond to your two comments here tomorrow.

boomSLANG said...

There's no urgency, Karla, it's not like we're getting anywhere...

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Once more, you are being redundant. You are stating what is blatantly obvious. Of course!...of course we aren't given freedom "so that we make the wrong choice".”

So would you agree that making the wrong choose is antithetical to freedom?

BoomSlang “This is false. Doing the "wrong thing" might harm us, yes, but it does *not* "remove freedom". Why?... because the "free choice" was already made, hence, how it resulted in the "wrong choice" to begin with. If "freedom" is "removed" after the fact(for making the "wrong" choice), then one is stuck making "wrong" choices according to your reasoning.”

I guess you don’t agree. Okay I see what’s happening here. I see freedom as more than which choice we make, but something more internal in nature. Like if you are free to go left or right and one way leads to enjoyment, happiness, peace, love, etc. and the other way leads to a quagmire of sadness, pain, hopelessness, and other things that are like chains upon us then while we are technically still free as we have not suddenly turned into a puppet or a robot, our being lacks the fullness of freedom. In my way of looking at it a depressed person isn’t as free of a person as a happy person for the depression is a hindrance to them and the happy person is carefree and light as a feather where the depressed person is somber, angry, trapped in their depression. That’s what I mean when I say that the path of sin is antithetical to freedom.


BoomSlang “The "freedom" isn't any less "true", whether one makes the "right" choice, or the "wrong" choice.”

Yes, in the manner in which you are using the word, which is a correct use of the word. See my analogy above.

BoomSlang “Here's what happens: I get the latter "choice", by DEFAULT.”

Boom Slang “That isn't a "free choice", Karla; it's an ultimatum.”

It’s the consequence of the wrong choice. It doesn’t make your choice any less free. As you said above “The "freedom" isn't any less "true", whether one makes the "right" choice, or the "wrong" choice.”

It’s just the wrong choice, is wrong, because it is not good for us. We are fully free to make it anyway, but that doesn’t remove the logic of it being the wrong choice, nor does it make it all okay as if there was no wrong choice.

Karla said...

Karla: So if Nazis decide that Jews should be exterminated is that okay?

BoomSlang “No, of course not, which is why, in this day and age, if a person or group of persons decided such a thing, we and our allies would denounce it,”

But in that day would it have been wrong?


BoomSlang “There is cultural relativity, yes. And yes, this causes conflicts in some instances. However, please note that those who believe that Absolute, Objective "Morality" comes from "God" are no less prone to having conflicts. Theists cannot agree on what they say that "God Says" is "Moral". They can't even agree on what "God" is God.”

Everyone can have disagreements on what is right and wrong. That doesn’t negate the existence of an ultimate standard. We all are naturally inclined to try and justify the way that suits us as better than another way.

How do you propose conflicts between moral views be corrected? Is there any person, system, or culture than can legitimately rise above to say that their way of doing things is better than another way? I cannot even think of a way to phrase the question without appealing to a standard, because if one way is truly better than another there has to be something outside both those ways to compare it to.



Boom “Moreover, take any social issue of the day, Karla...abortion, right to life, war, assisted suicide, and on and on, and you'll see Christians in our *own* nation falling on opposite sides of the fence. This is very revealing.”

True, this happens, but there is no way to bring meaning to any view being wrong, without a standard outside ourselves to appeal to. Otherwise you only are left with what people like or dislike, want or don’t want, etc. Not what is truly good or bad. Those words loose meaning.

Should slavery in the Sudan continue because it is okay there?

Boom “No. Should it continue there because its "okay" in the bible?”

Why is slavery wrong?

Also, the Bible does not advocate for slavery.


BoomSlang “If it used to be "okay" in the bible, but it isn't any longer, then evidentally, the bible isn't the Ultimate, Objective, Unchanging source of "Morality", is it?”

No the Bible is not the unchanging source of morality, the Bible points to it and reflects it, but is not in itself it. God is.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “ No. Moreover, do you think that telling the people of Sudan that, "Jesus says slavery is wrong!!!!", would convince them any better than us approaching them from a secular standpoint? Be honest.”

Nope. I wouldn’t approach the matter that way. Again with the assumptions. You assume a lot about me when you don’t know me. One ministry I heard of set up a coffee business to earn money to buy the slaves out of slavery and help them find a life in the free world. I also don’t see things as secular and non-secular. If something is a good way to handle it, it’s a good way to handle it, it doesn’t matter to me if a Christian, a Muslim, or an atheist came up with the plan. In fact, Rick Warren recently appealed to Muslims and Christians to work together to curb poverty and slavery.

I don’t think people need to agree to make something true or wrong or right.

BoomSlang “Right, and did I say they did? No.”

It seems like that is what you are arguing for. You keep saying if theists don’t agree on what is moral than it is subjective as if agreement makes something true or not. The existence objective morality doesn’t mean that everyone will agree with it. We do all operate under the assumption of there being a good v. bad dichotomy even when the particularities are uncertain or different between peoples.

BoomSlang “Seriously? Would it be too much trouble to ask you to probe into how our government, constitution, etc., works on your own time?.. since this is time-consuming enough as it is, and I don't feel safe in that taking the time to explain it to you would make a drop of difference.(sadly)”

Actually I have researched this, and our government is based on the idea that God has endowed us with certain unalienable rights – that there is an eternal truth—a law of nature—a moral law—God’s will – whatever you want to call it. And that the government of men is subservient to this.

The writers of our Constitution pulled heavily from John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government who wrote the following therein:

“[T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.”
“[L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.”
“[B]ut this I am sure, they [the governing authorities] owe subjection to the laws of God and Nature. Nobody, no power can exempt them from the obligations of the eternal law.”

boomSLANG said...

Karla: So would you agree that making the wrong [choice] is antithetical to freedom?

an·tith·e·sis NOUN:

1. Direct contrast;
opposition.
2. The direct or exact opposite: Hope is the antithesis of despair.

(ref: American Heritage)

No, Karla, I would not/do not agree that making the "wrong choice" is "antithetical" to the "freedom" to make said choice. Why?.. because it is a false proposition, that's why.

The opposite of "freedom" would be NO "freedom"; the opposite of "wrong choice" is right choice.

I see freedom as more than which choice we make, but something more internal in nature.

But "freedom" is *not* "which choice we make". You are wrong again. The "freedom" is the available agency with which we can make choices.

Like if you are free to go left or right and one way leads to enjoyment, happiness, peace, love, etc. and the other way leads to a quagmire of sadness, pain, hopelessness, and other things that are like chains upon us then while we are technically still free as we have not suddenly turned into a puppet or a robot, our being lacks the fullness of freedom.

You are equivocating on the word "freedom". Whether a choice leads to a happy outlook, or a dismal outlook, one is no less "free" to change that outlook.

Previously, Karla: For those who choose life, life is given, for those who choose sin and death that leads to more of the same.

My previous response...

"False Dichotomy(fallacy)

What happens if I don't choose this so-called 'life', NOR do I 'choose' this so-called 'death'?"

You: It’s the consequence of the wrong choice.

If it's a CONSEQUENCE, but yet, I can choose to get out of the "consequence", then it isn't/wasn't really a "consequence" to begin with. You're now talking a buy-off, not a "consequence".

You continue: It doesn’t make your choice any less free. As you said above 'The "freedom' isn't any less 'true', whether one makes the 'right' choice, or the 'wrong' choice.

Karla, if you are walking to your car after a trip to the mall, and a mugger jumps out from behind the dumpster and puts the business end of 44 magnum against your temple and says, "You can give me your purse, or I can pull the trigger", you know that no sane person would not surrender their purse or wallet. In other words, while technically, your "free will" is intact, you have been coersed into "choosing" to give up your purse.

The same exact dynamic takes place when Christians say, "Heaven or Hell?..its your 'choice'!!!!"

Look, if the "God" you worship *genuinely* wants us to choose to "love" him - and I would think said being would have the integrity to want that to be the case - then I offer that it wouldn't give us an ultimatum..i.e...choose "Me", or BURN! That is blatant coersion.

Karla, you are simply wrong on these issues. Can you please admit your error this time? If so, I will procede with refutations of your other remarks. If not, I am basically done with conversing with you on this topic. It is a waste of my time and effort to have discourse with someone when/if they cannot/will not admit their errors when they make them.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “The opposite of "freedom" would be NO "freedom"; the opposite of "wrong choice" is right choice.”

But the wrong choice harms our ability to live freely. The wrong choice is sin and sin entraps us, holds us hostage. . .

BoomSlang “But "freedom" is *not* "which choice we make". You are wrong again. The "freedom" is the available agency with which we can make choices.”

Yes, freedom is the ability to make the choice, not the choice we make. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. However, my argument is that making the wrong choices hurts our freedom to make the right choice because we get entangled in a web of deceit. For example, when someone tells a lie, they often have to tell multiple lies to back up the one lie and they begin to entangle themselves in more and more deceit until it is a way of life. They become in bondage to the lie that lying is advantageous to them. Thus their freedom to not lie is hindered.


BoomSlang “What happens if I don't choose this so-called 'life', NOR do I 'choose' this so-called 'death'?"”

I do not know of a third option.


BoomSlang “If it's a CONSEQUENCE, but yet, I can choose to get out of the "consequence", then it isn't/wasn't really a "consequence" to begin with. You're now talking a buy-off, not a "consequence".”

Well, it is a debt paid for you. We are in debt to our sin, and Jesus pays the price for us to become free from that sin and that debt.

You continue: It doesn’t make your choice any less free. As you said above 'The "freedom' isn't any less 'true', whether one makes the 'right' choice, or the 'wrong' choice.

BoomSlang “Karla, if you are walking to your car after a trip to the mall . . .”

BoomSlang “The same exact dynamic takes place when Christians say, "Heaven or Hell?..its your 'choice'!!!!" “

No it’s not exactly like that, let me ask you a question. Say for a moment it is true that Life is found only in God and we need God to have that life. How would you propose someone who refuses God finds life?

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Look, if the "God" you worship *genuinely* wants us to choose to "love" him - and I would think said being would have the integrity to want that to be the case - then I offer that it wouldn't give us an ultimatum..i.e...choose "Me", or BURN! That is blatant coersion.”

Jesus said that He did not want anyone to perish. We caused our perishing, God is fixing that cause and providing us a way out of our problem that we made, not Him.

BoomSlang “Karla, you are simply wrong on these issues. Can you please admit your error this time?”

Have you ever considered you don’t have the birds eye view of things God does and that if such a God existed He just might be able to see things more objectively than you? I know I am just as repulsed as you are at the thought of eternity in hell. And I believe that God’s will is for us to spend eternity with Him, not because He gains anything from us, but because we gain everything from Him. If He had a need, He wouldn’t be God.

But humans infected ourselves with sin, and we need a cure for that sin and that cure is Jesus. God isn’t asking us to pay for the problem we created, He is saying, let me pay for it, let me make it okay, let me clean it all up and let you have what you were designed to have, my very own life given for you because I love you. It is us who respond we want something different something we get for ourselves, something we earn, something we strive for and acquire. We refuse His gift and want it our way. And He is going to let us have it our way and that way is not good for us, but if that is what we want, we will be allowed to have it.

BoomSlang “If so, I will procede with refutations of your other remarks. If not, I am basically done with conversing with you on this topic. It is a waste of my time and effort to have discourse with someone when/if they cannot/will not admit their errors when they make them.”

You are welcome here anytime and can ask any question you want about what I believe and I will take it seriously and answer it the best I can. I’m not looking to become an atheist, I don’t see the truth of it, I am looking to understand why you all believe as you do and to look beyond our differences and find common ground.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: But the wrong choice harms our ability to live freely. The wrong choice is sin and sin entraps us, holds us hostage. . .

You are still EQUIVOCATING. So now, what do you mean by "live freely"? And if you would, please don't use your standard biblical lingo to answer. To "live freely", *in real-world terms*, implies to be able to make free choices. Karla, happiness/sadness, rightness/wrongness, does NOT hinder one's free will. When will you get honest here?

Yes, freedom is the ability to make the choice, not the choice we make. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.

But you've *been* suggesting it over, and over, and over, until recently having been backed into a corner. Since that has happened, you now conveniently change the context/definition, as you are now talking about how we live..i.e.."live freely"

However, my argument is that making the wrong choices hurts our freedom to make the right choice because we get entangled in a web of deceit.[bold added to drawn attention to the erroneous argument]

NO!!!! Either supply a definition of "freedom", or create your own---BUT PLEASE...please stop repeating the same erroneous argument. Making a "wrong choice" most certainly does NOT hamper our "freedom" to make choices, altogether. Jimminy Christmas!...do something DIFFERENT, for cryin' out loud! lol

Me, previously: “What happens if I don't choose this so-called 'life', NOR do I 'choose' this so-called 'death'?”

You: I do not know of a third option

And interestingly, neither does this "God" who is presumably "Infinitely Intelligent". That doesn't strike you as odd?

Me, previously: “If it's a CONSEQUENCE, but yet, I can choose to get out of the 'consequence', then it isn't/wasn't really a 'consequence' to begin with. You're now talking a buy-off, not a 'consequence'.”

Responds...Well, it is a debt paid for you.

**Karla, I'm an Atheist. My "debt" isn't erased until/unless I become a Christian. Are we clear on this? You know, we've been over this a few dozen times, too. Would you please-oh-please STOP repeating the same fallacious arguments?

We are in debt to our sin, and Jesus pays the price for us to become free from that sin and that debt.

See here**, above(including plea to stop, etc.)

...let me ask you a question. Say for a moment it is true that Life is found only in God and we need God to have that life. How would you propose someone who refuses God finds life?

You'd have to ask someone who "refuses God". If I can speculate, the first thing that comes to mind is that someone who "refuses" or "rejects" a "God" has already found him/her/it, since they'd need to believe that he/she/it exists in order to "refuse" him/her/it. Does that sound like a fair assessment?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Jesus said that He did not want anyone to perish.

...::sigh::

We've been over ALL of this before. Will you please listen??????

If, as you say, "God" wants no one to "perish"(aka...burn in "Hell"), then...

- why did "God" create "evil" in the first place?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." ~ "God"(Isaiah 45:7)

- why doesn't "God" punish us in a way that is actually "Just" and humane, that way, it wouldn't repent/grieve "God" to have to see us "perish", the way that you and your Christian constituents insist that it repents/grieves him????

- if "death" is a bad, baaaad thing, as argued by Christians, then why not just let nonbelievers DIE, as opposed to keeping them alive and burning them with FIRE for eternity????

- if "Jesus"/"God" has no choice but to burn nonbelievers with FIRE, then said being obviously has limits on its "free will", and therefore, is not "omnipotent".

If you can't come up with good solutions for these questions, doesn't it strike you odd that "God" can't either?

Karla: We caused our perishing..[bold added]

No! It was "Adam"(and a possible accomplice) who "Got the ball rolling"(your description). It was their, ONE-TIME "wrong decision" that presumably made the entire human race "inherently sinful". One person cannot make a wrong decision on another's behalf. That is INSANE, Karla. It is a direct violation of the very "free will" that you extol so much. If someone suggested to you that we track down Bonnie & Clyde's living descendents and throw them in jail for the aforementioned couple's crimes, you would have that person COMMITTED TO LUNY BIN.

God is fixing that cause and providing us a way out of our problem that we made, not Him.

FALSE. # 1, "God" DID make the problem, and knew, a priori, that it would turn out the way it did. # 2, no..."we" didn't make any problem(assuming one exists), the infamous(legendary/mythical) "Adam & Eve" did.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Have you ever considered you don’t have the birds eye view of things God does and that if such a God existed He just might be able to see things more objectively than you?

Hey Karla, guess what?...I don't need a "bird's eye view" to recognize massive amounts of blatant illogic. I don't need to be "omniscient" to know that *SOME* ideas/concepts defy logic and reason, and degrade humanity.

As for "God", I know it doesn't matter what I think, and all, but the point is, I *DO* think, and I use the brain that I was presumably given by this "God" to do so. It presumably thought that giving me "free will" was more important that getting it's own "Will" met, yes? Yes, so I fail to see why it should come as a big shock when/if some people use their brains and free will to decide that they find the evidence for "God" insufficient.

BTW, I guess I'll take that as a "no", you won't admit your errors, but instead, keep defending them. 'Simply astounding.

I know I am just as repulsed as you are at the thought of eternity in hell.

Then you should DENOUNCE IT, and stop defending it!

And I believe that God’s will is for us to spend eternity with Him, not because He gains anything from us, but because we gain everything from Him. If He had a need, He wouldn’t be God.

Oh, please. If "He" doesn't have ANY "needs", then "He" doesn't need me to believe in, worship, and love "Him", right? So why the ultimatum??? Why torture me if I don't do those things???? It is NOT logical, and it most certainly isn't indicative of a "God" who supposedly stands for "Love".

But humans infected ourselves with sin, and we need a cure for that sin and that cure is Jesus.

Karla, just because you re-word an argument doesn't mean the regurgitation of that "argument" becomes valid. I've refuted this, over, and over, and over. *WE* didn't "infect ourselves"---we were BORN displeasing to your biblegod.

You are welcome here anytime and can ask any question you want about what I believe and I will take it seriously and answer it the best I can.

I'm not convinced it's the very best you can do. Yes, I believe it's the best you can do, *while having to uphold your religious convictions*. 'Two different "bests".

I’m not looking to become an atheist, I don’t see the truth of it...

Karla, check this out...

Seeking truth *objectively* is not about what one is, or isn't, "looking to become". Okay? Don't you think that the idea of being reunited with all my deceased friends and family up in the clouds somewhere is much more appealing than dying after 50, 60, 70, etc., years, never to see them again??? Don't you think that when the chips are down that the idea that there is an invisible man who is my bestest friend in the whole wide world, and who will listen to my problems, and even help with them, *sometimes*, is better than having to go it all alone when the chips are down???? Wouldn't you think it's easier for me to blame "evil spirits" when I make a mistake, as opposed to having to take responsibility for my own actions?

I implore you to contemplate these questions, and answer honestly.

If you answered "yes", you are right, but here's the clincher: No matter how much I *want* those things to be "true", I cannot honestly bring myself to believe it, because there is NO OBJECTIVE confirmation that these things *are* true. None; zilche; nada.

I am looking to understand why you all believe as you do and to look beyond our differences and find common ground.

Evidentally, the "common ground" is that we agree on practically nothing.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Oh, please. If "He" doesn't have ANY "needs", then "He" doesn't need me to believe in, worship, and love "Him", right? So why the ultimatum??? Why torture me if I don't do those things???? It is NOT logical, and it most certainly isn't indicative of a "God" who supposedly stands for "Love".”

He doesn’t NEED you to believe in Him, or worship Him, or love Him. We need to love, worship, and be in relationship with Him, because it is good for us. He gave of His own life out of perfect love for us so that we could have Him because we need Him.

Not doing those things, doesn’t hurt Him, it hurts us. We are shooting our own selves in the foot so to speak to refuse Him, because we are spiritual and physical beings and we need to be in our natural habitat in Him. When we are out of that it is not good for us; we are a fish out of water, a bird in a cage, etc. But that’s free will, that’s our choice to not do what is good for us, but that choice does have consequences and that is only logical and just.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"He doesn’t NEED you to believe in Him, or worship Him, or love Him. We need to love, worship, and be in relationship with Him, because it is good for us. He gave of His own life out of perfect love for us so that we could have Him because we need Him.

Not doing those things, doesn’t hurt Him, it hurts us. We are shooting our own selves in the foot so to speak to refuse Him, because we are spiritual and physical beings and we need to be in our natural habitat in Him. When we are out of that it is not good for us; we are a fish out of water, a bird in a cage, etc. But that’s free will, that’s our choice to not do what is good for us, but that choice does have consequences and that is only logical and just."


Then shouldn't all non-Christians feel like something is missing in their lives? Why are non-Christians happy and satisfied if they "need" Jesus.

There is nothing logical and just about infinite punishment for finite crimes.

Karla said...

Mike “ Then shouldn't all non-Christians feel like something is missing in their lives? Why are non-Christians happy and satisfied if they "need" Jesus.”

There is a need for something greater than ourselves, but often people try and fulfill it their own way—some with money, some with materialism, some with political power, some with prestige, some with love, some with women or men, some with food, some with entertainment, some with art, some with drugs. But even for those who have all this, they do not really have the satisfaction they are looking for—we see this in Hollywood all the time. People who have celebrity status, lavish parties, lavish things, and loads of money, are often very troubled people.

I’ve seen lots of books come out recently of people going to the opposite extreme trying to find that “thing” that satisfies by self-denial – living a simple life, abandoning technology, etc. Even this is a sign of desire to fulfill an unfulfilled need.



Mike “There is nothing logical and just about infinite punishment for finite crimes.”

Are they really finite? If we are talking about hell, we are assuming the Bible is true for the sake of the discussion and calling this idea of hell unjust. However, the Bible also teaches that we are both physical and spiritual beings, we are not just temporal but eternal as we have an eternal spirit, and that spirit can be made alive (speaking of quality of life) eternally or have continue in it’s eternal death. Sin has brought death to it eternally until something happens to resurrect that dead spirit and bring eternal life.

We see the reality of the problem of evil around us all the time; this in itself is a testimony of the truth that we have a sin problem.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"There is a need for something greater than ourselves, but often people try and fulfill it their own way—some with money, some with materialism, some with political power, some with prestige, some with love, some with women or men, some with food, some with entertainment, some with art, some with drugs."

Yes, yes, yes, I know that Christianity claims that only Jesus satisfies, but that is a complete and total lie because people since the dawn of time have led perfectly happy lives without Jesus, and it is the height of arrogance to claim otherwise.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"Are they really finite?"

Yes, stealing a loaf of bread is as much a sin as anything else and it would guarantee an unrepentant person a trip to eternal hell fire.

The God of Christianity sets an impossible goal, one that only he can meet by incarnating, and then says, "You can't possibly meet this goal, you came into this world incapable of meeting this goal, now you need to accept me or be punished for all eternity."

Karla said...

Mike “Yes, yes, yes, I know that Christianity claims that only Jesus satisfies, but that is a complete and total lie because people since the dawn of time have led perfectly happy lives without Jesus, and it is the height of arrogance to claim otherwise.”

I don’t see evidence of people being completely content and fulfilled even by the fulfillment of their own dreams of success or victory. The whole reason art speaks to us so much is that it captivates us beyond ourselves to something greater than us. Stories whether in movies, books, or pictures pull on us to something greater. Even Richard Dawkins says that looking at the wonders of nature makes us want to worship either the nature or a Creator of nature, but that if we learn the science we’ll see there is no cause for wonderment. I think the first reaction is the truer one than one where we have lost all wonder.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"I don’t see evidence of people being completely content and fulfilled even by the fulfillment of their own dreams of success or victory."

Apparently we have met different people.

Most of the least satisfied people I know, the ones on constant emotional roller coasters, are Christians. I also know some Christians who are perfectly content.

You pointed to Hollywood before, but that's like looking at another planet, and even there you will find people who are stable and happy.

Other stable and happy people are people of other faiths. You really think people of other faiths are discontent and searching for Jesus. I know I used to think that, I'm ashamed to admit.

Karla said...

Mike “Yes, stealing a loaf of bread is as much a sin as anything else and it would guarantee an unrepentant person a trip to eternal hell fire.”

The stealing is the outward action of an inward problem. We try to fix people by stopping the symptoms of the problem. God is telling us the problem is deeper, there is sin in our very being that needs to be removed at it’s core and that He will gladly remove it for us if we want Him to by His own sacrifice and giving us His own life to make us whole again.

We can choose to live in our sin state, or accept the outstretched hand pierced for us and come fully into His life.


Mike “The God of Christianity sets an impossible goal, one that only he can meet by incarnating, and then says, "You can't possibly meet this goal, you came into this world incapable of meeting this goal, now you need to accept me or be punished for all eternity."

It’s more like, “I am life and you don’t have the fullness of life that I want to give you because of your sin condition, and I want to fix that for you freely, I will stand in your place and pay the price for your sin and give you life without you earning that life, or you can continue in your sin state, but sin and destruction only leads to more of the same and the further you get from me the further that harms you. I want none of you to perish, but that is the path you are walking, let me help you out of that before it is too late. Let me show you how to live a new life one that is full of me and full of righteousness that leads to more and more righteousness. Let me take your hand and help you grow and blossom and see the dreams in the depth of your heart fulfilled.”

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Either way, the God of Christianity is judging us by something we can never achieve.

Karla said...

Maybe we have a different take on fulfillment. And yes I know both kinds of Christians and have been both at different times in life.

Karla said...

But He can and will if we allow Him to.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"But He can and will if we allow Him to."

Then why not just do it? Why would a loving God create a lake fire for us sinners, the Devil and all his angels?

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: “Oh, please. If 'He' doesn't have ANY 'needs', then 'He' doesn't need me to believe in, worship, and love 'Him', right? So why the ultimatum??? Why torture me if I don't do those things???? It is NOT logical, and it most certainly isn't indicative of a 'God' who supposedly stands for 'Love'.”

Karla attempts...He doesn’t NEED you to believe in Him, or worship Him, or love Him.

THEN PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION....

WHY the ultimatum? Why torture those who don't do all of those things?(or if you prefer, why ALLOW people to, um, "torture themselves")

You see, Karla, for intelligent people, there is a cognitive dissonance there when/if we are told that it is unecessary(aka, not needed) that we do [such and such], yet, if we *don't* DO [such and such], there are seriously grave reprecussions for *not* doing [such and such]. 'Get it? 'GET IT???

If you expect people to believe what you are proposing, then you'll have to propose it in a way that actually makes sense.

Karla: We need to love, worship, and be in relationship with Him, because it is good for us.

This is an unproven assertion, but assuming it's true, if we so desparately "need" to love, worship, etc., etc., this biblegod, then please don't sit there and expect to be taken seriously, when, out of the other side of your mouth you say that this very SAME biblegod remains hidden because it is "being patient"!! That makes jack' sense!

If we "NEED" all these things, then biblegod should cease with the hide-n-seek already, and give EVERY PERSON the evidence that they require to believe. And here's the clincher: This would NOT hurt anyone's "free will"!!!! Yes, Karla, we could believe in "God", and still be free agents who can decide whether or not we "NEED" all this stuff that you and 'Sir-hides-a-lot' say we "need".

Karla: He gave of His own life out of perfect love for us so that we could have Him because we need Him.

Do you realize how many times you've blurted out this tired apologetic throughout these conversations? Honestly, do you really think we don't *already* know what you believe?

Karla, please try to follow what I'm about to say: I know all about this supposed "Substitutionary Atonement", okay? Again, I have used the intellect that I was presumably given by this "God" to determine that the idea that we should be "blessed" to able to heap all of our "sins" onto the back of AN INNOCENT MAN(who is later EXECUTED), is an abhorent and dispicable proposition---one that should be DENOUNCED. Moreover, the proposition that we are born with a supposed sickly nature, a nature that is displeasing to "God", but on the other hand, we are asked to "get well", when this "God" knows, a priori, THAT WE CANNOT "get well", is an INSANE proposition, and yes, it, also, should be DENOUNCED.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Not doing those things, doesn’t hurt Him....

Really? Really??? Then why did it "repent" this "God" when it became apparent to him that his creation simply could not please him?????? Golly-gee...'sure sounds like somebody's feelings were hurt, to me. Oh, and what better way to fix the problem than to DROWN everyone! Yup... man, woman, child, woman carrying child, and beast. Are you serious??? How can you keep a straight face and tell us that you support these massive doses of illogic???

We are shooting our own selves in the foot so to speak to refuse Him....

i.e...."I can't hear you Atheists when you tell me over and over and over and over and over and over and over that you don't 'refuse' God, but that you don't believe God exists. So, that said, I'm going to keep the corn cobs in my ears, and every time you tell me this, I'm going to say that you 'refuse', or 'reject' my God!!!!"

..because we are spiritual and physical beings and we need to be in our natural habitat in Him.

Unproven assertion, and you've yet to even given a real-world definition of what a "Spirit" is. Yes, you dedicated an entire post to telling people what a "Spirit" is from a biblical standpoint, which, as you should know, is only meaningful to the already-convinced. If you didn't know that, consider the notice now.

When we are out of that it is not good for us; we are a fish out of water, a bird in a cage, etc.

A "fish out of water" cannot live for 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 plus, years. It dies within minutes.

Karla, human beings can lead happy, productive, meaningful, natural lives without believing in anything you have to offer about your chosen religion. What you propose beyond that is UNPROVEN.

But that’s free will, that’s our choice to not do what is good for us, but that choice does have consequences and that is only logical and just.

Let's review:

- It is not "Just" or "logical" to infinitely torture human beings as a consequence for finite "crimes".

- Holding human beings responsible for the crimes of their ancient ancestors is neither "Just", nor "logical". Additionally, it spits in the face of "free will".

- If the being who implements the "consequence" knows the future outcome of all events, then it is not "logical" to consider him/her/it "Just" if they decide to create, *knowing* that most of the creation will be in "Hell". In fact, it's down-right retarded

Karla said...

BoomSlang “You see, Karla, for intelligent people, there is a cognitive dissonance there when/if we are told that it is unecessary(aka, not needed) that we do [such and such], yet, if we *don't* DO [such and such], there are seriously grave reprecussions for *not* doing [such and such]. 'Get it? 'GET IT???”


I said God doesn’t need us to worship Him. We need to worship Him because it does something in us. God wouldn’t be perfect if He had needs. It is our privilege to work with Him in the earth to bring about His Kingdom. We NEED to be in Him. Our lives need to be merged with His.

God isn’t saying “love me or be tortured” He is saying He loves us despite our sin and the evil in our nature, and He wants to free us from that nature and give us His life. He wants to save us from our plight of life without Him and He has done all the work required for that to happen for us. He is positioned for us, not against us.

Hell wasn’t even created for humans; it was created for Satan and his demons. It wasn’t God’s plan for us to join them. His plan for us is good, not harm, not evil. Evil comes from that which is not from God.

BoomSlang “Moreover, the proposition that we are born with a supposed sickly nature, a nature that is displeasing to "God", but on the other hand, we are asked to "get well", when this "God" knows, a priori, THAT WE CANNOT "get well", is an INSANE proposition, and yes, it, also, should be DENOUNCED.”

God loves us even in our sinful state. He doesn’t ask us to get well, to clean up, to be moral, good, etc. He asks us to let Him clean us and give us His own righteousness.

It’s not about morality. It’s not about our actions. It’s about that life comes from Him and Him alone. And a path away from Him isn’t good for us because there is no life there, there is only more and more death and we aren’t designed to live in that death, but to live in His Life. Hell is the furthest away from God someone can get and that is necessarily a torturous existence and God does everything except overpowering our free will to bring us into His Life.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “ i.e...."I can't hear you Atheists when you tell me over and over and over and over and over and over and over that you don't 'refuse' God, but that you don't believe God exists. So, that said, I'm going to keep the corn cobs in my ears, and every time you tell me this, I'm going to say that you 'refuse', or 'reject' my God!!!!"”

I do hear you that you don’t believe and don’t have the evidence to believe. I believe you. And I don’t see it as your fault that you’re an atheist. I take the blame for those in my life that do not see the reality of God because I, as a Christian, am a representative of Him, He lives through me and that should be evident in my life. This does not mean that God places blame upon me, but that I choice to take responsibility for people’s unbelief around me. I think many people don’t believe because they haven’t seen what should be there for them to see.

I walked through a local mall this week with a pastor from a ministry in California. He was one of the speakers at a conference I attended. I watched him walk up to people and ask them if they wanted to feel the presence of God. Most were very receptive. He did not touch the person but would simply ask the Holy Spirit to come and manifest His presence. Every time the people would be amazed and describe the joy, love, and peace they felt. Many also described feeling a gentle weight upon them. I knew what they described because I have experienced this. He walked up to many people and told them things about their life that he could not have known without God telling him. He told them of prayers they had prayed and the time period they prayed them in. I saw so many people simply overjoyed.

I think if you saw a Christian healing the sick, raising the dead, letting you feel God’s presence, telling you things about yourself that you thought only you knew, you would believe. These things are things I didn’t know Christians could walk in like this until the last five years of my life. And I am just learning so much of this for the first time and have only had few experiences so far. But I do not blame you for your atheism, and I do not believe that God does either. He loves you and I pray that He shows you either directly from Him to you or indirectly through another Christian just how amazing He thinks you are.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “ Karla, if "Christians" are "refering to Jesus" for their "knowledge" and his opinion on certain matters, then why is it that Christians cannot agree when it comes to things like the social issues of the day?”

Because we only know in part and we make the mistake of making the part the whole. We know to be compassionate so people run with that into social welfare programs. We know that people ought to learn to stand on their own feet and we run with that into anti-helping the poor. Sometimes hurts in our own life that we haven’t surrendered to Jesus to heal blind us to what He is really saying. Also we aren’t perfect and we can hear Him wrong. Our ability to hear doesn’t change His words being true.

I’m serious when I say it’s not about doctrine. I heard a guy the other day, a minister, talk about how a person told him they want to follow Jesus, but can’t believe that He is God. That minister told her that was just fine; they didn’t need to believe He was God to start following Him. That doesn’t mean that He isn’t God, but that time for that understanding would come later and that the doctrine wasn’t as important as the relationship.


BoomSlang “So, when Shirley Phelps and her congregation picket the funerals of our dead soldiers(a la, "GOD HATES THE U.S.A!!!"), and she does this because she claims that's what "the Lord" wants her to do, do you think she "knows Jesus", or not? Would you recommend that she "spend more time with Jesus"??? “

I don’t know who that is. I would always recommend to seek Jesus.


BoomSlang “Oh? You mean, like, "WWJD"? Please tell me, how do you know what Jesus would do without looking at "Bible verses"??????”

Actually I believe Jesus is still speaking to us now, and we don’t have to look only at what He did on earth, but what how He is leading us now. It isn’t about what would Jesus do, but what Is He doing now?



Regarding the Bible. I see it as true and very helpful in learning about God, but I don’t see it as mandatory to start getting to know Jesus. There are many regions in this world where people do not have access to the Bible, but they are still Christians following God. I’m not concerned with if someone thinks the Bible is true or not, especially not an atheist. I’m not going to even get into a debate on it, because it is pointless. You can experience God without going that direction and He can reveal to you the truth of His Word in His timing, if necessary.


BoomSlang “Yes, of course...it's not about "rules" and "doctrine"; it's about Jesus' "love" and "compassion". Isn't that what you'll tell me? I believe so, yet, nonbelievers, too, can exhibit "love" and they can exhibit "passion". “

Yes we were created with the capacity to love. So we can see very loving people even in unbelievers and that is still a reflection of Him.


BoomSlang “Yet, if there are no *future* believers, then a "Church" is pointless. Pews are just a bunch of trees, if no one sits in them.”

The church isn’t a building with pews, or a service where people gather to worship and hear a sermon. The church is the people who are in Christ.

BoomSlang “Again, passing the meme(in this case, the Christian belief) to children is the only way to ensure that Christianity won't die out. You will never, in your wildest artillery of apologetics, convince me that indoctrinating children isn't on the Church "to do" list. Please---it's best to not even go there.”

Okay. I won’t try then.

Karla said...

Karla "But He can and will if we allow Him to."

Mike “Then why not just do it? Why would a loving God create a lake fire for us sinners, the Devil and all his angels?”

He didn’t create hell for us, but for Satan and his demons. Us going to hell was never His plan. But He doesn’t make us have His life. He enables us all to choose Him, but He doesn’t force us to. I trust that this way is better for us than being forced.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"He didn’t create hell for us, but for Satan and his demons. Us going to hell was never His plan."

According to common Christian theology, God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnitemporal, etc. so he knew full well when he created hell that humans were going there.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: God isn’t saying “love me or be tortured”

But if being tortured is the *ONLY* alternative to when/if the "love of God" isn't reciprocated, then that is inevitably what we are being told...."Love me or be tortured"....which equates to, "believe in me or be tortured". And again, what of those who cannot honestly believe on "faith"? They get the same treatment as those who reject/hate "God", right?

(of course, none of this is true; this is merely attempting to illustrate to the believer that the policies/concepts found in the christian doctrine are not worthy of my belief)

Karla, to Mike: He didn’t create hell for us, but for Satan and his demons. Us going to hell was never His plan.

Why did biblegod "create evil" to begin with?

Karla: But He doesn’t make us have His life.

Right, he doesn't "make us" believe in/love/worship him, he just says that if you don't, you'll land in "Hell". We've been over this, oh, probably dozens of times, yet, you keep repeating these same weak, flawed apologetics.

Karla: He enables us all to choose Him, but He doesn’t force us to.

Enables us? How?..you mean, by giving us "intellect", only so we can be told "it isn't about intellect" by those who are already convinced??

Karla: I trust that this way is better for us than being forced.

I'll say it again: For "God" to simply appear DOES NOT FORCE US TO BELIEVE in "Him". Remember? You are repeating the same non-argument over and over and over.

Karla said...

Karla: God isn’t saying “love me or be tortured”

BoomSlang “But if being tortured is the *ONLY* alternative to when/if the "love of God" isn't reciprocated, then that is inevitably what we are being told...."Love me or be tortured"....which equates to, "believe in me or be tortured". And again, what of those who cannot honestly believe on "faith"? They get the same treatment as those who reject/hate "God", right?”

Did you read what I wrote? That is not my position. How can you have God without having God? The only way to have an eternity that isn’t spent without God is to be in God and He has made the way for us to be forever with Him. It’s that simple. Hell is not just a place it’s a realm of existence, one where we are left to our own will and ways and an eternity as such is a horrible hellish existence.


BoomSlang “Why did biblegod "create evil" to begin with?”

For the evil beings (Satan and his demons) to be put away forever.

BoomSlang “Enables us? How?..you mean, by giving us "intellect", only so we can be told "it isn't about intellect" by those who are already convinced??”

No. By His Spirit drawing our heart and spirit to Him. Just enough that we are enabled, but not forced to draw close to Him.

BoomSlang “I'll say it again: For "God" to simply appear DOES NOT FORCE US TO BELIEVE in "Him". Remember? You are repeating the same non-argument over and over and over.”

He has appeared.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Did you read what I wrote?

Hello, Pot? Yes, I read what your wrote. Here it is again:

Karla: "God isn’t saying 'love me or be tortured'."

Did you read my response?

First of all, notice that "God" isn't saying anything to me, hence, why I must rely on your interpretation of what you *believe* "God" is "saying". The bottom line of what you are telling me is, yes, "Love God".... or suffer the consequences. And yes, I understand that you have a rationale as to how that's not what you're telling me, but you've failed in showing me how it's not so.

That is not my position.

If you beleive in the Christian philosophy as you've explained it thus far, then yes, that position is implicitly yours.

How can you have God without having God?

You can't. How can you have Zeus without having Zeus? 'Stupid question, right? Right, which is why I didn't(and wouldn't) ever suggest that you can "have God without having God".

The only way to have an eternity that isn’t spent without God is to be in God and He has made the way for us to be forever with Him.

More irrelevant apologetics wrapped in religious jargon. Let me ask you something, why-oh-why-oh-why do you think repeating what you believe over and over and over is going to change my position on the objections that I've raised since the inception of these discussions?? I ALREADY know what Karla believes is the way to "be with Him for eternity", yada, yada. Good grief...do something different.

It’s that simple.

It might be that "simple", and even helpful, that is, if I were at loss for what it is you believe. I ALREADY know what you believe, and why, ad nauseam.

Hell is not just a place it’s a realm of existence, one where we are left to our own will and ways and an eternity as such is a horrible hellish existence

One minute it's what you just described, then next minute you "don't know if it's allegorical or literal".

Me, previously: “Why did biblegod 'create evil' to begin with?”

You respond: For the evil beings (Satan and his demons) to be put away forever.

whAT? Biblegod created evil for "evil beings"? So then, he's facilitating their being "evil" it looks like. Forgive me for being underwhelmed with that "logic".

Previously I asked how biblegod enables us to believe in him.

Answer: By His Spirit drawing our heart and spirit to Him.

Metaphorical religious jargon that only has meaning to the already-convinced.

Just enough that we are enabled, but not forced to draw close to Him.

But in my case, not "close" enough that I can actually and honestly profess that I believe.

And by the way, please humor me and name a senario that I would be "forced to draw close to Him". Please don't dodge or circumvent this question, because I think it's really important in light of your claims.

boomSLANG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “For 'God' to simply appear DOES NOT FORCE US to love/worship/accept 'Him'. Remember? You are repeating the same non-argument over and over and over.”

Karla: He has appeared.

Yes, yes...biblegod presumably walked the earth a few thousand years ago, but as *you* stated, he doesn't "walk the earth" now-a-days.

The point, however, is this: Did his appearing back in the day harm anyone's 'faith'? Were the people who (supposedly) enountered him "forced to draw close to Him"??? No/No.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “First of all, notice that "God" isn't saying anything to me, hence, why I must rely on your interpretation of what you *believe* "God" is "saying".”

Or you could just address the argument I am making, instead of changing it to something else.


BoomSlang “ The bottom line of what you are telling me is, yes, "Love God".... or suffer the consequences. And yes, I understand that you have a rationale as to how that's not what you're telling me, but you've failed in showing me how it's not so.”

Well, I don’t know how else to put it to you. You’ve reduced it to something it is not and keep addressing your arguments to the premise you have devised.

BoomSlang “If you beleive in the Christian philosophy as you've explained it thus far, then yes, that position is implicitly yours.”

No it is pretty mainstream.

How can you have God without having God?

BoomSlang “You can't. How can you have Zeus without having Zeus? 'Stupid question, right? Right, which is why I didn't(and wouldn't) ever suggest that you can "have God without having God".”

That’s what you propose though. You want what only comes from God without God. Eternal life that is the full quality of all the grandness of Life requires being with God for He is the only source of that. Otherwise there is not living in Him and that is a path of death and destruction, because His life is absent from that existence.



The only way to have an eternity that isn’t spent without God is to be in God and He has made the way for us to be forever with Him.


Boom “It might be that "simple", and even helpful, that is, if I were at loss for what it is you believe. I ALREADY know what you believe, and why, ad nauseam.”

The problem is you don’t respond to what I am actually saying. You keep setting up a different premise that I do not advocate and then proceed to argue against that. I believe that’s called setting up a straw man.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “One minute it's what you just described, then next minute you "don't know if it's allegorical or literal".”

All I know is it is full of death and destruction and torment because it is life where God and all the good things that come from Him is not. Whether that includes actual fire, I have no idea.

Boom “Me, previously: “Why did biblegod 'create evil' to begin with?””

I’m sorry I read that sentence wrong, I thought you said “why did he create hell? To answer your question, God did not create evil. Evil is that which happens when we step outside of God’s goodness. It’s like darkness being the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good. It isn’t something God created; it is something His creation caused out of our free will.

You respond: For the evil beings (Satan and his demons) to be put away forever.

BoomSlang “whAT? Biblegod created evil for "evil beings"? So then, he's facilitating their being "evil" it looks like. Forgive me for being underwhelmed with that "logic".

No. All He created was good. But they used their freedom to do things that are not good and thus became infested with evil which did not exist prior to their actions.

Boom “Previously I asked how biblegod enables us to believe in him.”

Karla “Answer: By His Spirit drawing our heart and spirit to Him.”

Boom “Metaphorical religious jargon that only has meaning to the already-convinced.”

God reveals Himself sufficiently (in a myriad of ways) for us to find Him if we want to.

Just enough that we are enabled, but not forced to draw close to Him.

BoomSlang “But in my case, not "close" enough that I can actually and honestly profess that I believe.”

That doesn’t mean that will remain so.

BoomSlang “And by the way, please humor me and name a senario that I would be "forced to draw close to Him". Please don't dodge or circumvent this question, because I think it's really important in light of your claims.”

Hypothetically, maybe if Jesus showed up to you in all His glory and overpowered your will and brought you into His truth. BTW, if you want Jesus to reveal Himself to you in a way that would give evidence that He is real, just ask Him to do so. You’ve got nothing to lose asking God to reveal Himself to you.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Yes, yes...biblegod presumably walked the earth a few thousand years ago, but as *you* stated, he doesn't "walk the earth" now-a-days. The point, however, is this: Did his appearing back in the day harm anyone's 'faith"? Were they "forced to draw close close to Him"??? No/no.”

No. He does reveal Himself to people at times. Why don’t you ask Him to show Himself real to you? And see what happens.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"No. He does reveal Himself to people at times. Why don’t you ask Him to show Himself real to you? And see what happens."

I do that pretty regularly, sadly, nothing happened for me.

Karla said...

Mike "I do that pretty regularly, sadly, nothing happened for me."

I'm sorry Mike, nothing has happened yet. I do pray for you to. I have seen the reality of God many times, and I believe that is possible for everyone. I was a Christian for over 20 years before I started having experiences like I have had in the last 5 years, mainly because I didn't know these experiences were even possible.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"I was a Christian for over 20 years before I started having experiences like I have had in the last 5 years, mainly because I didn't know these experiences were even possible."

I was a Christian for 20 years, I don't really count my childhood years as I wasn't really old enough to make a decision. I experienced many things that I attributed to God.

Nothing in your new experiences that you have describe would lead me to believe exclusively in Christianity as I have heard similar claims from other faiths and even some secular, but mystical/spiritual people.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: “First of all, notice that 'God' isn't saying anything to me, hence, why I must rely on your interpretation of what you *believe* 'God' is 'saying'.”

Karla responds: Or you could just address the argument I am making, instead of changing it to something else.

I did address the argument(secondly), hence why I said, "First of all", etc., etc. Notice, I addressed your argument immediately following, with...

"The bottom line of what you are telling me is, yes, 'Love God'.... or suffer the consequences."

I even pointed out that you'd claim to have a defense, with...

And yes, I understand that you have a rationale as to how that's not what you're telling me, but you've failed in showing me how it's not so.[bold added]

you continue...Well, I don’t know how else to put it to you. You’ve reduced it to something it is not and keep addressing your arguments to the premise you have devised.

I've "reduced it" to its bare truth, using deductive reasoning. It's really quite simple: If I don't harbor a belief in the Christian biblegod within my natural life time, I will suffer the consequences. Please tell me what it is that you don't understand about that, or how it's not accurate.

That’s what you propose though. You want what only comes from God without God.

No, that is a caricature of my argument. If "evidence" is one thing that "comes from God", I want *that*. That is nothing like what you propose I "propose".

Eternal life that is the full quality of all the grandness of Life requires being with God for He is the only source of that. Otherwise there is not living in Him and that is a path of death and destruction, because His life is absent from that existence.

And again, here you are repeating your apologetics; repeating your beliefs, when I already know what you believe, ad nauseam. Why? Why do you continually do this?

The problem is you don’t respond to what I am actually saying. You keep setting up a different premise that I do not advocate and then proceed to argue against that. I believe that’s called setting up a straw man.

What you just said is categorically false. It's simply astounding that you stoop to such dishonesty. I have not misrepresented what you've said; I've simply illustrated, using deductive reasoning, what your arguments reduce to. Let's try again, because I really dislike getting accused of this sort of thing.

To be clear, I know that you, Karla, have never typed the words "Love me or be tortured" as representive of what your bible or biblegod "say". 'Fair enough?

Assuming so...

If, in my life time, I am never able to honestly adopt/harbor a belief in the Christian biblegod, I will suffer the consequences..i.e..I will go to "Hell". Yes, or no?

*Remember, THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL, thus, that there is a "remedy" is IRRELEVANT to the point I'm making. So, "yes", or "no", to the above question?

If "yes", then, once more, I have illustrated how not harboring a certain belief(a belief in "God") gets me the consequence of "Hell".

Can you tell me how infinite "death and destruction and torment"(your description), is not torture? If not, then...

I've proven my case. And I have not misrepresented your argument, nor erected a "strawman". So, unless you answer "no", above, instead of "yes", I have proven my point, and I would ask that you not falsely accuse me of things I didn't do. I'd really appreciate it.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: To answer your question, God did not create evil

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." ~ Isaiah 45:7

God reveals Himself sufficiently (in a myriad of ways)

Yes, yes, in toast, tree trunks, frying pans, and in leg and arm lengthening rituals, to name a few "sufficient" ways. Meanwhile, the 500 and the Twelve, and others, got to see "Him" in physical form.

...for us to find Him if we want to.

Ah, yes...the blame-game. If one doesn't find "God", then that means he or she didn't want to find "Him". How convenient(and arrogant).

Previously, Karla: "Just enough that we are enabled, but not forced to draw close to Him."

Me: But in my case, not "close" enough that I can actually and honestly profess that I believe.

You: That doesn’t mean that will remain so.

But if it does "remain so", it will be my fault, because I didn't want to find him. Right? No, wait...why am I asking? You just implied it, above. Nevermind.

Me, previously: “And by the way, please humor me and name a senario that I would be 'forced to draw close to Him'. Please don't dodge or circumvent this question, because I think it's really important in light of your claims.”

You attempt...Hypothetically, maybe if Jesus showed up to you in all His glory and overpowered your will and brought you into His truth.

Oh, my goodness.

Karla, if "Jesus" would "overpower my will", then that is *HIS* doing, not mine, and thus, we must ask: Why would "Jesus" do that, if he's the guy who wants us to use our *own* "will" in the first place? Your hypothetical fails.

And BTW, I've heard Christians profess to see "God" in "all His Glory". Are you saying they didn't have a choice but to believe/love/follow/worship "God"?

BTW, if you want Jesus to reveal Himself to you in a way that would give evidence that He is real, just ask Him to do so. You’ve got nothing to lose asking God to reveal Himself to you.

Yeah, okay. I asked you somewhere else why you'd assume that I had never thought to do this. Maybe I'll get an answer once you come back from Holiday.

Karla said...

Mike "Nothing in your new experiences that you have describe would lead me to believe exclusively in Christianity as I have heard similar claims from other faiths and even some secular, but mystical/spiritual people."


If you accept my accounts as actually having happened as well as these other accounts from non-Christian sources that should provide evidence that something real is happening that may very well be supernatural.

I do not discount the accounts of supernatural from people who aren't Christians.

Karla said...

BoomSlang "I've "reduced it" to its bare truth, using deductive reasoning. It's really quite simple: If I don't harbor a belief in the Christian biblegod within my natural life time, I will suffer the consequences. Please tell me what it is that you don't understand about that, or how it's not accurate."



It's not accurate because "harboring a belief" isn't what it is about.

If you are not in God you will continue in that reality if you are in Him you will continue in that reality. It's not more complicated than that.

Karla said...

Boom "To be clear, I know that you, Karla, have never typed the words "Love me or be tortured" as representive of what your bible or biblegod "say". 'Fair enough?"

Just as long as you know God isn't saying that either. It's not about what I say, it's about what He says.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: "I've 'reduced it' to its bare truth, using deductive reasoning. It's really quite simple: If I don't harbor a belief in the Christian biblegod within my natural life time, I will suffer the consequences. Please tell me what it is that you don't understand about that, or how it's not accurate."

Karla responds: It's not accurate because "harboring a belief" isn't what it is about.

Notice, I didn't ask what "Karla" believes Christianity is "about". You are circumventing the issue.

Let's try it this way....

Please answer the following multiple choice question:

Do people who don't believe in the Christian biblegod get into "Heaven"? Yes? Or no?

If "no", then the only alternative is "Hell"(and please don't try to weasle-word out of it, because you've made it clear that those are the *only* two options)
Thus, if people who don't believe in the Christian biblegod go to "Hell", then case-in-point, one can go to "Hell" for not harboring(holding/adopting) a *certain* belief.

Karla: If you are not in God you will continue in that reality if you are in Him you will continue in that reality. It's not more complicated than that.

Unfortunately for you, every word of that metaphorical, godspeak is immaterial to my claim, above.

Karla said...

Boom "Karla responds: It's not accurate because "harboring a belief" isn't what it is about."

"Notice, I didn't ask what "Karla" believes Christianity is "about". You are circumventing the issue."

Nor was I referring to Christianity, but to finding Life.


Boom "Do people who don't believe in the Christian biblegod get into "Heaven"? Yes? Or no?"

No. Nor do those who "harbor certain beliefs"


Boom "If "no", then the only alternative is "Hell"(and please don't try to weasle-word out of it, because you've made it clear that those are the *only* two options"

Yes that is the only alternative.


Boom "Thus, if people who don't believe in the Christian biblegod go to "Hell", then case-in-point, one can go to "Hell" for not harboring(holding/adopting) a *certain* belief."

People aren't going there because of their lack of belief. They are already going there because of their separation from God and their condition of death. Quixote pointed this out to you already.

"haboring,holding,adopting" beliefs isn't going to bring life. Life is ONLY found in God. Not in "believing" God, but in actually having our life in His life. Satan believes God and that isn't going to save Him. He knows full well the reality of God. But he is not in Christ.

The Scriptures actually describe it as "believing in your heart" as we know the mind isn't located in the heart, it means the depths of your being is fully engaged in the depths of Him. Being IN Christ, not just believing some rote doctrine in your mind.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

'Life is ONLY found in God. Not in "believing" God'

"The Scriptures actually describe it as "believing in your heart" as we know the mind isn't located in the heart, it means the depths of your being is fully engaged in the depths of Him. Being IN Christ, not just believing some rote doctrine in your mind."

"The Scriptures actually describe it as 'believing'..."

Romans 10:8-10 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

That is precisely what boom and any other ex-Christian is talking about when they say belief is required for going to heaven.

It all comes down to belief, well, that and confessing with your mouth.

Karla said...

Mike "That is precisely what boom and any other ex-Christian is talking about when they say belief is required for going to heaven.

It all comes down to belief, well, that and confessing with your mouth."

"Belief in your heart" that is something different than intellectually ascribing to doctrinal statements. The latter happens, but the latter isn't the same as the former.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Yes, I understand, it's not about believing it's about really, really believing.

Regardless, when an ex-Christian says it comes down to belief in regards to salvation, they aren't talking about some lukewarm belief.

Karla said...

Mike, it's just when one uses the term "thought crime" it doesn't show understanding that it's not about intellectual assent.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"Mike, it's just when one uses the term "thought crime" it doesn't show understanding that it's not about intellectual assent."

So there's no physical crime, perhaps heart crime would be better. Regardless, it's condemning someone for not really believing in their heart.

Karla said...

Mike "So there's no physical crime, perhaps heart crime would be better. Regardless, it's condemning someone for not really believing in their heart."

The person is already in a state of death. It's not happening because they don't believe, it is already the reality one lives in until they leave that reality and live in Christ.

That believing in one's heart brings out an actual being in Jesus and Him being in us and that is where the life is.

Not "believing" doesn't change anything, it's the entering into Christ through the heart that pulls one out of our sin and death and into righteousness and life.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Yes, I know, people are born condemned.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Nor was I referring to Christianity, but to finding Life.

Now you are blatantly equivocating(just as you are in your replies to Monolith Mike). This is one of the reasons that I, personally, find it extremely hard to take you seriously.

Me, previously: "Do people who don't believe in the Christian biblegod get into 'Heaven'? Yes? Or no?"

You finally answer...No.

But then you add... Nor do those who "harbor certain beliefs"

Karla, do you even know what it means to "harbor" a belief? It simply means to have a belief---to *believe* something. Karla *harbors* a belief that Christianity it true/Truth; Boom' does not. 'Follow?

Me, previously: "Thus, if people who don't believe in the Christian biblegod go to 'Hell', then case-in-point, one can go to 'Hell' for not harboring(holding/adopting) a *certain* belief."

You equivocate further.....People aren't going there because of their lack of belief. They are already going there because of their separation from God and their condition of death. Quixote pointed this out to you already.

And you and he are continuing to miss (block out) the point that the supposed "solution" to this supposed default "condition of death" requires making a choice to believe there's a solution. That requires belief.

In other words, I can't do all of the colorful "being in Him" stuff that you recommend, because I don't believe there is any "Him" to be in!

Notwithstanding, we have your full admission, above, that, "no", people who don't believe in(harbor a belief in) the Christian biblegod aka "Jesus", do NOT get into "Heaven", therefore, not harboring certain beliefs(in this case, belief in "God") gets one a sentence in "Hell"--or if you and Quixote prefer, keeps one on their "default" path to "Hell".

Karla: The Scriptures actually describe it as "believing in your heart"

Believing "in your heart" is STILL a belief!..hence, the verb "believing"!!!

continues....as we know the mind isn't located in the heart, it means the depths of your being is fully engaged in the depths of Him. Being IN Christ, not just believing some rote doctrine in your mind.

Karla, I am unable to believe in my head, heart, pancreas, liver, knuckles, and on and on, that any of the cornerstone tenets of the Christian Faith are true.

You've lost this particular argument. Please do the right(and honest) thing and concede it.

Karla said...

Boom, I'll accept that that's the way you see it and that I can't change that.

boomSLANG said...

@ Karla,

Nothing I have said is inaccurate; my refutation is based precisely on the statements that *you* have put forth. If, by default, every human being was destined for "Hell" and there was no solution, whatsoever, then - and only then - would you have a case. As it stands, however, believing certain things...or doing certain things that *require* belief, gets one out of this default destination.

Case-in-point: If I don't harbor certain beliefs, then I'm on my merry (default) way to "Hell". This, of course, because I was born "condemned".

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 275 of 275   Newer› Newest»