Friday, March 19, 2010

The Nature of Belief

There are a few different terms used in the New Testament to referrer to a follower of Jesus. One term was “Christian”, which literally means “little Christ” this was used derogatorily, but caught on as a positive label. “Followers of the Way” was another label used, this time by the followers themselves.


The term “believer” was used also at times, and is commonly used today interchangeably with the term “Christian.”


However, I am finding that the using the language of “belief” and “believer” has created a misconception regarding our relationship to God.


Consequently, I looked up the word in the Greek to further research the original meaning behind the term. The Greek word translated as “belief”, “believe”, or “believers” repeatedly throughout the Gospels and Acts is “
pisteuo” which is defined in detail below.



BELIEF, BELIEVE, BELIEVERS

A. Verbs.

1. pisteuo (
pisteu/w, NT:4100), "to believe," also "to be persuaded of," and hence, "to place confidence in, to trust," signifies, in this sense of the word, reliance upon, not mere credence. It is most frequent in the writings of the apostle John, especially the Gospel. He does not use the noun (see below). For the Lord's first use of the verb, see 1:50. Of the writers of the Gospels, Matthew uses the verb ten times, Mark ten, Luke nine, John ninety-nine. In Acts 5:14 the present participle of the verb is translated "believers. See COMMIT, INTRUST, TRUST.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

John 1:50-51
Jesus answered and said to him, "Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these."
NASU


Therefore, the word is not just intellectual assent, but confidence, trust, reliance upon, not mere credence. The same Greek word is also translated as commit, intrust, and trust. Therefore, a believer is not one who accepts certain truth claims as fact in his head, but is one who trusts, commits, has confidence in, relies upon, Christ. It is not a passive word, but an active word.


God isn’t looking for people to believe He is real and that His word is true. He is looking for people who rely on Him because He is reliable. For people who have confidence in Him, because He is worth their commitment. For people who trust in Him, because He is worthy to be trusted. Moreover, all of these things are good for the person.


Man is made to have this symbiotic relationship with their God. We are made to live, and move, and have our being in Him. That is where we thrive and experience the fullness of the good reality, the Truth that is not an informational fact of knowledge, but a Person that can be known intimately.


It can be truly stated that believing is seeing, because believing is not mere intellectual assent, it is to be fully invested experientially. Moreover, this is why we find when we seek. Seeking isn’t an intellectual exercise, but an act of experience. We seek with our being to connect with God. It does something in us to seek to find God, for we are positioned to find when we are seeking.


This is why I agree with those who say they need an encounter to believe. Or when it is said that a believer who makes a claim of hearing God speaking, or a claim of seeing miracles, ought to be able to demonstrate this reality and not just tell of a past story when it supposedly happened. I have absolutely no contention with this request. Not every Christian would make the claims I am making that God can personally talk to us, and that we can say what He is saying, and that we can do miracles like Jesus did. Many Christians would want to see this evidenced as well.


There are people on the earth today that are moving in extraordinary revelation and extraordinary healing power. This ability is not relegated to a few, but so many Christians do not know who they are. We have identity crisis, and we do not live like we have God living through us because our idea of that is something different than the fullness of what being in Christ really means. We trust in what we see with our physical eyes, instead of living out of our new identity. We really, myself included, are not much different sometimes than those who do not believe in God at all, because we make claims we do not live because our belief is head deep instead of heart deep.


Some would object instantly and think I am making some kind of attack against the authenticity of their faith in Christ. I assure you I am not. I am speaking of myself as much as of any one else in Christ. Jesus often told the disciples they had little faith, and yet they lived right there with Him. They saw the miracles, but their faith continued to rest in their natural reality rather than the supernatural reality.


They shook with fear as the storm raged in the boat while Jesus slept. They woke him, begging Him to do something. He stands and speaks to the storm to still and it obeys Him. Where was their belief? It was in the natural circumstance of a storm. Where was Jesus’ belief? It was resting soundly in the reality of God where there are no storms raging. He didn’t need to stop the storm to rest; He calmed the storm for the disciples. He was already resting confidently secure in a heavenly reality. He made that reality manifest for the disciples to see it once again in their natural circumstances.


Jesus said that we could bring that Kingdom reality (the supernatural heavenly reality) to the earth. The Kingdom is not a matter of word, but rather a demonstration of the power of God. Jesus demonstrated that power by calming the storm. There really isn’t any reason for people to believe at this high level of experiential belief when there is no demonstration of His Kingdom. Believing is seeing, because when you experience it, you will see.


I do not expect sight before experience. I write to help clear out some of the misconceptions out there about God’s Kingdom. I do not expect my words to persuade the sort of belief of which I speak. I hope that they can come to remembrance when the time comes that experience occurs to help aid in the transition that may follow once someone has seen the demonstration of God’s Kingdom.


Thus, I do not aim to pressure anyone to intellectual assent or experiential belief. I am confident that His words are true that any who seek after the truth will find it. From what I observe atheists are looking for truth, real truth, something solid and sure and right. I applaud that resolute determination not to be swayed by anything less.

107 comments:

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Believing is seeing, because when you experience it, you will see.

Yup - people generally see what they *want* to see despite any evidence to the contrary.

karla said: From what I observe atheists are looking for truth, real truth, something solid and sure and right.

If by that you mean 'absolute' truth you can count me out - as I don't believe such absolutes exist... If you mean a deeper understanding of things beyond mere appearence - then count me in.

Karla said...

Cyber "Yup - people generally see what they *want* to see despite any evidence to the contrary."

That's not what I meant.


Cyber "If by that you mean 'absolute' truth you can count me out - as I don't believe such absolutes exist... If you mean a deeper understanding of things beyond mere appearence - then count me in."

I think the word "absolute" doesn't necessarily carry the meaning of what I am talking about.

I am talking about desire to know what really is. Maybe we should leave out any other adjectives concerning that "is" at this point.

cl said...

God isn’t looking for people to believe He is real and that His word is true. He is looking for people who rely on Him because He is reliable. For people who have confidence in Him, because He is worth their commitment. For people who trust in Him, because He is worthy to be trusted. Moreover, all of these things are good for the person. (Karla)

This is a point that could use restating: simply believing that God exists is worthless in and of itself. The Bible says that even demons believe -- and shudder.

We really, myself included, are not much different sometimes than those who do not believe in God at all, because we make claims we do not live because our belief is head deep instead of heart deep. (Karla)

Kudos. I think any believer who says this doesn't apply to them has been deceived.

This is why I agree with those who say they need an encounter to believe. Or when it is said that a believer who makes a claim of hearing God speaking, or a claim of seeing miracles, ought to be able to demonstrate this reality and not just tell of a past story when it supposedly happened. I have absolutely no contention with this request. (Karla)

I don't have much of a contention with those requests, either. The problem is, most of the atheists I run into aren't satisfied with "an encounter," they want God to give them 4.573 repeatable encounters, or whatever the magic number might be.

From what I observe atheists are looking for truth, real truth, something solid and sure and right. I applaud that resolute determination not to be swayed by anything less. (Karla)

I do, too, and I think that was worded nicely. I agree that most atheists I've observed seem genuine in their pursuit of truth. I just think it's unfortunate that so many atheists apparently want the truth to cater to their special needs. In my opinion, too many have an unreasonably high standard of proof that can actually obscure truth.

CyberKitten said...

cl said: I just think it's unfortunate that so many atheists apparently want the truth to cater to their special needs.

Erm... 'special needs'?

cl said: In my opinion, too many have an unreasonably high standard of proof that can actually obscure truth.

Whilst in my opinion too many theists have a very unreasonably *low* standard of evidence/proof in order to deny what is plainly obvious (or at least should be).

boomSLANG said...

I've been busy the last few days. I'll post a few things now, and possibly more in a few days.

Karla says: God isn’t looking for people to believe He is real and that His word is true. He is looking for people who rely on Him because He is reliable. For people who have confidence in Him, because He is worth their commitment. For people who trust in Him, because He is worthy to be trusted. Moreover, all of these things are good for the person.

Those "things" may very well be "good for the person[the believer]". However, and I reiterate---to believe that I can "trust in"; "rely on"; "have confidence in" something or someone, I have to *first* believe that this thing or person exists. I don't believe that position is unreasonable. Moreover, I hope you can see how telling an unconvinced person about what "God wants" or what "God" is "looking for", is utterly meaningless to them.

Karla: This is why I agree with those who say they need an encounter to believe. Or when it is said that a believer who makes a claim of hearing God speaking, or a claim of seeing miracles, ought to be able to demonstrate this reality and not just tell of a past story when it supposedly happened. I have absolutely no contention with this request.

(@ Karla,

I'm glad you have no contention when Atheists ask for demonstrable evidence)

cl responds to Karla: I don't have much of a contention with those requests, either. The problem is, most of the atheists I run into aren't satisfied with "an encounter," they want God to give them 4.573 repeatable encounters, or whatever the magic number might be.

I haven't been addressed nor referenced, directly. Nonetheless, I'll tackle this as if I am one of the "most".

For the record, I only need one "encounter with God" to be convinced. And as I delineated in another thread, it's the same type of face-to-face encounter that I am told by those who insist that the day is coming that I "will believe".[bold, mine...but not the italics]

There evidentally exists a certain situation/senario that will leave me no choice but to "believe", and that is the type of evidence that I will accept right here and now in my temporal, mortal existence.

It's noteworthy to add - and at least two theists here, agree - that my being convinced that biblegod exists doesn't make me a "robot"..i.e..it doesn't take away my "free will. I am still a free agent who may or may not reject what said biblegod is offering me..e.g..its "love"; its "morality", its substitutionary "atonement", etc.

Therefore, the only reasons I can come up with for why this type of evidence is being withheld, is:

a) "God" doesn't want me to be convinced(perhaps because "God" knew before I was conceived that I was going to "Hell", therefore, if don't go to "Hell", his omniscience would be called into question)

b) "God" wants me, for some reason, to accept its existence on "faith"(meanwhile, others get "evidence")

c) "God" won't be "tested"(yet, it's interesting to me how those who ask "God" to reveal himself and who get that revelation, weren't "testing God", but those who ask "God" to reveal himself and do not get that revelation, are "testing God"---especially if the unconvinced disclose what it would take to be convinced, when asked)

d) "God" doesn't exist, and those who claim to have "experienced God" are self-deceived.

Karla said...

Cl “I don't have much of a contention with those requests, either. The problem is, most of the atheists I run into aren't satisfied with "an encounter," they want God to give them 4.573 repeatable encounters, or whatever the magic number might be.”

Maybe they are not satisfied because they haven’t had one yet. It is difficult to presume before hand one encounter would not be satisfactory if you have no prior experience of what such an encounter could do for you. I think if an atheist saw a miracle with his/her own eyes, or experienced a supernatural manifestation of the power and love of God they would find that sufficient for belief, but would still have a choice to make as to whether it was sufficient for committing one’s life to God.

I am not concerned by the requirement/demand/stipulation or whatever anyone wants to call it for repeatability, because without having already experienced such an encounter they really do not have much to go on to know if it would be convincing enough to supply the evidence the heart and mind needs to not only have intellectual assent to the truth of a fact, but to have heart belief and trust in the God we are talking about.

CL “I do, too, and I think that was worded nicely. I agree that most atheists I've observed seem genuine in their pursuit of truth. I just think it's unfortunate that so many atheists apparently want the truth to cater to their special needs. In my opinion, too many have an unreasonably high standard of proof that can actually obscure truth.”

Maybe, but that sort of thing doesn’t surprise God. Just as atheists have the propensity to go to the extreme in skepticism and unbelief, there are Christians and others of religious belief that go to the opposite extreme of gullibility and lack of any kind of mental discipline who lack any standard for accepting something as truth.

Karla said...

Cyber “Whilst in my opinion too many theists have a very unreasonably *low* standard of evidence/proof in order to deny what is plainly obvious (or at least should be). “

Some do. As I was just saying to CL, some theists have an incredibly low standard for truth. People these days believe something to be true because their parents said so, or because their pastor said so. They won’t tell you they believe something because it is true, but because some authority told them it is true. Or they will tell you it is just their faith and get all emotional if you question their reasoning. I do question people who believe anything for any other reason that that is reasonably and adequately lines up with what is real. I actually had someone, not a Christian, who told me they got their philosophy on life from a science fiction movie that wasn’t even a philosophical movie!

Karla said...

Boom “ I've been busy the last few days. I'll post a few things now, and possibly more in a few days.”

No problem. Please don’t feel rushed to respond. The blog will be here when you get time.



Karla says: God isn’t looking for people to believe He is real and that His word is true. He is looking for people who rely on Him because He is reliable. For people who have confidence in Him, because He is worth their commitment. For people who trust in Him, because He is worthy to be trusted. Moreover, all of these things are good for the person.

Boom “Those "things" may very well be "good for the person[the believer]". However, and I reiterate---to believe that I can "trust in"; "rely on"; "have confidence in" something or someone, I have to *first* believe that this thing or person exists. I don't believe that position is unreasonable. Moreover, I hope you can see how telling an unconvinced person about what "God wants" or what "God" is "looking for", is utterly meaningless to them.”

Yes, I do understand that intellectual belief is part of it, but not the whole of it. You can believe God exists, and that He did indeed send His Son Jesus, who did indeed die and resurrect, and it do nothing for you. When the Bible uses the word “belief” it is a loaded word. It means far more than just in your mind acknowledging something to be true. It is about an experiential heart trust – or a trust that comes from deep inside rather than just intellectual belief.

So even if you stood before God face to face right now, you may or may not choose to invest yourself in His reality. This is why such an encounter would not violate your free will, for it isn’t just about intellectual belief.

Moreover, the trust is cultivated through a process of seeking and finding God. You would have no need to seek Him if He was so completely obvious that you didn’t even need to consider Him at all. The good news is He is seeking you at the same time, He enables each of us to seek Him, because He first seeks us.


Boom “I'm glad you have no contention when Atheists ask for demonstrable evidence)”

I don’t see how I could. Jesus said we are to preach the Kingdom by demonstration of His power. It was never supposed to be devoid of such experiential demonstration, but it has been vastly thus. This is changing in the Church today.

Boom “There evidentally exists a certain situation/senario that will leave me no choice but to "believe", and that is the type of evidence that I will accept right here and now in my temporal, mortal existence.”

You will always have a choice. I addressed this above.

Karla said...

Boom “a) "God" doesn't want me to be convinced(perhaps because "God" knew before I was conceived that I was going to "Hell", therefore, if don't go to "Hell", his omniscience would be called into question)”

This would be contrary to when Jesus said in John 3:16 that He wants none to perish. So there is no over arching desire of God for your demise, there is a plan for your salvation, but there is still freedom for you to not accept His plan.

Boom “b) "God" wants me, for some reason, to accept its existence on "faith"(meanwhile, others get "evidence")”

Faith will always be a part of it, but faith is not void of any validation of authenticity of that which you rest your faith upon. Anytime we trust in someone who we have no control over we use faith. When we rest our lives in Him, we use faith no matter how much evidence we have of His reality.

Boom “c) "God" won't be "tested"(yet, it's interesting to me how those who ask "God" to reveal himself and who get that revelation, weren't "testing God", but those who ask "God" to reveal himself and do not get that revelation, are "testing God"---especially if the unconvinced disclose what it would take to be convinced, when asked) “

Asking for God to reveal Himself and make Himself real to you is not testing God. It is actually seeking God. It takes faith to even do that for there is no reason to ask God to reveal Himself if you are fully convinced there is no God.


Boom “d) "God" doesn't exist, and those who claim to have "experienced God" are self-deceived.”

That’s a whole lot of people being lumped into a self-deceived category. I think that would take a whole lot more faith to put them all there in that category.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Yes, I do understand that intellectual belief is part of it, but not the whole of it. You can believe God exists, and that He did indeed send His Son Jesus, who did indeed die and resurrect, and it do nothing for you. When the Bible uses the word “belief” it is a loaded word. It means far more than just in your mind acknowledging something to be true. It is about an experiential heart trust – or a trust that comes from deep inside rather than just intellectual belief.[bold added]

You are continuing in your error, specifically, a chronology error.

See the part in bold, above? That is all completely, 100% irrelevant to someone who doesn't harbor a belief that the bible is the "Word of God", which, to believe that, would require a belief in "God".

I reiterate---someone who is unconvinced must *first* believe that "God" is real before they can worry about what else is required along with that "belief"..i.e..an "experiential heart trust", etc.

continues...So even if you stood before God face to face right now, you may or may not choose to invest yourself in His reality. This is why such an encounter would not violate your free will, for it isn’t just about intellectual belief.

Precisely! Hence, why I keep repeating over and over that "God" appearing for our benefit(as opposed to hiding our our "benefit") would not harm anyone's "free will", yet, in past discussions, you've said things like "God hides in plain sight".(and alluded that it's for our "benefit")

Here's my point: "God" doesn't need to "hide" at all, if, as you say, there is much, much more to it than mere belief. Are you getting this?

continues...Moreover, the trust is cultivated through a process of seeking and finding God. You would have no need to seek Him if He was so completely obvious that you didn’t even need to consider Him at all.

False-dilemma. Who's to say that I wouldn't "consider God" if its existence was "completely obvious" to me? Who? You? You would have to know my mind to make such a claim.

Again, the "hiddeness" is baggage. From where I sit, it's an excuse that theists use to square-up their belief in a non-evidential "God".

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: “There evidentally exists a certain situation/senario that will leave me no choice but to 'believe', and that is the type of evidence that I will accept right here and now in my temporal, mortal existence.”

Karla responds...You will always have a choice. I addressed this above.

Really? Because one of your constituents says the day is coming that all nonbelievers...."will believe". That doesn't sound like a "choice" to me. Are you sure that you're not confusing "believe" with accept?

Me, previously: "a) 'God' doesn't want me to be convinced"

Karla responds...This would be contrary to when Jesus said in John 3:16 that He wants none to perish. So there is no over arching desire of God for your demise, there is a plan for your salvation, but there is still freedom for you to not accept His plan.

If "God"(aka "Jesus") "wants none to perish", then as I've said over and over and over, he could have limited his "creation" to those whom he knew would not perish..i.e..those whom he knew would accept its "plan". If we review, we know that this doesn't tamper with "free will", as, in a deterministic universe where "God" knows the future, the believer can still retain the illusion of "free will". You, again, have a non-argument.

continues...Faith will always be a part of it, but faith is not void of any validation of authenticity of that which you rest your faith upon. Anytime we trust in someone...

Having "faith" in the unseen, and having "trust" in someone/something that we can see and that has a proven track-record, are two different things.

continues...Asking for God to reveal Himself and make Himself real to you is not testing God.

Yeah? In the case that I ask "for God to reveal Himself and make Himself real" to me(which, I've done too many times to count), what happens when 'the theist' asks me what would constitute evidence that would convince me, and I tell them the answer? It seems that this all of the sudden becomes a "test".

Previously, me: “d) "God" doesn't exist, and those who claim to have 'experienced God' are self-deceived.”

Karla responds: That’s a whole lot of people being lumped into a self-deceived category. I think that would take a whole lot more faith to put them all there in that category.

This is your typical appeal to large numbers..i.e..since so many people believe in invisible, conscious, creator-beings, there is a good chance they're right, thus, it takes "faith" to believe they're wrong.

Karla said...

Boom “I reiterate---someone who is unconvinced must *first* believe that "God" is real before they can worry about what else is required along with that "belief"..i.e..an "experiential heart trust", etc.”

True. But I think you have said that you would have no choice but to believe if you met God face to face. I am only saying that you would still have a choice because “belief” means more than intellectual acceptance of a fact. You could see God right before you and still not have Biblical belief.

I know you are saying you cannot get to step 2 without step 1 and I concur. But let us remember that step one is not the whole of it.

Karla said...

Boom “Really? Because one of your constituents says the day is coming that all nonbelievers...."will believe". That doesn't sound like a "choice" to me. Are you sure that you're not confusing "believe" with accept?”

I see what your getting at. We don’t mean everyone will become a Christian/”believer” in the end. We are saying there won’t be any doubt left that He is the real deal. We are talking about intellectual belief in that instance. I can see how that would create confusion. We really do need to be careful with our wording.


Boom “If "God"(aka "Jesus") "wants none to perish", then as I've said over and over and over, he could have limited his "creation" to those whom he knew would not perish..i.e..those whom he knew would accept its "plan". If we review, we know that this doesn't tamper with "free will", as, in a deterministic universe where "God" knows the future, the believer can still retain the illusion of "free will". You, again, have a non-argument. “

The God we are talking about is infinite in wisdom, what if we can’t yet see the wisdom of His plan, but that it really is the wisest way. Who are we to disagree with Him who created us? Who are we to think our wisdom greater than His, if indeed He is the fullness good and perfection and wisdom and justice etc.


Boom “Having "faith" in the unseen, and having "trust" in someone/something that we can see and that has a proven track-record, are two different things.”

We might not “see” God with our physical eyes, because He is not physical, but we can experience that He is real and that He does have a proven track-record from the beginning of time.


Boom “Yeah? In the case that I ask "for God to reveal Himself and make Himself real" to me(which, I've done too many times to count), what happens when 'the theist' asks me what would constitute evidence that would convince me, and I tell them the answer? It seems that this all of the sudden becomes a "test".”

I don’t see your request as a test.


Boom “This is your typical appeal to large numbers..i.e..since so many people believe in invisible, conscious, creator-beings, there is a good chance they're right, thus, it takes "faith" to believe they're wrong. “

I almost qualified my statement that I wasn’t trying to play a numbers game. Only that if a lot of people were saying they had experienced God, it would be difficult for me to think all of them were deluded. But I’ve never been in a place where I was an atheist, so maybe it’s not that difficult since you do not share the experiences of those of us who say we have experienced God.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: “I reiterate---someone who is unconvinced must *first* believe that "God" is real before they can worry about what else is required along with that "belief"..i.e..an "experiential heart trust", etc.”

Karla responds: "True. But I think you have said that you would have no choice but to believe if you met God face to face...."

There still seems to be some confusion.

To review, a Xian constituent of yours has gone on record to say that the day is coming that I(and I quote): "will believe"[italics, theirs].

Using that as an example, this suggests that I won't have any choice to "believe". I'm qualifying "believe" to mean, believe that "God"["Yahweh"] is real/actual.

continues..."I am only saying that you would still have a choice because 'belief' means more than intellectual acceptance of a fact. You could see God right before you and still not have Biblical belief."

When you say that I might lack "Biblical belief", I take it that that means that, while I believe that "Yahweh" is real/actual, I can still choose to reject its actions; its morality; its love; its substitutionary atonement..i.e..the whole Christian philosophy. If that is the case, then we agree, and I've never argued differently.

continues..."I see what your getting at. We don’t mean everyone will become a Christian/'believer' in the end. We are saying there won’t be any doubt left that He is the real deal. We are talking about intellectual belief in that instance. I can see how that would create confusion. We really do need to be careful with our wording."

Agreed; thanks. In other words, I'm not the only one who needs to be more careful here.

In any event, if at that time there presumably won't be "any doubt left", then the crux of my argument is underscored:

There need not be "any doubt" right this second, in which case, "God" doesn't need to "hide" from people, as there is logically no "benefit" or "use" for intentionally creating "doubt". All non-believers could feasibly harbor what you call "intellectual belief", and still retain the free will with which they can decide if they want to adopt "Biblical belief", or not.

Please concede that I have sucessfully refuted the "Hiddeness of God" argument, because it's a NON-argument.

continues..."The God we are talking about is infinite in wisdom, what if we can’t yet see the wisdom of His plan, but that it really is the wisest way(?)"

Okay, fine. Perhaps on "Judgement Day" I will see the "wisdom" of being subjected to "Hell", and how it is better than, say, simply ceasing to exist.

boomSLANG said...

Karla asks: "Who are we to disagree with Him who created us?

**Perhaps you are attempting to make a rhetorical point. Nonetheless, it's both begging the question, as well as an appeal to authority.

continues..."Who are we to think our wisdom greater than His, if indeed He is the fullness good and perfection and wisdom and justice etc."

See here**, above.

continues..."We might not 'see' God with our physical eyes, because He is not physical, but we can experience that He is real and that He does have a proven track-record from the beginning of time."

Really?...."not physical", but has a "proven track-record"? How do you reconcile this assertion? Please tell me what predictions can be made about "God" that might build a provable "track-record". Better, yet, where is there an existing "track-record"?

Me, previously: Yeah? In the case that I ask "for God to reveal Himself and make Himself real" to me(which, I've done too many times to count), what happens when 'the theist' asks me what would constitute evidence that would convince me, and I tell them the answer? It seems that this all of the sudden becomes a "test".

Karla responds: "I don’t see your request as a test."

Thank you. Do you see it as a "demand"?

continues: "I almost qualified my statement that I wasn’t trying to play a numbers game. Only that if a lot of people were saying they had experienced God, it would be difficult for me to think all of them were deluded.

But I'll wager that it wouldn't be difficult for you to view those non-christians who "had experienced God" as mistaken, would it?

continues..."But I’ve never been in a place where I was an atheist.."

Yes, you most certainly have. From the time you were born, to the time that you could undertand and speak the human language, you were a passive Atheist. Albeit, you probably cannot reflect on the period in time, nonetheless, it is so.

continues..."so maybe it’s not that difficult since you do not share the experiences of those of us who say we have experienced God"

If you remember correctly, you are talking to a former believer, one who was indoctrinated with the "family belief system", just as you likely were. I was "conditioned" to believe that "God" can be "experienced" if you know what signs to look for. I know what a "God-experience" feels like, Karla.

Example: As a teen I was told that I should pray to "Jesus" and ask him to let grandpa's diseased heart get all better.

After numerous surgeries and bedrest, voila...grandpa's heart gets better! At the time, I surely believed I had "experienced God". I got goose bumps when I was told he was going to pull through! It was undeniable!

As a rational thinker who no longer believes, I know now that my grandfather would have died had he not had the surgeries and bedrest, etc.

In other words, "experiences" are evidence that people experience feelings/thoughts/emotions. It doesn't mean there is anything externally actually happening.

Karla said...

Boom “When you say that I might lack "Biblical belief", I take it that that means that, while I believe that "Yahweh" is real/actual, I can still choose to reject its actions; its morality; its love; its substitutionary atonement..i.e..the whole Christian philosophy. If that is the case, then we agree, and I've never argued differently.”

Almost there. I would take that further to say that a person who believes all that is true, can still decide not to enter relationship with Him (enter believing that is experiential investing our being in His being). I’m trying to show that there is a difference between intellectually accepting something as true and actually entering into that truth with your whole being.


Boom “Agreed; thanks. In other words, I'm not the only one who needs to be more careful here.”

Oh yes, I am learning all the time from you guys how my language is not communicating well and that I need lots of revision of my communication. I’m learning how incompatible my language is with your worldview and I am trying to learn how you hear me so I can adapt accordingly.


Boom “There need not be "any doubt" right this second, in which case, "God" doesn't need to "hide" from people, as there is logically no "benefit" or "use" for intentionally creating "doubt". All non-believers could feasibly harbor what you call "intellectual belief", and still retain the free will with which they can decide if they want to adopt "Biblical belief", or not. “


While free will is still maintained, I think our seeking Him produces something in us that is good that aides in our connecting with Him experientially/relationally. I’m not sure that process would happen if “seeking” were removed. However, as I have said, even in this He aids us by His Spirit in seeking Him, we don’t do it alone it’s a two way street. He pursues us and we pursue Him and finding is possible. He hides FOR us, not FROM us. Like the easter egg hunt analogy I used. Parents hide the eggs so that their kids will find them, not so that they will not.

Boom “Please concede that I have sucessfully refuted the "Hiddeness of God" argument, because it's a NON-argument.”

I’m sorry, it doesn’t defeat it, because it isn’t only based on a matter of free will.


Boom “Okay, fine. Perhaps on "Judgement Day" I will see the "wisdom" of being subjected to "Hell", and how it is better than, say, simply ceasing to exist.”

Do we always have to have all the answers to trust at some point? Does a child need to know everything his parents know in order to trust them as good parents? A child doesn’t have all the philosophical answers as to why it is good to be getting a spanking from a parent, and yet the child still trusts that parent. I am not advocating not questioning God at all, and not seeking wisdom about things and the why of things. I am all about looking as far as I can look into the answers of why. But there is a place for trusting that if God truly is who He says He is and He really does have a perfectly good nature, then that only leaves trusting Him in all things. But if He is not who He says He is and He is not the source of all good, then there is no eternal absolute good, and thus nothing by which to judge something else as bad. In which case we are only left with we don’t like a thing and then what?

Karla said...

Boom *Perhaps you are attempting to make a rhetorical point. Nonetheless, it's both begging the question, as well as an appeal to authority.”

God would be qualified to be an ultimate authority.



Boom “Really?...."not physical", but has a "proven track-record"? How do you reconcile this assertion? Please tell me what predictions can be made about "God" that might build a provable "track-record". Better, yet, where is there an existing "track-record"?”

First what do you mean by “track record?”


Boom “Thank you. Do you see it as a "demand"?”

I don’t think it is when you ask for it. I think, you are basically saying what it would take for you to agree He is real. You aren’t agreeing He is real and demanding He do such and such for you.

continues: "I almost qualified my statement that I wasn’t trying to play a numbers game. Only that if a lot of people were saying they had experienced God, it would be difficult for me to think all of them were deluded.

Boom “But I'll wager that it wouldn't be difficult for you to view those non-christians who "had experienced God" as mistaken, would it? “

No, I think non-Christian can and do experience God. I don’t think you have to be a Christian before you can experience God.


Boom “Yes, you most certainly have. From the time you were born, to the time that you could understand and speak the human language, you were a passive Atheist. Albeit, you probably cannot reflect on the period in time, nonetheless, it is so.”

No, I disagree.


Boom “If you remember correctly, you are talking to a former believer, one who was indoctrinated with the "family belief system", just as you likely were. I was "conditioned" to believe that "God" can be "experienced" if you know what signs to look for. I know what a "God-experience" feels like, Karla.”

I think I am talking about something more tangible than you might be talking about, but I could totally be wrong about that since I do not know what kind of experience you are referring to. I am talking about feeling power surge through you peacefully, but surging none the less. I’m talking about not being able to stand up. I’m talking about feeling a miracle take place in your body. Or seeing a miracle happen to someone else.

Boom “Example: As a teen I was told that I should pray to "Jesus" and ask him to let grandpa's diseased heart get all better. After numerous surgeries and bedrest, voila...grandpa's heart gets better! At the time, I surely believed I had "experienced God". I got goose bumps when I was told he was going to pull through! It was undeniable!”

Okay, thank you for giving an example. I would not say that God didn’t have anything to do with that, but what I am talking about is somewhat more obvious. Like someone who was born deaf receiving hearing instantly without any medical treatment. I’m talking about things that are not so subtle, but really obvious.

However, I did not have experiences at the level I am now talking about until the last five years of my life. Prior that I could have only spoke of the subtle things that just about any Christian would speak of.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: I actually had someone, not a Christian, who told me they got their philosophy on life from a science fiction movie that wasn’t even a philosophical movie!

What was it?

Karla said...

Cyber, I think it was Alien v. Predator

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Cyber, I think it was Alien v. Predator.

Wow - How do you get from that to a life philosophy?

[rotflmao]

Karla said...

Cyber, good question. I have no idea.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I’m trying to show that there is a difference between intellectually accepting something as true and actually entering into that truth with your whole being."

You don't have to show me any such "difference", or a distinction. I readily accept that there's a difference, and in case you haven't recognized it yet, I am using that distinction to prove a point(against your position).

Previously, me: “There need not be "any doubt" right this second, in which case, "God" doesn't need to "hide" from people, as there is logically no "benefit" or "use" for intentionally creating "doubt". All non-believers could feasibly harbor what you call "intellectual belief", and still retain the free will with which they can decide if they want to adopt "Biblical belief", or not.

Karla responds: "While free will is still maintained, I think our seeking Him produces something in us that is good that aides in our connecting with Him experientially/relationally."

If we honestly "seek", but do not find, then this, yes, "produces something". At a fundamental level, it "produces" DOUBT, Karla---especially if we search(honestly) for years and years.

Now, will you tell me with a straight face that harboring *doubt* that something or someone exists "aides in our connecting with" said thing or person? Please. That is nonsensical.

Me, previously: “Please concede that I have sucessfully refuted the "Hiddeness of God" argument, because it's a NON-argument.”

Karla responds: I’m sorry, it doesn’t defeat it, because it isn’t only based on a matter of free will.

Let me be more thorough: I'm talking about a specific argument: The argument that removing all doubt that "God exists" would hamper our "free will", therefore, "God" must remain hidden. That is the argument in its entirety, and it is a fallacious argument used frequently by Xian apologists. That you believe that "Christian belief" isn't only "a matter of free will", is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact that we can still choose to accept or reject every single thing that said "God" is offering, even if we have zero doubt that said "God" exists. Again, please concede this point.

Karla..."Do we always have to have all the answers to trust at some point?"

Red herring. We don't need to "have all the answers" to conclude that keeping human beings alive and BURNING THEM with FIRE for eternity is not a reasonable "answer"(solution) to anything, ever.

continues..."Does a child need to know everything his parents know in order to trust them as good parents?

No, but then again, I don't know of any "parents" who claim to know everything, nor do know of any moms or dads who believe that hiding from their kids "aides in connecting" with them. Absurd.

continues...But there is a place for trusting that if God truly is who He says He is and He really does have a perfectly good nature, then that only leaves trusting Him in all things.

i.e..an appeal to authority. That because this entity that you "trust" goes by the title "God", then that merits leaving everything in its hands, even if we agree that if our Commander in Chief were to decide that we should BURN or DROWN criminals for "punishment", that that Commander in Chief should be denounced, impeached, and committed to a luny-bin.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: Perhaps you are attempting to make a rhetorical point. Nonetheless, it's both begging the question, as well as an appeal to authority.

Karla maintains: "God would be qualified to be an ultimate authority."

Right, and because, considering how you define "God"(i.e. "an ultimate authority"), anything that said "God" commands, you are prepared to say it's "correct", by default, in which case, "God" could command any damned thing it wants - even if we all agree it's unnecessarily harmful to our fellow human beings - and you'd be a supporter. This is why your beliefs are dangerous.

Karla: "First what do you mean by “track record?"

Track-record >>> we might choose a heart surgeon based on his or her verifiable "track-record". There are not just testimonials, and referals, but actual, living persons whom said doctor has healed. You weigh-out his or her successes, with their failures(if any). You'll obviously want to meet him or her face-to-face, possibly to discuss the risks, etc. You can look at before and after X-rays of what took place. You might be able to watch a surgery be performed before your very eyes.

Karla: "No, I think non-Christian can and do experience God. I don’t think you have to be a Christian before you can experience God."

Okay, I evidentally need to be more specific.

If a Muslim claims to "experience God", they obviously don't believe they've experienced "Jesus"; they believe they've experienced "Allah", in which case, you would believe they're mistaken.

Me, previously: From the time you were born, to the time that you could understand and speak the human language, you were a passive Atheist. Albeit, you probably cannot reflect on [that] period in time, nonetheless, it is so.

Karla responds: "No, I disagree."

Without looking it up, do you even know what I mean when I say, "passive Atheist"????? I'll wager that you do not, in which case, in true apologist form, you would be disagreeing with me before you even have a thorough understanding of my position.

continues.."I am talking about feeling power surge through you peacefully, but surging none the less. I’m talking about not being able to stand up. I’m talking about feeling a miracle take place in your body. Or seeing a miracle happen to someone else."

None of which is conclusive evidence that anything "supernatural" is happening. Notwithstanding, yes, I've been there; done that.

continues...."Okay, thank you for giving an example. I would not say that God didn’t have anything to do with that, but what I am talking about is somewhat more obvious. Like someone who was born deaf receiving hearing instantly without any medical treatment. I’m talking about things that are not so subtle, but really obvious."

What if a Muslim told you that repeating the word "A-L-L-A-H" reverses hypertension? Is it then " really obvious" that "Allah" exists? Or is it more likely that there's a natural explanation?

Karla said...

Boom “Let me be more thorough: I'm talking about a specific argument: The argument that removing all doubt that "God exists" would hamper our "free will", therefore, "God" must remain hidden. That is the argument in its entirety, and it is a fallacious argument used frequently by Xian apologists. That you believe that "Christian belief" isn't only "a matter of free will", is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact that we can still choose to accept or reject every single thing that said "God" is offering, even if we have zero doubt that said "God" exists. Again, please concede this point. “

You are arguing against an argument I am not making.

Boom “We don't need to "have all the answers" to conclude that keeping human beings alive and BURNING THEM with FIRE for eternity is not a reasonable "answer"(solution) to anything, ever.”

Haven’t we agreed in the past that it is just to punish evil? Do you think it is good for evil to reign and avoid any destructive end?


Boom “No, but then again, I don't know of any "parents" who claim to know everything, nor do know of any moms or dads who believe that hiding from their kids "aides in connecting" with them. Absurd.”

I have said God does not hide FROM us, He hides FOR us.

Boom “That because this entity that you "trust" goes by the title "God", then that merits leaving everything in its hands, even if we agree that if our Commander in Chief were to decide that we should BURN or DROWN criminals for "punishment", that that Commander in Chief should be denounced, impeached, and committed to a luny-bin.”

It makes sense to me to trust a perfectly good being. The God I speak of trusting is the God whose nature is completely good and who is always Himself. In all that He does He does out of His own unchanging nature. So all that He “decides” is good, because He is good. It isn’t possible for such a God to do anything less than good.

This is the God I am positing. Not a God that is duplicitous.

We aren’t discussing some abstract cosmic Mind, we are talking about a very particular God who is very particularly good.

Karla said...

Boom “ Right, and because, considering how you define "God"(i.e. "an ultimate authority"), anything that said "God" commands, you are prepared to say it's "correct", by default, in which case, "God" could command any damned thing it wants - even if we all agree it's unnecessarily harmful to our fellow human beings - and you'd be a supporter. This is why your beliefs are dangerous.”

We’ve been over this. God’s goodness means all that He wants is good because His NATURE is good. All that He commands comes from His good nature, thus is also good.

It sounds like your concern is that humans ascribe things to God and then call it good because we say God said it and then we don’t judge the thing accurately because we have already ascribed it to God so it has to be good.

I am arguing something altogether different. I am saying God really does exist, and the God that exists is by nature absolutely eternally good. Therefore all that He does comes from all that He is which is quintessentially good.


Boom “Track-record >>> we might choose a heart surgeon based on his or her verifiable "track-record". There are not just testimonials, and referals, but actual, living persons whom said doctor has healed. You weigh-out his or her successes, with their failures(if any). You'll obviously want to meet him or her face-to-face, possibly to discuss the risks, etc. You can look at before and after X-rays of what took place. You might be able to watch a surgery be performed before your very eyes.”


Well there are plenty of such people that one could interview about a miracle or miracles they have experienced. I’d recommend hanging around with a person who sees a lot of miracles in their ministry and seeing what you see first hand. I don’t know what part of the country you live in, but there maybe someone close by that would be an ideal person to shadow. For anyone living close to Reading, California I would recommend Bill Johnson or any other pastor from Bethel Church. For those living around Pennsylvania I would recommend Randy Clark.



Karla: "No, I think non-Christian can and do experience God. I don’t think you have to be a Christian before you can experience God."

Okay, I evidentally need to be more specific.

Boom “If a Muslim claims to "experience God", they obviously don't believe they've experienced "Jesus"; they believe they've experienced "Allah", in which case, you would believe they'remistaken.”

Muslims are having dreams and visions of Jesus quite frequently. And they say they have seen Jesus, not Allah. However, even if they think the God they experienced is the Allah of the Koran, it doesn’t mean I think they didn’t really encounter God. I would encourage them to get to know Him better and He will reveal who He really is.



Boom “Without looking it up, do you even know what I mean when I say, "passive Atheist"????? I'll wager that you do not, in which case, in true apologist form, you would be disagreeing with me before you even have a thorough understanding of my position.”

I would assume you mean that you do not posit God does not exist, but that you have nothing to go on to assume that He does.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "You are arguing against an argument I am not making."

Whether you are making the argument, or not, is 100% irrelevant to the argument in question being fallacious. Sadly, you now appear to be stonewalling. Please prove me wrong by conceding that removing "all doubt" that "God" exists does not harm our "free will" - specifically, our ability to choose whether we want to accept/reject what "God" is offering....or as you put it, it does not harm our ability to accept/reject "Biblical belief". Remember?

Please also note that if you have a list of separate reasons for why "God" must remain "hidden", then fine, perhaps we can debate those "reasons" in another discussion. For the time being, however, I'm asking you(for the third time) to concede that "free will" is not one of those reasons. Again, please concede this so that we can move on from this subject.

Previously, me: “We don't need to 'have all the answers' to conclude that keeping human beings alive and BURNING THEM with FIRE for eternity is not a reasonable 'answer'(solution) to anything, ever.”

Karla responds..."Haven’t we agreed in the past that it is just to punish evil?"

You've once again dodged my objection to your previous argument. To review, you asked, "Do we always have to have all the answers[yada, yada, yada]".

You are essentially appealing to ignorance. Since we don't "know all of the answers"(or, since we don't know everything), then we can't know, or might not know, when something is harmful or unreasonable.

Now on to your question:

"Do you think it is good for evil to reign and avoid any destructive end?" ~ Karla

Assuming "evil" exists for sake of argument, no, I don't think it is "good for evil to reign". Assuming for sake of argument as well, that if "God" is "omnibenevolent" and "omnipotent" and "omnipresent" and "omniscient", then "evil" shouldn't exist.

Previously, me: “No, but then again, I don't know of any 'parents' who claim to know everything, nor do know of any moms or dads who believe that hiding from their kids 'aides in connecting' with them. Absurd.”

Karla responds: "I have said God does not hide FROM us, He hides FOR us."

My goodness. Okay, have it your way: I don't know of any moms or dads who "hide FOR" their children, unless perhaps it's during a good game of hide-n-seek. But thinking that this will "aide in connecting" with them? Again, absurd.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "It makes sense to me to trust a perfectly good being. The God I speak of trusting is the God whose nature is completely good and who is always Himself. In all that He does He does out of His own unchanging nature. So all that He 'decides' is good, because He is good. It isn’t possible for such a God to do anything less than good."

I know that you're convinced that your above reasoning is sound, hence, why you keep repeating it over and over and over. Nonetheless, here, again, is my objection to it:

***If "God" doesn't adhere to external "morals", then "God" doesn't have, and presumably doesn't need, "morals". Thus, "God" is amoral, and therefore can be neither "good", nor "bad". Thus, all "God" has is an opinion, which is based on nothing but what it feels at the time.

Notwithstanding, if you want to "trust"(have "faith" in) such a being, you are free to do so. If you want to sit there and hope that "God" is "always Himself", fantastic, then by all means, do it. The fact of the matter is, "God" could wake up and decide to reinstate, say, its previous policy of killing people who work on the "Sabbath" by stoning, and because of how you define "God", you'd have to see that as "Perfectly Good".

You would join right in and do that if "God" commanded it, right???

Note, you are not in any position to say, "God would never command that because it's bad!!!", because, a) "He" already commanded it once, and b) you have no authority to say it's "bad", because you've given >> all << the "authority" to "God", and thus, you have no external standard to reference against the actions of "God".

This would only make sense, since here you are, defending a being who promises to burn the flesh of your fellow human beings in a chamber of torture(yes, torture) for all of eternity.

The injustice is compounded when we see that your biblegod views non-christians who reject it, and non-christians like me and Mike, who are UNable to honestly believe that any of it is true, the exact same.

Brilliant! Perhaps we should give a 3 yr-old who pockets a piece of gum the same sentencing that we give a serial-killer. 'Sound good, Karla?

boomSLANG said...

Karla "We aren’t discussing some abstract cosmic Mind, we are talking about a very particular God who is very particularly good."

I'm perfectly aware of which deity we're discussing---we are discussing the "God" of the Christian philosophy; the "God" of the bible. The "God" that you will evidentally defend at all costs.

Karla: "We’ve been over this. God’s goodness means all that He wants is good because His NATURE is good. All that He commands comes from His good nature, thus is also good."

Yes, we've been over it. In fact, as recently as a few paragraphs up, I've touched on the subject.

Let's review: No amoral being - it doesn't matter if he/she/it goes by the title "Yahweh", or "Mickey Mouse" - can be "good"(or "bad"). See here***, above.

Karla: "Well there are plenty of such people that one could interview about a miracle or miracles they have experienced. I’d recommend hanging around with a person who sees a lot of miracles in their ministry and seeing what you see first hand."

I don't need to "interview" believers or hang around them, because I once was one. I know what they believe and why/how they believe it. I now what constitutes a "miracle" to a believer.

Karla: "Muslims are having dreams and visions of Jesus quite frequently. And they say they have seen Jesus, not Allah. However, even if they think the God they experienced is the Allah of the Koran, it doesn’t mean I think they didn’t really encounter God. I would encourage them to get to know Him better and He will reveal who He really is."

One long paragraph that essentially says what I'm trying to get you to concede: At the end of the day, devout Muslims are mistaken. They worship "Allah", not "Yahweh".

Me, previously: “Without looking it up, do you even know what I mean when I say, 'passive Atheist'?????"

Karla responds: "I would assume you mean that you do not posit God does not exist, but that you have nothing to go on to assume that He does."

Close. A "passive Atheist" lacks belief, by default. In the case of being born a "passive Atheist", we lack all knowledge of "God", as well as everything else, including, a belief in "God"/gods. I know it pains you to hear that, but it's simply true.

Karla said...

Boom “Whether you are making the argument, or not, is 100% irrelevant to the argument in question being fallacious. Sadly, you now appear to be stonewalling.”

I am really not trying to avoid the question. I just thought we had already dealt with the question and I didn’t understand why you were giving an arguing against a position I’m not advocating.

Boom “Please prove me wrong by conceding that removing "all doubt" that "God" exists does not harm our "free will" - specifically, our ability to choose whether we want to accept/reject what "God" is offering....or as you put it, it does not harm our ability to accept/reject "Biblical belief". Remember?”

I think you are accurate in that. At the very least I do not feel confident to assert that such knowledge would remove free will which is why I am not an advocate of that position. I would be curious to know what CL and Quixote have to say regarding this.

Boom “Please also note that if you have a list of separate reasons for why "God" must remain "hidden", then fine, perhaps we can debate those "reasons" in another discussion. For the time being, however, I'm asking you(for the third time) to concede that "free will" is not one of those reasons. Again, please concede this so that we can move on from this subject. “

Free will is not a reason I am advocating because I am not sure that such evidence would adversely affect free will. I think there are possibly ways God could manifest Himself that would harm free will. But I think there are others that would not, and I think He has and does manifest in the ways that would not.

Previously, Boom: “We don't need to 'have all the answers' to conclude that keeping human beings alive and BURNING THEM with FIRE for eternity is not a reasonable 'answer'(solution) to anything, ever.”

Karla responds..."Haven’t we agreed in the past that it is just to punish evil?"

Boom “You've once again dodged my objection to your previous argument. To review, you asked, "Do we always have to have all the answers[yada, yada, yada]". “

I’m sorry I wasn’t trying to do that. I was just addressing the topic from a different angle. To answer the first response directly – I disagree that we can reasonably conclude that hell is not just. I do not know if “burning fire” is literal or not. I only know that it is a place of anguish because of its separation from the life that is in God. I also would not call it a “solution” or an “answer” Jesus is the solution and the answer.


Boom “You are essentially appealing to ignorance. Since we don't "know all of the answers"(or, since we don't know everything), then we can't know, or might not know, when something is harmful or unreasonable.”

No I’m appealing to authority. First of all hell doesn’t exist if God doesn’t exist. So in the world where hell exists then we are talking about God being real. Thus I am appealing to His authority that if such a God exist He would have greater knowledge than us whom He created and He being our Creator would know best what is just and unjust for this God is perfect, wise, just, merciful, good, etc. He is both good in His justice and in His mercy. Truth isn’t a democracy.

Karla said...

"Do you think it is good for evil to reign and avoid any destructive end?" ~ Karla

Boom “Assuming "evil" exists for sake of argument, no, I don't think it is "good for evil to reign". Assuming for sake of argument as well, that if "God" is "omnibenevolent" and "omnipotent" and "omnipresent" and "omniscient", then "evil" shouldn't exist.”

I assume you know the response I will give to this. . . Then that would be a world without freedom. Freedom to do right presumes the possibility of not doing right and that possibility becomes actualized when man ventured away from what is good to what was forbidden. Then a problem of evil was activated into the good creation causing corruption. The problem of evil needed reckoning with and God did that for us in Christ. I know you already know the Gospel message so I won’t go further than that.

How would you explain how all of humanity wrestles with doing right versus doing wrong? What is the natural explanation for the “evil” in the world and for that matter the “good”? Where does selflessness come from? Why ought we be selfless rather than selfish? Why do things that preserve our civilization not come naturally?



Boom “My goodness. Okay, have it your way: I don't know of any moms or dads who "hide FOR" their children, unless perhaps it's during a good game of hide-n-seek. But thinking that this will "aide in connecting" with them? Again, absurd.”

I’m really not playing a semantics game. Parents are right there in front of us so while we do seek them out relationally and they us it is not at the level of what seeking God produces in us. To seek Him is to posture ourselves toward Him and this is good for us and this continues even after we have come to start a relationship with Him. Seeking and finding is a continual process. But like I said before, He is seeking us too; it is because He seeks us that we can seek Him. He has already made it possible for us to seek Him. He isn’t asking something of us that we are unable to do.

Karla said...

Boom “***If "God" doesn't adhere to external "morals", then "God" doesn't have, and presumably doesn't need, "morals". Thus, "God" is amoral, and therefore can be neither "good", nor "bad". Thus, all "God" has is an opinion, which is based on nothing but what it feels at the time. “

God is self existing. He doesn’t need an external. If there was an external good to God then that would be God. You are right in that God doesn’t adhere to good v. bad the way we do. He is good, He doesn’t have to weigh any action against a “good” and “bad” framework. He just is good and is always doing what is good. The thing is we were not created to live based on a good v. bad framework either. We were created good to live good, but our goodness is provisional, it is given to us by God. Our goodness comes from being in His life. When man stepped out of that to do something not good he fell, hence the fall of man. He fell from the goodness of God. But God instantly put into affect a plan that would restore man to His goodness by making it possible for us to have His nature put inside of us so that we live again out of a place of goodness rather than a place of external guidance of a moral law. Good is not found in adherence to a law, it is found in the nature of God that is why it isn’t about a list of moral laws; it’s about receiving a transformed nature.

So when you keep asking me if it would be good for me to do something now that God commanded done back in the Old Testament, I cannot say it is good for me to do it now because God said it then, because the good thing is that which God is doing now, not following an old command of what He did then. It doesn’t make it less good and right for the time and season it was commanded, but today my path is to hear God for the now and do that. Humanity is in a different place now then it was before Christ came and while God is always Himself and always the same, we are not. So it would be wrong for me to do something that He is not doing now because His nature fills me and when I live from that place I live from what is good.

Karla said...

Boom “One long paragraph that essentially says what I'm trying to get you to concede: At the end of the day, devout Muslims are mistaken. They worship "Allah", not "Yahweh".”

To reiterate, anyone Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Christian, atheists, can experience the one true God and some are experiencing Him even though they do not know Him by who He really is yet.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: To reiterate, anyone Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Christian, atheists, can experience the one true God and some are experiencing Him even though they do not know Him by who He really is yet.

But they are generally mistaken (to various degrees) unless they agree with your interpretation of the 'one true God'..? That certainly *seems* to be what you're saying here.....

Karla said...

Cyber “But they are generally mistaken (to various degrees) unless they agree with your interpretation of the 'one true God'..? That certainly *seems* to be what you're saying here....”

Not my interpretation. Logically God cannot be equally all descriptions of Him when those descriptions contradict. The Allah described in the Koran contradicts the God described in the Bible. So they cannot both be the same being as described. However, someone who believes God is Allah as described in the Koran could meet the true God regardless of their knowledge of His description. If a Muslim claims to have a relational experience with God, they cannot be speaking of “Allah” because the Koran does not describe Him as a relational being like the Bible does. The Koran does not describe Him as being a Father ever nor as being a Being of love. In contrast the Bible describes Him as a loving Father. Unless you want to posit a plurality of finite gods the Allah of the Koran and the God of the Bible cannot be the same person. However, God could conceivably, and I believe does, reveal Himself to people who do not yet know who He is. Even my best description of Him would fall short of His true identity for I do not have all knowledge of who He is, but as I encounter Him more and more and get to know Him more and more and He replaces false ideas I might have had previously about Him. It really isn’t about the doctrine; it’s about truly connecting with Him. The doctrine is secondary, helpful, but not primary. With good doctrine alone, you really haven’t much of anything unless it takes you up into know Him.

boomSLANG said...

::sigh::

Here we go again......

Previously, I said: “Whether you are making the argument, or not, is 100% irrelevant to the argument in question being fallacious. Sadly, you now appear to be stonewalling.”

Karla rsponds..."I am really not trying to avoid the question."

It's NO LONGER a "question". Many posts ago, you've already answered my original question regarding whether removing "all doubt" that "God" exists tampers with or harms our "free will" to accept/reject what "God" is offering---what you call(and I quote), "Biblical belief".

Let the record show that the term "Biblical belief" is your term, a term that YOU used to distinguish between mere "intellectual belief"(also your term), and belief in "Christian" terms...i.e.."Biblical belief"(your term).

you attempt..."I just thought we had already dealt with the question"

Again, we did deal with the question. You ANSWERED the question when you said:

"I am only saying that you would still have a choice because 'belief' means more than intellectual acceptance of a fact. You could see God right before you and still not have Biblical belief." ~ Karla[emphasis, mine]

and....

"I see what your getting at. We don’t mean everyone will become a Christian/'believer' in the end. We are saying there won’t be any doubt left that He is the real deal. We are talking about intellectual belief in that instance. ~ Karla[emphasis, mine]

and....

"So even if you stood before God face to face right now, you may or may not choose to invest yourself in His reality. This is why such an encounter would not violate your free will, for it isn’t just about intellectual belief." ~ Karla[emphasis, mine]

There you have it. We have three of your own statements, all of which CONFIRM that in a case where ALL DOUBT is removed that "God" is real, our "free will" is intact. It's all right there in front of you.

Now, once and for all---please concede that the Christian apologetic that says, God's hiddeness is necessary because removing all doubt that he exists would harm our free will, is a non-argument.

Do this, and we can go forward.

boomSLANG said...

Cyberkitten, to Karla: “But they[Muslim believers] are generally mistaken (to various degrees) unless they agree with your interpretation of the 'one true God'..? That certainly *seems* to be what you're saying here....”

Isn't this craziness? In its simplist form, all we're asking Karla to do is admit that she believes that those theists who claim to have experienced "Allah"(the Muslim deity of the Holy Qu'ran), are mistaken, and look what you get!!!

Karla said...

Boom Now, once and for all---please concede that the Christian apologetic that says, God's hiddeness is necessary because removing all doubt that he exists would harm our free will, is a non-argument."

I said today "I think you are accurate in that. At the very least I do not feel confident to assert that such knowledge would remove free will which is why I am not an advocate of that position. I would be curious to know what CL and Quixote have to say regarding this."

Karla said...

Boom "In its simplist form, all we're asking Karla to do is admit that she believes that those theists who claim to have experienced "Allah"(the Muslim deity of the Holy Qu'ran), are mistaken, and look what you get!!!"

I do not think a Muslim is mistaken if they say they have had an experience with God. I just don't think the God they had an experience with is the God of the Koran, nor does the Koran teach that one could have a relational experience with Allah of the Koran.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I said today 'I think you are accurate in that'."

You said that in response to...

“Please prove me wrong by conceding that removing 'all doubt' that 'God' exists does not harm our 'free will' - specifically, our ability to choose whether we want to accept/reject what 'God' is offering....or as you put it, it does not harm our ability to accept/reject 'Biblical belief'. Remember?” ~ me

For all I know, when you said I am "accurate", it meant that I am right in that that's what you said previously. For all I know, you may have wanted to revise your position(as you frequently do), which is why a simple, "Yes, I concede" would have been concise, and would have avoided any confusion.

Nonetheless, we have your admission now, so let the record show that when Christians use the "God must remain hidden because removing all doubt that God exists hurts our free will" argument, is a erroneous argument.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I do not think a Muslim is mistaken if they say they have had an experience with God."

Isn't it implict, though, that if a devout, Qu'ran-believing Muslim says that he or she has had an "experience with God", that he or she believes they've experienced "Allah", not "Yahweh", or "Poseidon", or any other "God"????

continues..."I just don't think the God they had an experience with is the God of the Koran..."

Right, in which case, you believe they are mistaken. There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

continues..."nor does the Koran teach that one could have a relational experience with Allah of the Koran.

Have you read the Qu'ran cover to cover? If not, on what grounds do you claim to know that the Qu'ran doesn't say or teach that Muslims can have a "relationship" - spiritual, or otherwise - with "Allah"(Arabic for "God")?

Moreover, even if the Qu'ran doesn't explicitly say one can have a "relationship" with "Allah", why does that necessarily mean that Muslims shouldn't believe that they can?

Karla said...

Karla ”I just don't think the God they had an experience with is the God of the Koran..."

Boom “Right, in which case, you believe they are mistaken. There. That wasn't so hard, was it?”

Their experience isn’t necessarily mistaken; it is the interpretation that may be. If the God of the Koran doesn’t exist and they say they experienced God, they may have really experienced the true God, but not have experienced Allah. That’s all I was trying to say.


continues..."nor does the Koran teach that one could have a relational experience with Allah of the Koran.

Boom “Have you read the Qu'ran cover to cover? If not, on what grounds do you claim to know that the Qu'ran doesn't say or teach that Muslims can have a "relationship" - spiritual, or otherwise - with "Allah"(Arabic for "God")? “

No, but I have friends who used to be Muslim.

Boom “Moreover, even if the Qu'ran doesn't explicitly say one can have a "relationship" with "Allah", why does that necessarily mean that Muslims shouldn't believe that they can? “

It wouldn’t be consistent with Islam, but sure there could be those who believe differently.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: If the God of the Koran doesn’t exist and they say they experienced God, they may have really experienced the true God, but not have experienced Allah. That’s all I was trying to say.

...and if the God of the Koran *does* exist and is the 'one true God' - what then?

Then again... maybe the Norse Gods or the Greek Gods are the 'real' ones..... That seems far more plausible and might explain why things are so messy!

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “Assuming 'evil' exists for sake of argument, no, I don't think it is 'good for evil to reign'. Assuming for sake of argument as well, that if 'God' is 'omnibenevolent' and 'omnipotent' and 'omnipresent' and 'omniscient', then 'evil' shouldn't exist.”

Karla responds: "I assume you know the response I will give to this

Why yes, I have an idea---the same flawed, unconvincing apologetic that you've given in the past.

And I was right....

"Then that would be a world without freedom." ~ Karla

So, to exist without "evil" in location "A"(Earth) takes away our "freedom", but to exist without "evil" in location "B"("Heaven") leaves our "freedom" intact.

Other than temporal vs atemporal, existence is existence. 'Care to make any other distinctions?(preferably, distinctions that are relevant)

continues..."Freedom to do right presumes the possibility of not doing right and that possibility becomes actualized when man ventured away from what is good to what was forbidden."

You're using the word "man" collectively(again).

In that case, here's a question:

Can another "man" decide on my behalf to believe in and accept "God"? Let me guess---no flippin' way, right? Right. So? Why is it/how is it "Just" that one "man" can decide on my behalf to go against "God", thus, making me "guilty" of his or her "trespass"????? That is a complete mockery of both "free will" and "Justice".

BTW, now's a good time to point out that an "omnipotent" being could prevent "evil" without necessarily eliminating it, and at the same time, without necessarily limiting our "free will".

Since you like "parent"/"child" analogies so much---if a child picks up a pair of scissors and starts running through the house, and the child's parent takes the scissors away from said child, at that instant, does the child stop wanting the scissors? No, of course not.

Thus, in taking away what the child desires, the parent has, yes, limited the child's freedom, yet, the child's desires are fully intact, thus, the child's "free will" remains intact. The child still desires to do what's "wrong"("evil").

So, IMO, this is another reason the Xian's "free will"/"evil" apologetic fails.

Karla: "How would you explain how all of humanity wrestles with doing right versus doing wrong?"

Because human beings are imperfect by nature.

But more importantly---if we use our "free will" to decide to do what's "wrong", one time, does that mean that when we're faced with "right" or "wrong" choices that we'll make the "wrong" decision EVERY single time???? No, I don't think so, and to posit such a thing is to spit in the face of "free will".

Karla, a one-time "wrong" choice doesn't make us "inherently bad", anymore than a one-time "right" choice makes us "inherently good". Hence, why the concept of "Original Sin" is absurd, and the whole "Garden" scene, unworthy of my belief.

boomSLANG said...

Karla...."I’m really not playing a semantics game. Parents are right there in front of us so while we do seek them out relationally and they us it is not at the level of what seeking God produces in us. To seek Him is to posture ourselves toward Him and this is good for us and this continues even after we have come to start a relationship with Him. Seeking and finding is a continual process. But like I said before, He is seeking us too; it is because He seeks us that we can seek Him. He has already made it possible for us to seek Him. He isn’t asking something of us that we are unable to do."

And once again, a long, drawn-out apologetic that evades the question. Note, again, you are the one who likes "child"/"parent" analogies, and thus, my previous question remains:

How is it that "hiding" from a child "aides in connecting" with said child(or if your prefer, hiding "FOR them")? Well?

Personally, I don't know of *ANY* parents who we could call "good", who "hide" from their children, unless they are playing family games, or something. ' You?

Previously, me: "If 'God' doesn't adhere to external 'morals', then 'God' doesn't have, and presumably doesn't need, 'morals'. Thus, 'God' is amoral, and therefore can be neither 'good', nor 'bad'. Thus, all 'God' has is an opinion, which is based on nothing but what it feels at the time."

Karla responds..."God is self existing."

Relevance, please?

continues..."You are right in that God doesn’t adhere to good v. bad the way we do. He is good"[EDIT]

And I reiterate---you can't "know" if "God" is "good" or define "God" as "good", that is, unless you have a >> frame of reference <<< with which to determine if "God" is "good", or not. You keep repeating the same flaw over and over and over and over and over and over and over, as you continue here.....

continues..."['God'] doesn’t have to weigh any action against a 'good' and 'bad' framework."

And in that case, "God" can do or command any damned-thing it wants - even if it's something that we both agree is inhumane - and you must see it as a "good" thing, because of how >> you << define "God". ' Get it?

Karla: "He just is good and is always doing what is good."

You've already conceded in a past conversation that if "God" reinstated its previous punish rebellious teens by stoning them policy, that we ought not do that, in which case, if "God" *did* reinstate said policy, it wouldn't be "good". IOW, if such a despicable command is relevant to a specific time, then "God's Word" isn't absolute, and what is seen as "good" is dependent on things such as the time, culture, and place we're living.

Karla said...

Boom “Karla, a one-time "wrong" choice doesn't make us "inherently bad", anymore than a one-time "right" choice makes us "inherently good". Hence, why the concept of "Original Sin" is absurd, and the whole "Garden" scene, unworthy of my belief. “


It was never about right and wrong, but life with God or existence without God. One is the path of being righteous rather than trying to be moral and the other is being those who live trying to be good versus bad by our own efforts. Righteousness comes not from doing right things, but having the gift of God’s righteousness. The first sin altered us all, not because one wrong thing was done, but because sin changed our condition of being in God to being separated from God. This is why the condition of man needed redemption by the substitute of someone qualified, who had not sinned, and who could pay the price for all of us at once. Just as sin entered all of man through Adam, so did righteousness become available to all men through Jesus for He is righteousness. He is available now for anyone who wills to enter Him. The door is wide open, but there is only one door, namely Jesus. There is no other way in, no other method, because He is the only one who is eternal life.

Karla said...

Boom "If 'God' doesn't adhere to external 'morals', then 'God' doesn't have, and presumably doesn't need, 'morals'. Thus, 'God' is amoral, and therefore can be neither 'good', nor 'bad'. Thus, all 'God' has is an opinion, which is based on nothing but what it feels at the time."

Karla responds..."God is self existing."

Boom “Relevance, please?”

God is. He does not gain His identity from relation to anyone or anything else. For instance, I am a wife, because I have a husband. God doesn’t gain His goodness in relation to something external; if He did He would not be God. Also if there was something external that was the source of goodness, a law or something, where would that have come from? That something would then be God for such a standard to exist it has to be in the nature of a being, not some abstract ethereal concept that disappears if no humans were around to think of it. Thus, your statement wasn’t logical.


Boom “And I reiterate---you can't "know" if "God" is "good" or define "God" as "good", that is, unless you have a >> frame of reference <<< with which to determine if "God" is "good", or not. You keep repeating the same flaw over and over and over and over and over and over and over, as you continue here..... “

Incorrect. If there was another frame of reference out side of God that God should be obedient to, then that would be God. Such a standard cannot exist outside of the nature of a being. I went over this above.

If such a point of reference external to God was necessary, where would that come from? Certainly not from the minds of those created by this God. How would that be possible? Please explain this theory out further because I think if you take it further you will see it does not work.

It is true that we need such a frame of reference, but not that the frame of reference needs a frame of reference. God is that point of reference.


Boom “And in that case, "God" can do or command any damned-thing it wants - even if it's something that we both agree is inhumane - and you must see it as a "good" thing, because of how >> you << define "God". ' Get it? “

God does act the way He wants, or in other words, the way He wills, and when a Good Being has a Good will. How is that not logical?


Boom “You've already conceded in a past conversation that if "God" reinstated its previous punish rebellious teens by stoning them policy, that we ought not do that, in which case, if "God" *did* reinstate said policy, it wouldn't be "good". IOW, if such a despicable command is relevant to a specific time, then "God's Word" isn't absolute, and what is seen as "good" is dependent on things such as the time, culture, and place we're living. “

I said previously that the condition of man has changed and God doesn’t deal with us by the laws of the past for those laws were fulfilled in Jesus. The good is what God is doing in the now. If He asked me to fast for a day and I said well if it was good that I fast yesterday than it is good for me to fast today and the next day and the next day, etc. I would be in error and in bad health. God wants us to live in continual relationship with Him walking with Him, not standing in the past with Him. There are things in the Bible if we did them today we would be wrong. It doesn’t mean the action was wrong then or that His goodness isn’t absolute. We were not designed to live by external laws, but by an expression of internal righteousness. There are some things that are always outside of the will of God, God enumerated these in the 10 Commandments. But there are other things that are contingent upon the circumstance. For instance, there are just reasons to kill, like self-defense, and unjust ones that we call murder.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “Karla, a one-time 'wrong' choice doesn't make us 'inherently bad', anymore than a one-time 'right' choice makes us 'inherently good'. Hence, why the concept of 'Original Sin' is absurd, and the whole 'Garden' scene, unworthy of my belief."

Karla responds..."It was never about right and wrong, but life with God or existence without God."

Irrelevant distinction.

But I'll play along.

Okay, then is "existence without God" a "good" thing, or a "bad" thing; a "wrong" thing, or a "right" thing??? Certainly the word "Righteous" is derivative of the word "right", yes? Moreover, since there was this supposed "tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil", then there is obviously a dichotomy there..i.e.."good" vs "evil"..aka "right" vs "wrong".

Again, Karla, the supposed first two human proto-types made the "wrong" choice. And again, based on that >>>>ONE-TIME<<<< decision, they, and subsequently all of the rest of us (who didn't even exist yet), are being held accountible.

You try to reconcile that with things like this....

" The first sin altered us all..." ~ Karla

Altered us how!?!?!!? If you are suggesting that this "alteration" makes us incapable of being "good" or "Godly" or "Righteous" - or whatever word you'd care to use - the suggestion is still there that, a) the "alteration" was because of one(or two) people's "tresspass", and b) that because of that "trespass", that we are ALL incapable of >> EVER << making the "right" choice, both of which ARE A MOCKERY OF "FREE WILL". Karla, we have EVIDENCE that human beings are not "inherently evil"(where "inherently evil" suggests that we are "evil" 100% of the time)

continues... "This is why the condition of man needed redemption by the substitute of someone qualified, who had not sinned, and who could pay the price for all of us at once."

Aside from an innocent man being brutally murdered to excuse an "alteration" in me that I had no part of, nor one that I can control, this supposed "price" was NOT paid for NON-CHRISTIANS, otherwise, non-christians could get into "Heaven". We've been over and over and over this, yet, you still keep regurgitating the same fallacious arguments.

Your biblegod's "love" is compulsory; its "gifts" with strings attached. Disgusting.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "God is"....

....however you and your bible define "God". You and your bible define "God" as "good"(or "Righteous"), in which case, the only way you can know if "God" is "good" or not, IS TO HAVE AN EXTERNAL STANDARD with which to compare "God"(see below)

continues..."Also if there was something external that was the source of goodness, a law or something, where would that have come from?"

US! For instance, if your biblegod told our troops in the Middle East, "Rape your enemy's daughters....it's pefectly fine!!!!", you'd KNOW that such a command is NOT "good". Just like if your biblegod said, "KILL all those who would lead you away from ME!!!!", YOU'D KNOW it wouldn't be "good" to KILL me and other nonbelievers.

Karla,

WE. DO. NOT. GET. "GOOD". FROM. "GOD".

Karla: "I said previously that the condition of man has changed and God doesn’t deal with us by the laws of the past for those laws were fulfilled in Jesus. The good is what God is doing in the now."

Thank you!..thank you, so much for underscoring my point: Man "changes", and IN ACCORDANCE with that, so does "God's Word".

So much for "Objective", "Absolute", "Universal Truth".

Karla said...

Boom “Okay, then is "existence without God" a "good" thing, or a "bad" thing; a "wrong" thing, or a "right" thing???”

Boom it is a corrupt thing. Something that is less than good and in need of redemption.

Boom “Certainly the word "Righteous" is derivative of the word "right", yes? “

I would reverse that. Right is a derivative of Righteousness.


Boom “Moreover, since there was this supposed "tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil", then there is obviously a dichotomy there..i.e.."good" vs "evil"..aka "right" vs "wrong".””

Correct. The path of the Tree of Good and Evil was a path man was not designed to live. It was a forbidden path. It was a fallen sense of good v. evil rather than a freedom of good devoid of evil. God is good without reference to evil. When man separated from God, he began to measure good v. evil instead of being fully good and flowing in only goodness.


Boom “Altered us how!?!?!!? If you are suggesting that this "alteration" makes us incapable of being "good" or "Godly" or "Righteous" - or whatever word you'd care to use - the suggestion is still there that, a) the "alteration" was because of one(or two) people's "tresspass", and b) that because of that "trespass", that we are ALL incapable of >> EVER << making the "right" choice, both of which ARE A MOCKERY OF "FREE WILL". Karla, we have EVIDENCE that human beings are not "inherently evil"(where "inherently evil" suggests that we are "evil" 100% of the time)”

Our condition of being united with God changed when sin entered the picture. The alternation was separation from God. Yes, from being good, Godly, and righteous. For God is the only source of these and when we became separated from God we became separated from that which made us good, Godly, and righteous in the nature of our being.

Karla said...

Boom “....however you and your bible define "God". You and your bible define "God" as "good"(or "Righteous"), in which case, the only way you can know if "God" is "good" or not, IS TO HAVE AN EXTERNAL STANDARD with which to compare "God"(see below)”

God has revealed to us that He is good. There exists no other judge qualified to determine that. If He isn’t good, than He also does not exist and it’s then a moot point.

I asked ”Also if there was something external that was the source of goodness, a law or something, where would that have come from?"

Boom “US!”

That doesn’t work. If we were made by God how could we have greater knowledge then He to determine by our measuring if He were good?



Boom “WE. DO. NOT. GET. "GOOD". FROM. "GOD".”

I hear you saying that.


Karla: "I said previously that the condition of man has changed and God doesn’t deal with us by the laws of the past for those laws were fulfilled in Jesus. The good is what God is doing in the now."

Boom “Thank you!..thank you, so much for underscoring my point: Man "changes", and IN ACCORDANCE with that, so does "God's Word". “

God’s Word doesn’t change. You just can’t apply a command intended for a particular condition of man to a humanity in a different condition. It didn’t’ make the command less right when it was given, just not necessarily the thing that ought to be done again.


Boom “So much for "Objective", "Absolute", "Universal Truth". “

The Absolute is Himself. Not the laws of the Old Testament.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: “Okay, then is 'existence without God' a 'good' thing, or a 'bad' thing; a 'wrong' thing, or a 'right' thing???”

Karla now responds: "...it is a corrupt thing."

::sigh::

Okay, is a "corrupt thing" a 'good' thing, or a 'bad' thing; a 'wrong' thing, or a 'right' thing???

IOW, PLEASE STOP with the blantant equivocation. *It makes you look dishonest.

*Note, it's a subtle distinction from calling you dishonest, but a distinction nonetheless.

Karla: "I would reverse that. Right is a derivative of Righteousness"

Good grief. FINE. Then is a "corrupt thing" in line with "Righteousness", or not? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Karla: "Something that is less than good and in need of redemption."

Astounding. More equivocation.

Is "less than good" the same as "bad", or "wrong", or if you prefer, "unrighteousness"???? If it is the same, then my objection, worded differently to oblige you on your goose-chase, remains:

We are being held accountible based on someone elses "less than good" choice, which, again, IS A VIOLATION of my, and your, "free will".

continues..."Correct. The path of the Tree of Good and Evil was a path man was not designed to live. It was a forbidden path."

Yet, *BEFORE* the infamous Garden duo did the "forbidden" thing---that is, BEFORE they ate the "forbidden fruit"---they presumably had no such "knowledge" of "good" vs "evil", but yet, were expected to know the difference.

That is a serious chronology flaw in your "Holy" doctrine.

continues..."Our condition of being united with God changed when sin entered the picture. The alternation was separation from God."

Totally, 100% irrevelvant. The "alteration" is STILL the result of two other people's "trespass", or, their decision to do "wrong"...or if you prefer, to do "less than good", or you prefer, to do what is "unrighteous". (I evidentally need to cover all my bases to keep up your constant revisons and word-mincing)

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: “....however you and your bible define 'God'. You and your bible define 'God' as 'good'(or 'Righteous'), in which case, the only way you can know if 'God' is 'good' or not, IS TO HAVE AN EXTERNAL STANDARD with which to compare 'God'.”

Karla responds..."God has revealed to us that He is good."

And you have faith that it is so. I can accept that. On the other hand, to KNOW that "God" is "good", you have to have an EXTERNAL standard to measure AGAINST the commands and/or actions of "God".

There is no escaping this, Karla. The only way out, is if you give ALL authority to "God", in which case, the commands/actions of 'God' don't need to line up with any external "good", in which case, it can command ANY $%#&-thing it wants to, and you would have to see it as "good". If you want to go that route, then fine---say so.

Karla says...I asked ”Also if there was something external that was the source of goodness, a law or something, where would that have come from?"

I answered...“US!”

Karla responds..."That doesn’t work.

Yes, it does work---it's working right now as we speak.

continues..."If we were made by God how could we have greater knowledge then He to determine by our measuring if He were good?"

Let's review: You asked where we'd get a "standard" of "good" if we didn't get it from "God". I answered you. You object to that answer by presupposing that we were "created by God", which is begging the question. FALLACY.

Karla: "God’s Word doesn’t change. You just can’t apply a command intended for a particular condition of man to a humanity in a different condition."

If "God's Word" DOESN'T apply at all times, then it isn't Absolute. You've basically just said that what "God" commands stays the same where applicable. In other words, it's not applicable 100% of time, in which case, again, it is not Absolute.

continues..."The Absolute is Himself. Not the laws of the Old Testament."

Nice try. But if you want your apologetics to be convincing, you'll need to do much better.

Karla said...

Boom “There is no escaping this, Karla. The only way out, is if you give ALL authority to "God", in which case, the commands/actions of 'God' don't need to line up with any external "good", in which case, it can command ANY $%#&-thing it wants to, and you would have to see it as "good". If you want to go that route, then fine---say so.”

He already has all authority whether I assent to that or not. I really have no grounds by which to judge Him and He has every ground by which to judge me.

His goodness isn’t dependent upon my looking at an external standard and judging Him as good, He is the standard and I am the one that is rightfully judged by Him.

Boom “Let's review: You asked where we'd get a "standard" of "good" if we didn't get it from "God". I answered you. You object to that answer by presupposing that we were "created by God", which is begging the question. FALLACY.”

I was asking if God exists, then where would the standard come from that is not God that we could use to judge God? I thought you were proposing that it was logical for a standard of good outside of God to exist in the world where God exists.

In a world where there is no God, then yes, we are our own standard and there is no eternal good. Good, then, would only has the meaning we give it.

Karla said...

Boom “::sigh::”

I’m really not trying to give you a hard time.


Boom “Okay, is a "corrupt thing" a 'good' thing, or a 'bad' thing; a 'wrong' thing, or a 'right' thing???”

It’s wrong. But it’s not just a wrong choice, but a wrong reality.

Boom “IOW, PLEASE STOP with the blantant equivocation. *It makes you look dishonest.”

Please forgive me. I can see how my statements sounded, I truly wasn’t trying to make things difficult.

Karla: "I would reverse that. Right is a derivative of Righteousness"

Boom “Good grief. FINE. Then is a "corrupt thing" in line with "Righteousness", or not? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.”

No.


Boom “We are being held accountible based on someone elses "less than good" choice, which, again, IS A VIOLATION of my, and your, "free will".”

Here is where the problem is that I was trying to avoid by not using the words you wanted me to use because I knew what you were trying to get at. It wasn’t just the “choice” of one man, it was an actualization of sin into humanity. To borrow from Star Wars “a disturbance in the force” as “separation.” The separation that was caused by one man, does necessarily adversely affect us all because of the severity of what happened. Man as a whole was now corrupt and in need of restoration.

I don’t know how to be plainer. I know you don’t think it is fair.

Boom “Yet, *BEFORE* the infamous Garden duo did the "forbidden" thing---that is, BEFORE they ate the "forbidden fruit"---they presumably had no such "knowledge" of "good" vs "evil", but yet, were expected to know the difference.”

Not experiential knowledge. They had never tasted of doing something that was not in God’s nature to do. But they knew not to do it.


Boom “Totally, 100% irrevelvant. The "alteration" is STILL the result of two other people's "trespass", or, their decision to do "wrong"...or if you prefer, to do "less than good", or you prefer, to do what is "unrighteous". (I evidentally need to cover all my bases to keep up your constant revisons and word-mincing) “

It was more than a decision it was more than just an action, it was the beginning of a new state of being for humanity—a fallen separated state. It was a very severe thing.

boomSLANG said...

Karla continues: "['God'] already has all authority whether I assent to that or not."

But you *do* "assent" to it, in which case, my argument stands:

If "God" has "all authority" - regardless of how it obtained it - then "God" can command ANYTHING it wants, even things that you would find despicable if commanded by any other being. For instance, if our Commander in Chief told our troops, "Hey, while you're over there shootin' up the enemy, take their daughters and keep them for yourselves to do as you please!!!!", you would most certainly know that that is not a "good" thing.

adds..."I really have no grounds by which to judge Him and He has every ground by which to judge me."

Which is why such a position is dangerous. "God" can do whatever it wants, and you are prepared to throw your arms up in the air and praise it, without questioning.

Karla: "I was asking if God exists, then where would the standard come from that is not God that we could use to judge God?"

NO--that's not what you asked. If you want to revise your question, then fine, say so and do it.

Nonetheless, the answer to your question is, again, US---we determine what is "good" for us, and what isn't, therefore, if a "God" existed, we'd use that same standard to determine if what said "God" was commanding was "good" or "bad". The same way that if an alien race of being's leader said that we should follow its commands, we'd use our OWN standard of "good" to determine if we want to follow said commands, NOT their standard. 'Get it?

continues...."In a world where there is no God, then yes, we are our own standard and there is no eternal good. Good, then, would only has the meaning we give it."

And in a world where there IS a "God", we use our "own standard", too---the same "standard" with which you insist your biblegod is "good", which, as I've illustrated over and over and over again, is erroneous reasoning/logic.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I’m really not trying to give you a hard time."

But the way I see it, you're not really trying to entertain that it just might be the case that your apologetics are simply bad, either.

I ask Karla..

“Okay, is a 'corrupt thing' a 'good' thing, or a 'bad' thing; a 'wrong' thing, or a 'right' thing???”

Karla responds..."It’s wrong."

Hurray! Finally!

but adds.."But it’s not just a wrong choice, but a wrong reality."

Okay, "wrong", being the common denominator. So, thank you for that irrelevant distinction.

Thus, once again, it was because of a ONE-TIME "wrong choice" which resulted in a "wrong reality", that all of humanity is being held accountible. Again, a complete mockery of individualism and "free will". You've resolved nothing.

Karla: "Here is where the problem is that I was trying to avoid by not using the words you wanted me to use because I knew what you were trying to get at. It wasn’t just the 'choice' of one man, it was an actualization of sin into humanity. To borrow from Star Wars “a disturbance in the force” as “separation.” The separation that was caused by one man, does necessarily adversely affect us all because of the severity of what happened. Man as a whole was now corrupt and in need of restoration."

Listen carefully---the "choice" of one man(and a possible accomplice) is STILL what put the "actualization of sin" into the rest of us. Your numerous attempts at rewording your argument fail. That the act was "severe" doesn't explain how or why I am responsible for something I HAD. NO. SAY. IN. whatsoever. Bonnie and Clyde's actions and trail of bloodshed was "severe". Therefore, I'm guilty of their crime. Right? You see the idiocy of that reasoning, right?

Me: "FINE. Then is a 'corrupt thing' in line with 'Righteousness', or not? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.”

You respond: "No."

Thank you.

Me: "Yet, *BEFORE* the infamous Garden duo did the 'forbidden' thing---that is, BEFORE they ate the 'forbidden fruit'---they presumably had no such 'knowledge' of 'good' vs 'evil', but yet, were expected to know the difference."

Karla responds..."Not experiential knowledge. They had never tasted of doing something that was not in God’s nature to do. But they knew not to do it."

Other than your simply asserting they knew, how did they "know"? Please provide biblical support that they "knew".

Me: “Totally, 100% irrevelvant. The 'alteration' is STILL the result of two other people's 'trespass', or, their decision to do 'wrong'...or if you prefer, to do 'less than good', or you prefer, to do what is 'unrighteous'. (I evidentally need to cover all my bases to keep up your constant revisons and word-mincing)"

Karla responds: "It was more than a decision it was more than just an action...."

More than, more than, more than.

More than this; more than that. MORE equivocation.

continues.."...it was the beginning of a new state of being for humanity—a fallen separated state. It was a very severe thing."

And again, calling it "severe" doesn't make the result "Just"(see Bonnie & Clyde analogy)

Karla said...

Boom “If "God" has "all authority" - regardless of how it obtained it - then "God" can command ANYTHING it wants, even things that you would find despicable if commanded by any other being. For instance, if our Commander in Chief told our troops, "Hey, while you're over there shootin' up the enemy, take their daughters and keep them for yourselves to do as you please!!!!", you would most certainly know that that is not a "good" thing. “



Yes God can do anything He wants. But because His nature is good His will/want is good. His authority is good. Something doesn’t become good because God wills it, nor does He will it because it conforms to and outside standard of goodness. He is the only absolute Good Being and all that He is and does and says is Good. God’s nature is not duplicitous. He isn’t struggling between doing a good thing and a bad thing. He only does that which lines up with who He is and who He is good.

You can disagree all you want. That’s fine. I’m not going to keep going in circles on this.


Boom “Nonetheless, the answer to your question is, again, US---we determine what is "good" for us, and what isn't, therefore, if a "God" existed, we'd use that same standard to determine if what said "God" was commanding was "good" or "bad". The same way that if an alien race of being's leader said that we should follow its commands, we'd use our OWN standard of "good" to determine if we want to follow said commands, NOT their standard. 'Get it?”


If this God exists that I am describing then we were Created by Him and all that is true stems from Him including goodness. Therefore we cannot legitimately have our own standard by which to judge Him.

Again, we’ve been over this over and over again. I know you don’t think what I say is true. We can just leave it at that because we aren’t going anywhere with this.

Karla said...

Boom “Other than your simply asserting they knew, how did they "know"? Please provide biblical support that they "knew".”

God told them.

Genesis 2:16 “And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Eve demonstrates she knew she was not supposed to do it.

Genesis 3:2 “The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “If 'God' has 'all authority' - regardless of how it obtained it - then 'God' can command ANYTHING it wants, even things that you would find despicable if commanded by any other being."

Karla responds: "Yes God can do anything He wants. But because His nature is good His will/want is good. His authority is good. Something doesn’t become good because God wills it, nor does He will it because it conforms to and outside standard of goodness. He is the only absolute Good Being and all that He is and does and says is Good. God’s nature is not duplicitous. He isn’t struggling between doing a good thing and a bad thing. He only does that which lines up with who He is and who He is good."

Per usual, the fallacy of your argument remains. While, yes, you are obviously perfectly free to keep repeating things like, "God is good", "His nature is good", "His authority is good", "His will/want is good"[bold added], you have yet to overcome the glaring problem. Here it is(again):

If "God" doesn't adhere to any external standard of "good", then "God" can command ANYTHING it wants, even if you and I agree that the same command would be inhumane if some other being commanded it.

You also say that the "nature" of "God" is fully "good", implying that "God" is unable to do/say/command anything "bad", yet, you have no grounds(or authority) to determine if "God" were to do/say/command something "bad", because you have nothing external to reference against the actions of "God".

Thus, there is only this authoritive being's opinion, which is completely, 100% arbitrary. IOW, you, the Xian apologist, are attempting to have your cake and eat it too. Logic says that you cannot. To be sure, I have a few questions that I would hope that you can answer, since you are so adamant that you are right.

1) If, hypothetically, "God" commanded our troops to slaughter the enemy in the Middle East..i.e..kill in cold blood, man, woman, child, woman carrying child, but included an exception, that is, to keep the enemy's daughters to do with them as they please, would it be "good" if our troops followed that command? Yes, or no?

If "no", please include an explanation of why not.

2) Since you claim the "nature" of "God" is fully "good", then it would follow that the "nature" of "God" is fully moral, too(since you obviously claim morals exist). Thus, is what is "moral" part of "God's nature" because it's "moral"? Or is it "moral" because it is part of "God's nature"? Which?..the former, or the latter?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "Again, we’ve been over this over and over again. I know you don’t think what I say is true."

I don't think what you say is logical, reasonable, rational, or sensible, and thus, I don't think it's true---correct. In fact, it's demonstrably false.

continues: "We can just leave it at that because we aren’t going anywhere with this."

Yet, if you remember, we were seemingly going nowhere in our numerous exchanges over the "hiddeness of God"/"free will" issue, that is, until you finally conceded I was right. In fact, I think it would've been easier to give birth to a live, flamming porcupine, than to get you to admit error. Albeit, this issue is a little more serious, since, if what you are arguing is false(and it is), then, among other things, we don't need "God" to be "good". I'm fairly certain that that idea is unsettling to you, hence, why you are prepared to keep defending it.

Karla: "God told them.

Genesis 2:16 'And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die'."


Thanks for that, but you overlook the obvious: If it is/was "wrong", "bad", or "evil" for "Adam" & Co. to DO what "God" says they "must not" do, then they would have to *first* know what "wrong", "bad", and/or "evil" is, and since they had not eaten of the supposed "Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil", they had no knowledge of those things.

The same way that we don't expect a 3 or 4 yr-old toddler to have the same understanding of "right"/"wrong" as an 18 yr-old adult. We, as sane, intelligent adults, don't expect a human being with very limited knowledge(such as a toddler) to fully grasp the concept of "must not do". This is common sense, but for some reason, that goes out the window when it comes to Xian apologetics, in this case, the concept of "Original Sin".

Karla said...

Boom “If "God" doesn't adhere to any external standard of "good", then "God" can command ANYTHING it wants, even if you and I agree that the same command would be inhumane if some other being commanded it.”

What you are not getting is that His want is as good as His being which is perfectly good. He is the authority. If He exists this is a given.

He does not need an external standard. If He needed this, He would not be self-existent. He would have need of something greater than Himself. Then THAT would be God. For there cannot be an abstract standard of good floating in the ethereal cosmos. Good, if it has any universal meaning, has to be anchored in the nature of an eternal being. It isn’t logical that the created would be better than the Creator. How could the Creator create a people better than Himself that are competent to judge Himself? If this were the case we would be equal with God and He would be as finite as us. This makes no sense.

You are saying that I will not admit error, but you have not proven that I am in error. Maybe it is you that err.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: You are saying that I will not admit error, but you have not proven that I am in error. Maybe it is you that err.

If you'll just answer the two questions in my previous post(the ones that you conveniently ignored), perhaps we can the determine who's in error.

In the mean time, what follows is one big, drawn-out irrelevant display of equivocation....

"He does not need an external standard. If He needed this, He would not be self-existent. He would have need of something greater than Himself. Then THAT would be God. For there cannot be an abstract standard of good floating in the ethereal cosmos. Good, if it has any universal meaning, has to be anchored in the nature of an eternal being. It isn’t logical that the created would be better than the Creator. How could the Creator create a people better than Himself that are competent to judge Himself? If this were the case we would be equal with God and He would be as finite as us. This makes no sense." ~ Karla

Shall I paste the questions again? Or can you find them on your own?

Karla said...

Boom your second question only changes the wording of the Euthyphro Question. I've already answered that repeatedly and you can view my entire post on that under Important Reads.

As to the second question, it is irrelevant because God has not commanded this. Speculating a command and saying what if He did this, doesn't actually address the issue.

If God were to command such a thing, He could only command it if it was good and just and in accordance with all of His attributes for His nature is His nature always and He does according to His nature.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Boom your second question only changes the wording of the Euthyphro Question.

Exactly, and it is by no accident, so I definitely don't retract it or apologize for it, because when you, the theist, attempt to resolve the Euthyphro dilemma by saying things like, "Good is part of God's nature!!!", you've resolved absolutely nothing at all, because either way you slice it, the theist's answer is unsatisfactory.

Either, a) "God adheres to an external standard of "morals", or b) "God" does not adhere to an external standard of "morals".

If "a", we don't need "God" for "morality". If "b", then "God" has no "morals" and is therefore amoral, and thus, whatever it decides is "good" is completely, 100% arbitrary...i.e..its opinion. Pick one.

continues...As to the second question, it is irrelevant because God has not commanded this.

Wrong, and wrong. It's not irrelevant because the biblegod you worship has issued and condoned it in the past. Shall I find the scripture in "God's Word" that confirms it?

continues...Speculating a command and saying what if He did this, doesn't actually address the issue.

Okay, if said hypothetical is not relevant to "the issue", then you should have no problem addressing said hypothetical. But of course, you and I both know that there are dire implications if you should answer it, which is why you currently dodge the question. You fool no one.

continues...If God were to command such a thing, He could only command it if it was good and just and in accordance with all of His attributes for His nature is His nature always and He does according to His nature.

Okay, FINE. Can you conceive of a situation in war where such a policy would ever be "good" and "just"? If "no", why not?

Karla said...

Boom “Exactly, and it is by no accident, so I definitely don't retract it or apologize for it, because when you, the theist, attempt to resolve the Euthyphro dilemma by saying things like, "Good is part of God's nature!!!", you've resolved absolutely nothing at all, because either way you slice it, the theist's answer is unsatisfactory.”

It is completely resolved. Ignoring the resolution and returning to the initial question does not refute the proposed resolution.



Boom “Either, a) "God adheres to an external standard of "morals", or b) "God" does not adhere to an external standard of "morals".”

(b) He does not.

Boom “If "a", we don't need "God" for "morality". If "b", then "God" has no "morals" and is therefore amoral, and thus, whatever it decides is "good" is completely, 100% arbitrary...i.e..itsopinion. Pick one.”

Not so. There is a third option. He is the standard, Himself.



continues...As to the second question, it is irrelevant because God has not commanded this.

Boom “Wrong, and wrong. It's not irrelevant because the biblegod you worship has issued and condoned it in the past. Shall I find the scripture in "God's Word" that confirms it?”


I’ve told you that the same Scripture attest that the condition of man changed with the coming of Christ and the new covenant, and even though not all are in the new covenant, God now deals with us differently than before, not because He changed, but because the condition of man has changed. So just because He commanded something 4000 years ago doesn’t mean the same conditions are present to warrant the same command.


Boom “Okay, if said hypothetical is not relevant to "the issue", then you should have no problem addressing said hypothetical. But of course, you and I both know that there are dire implications if you should answer it, which is why you currently dodge the question. You fool no one.”

I “dodge” the question so to speak, because you are setting up a false situation.


Boom “Okay, FINE. Can you conceive of a situation in war where such a policy would ever be "good" and "just"? If "no", why not?”

Since the change in the condition of man? I do not know of one.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "It is completely resolved. Ignoring the resolution and returning to the initial question does not refute the proposed resolution."

If it is "resolved", and further, if the new question is merely a re-wording of the original, then you should have zero problem answering the new question. It would take, literally, seconds. In fact, the question was multiple choice--you could answer it by typing one measily word.

That you don't answer it and that you insist the dilemma is "resolved", this is evident to me that you are again stonewalling.

Me, previously: “Either, a) 'God' adheres to an external standard of 'morals', or b) 'God' does not adhere to an external standard of 'morals'.”

Karla answers: "(b) He does not."

Then said "God" answers to no one(which Karla concedes); said "God" can do whatever it wants(which Karla concedes), and thus, logic says that whatever said "God" commands/rules/says is completely arbitrary---its thoughts are merely its opinion at any given time.

To illustrate once more---"God" could decide that our "Christian Nation" should start punishing our teenagers by lining them up and throwing rocks at them, and Karla and her bible-believing constituents would see this as the "good" and "moral" thing to do, right? Right, because their biblegod is "Good by nature", and therefore, the implication is that "God" is incapable of being anything other than "Himself", which is ALWAYS "good".

But wait, previously, Karla says that we "ought not" throw rocks at our children. Huh? What's going on, here?

Karla is being inconsistent.

Karla? You are being inconsistant.

Is throwing rocks at young adults as punishment "good"? Or is it "bad"?

Until we hear back, Karla (understandably) attempts to reconcile the blatant quandry in her apologetic, with....

"There is a third option. He is the standard, Himself." ~ Karla

So, at face-value, "God" is its own "standard", which, most observant people will notice that this is simply just another way of saying "God answers to no one!", and in that case, "God" can do whatever-the-heck it wants--even if its something that we in our society agree is deplorable.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I’ve told you that the same Scripture attest that the condition of man changed with the coming of Christ"...

The "condition of man" has changed since then? Is that what you are saying? You mean, we're not "sinners" anymore? Is that what you mean by "condition"??? You mean, it was perfectly fine for human beings to have rocks thrown at them just a few thousand years ago, but not now? What?..there are no rebellious "teens" today? None of our teens today are "drunkards"? You've got some explaining to do.

continues..."and the new covenant, and even though not all are in the new covenant, God now deals with us differently than before, not because He changed, but because the condition of man has changed."

Is this an admission that if the "condition of man"(whatever that means) took a turn for the worse and went back to being displeasing to "God", that if "God" reinstated his pelt kids with rocks policy, that you'd not question it, and join right in?

a) Yes, you would join right in.

b) No, you would not join right in.

continues..."So just because He commanded something 4000 years ago doesn’t mean the same conditions are present to warrant the same command."

Yeah, uh-huh. See previous question.

Me, previously: "Can you conceive of a situation in war where such a policy would ever be 'good' and 'just'? If 'no', why not?"

Karla responds: "Since the change in the condition of man?"

ANY TIME. Is it >> EVER << "good" for the daughters of criminals of war to be used for sexual pleasure against their will!?!?! Is it >> EVER << "good" for women, children, or woman carrying child, to be intentionally slaughtered?

And BTW, you keep on with this "condition of man", and I eagerly await your detailed explanation of this.

In my view, the "condition of man, back then - which we are to believe warranted death by DROWNING -is no better today. What?..are some "sinners" better than others? Biblegod was "repented" and had to "start over", and evidentally, drowning the whole planet was the only solution, notwithstanding, whAT did it solve? We're still a bunch of "sinners" according to today's bible-literalists.

Remember, several of your Xian figure-heads tell us that we are such "sinners" that when things like hurricanes and 911 kills THOUSANDS, we deserve it. Specifically, Roberston and the late Falwell.

So, Karla....do you agree that we deserved hurricane Katrina and 911 because of our 'sinful' ways??

Karla said...

Boom “Then said "God" answers to no one(which Karla concedes); said "God" can do whatever it wants(which Karla concedes), and thus, logic says that whatever said "God" commands/rules/says is completely arbitrary---its thoughts are merely its opinion at any given time. “

I do indeed concede that God answers to know one. He can do whatever He wills/wants. Let’s unpack the “arbitrary” . . .

Arbitrary means according to dictionary.com

“1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

I concede God is only subject to His own good will without any external restriction. His only limitations, if you will, are to be anything other than His own perfect, holy, good self.

2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.

True. God’s law is a reflection of His good nature. He is not bound by any external laws.

3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.

He is not limited or controlled by any thing outside of Himself. Tyrant has a highly negative connotation and is not a world one would use for a Good Father.

4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.

These do not apply to God. His goodness is supported absolutely by His own eternal good nature.

5. Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

N/A

Another definition of arbitrary is : “Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.”

This I do not agree with regarding God. His will isn’t a thing of chance, whim, or impulse. It is fully good, reasonable, just etc.

So I really do need to know more of what you mean by arbitrary. . .

Karla said...

Boom “The "condition of man" has changed since then? Is that what you are saying? You mean, we're not "sinners" anymore? Is that what you mean by "condition"??? You mean, it was perfectly fine for human beings to have rocks thrown at them just a few thousand years ago, but not now? What?..there are no rebellious "teens" today? None of our teens today are "drunkards"? You've got some explaining to do.”

No that’s not what I am saying. I’m saying that a new way has been opened up with the coming of Christ that now the old ways of God dealing with man such as the Jewish law and the battles of old, are not necessary anymore. Something changed on all levels of creation when Christ was Resurrected and now man can be dealt with differently. So while God has not changed, the condition in which man lives is now different even if the people are not in Christ.


Boom “Is this an admission that if the "condition of man"(whatever that means) took a turn for the worse and went back to being displeasing to "God", that if "God" reinstated his pelt kids with rocks policy, that you'd not question it, and join right in? “

The Resurrection of Christ cannot be reversed. What you are talking about isn’t possible.


Boom “Me, previously: "Can you conceive of a situation in war where such a policy would ever be 'good' and 'just'? If 'no', why not?"

It’s not for me to conceive. I’m not God and it’s not up to me to judge Him. He is good so even if a particular act of His is mysterious to me, it does not give me a right to judge my Creator.


Boom “ANY TIME. Is it >> EVER << "good" for the daughters of criminals of war to be used for sexual pleasure against their will!?!?! Is it >> EVER << "good" for women, children, or woman carrying child, to be intentionally slaughtered?”

All the ways of God are good. This does not mean we ought to ever repeat something God did in the past and make it a law or a principled way of dealing with a matter. Again, God does not deal with man this way anymore and I am not well versed in the scenario you are outlining. Please give me a Scripture reference.



Boom “In my view, the "condition of man, back then - which we are to believe warranted death by DROWNING -is no better today. What?..are some "sinners" better than others? Biblegod was "repented" and had to "start over", and evidentally, drowning the whole planet was the only solution, notwithstanding, whAT did it solve? We're still a bunch of "sinners" according to today's bible-literalists. “

I know you have that view. But really what we need to get at is what is really true rather than how a particular person feels about it or sees it.


Boom “Remember, several of your Xian figure-heads tell us that we are such "sinners" that when things like hurricanes and 911 kills THOUSANDS, we deserve it. Specifically, Roberston and the late Falwell. “

Much has been misunderstood by some of their statements. The only statement I specifically heard my self was the most recent one by Robertson concerning Haiti and it was very much misunderstood by the public. He never said God brought about the destruction or that Haiti deserved it. Anyways, what people, even prominent leaders, say about a matter and what is really true are often two different things. Just because someone is a Christian and says something doesn’t make it right.


Boom “So, Karla....do you agree that we deserved hurricane Katrina and 911 because of our 'sinful' ways?? “

No.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I concede God is only subject to His own good will without any external restriction. His only limitations, if you will, are to be anything other than His own perfect, holy, good self."

Words like "holy" are utterly meaningless to the unconvinced. We can work with "perfect" and "good".

- a "perfect" being doesn't make mistakes nor have regrets, if by "perfect", we agree that it means lacking nothing essential to the whole; flawless.

If you agree to the supplied definition, then a "perfect" being cannot harbor such petty human emotions as "jealously" and "repentance". We read that biblegod was "repented" that he made man. And if I'm not mistaken, I believe in "God's Word" that biblegod is not only "a jealous God", but is even referred to as "Jealous" by name in one instance.

- to say that something or someone is "good", we'd need a frame of reference(a standard) by which to make that determination. Otherwise, it's just your opinion that something or someone is "good". If we operate under the assumption that "good" being "X" defines "good", or is "good" by nature, it still begs the question: Is what is "good" part of being X's nature because it is "good"? Or is it "good", because it is part of being X's nature?

If the former, we don't necessarily need to look to being X to be "good". If the latter, "good" is based on nothing but being X(itself), in which case, killing our mothers might be "good" from its POV. After all, how would we know that killing our own mothers isn't "good", if we, a) have given all authority to being X, and b), having nothing to measure the commands/laws/actions of being X against?

The conundrum for proponents of being X as a source of "goodness" is clear and present.

continues.."True. God’s law is a reflection of His good nature."

Begging the question. You haven't established that the nature of "God" is "good". You can define "God" as "good" until donkeys fly, but you haven't established, using any sort of logic, that this is more than your personal opinion, or that whatever this "God" commands/says, is more than its personal opinion.

Karla: "He is not bound by any external laws."

Right--"He" presumably makes the laws, and according to you, these laws are always applicable(unchanging), *except* when not applicable.

IOW, you are essentially saying that these laws/commands depend on things such as the current "condition of man", the "time", and "culture", etc. IOW, not universal; NOT "Absolute".

continues..."['God'] is not limited or controlled by any thing outside of Himself."

False, and your own words prove it. The "condition of man"(who presumably has radical free will) dictates what/why/when the laws/commands of "God" are applicable, or not applicable. Again, your own words confirm it.

boomSLANG said...

Karla..."Tyrant has a highly negative connotation and is not a world one would use for a Good Father."

Agreed. Then again, a "Good Father", or even a "good father", is not a word I would use for a father who...

- deliberately hides and creates doubt in his children

- stands by and watches his children starve, die of thirst, get molested, among other things

- tracks down and incinerates his children if his love isn't reciprocated

I could go on. But you get the point. Wait...scatch that, I made my point.

arbitrary: "4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment."

Karla responds: "These do not apply to God. His goodness is supported absolutely by His own eternal good nature."

I have to keep telling myself that you're a victim of religious indoctrination, otherwise, I'd likely fall out of my chair with laughter at times.

Karla, I have given you, literally, hundreds of examples of how your religious beliefs are NOT reasonable..i.e..UNreasonable. It is NEVER reasonable to DROWN a whole planet, especially, when the one one doing the drowning presumably has UNLIMITED alternatives. It is NEVER reasonable to KILL someone if they work on a specific day of the week. It is never reasonable to have wild animals maul children for making fun of someone. Absurd.

Karla: "So I really do need to know more of what you mean by arbitrary. . ."

NOT BASED on necessity, reason, or principle; whatever one feels at the time.

Karla: "I’m saying that a new way has been opened up with the coming of Christ that now the old ways of God dealing with man such as the Jewish law and the battles of old, are not necessary anymore."

Right, got it. So what was "good" for man before, is not necessarily "good" for man now.

Thus, "good" is A RELATIVE thing(as I've been saying over and over and over and over). Thus, what your biblegod says is "good", depends on things like "the condition of man", time, and culture. In other words, IS. NOT. ABSOLUTE.

Previously, me: "Is this an admission that if the 'condition of man'(whatever that means) took a turn for the worse and went back to being displeasing to 'God', that if 'God' reinstated his pelt kids with rocks policy, that you'd not question it, and join right in?"

You respond: The Resurrection of Christ cannot be reversed. What you are talking about isn’t possible.

Oh? It's not possible for "God" to reinstated any of his old "Just" punishments if need be? 'Doesn't sound like an "omnipotent" being to me.

BTW, previously, I asked: "We're not 'sinners' anymore?"

Was that a "yes" or "no"?

I understand that you believe the murder of "Christ" is "irreversible" and our being "sinners" is "forgiven", but I haven't seen how that means we're no longer "sinners", or how our "condition" is better than prior to said murder.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: "Can you conceive of a situation in war where such a policy would ever be 'good' and 'just'? If 'no', why not?"

Karla responds..."It’s not for me to conceive."

Are you listening? To conceive of a hypothetical you don't need permission. You are stonewalling. You KNOW, just like the rest of us, that it is NEVER "good", and/or, necessary, to go to war and to keep to the enemy's daughters for sexual pleasure. Not now; not EVER.

continues..."I’m not God and it’s not up to me to judge Him. He is good so even if a particular act of His is mysterious to me, it does not give me a right to judge my Creator."

So, if your biblegod's motives are admittedly "mysterious" at times, but yet, you can see the actions of those motives are unnecessarily harmful, you are evidentally willing to surrender your sensibilities as to not offend this "God", and even willing to equivocate in its defense. I find that disgusting.(notice, not you, but that position)

Me, previously: "In my view, the 'condition of man', back then - which we are to believe warranted death by DROWNING -is no better today. What?..are some 'sinners' better than others? Biblegod was 'repented' and had to 'start over', and evidentally, drowning the whole planet was the only solution, notwithstanding, whAT did it solve? We're still a bunch of 'sinners' according to today's bible-literalists."

Karla responds: "I know you have that view. But really what we need to get at is what is really true rather than how a particular person feels about it or sees it."

WhAT!?!?! What do you think we're doing here? We're trying to find out a truth. My telling you how I feel about it is precisely why I'm UNABLE TO BELIEVE IT. Hello? I'm telling you that I don't believe the Christian philosophy is true, let alone "Truth". I've already conceded to cl(and you) that I fully concede that reality procedes regardless of how we feel about it. Demonstrate to me that "Christ is the Answer"(Universally). Show me some evidence that we get "Morality" from the bible. Show me the "science" in "creation". Show me how a "perfect", "omnipotent", "omnibenevolent" being allows CHILDREN to be sodomized and beaten.

For you to sit there and say, "Oh, we need to find out what is really true before (yada, yada, yada)"[paraphrased], is a serious cop-out.

"Just because someone is a Christian and says something doesn’t make it right." ~ Karla

Thank you. I'll be refering to this frequently.

Karla said...

Boom “Words like "holy" are utterly meaningless to the unconvinced. We can work with "perfect" and "good". “

Okay.


Boom “- to say that something or someone is "good", we'd need a frame of reference(a standard) by which to make that determination. Otherwise, it's just your opinion that something or someone is "good". If we operate under the assumption that "good" being "X" defines "good", or is "good" by nature, it still begs the question: Is what is "good" part of being X's nature because it is "good"? Or is it "good", because it is part of being X's nature?

If the former, we don't necessarily need to look to being X to be "good". If the latter, "good" is based on nothing but being X(itself), in which case, killing our mothers might be "good" from its POV. After all, how would we know that killing our own mothers isn't "good", if we, a) have given all authority to being X, and b), having nothing to measure the commands/laws/actions of being X against? “

Yes we do need a frame of reference because we are not that reference point. God is that reference point, so He does not need one.



Boom “False, and your own words prove it. The "condition of man"(who presumably has radical free will) dictates what/why/when the laws/commands of "God" are applicable, or not applicable. Again, your own words confirm it.“

No. Nothing dictates God to do anything. His own good nature responds to what is in a good way. If the conditions have changed then the good way isn’t the same way it was before. To go back to a parent-child analogy—each child is different. Two children can do the exact same wrong thing, but the parent having relationship with both children knows that the good way to respond to one child maybe different than the good way to respond to the other. The children may think they have been treated unfairly for one got a spanking and the other got grounded, but the parent responded according to what was good for each child rather than by a fixed law that all children doing X should receive X response. God is a relational being and the thing that was truly the good response to one people group can be very different when He is dealing with another people. It doesn’t mean that the good is relative, but that the receiver of the good is different. God is not relative, but He is relational.

Karla said...

Boom "Oh? It's not possible for "God" to reinstated any of his old "Just" punishments if need be? 'Doesn't sound like an "omnipotent" being to me."

I have already explained that all powerful (omnipotent) does not mean He can do every conceivable thing. He never does anything outside of His own good nature. For instance, it is impossible for Him to lie for He is truth. That does not mean He is not all powerful it just means that at the very same time He is also good and those two attributes are one along with all the others that are unified in Him. He is just and merciful at the same time every time.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "Yes we do need a frame of reference because we are not that reference point. God is that reference point, so He does not need one."

You simply do not listen.

Okay, once more:

Saying that "God", himself, IS the "reference point", and/or, "standard" of "good" or "morality", does not overcome the glaring implication that if this is true---if this being is its OWN "standard", then this "God", ANSWERS TO NO ONE(which you concede), in which case, whatever "God" thinks/decides/commands at any given time is NOT dependent on ANY external "goodness" or "morality".

That means, that if this being has no external "morals", then it doesn't follow "morals", thus, it doesn't have "morals", thus, it is amoral. You worship an amoral being.

Thus, this "God" could decide that all non-christians should be captured and slaughtered; it could decide that we should tie juvenile delinquents to a long fence, and throws rocks at them until they bleed to death; it could decide that people who work the day that they should be worshipping "God", should be publically executed; it could decide that children who make fun of bald people should be tossed in a lion's den.

It could decide that all of those things are "good", since, by nature, whatever it decides is "good"(according to your "God is good by nature" theory)

Hello, Karla? You CANNOT argue that "God" would never impliment such atrociously barbaric commands/laws, because, a) you concede that "God" can do whatever it wants/whenever it wants, and that means, it can do those things whether you think it should or shouldn't/could or couldn't do those things, and b) you have no grounds, whatsoever, to say that the aforementioned laws/commands are "bad", because you'd need an independent "standard" of "good"/bad" with which to make such a determination[and you concede there isn't one], and lastly, c) this being has commanded very similar things in the past, as recently as 2000 yrs ago, and since you concede "God" works in "mysterious" ways, for all you know, "God" might have very "good" motives for changing its mind and deciding to reinstate those atrocious, despicably inhumane laws/commands.

Previously, me: "False, and your own words prove it. The 'condition of man'(who presumably has radical free will) dictates what/why/when the laws/commands of 'God' are applicable, or not applicable. Again, your own words confirm it."

Karla responds: "No."

YES

continues..."Nothing dictates God to do anything."

Okay, "dictate" isn't the best word. Contingent, then. Your own words prove that what "God" commands is most certainly CONTINGENT---contingent on such things as the "condition of man", the time, and the culture.

Thus, NOT "Absolute"(not unchanging)

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "His own good nature responds to what is in a good way."

Equivocation.

continues..."If the conditions have changed then the good way isn’t the same way it was before."

More (funny)equivocation. But I'll play along.

If the "conditions" have changed, and "God" makes laws/commands in relation to those changing "conditions", then this "God" changes right along with the "conditions".

continues..."To go back to a parent-child analogy..."

Are you sure you want to continuing using the "parent/child" analogies? Because each time you attempt such analogies, they fail.

Let's see if this time is any different....

"each child is different. Two children can do the exact same wrong thing, but the parent having relationship with both children knows that the good way to respond to one child maybe different than the good way to respond to the other." ~ Karla

Right, the "parent" responds ACCORDING to the individual child and its individual CIRCUMSTANCE.

IOW, there is no "Absolute" way to respond. Thank you for once again underscoring my point. This is easy. Now, if you would only concede your error(s).

continues..."The children may think they have been treated unfairly for one got a spanking and the other got grounded, but the parent responded according to what was good for each child rather than by a fixed law that all children doing X should receive X response."

Thanks again.

BTW, why doesn't the biblegod you worship deal with each nonbeliever on an individual level, in the same manner as the parent deals with the differing children and circumstances in your above analogy? For instance, the reprecussions for the nonbeliever who out-and-out rejects your biblegod are precisely the same for the nonbeliever who wants to believe, but honestly cannot.

In other words, both of the above get tortured with fire for all of eternity.

As you illustrate(thanks again, BTW), a good parent can see that there isn't what you call a "fixed law" for every child, so why should I believe a "good God" has a "fixed law" for its "children"?

Karla, the inconsistancies in your apologetics are glaringly blatant. It is astounding how you go on defending your errors.

Previously, me: "Oh? It's not possible for 'God' to reinstated any of his old 'Just' punishments if need be? 'Doesn't sound like an 'omnipotent' being to me."

Karla responds: "I have already explained that all powerful (omnipotent) does not mean He can do every conceivable thing."

Okay, so at face-value, "God" is not all-powerful("omnipotent"). On the other hand, that would be consistant with a "God" who could not/cannot reinstate a previous law/command/policy if need be.

Karla repeats: "['God'] never does anything outside of His own good nature."

Oh, really? NEVER? So, help me understand this---it was an example of your biblegod's "good nature" to DROWN an entire planet of living things, including, women, children, women carrying children, and defenseless, innocent animals? yes, or no?(multiple choice) Is it further a example of your biblegod's "good nature" to stand by with arms folded, as little boys and girls are sodomized by priests("men of God"), step fathers, and other child molesters? yes or no?(multiple choice)

?/?

Karla said...

Boom “You simply do not listen.”

I’m feeling the same way about you.

Okay, once more:

Boom “Saying that "God", himself, IS the "reference point", and/or, "standard" of "good" or "morality", does not overcome the glaring implication that if this is true---if this being is its OWN "standard", then this "God", ANSWERS TO NO ONE(which you concede), in which case, whatever "God" thinks/decides/commands at any given time is NOT dependent on ANY external "goodness" or "morality".”

Yes. Agreed.


Boom “That means, that if this being has no external "morals", then it doesn't follow "morals", thus, it doesn't have "morals", thus, it is amoral. You worship an amoral being. “

Not amoral, but good. He isn’t neither good nor bad, He is quintessentially good.


Boom “Thus, this "God" could decide that all non-christians should be captured and slaughtered; it could decide that we should tie juvenile delinquents to a long fence, and throws rocks at them until they bleed to death; it could decide that people who work the day that they should be worshipping "God", should be publically executed; it could decide that children who make fun of bald people should be tossed in a lion's den. “

He could only decide that if that were good.


Boom “It could decide that all of those things are "good", since, by nature, whatever it decides is "good"(according to your "God is good by nature" theory)”

Something isn’t good because He decides it, but he decides according to His own good nature.


Boom “Hello, Karla? You CANNOT argue that "God" would never impliment such atrociously barbaric commands/laws, because, a) you concede that "God" can do whatever it wants/whenever it wants, and that means, it can do those things whether you think it should or shouldn't/could or couldn't do those things,”

God can do whatever is according to His nature.


Boom “ and b) you have no grounds, whatsoever, to say that the aforementioned laws/commands are "bad", because you'd need an independent "standard" of "good"/bad" with which to make such a determination[and you concede there isn't one], “

Anything done by God Himself or decreed by God is good.


Boom “and lastly, c) this being has commanded very similar things in the past, as recently as 2000 yrs ago, and since you concede "God" works in "mysterious" ways, for all you know, "God" might have very "good" motives for changing its mind and deciding to reinstate those atrocious, despicably inhumane laws/commands.”

His actions were never atrocious, but good, just, and merciful at the same time.


Boom “Okay, "dictate" isn't the best word. Contingent, then. Your own words prove that what "God" commands is most certainly CONTINGENT---contingent on such things as the "condition of man", the time, and the culture. “

He responds rightly to the current condition of man.

Boom “Thus, NOT "Absolute"(not unchanging)”

If He responding rightly to whatever the situation then His goodness hasn’t diminished or increased, it is always the same good nature. The things He responds to are always changing. I would say that it would not be good to respond to a different situation in the way of an old situation if the conditions are different. Thus I am not an advocate of an absolute moral law, but of an Absolute Good God.

Karla said...

Boom “If the "conditions" have changed, and "God" makes laws/commands in relation to those changing "conditions", then this "God" changes right along with the "conditions".”

That doesn’t mean God changes. What is good remains what is good. God is relational so His good nature always responds good to the current situation. Again, I am not an advocate of a moral law that is absolute in all situations; I am an advocate of a good God who is always thus.



Boom “IOW, there is no "Absolute" way to respond. Thank you for once again underscoring my point. This is easy. Now, if you would only concede your error(s).”

I was never arguing that there was an absolute way to respond in every situation. That is my point, that there is not. That conditions change, and the good is not a set response, but a being who is relational and can respond rightly no matter the situation in a just and merciful manner.


Boom “BTW, why doesn't the biblegod you worship deal with each nonbeliever on an individual level, in the same manner as the parent deals with the differing children and circumstances in your above analogy? For instance, the reprecussions for the nonbeliever who out-and-out rejects your biblegod are precisely the same for the nonbeliever who wants to believe, but honestly cannot. “

He does respond to us differently.

Boom “In other words, both of the above get tortured with fire for all of eternity.”

No they get tormented, not by God, but by not being in God.


Boom “Karla, the inconsistancies in your apologetics are glaringly blatant. It is astounding how you go on defending your errors. “

I do not think we have arrived at a place where you fully see what I am advocating.


Karla responds: "I have already explained that all powerful (omnipotent) does not mean He can do every conceivable thing."

Boom “Okay, so at face-value, "God" is not all-powerful("omnipotent"). On the other hand, that would be consistant with a "God" who could not/cannot reinstate a previous law/command/policy if need be.”

No, it means omnipotent doesn’t mean what you think it does.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I’m feeling the same way about you."

Fair enough. Then either provide some objective evidence that your beliefs are true, or show me some good reasons to take your word for it. If neither of those, then, at a minimum, show some consistancy in what you are proposing about this alledged "God" you claim exists.

For example, when I say this...

"...if this being has no external 'morals', then it doesn't follow 'morals', thus, it doesn't have 'morals', thus, it is amoral."

and YOU say this in response....

"Not amoral, but good."

You have contradicted yourself. You previously conceded that "God" doesn't follow external "morals", in which case, that is simply another way of saying that "God" doesn't HAVE(or need) "morals", and that IS THE DEFINITION of "amoral"..i.e..to lack morals.

Yet, you now say... "Not amoral".

YES, Karla...A-MORAL. A being who doesn't have or follow "morals" is AMORAL. Please concede your error.

And speaking of error, you go on......

"He isn’t neither good nor bad.." ~ Karla

WhAT!?!?.."isn't neither"??

"He is quintessentially good."

Oh, look...another (irrelevant) revision of your position; another goose chase.

FYI, adding a modifier onto "good" resolves NOTHING at all, because asserting that "God" is "good"(whatever type of "good") is your OPINION, and whatever "God" commands and either it, or you, call "good", is also pure OPINION.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: 'Thus, this 'God' could decide that all non-christians should be captured and slaughtered; it could decide that we should tie juvenile delinquents to a long fence, and throws rocks at them until they bleed to death; it could decide that people who work the day that they should be worshipping 'God', should be publically executed; it could decide that children who make fun of bald people should be tossed in a lion's den."

Karla responds...."He could only decide that if that were good."

Ooo, nice dodge!

Simply sickening. Your dishonesty(yes, DISHONESTY) is sickening.

Note, I'm not asking you to "decide" if those things are "good", or not. Any sane, intelligent on-looker knows that Karla knows that such commands are NOT "good"----EVER. What I was attemtping to illustrate is that the "God" in question COULD command those things, and you could NOT object to it, based on your definition of "God"....*AND* also based on your latest admission that you have no say-so, whatsoever, even if such commands became enforced.

Thus, "God" could "speak" to Karla and tell her, "KILL all nonbelievers!!!!", and she will have us believe that it's not for her to "decide" if it's a "good" command, or a "bad" command.

Karla, this is a perfect example of why people who hold beliefs like yours are a danger to humanity.

The following only confirms it.....

"God can do whatever is according to His nature." ~ Karla

Affirmed yet once more....

"Anything done by God Himself or decreed by God is good." ~ Karla

YES! Slavery, killing, stoning, slaughtering, smiting, destroying, sending plagues!!!!..."Anything"!!!!..it's "good" if "God" says so!

Affirmed a third time....

"His actions were never atrocious, but good, just, and merciful at the same time." ~ Karla

'Hear that? DROWING people isn't bad enough to be classified as "atrocious". Dashing children against rocks isn't bad enough to be classified as "atrocious". In fact, those things were "good" at the time, according to Karla. "God" can do "Anything" it feels like doing, and Karla supports it. 'Disgusting.

Me, previously: "Okay, 'dictate' isn't the best word. Contingent, then. Your own words prove that what 'God' commands is most certainly CONTINGENT---contingent on such things as the 'condition of man', the time, and the culture."

Karla equivocates...."He responds rightly to the current condition of man."

More error-defending. The word "current" is time-relative.

Thus, as the Xian apologist concedes, what is "good" for man at one point in time, might not be "good" for "man" at another point in time, thus, what is "good" depends on time, which obviously changes. NOT ABSOLUTE.

Karla? You're caught in another inconsistancy. You fool no one.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I was never arguing that there was an absolute way to respond in every situation. That is my point, that there is not. That conditions change, and the good is not a set response, but a being who is relational and can respond rightly no matter the situation in a just and merciful manner."

Firstly, if "good" is a "being", in this case, "God", then STOP using "parent/child" analogies, since a "parent" cannot be the concept of "good", itself.

Secondly, saying that "God" is "relational" doesn't overcome the glaring fact that what "God" commands is time-relative(as you FULLY CONCEDE). How "God" handles a problem with one of its "children" is CONTINGENT upon the time..i.e..how WE----scratch that----how *some* of us, have progessed.

I raise the following issue.....

"BTW, why doesn't the biblegod you worship deal with each nonbeliever on an individual level, in the same manner as the parent deals with the differing children and circumstances in your above analogy? For instance, the reprecussions for the nonbeliever who out-and-out rejects your biblegod are precisely the same for the nonbeliever who wants to believe, but honestly cannot."

And this how Karla addresses that issue...

"He does respond to us differently."

Excuse me? Did you see the part about how "God" deals with ALL nonbelievers across the board????? Is there any reason you seemingly skipped that part?

Me, previously: "In other words, both of the above get tortured with fire for all of eternity."

Karla responds..."No they get tormented....

Please explain, for my benefit, how someone should feel better about being "tormented", as opposed to being "tortured"? The "torment" is not going to stop, right? Right, so how is that not "torture"???

Karla: "....not by God, but by not being in God."

::yawn::

a) Are you saying that an all-powerful, all-knowing being cannot think of a more humane way to "torment" people?

b) What if "not being in God" is the result of never having experienced "God", and/or, not being able to honestly believe on "faith"(which, BTW, "faith" comes from "God", according to you)?????

Karla: "I do not think we have arrived at a place where you fully see what I am advocating."

Karla, these threads are REPLETE with what you are advocating. Are you telling me that each time I offer a refutation or take issue that I am "misunderstanding" you? Please. You fool no one.

Karla: "No, it means omnipotent doesn’t mean what you think it does."

I have no clue what you just said. I'm guessing we can't use the generally accepted definition of "omnipotent", and instead, you want to employ the Xian definition..i.e..definite it however it confirms Xianity.

Karla said...

Boom “You have contradicted yourself. You previously conceded that "God" doesn't follow external "morals", in which case, that is simply another way of saying that "God" doesn't HAVE(or need) "morals", and that IS THE DEFINITION of "amoral"..i.e..to lack morals.”

a•mor•al
  –adjective
1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.



This would not describe God. He is not unaware of right and wrong, He is the righteousness Himself. I would say the term “moral” is more human than divine. The term best applied to God is “good.”

When you say He is “amoral” I have been thinking you are saying he is neither good nor bad. But in truth, He is good, infinitely and perfectly so. The word “amoral” does not adequately describe Him.


Boom “YES, Karla...A-MORAL. A being who doesn't have or follow "morals" is AMORAL. Please concede your error. “

He does not follow an external moral standard, but He does have goodness that is the standard, His own nature. Hence “amoral” isn’t applicable, I would even say morality is a human construct. God isn’t looking for moral people, He is looking for righteous people and we become righteous by His own life given to us by grace through faith. Righteousness is a higher state of being than “moral”.


"He isn’t neither good nor bad.." ~ Karla

Boom “WhAT!?!?.."isn't neither"?? “

Sorry that was a mistake. Not sure what I was saying there.


Boom “YES! Slavery, killing, stoning, slaughtering, smiting, destroying, sending plagues!!!!..."Anything"!!!!..it's "good" if "God" says so!”

Yes because all that He does comes out of His good nature. We have already agreed that a good King would do something in response to evil in his kingdom – that this would be just-- and yet when God does you object.

Karla said...

Boom “Firstly, if "good" is a "being", in this case, "God", then STOP using "parent/child" analogies, since a "parent" cannot be the concept of "good", itself.”

Well, if they are in Christ than Christ is living inside them and they can very well do something out of the goodness of God. Or if they are not in Christ they can follow the goodness of God by externally adhering their actions to what is good. The former is better, but regardless the example still serves.


Boom “Secondly, saying that "God" is "relational" doesn't overcome the glaring fact that what "God" commands is time-relative(as you FULLY CONCEDE). How "God" handles a problem with one of its "children" is CONTINGENT upon the time..i.e..how WE----scratch that----how *some* of us, have progessed.”

It’s not time relative, but people relational. He does what is good in each and every situation because He can do nothing outside of His own good nature. I do not understand why this is so foreign and idea. I can understand why you don’t believe it, but if it is true that God exist and is good than it is very logical that a good God does good things and in a Good God doing whatever He wants, whatever He wants would be as good as He is which is infinitely so. You can use examples to say He isn’t good all you want, but if He were would not what I am saying make sense. That good begets good?




Boom “Please explain, for my benefit, how someone should feel better about being "tormented", as opposed to being "tortured"? The "torment" is not going to stop, right? Right, so how is that not "torture"??? “

We aren’t supposed to want that life, why would we want such a thing? It’s not about feeling better about it, certainly no one should.


Boom “a) Are you saying that an all-powerful, all-knowing being cannot think of a more humane way to "torment" people?”

He isn’t tormenting anyone. Our own life leads us to the place of eternal separation from Him, and that place isn’t lovely, it is horrid, for it is a place not designed for us to inhabit. It isn’t a place God sends us, it’s a place our nature ties us to if we continue outside of relationship with the only one that can give us the righteous life that sets us free from such an eternal bondage.


Boom “b) What if "not being in God" is the result of never having experienced "God", and/or, not being able to honestly believe on "faith"(which, BTW, "faith" comes from "God", according to you)????? “

Only God can know the heart and do what is good for that person accordingly. I trust He will do the right thing for them whatever that may be.



We are talking about the Christian God, so it would make sense to accept the definition Christians commonly employ for omnipotent and to understand we never mean that God is capable of doing something less than good.

boomSLANG said...

a•mor•al –adjective

1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person."


"This would not describe God. He is not unaware of right and wrong, He is the righteousness Himself. I would say the term 'moral' is more human than divine. The term best applied to God is 'good'." ~ Karla's provided definition

You are still contradicting yourself, not that this is entirely shocking.

See the part in the definition where it says, "neither moral, nor immoral"???

Again, if "God" doesn't adhere to an external standard of "morals", then "God" HAS no "morals", thus, "God" follows no "morals", thus, "God" is amoral.

That you now say "morality" is more of a human concept and throw in, "God is good", for the bazillionth time, this does NOT overcome the dilemma of, is what is "good" part of "God's nature" because it's "good"? Or is it "good" because it is part of "God's nature"?

But guess what, Karla? I'm simply not going to keep this up. So, I'll now approach it another way:

WhAT "God"????

whERE?!?!?!

wHO?!?!?!

I don't see any "God" doing anything; commanding anything; punishing anyone; making laws; enforing laws; abolishing laws. NOTHING---zip; zero; nadda.

Thus, I have no evidence that what you're telling me about "God" is accurate. All I see is you and other Xians insisting that "God is good", "God is always Himself", yada, yada, which is merely opinion, until I can see this for myself.

Until then, all I have to go on, is, a) the opinions of you and other Xians, and b) your holy book, "the bible".

Xians? I don't believe your opinions; I don't take your word for it(and shouldn't).

Next...

When I read the bible myself, I don't see a "God" that is "good"---in fact, I see the exact opposite.

***Note, until you offer some objective confirmation that your biblegod exists and is the standard of "good", "Himself", I'm measuring his actions in the bible against what our society deems "good"(or not "good").

We, including you, Karla, know that picking up rocks or stones and chucking them at other human beings is NOT "good"---EVER. Not now, not then, not EVER. We, including you, Karla, know that letting wild animals MAUL children is not EVER a "good" punishment. It doesn't matter if kids make fun of a bald man, or if they steal a car---it's NEVER "good" to allow or command wild, potentially DEADLY animals to maul children for "punishment", and you know it!!

Thus, for you to sit there and say things like...

"only God can decide if those things are not good"

and....

"He is good so even if a particular act of His is mysterious to me, it does not give me a right to judge my Creator."

...is blatant evasion of the issue. Again, you fool no one.

Moreover, you have affirmed over, and over, and over again that what your biblegod deems as "good" is time-relative.

In other words, even if you suggest that before "the resurrection", people's "condition" was somehow worse, and therefore, when kids got STONED to a pulp back then, that it was "good", you have conceded recently that we "ought not" do that NOW, which, AGAIN, says "good" is a relative thing; NOT an "Absolute" thing.

As far as I'm concerned, you've lost this argument.

boomSLANG said...

Me,previously: “YES! Slavery, killing, stoning, slaughtering, smiting, destroying, sending plagues!!!!...'Anything'!!!!..it's 'good' if 'God' says so!”

Karla confirms..."Yes because all that He does comes out of His good nature."

And this is precisely why people who harbor the beliefs that you do are a danger to humankind.

That's right, folks---"God", because of his "good nature", could decide to send a plague to kill all non-christians, today, right here in America, and Karla and her flock would celebrate, rejoice, and feel "blessed" that their all-loving has implimented his "Perfect Justice"!

Simply sickening, and that you people are breeding and brainwashing future generations with your religious dogma, makes my skin crawl.

Karla: "We have already agreed that a good King would do something in response to evil in his kingdom – that this would be just-- and yet when God does you object."

No, actually, I haven't agreed to any such analogy, as it does NOT correlate to "God".

Right off the bat, a "King" might not be able to stop or prevent "evil". "God" presumably can, but does not.

Therefore, your analogy is severely lacking(per usual).

Therefore, since "God" can presumably stop or prevent "evil", but will not, this "King" is not worthy of my worship; your beliefs not worthy of my respect.

BTW, when I previously pointed out that "God" can limit our actions *without* limiting our "free will", you had nothing to say about it. Why not?

Karla: "Well, if they are in Christ than Christ is living inside them and they can very well do something out of the goodness of God. Or if they are not in Christ they can follow the goodness of God by externally adhering their actions to what is good."[emphasis added]

Thank you! There may be a glimmer of hope. Parents "not in Christ"..i.e..non-christians, can be "good"...which, in a lot of ways, contradicts what you've been saying all along.

In any event, we don't need to "be in Christ" to be "good". It's on the record.

AS a reminder, I won't be giving any counter-arguments on this subject for the reasons I mentioned.

Previously, me: “Secondly, saying that 'God' is 'relational' doesn't overcome the glaring fact that what 'God' commands is time-relative(as you FULLY CONCEDE). How 'God' handles a problem with one of its 'children' is CONTINGENT upon the time..i.e..how WE----scratch that----how *some* of us, have progessed.”

Karla insists...."It’s not time relative..."

Yes it is. Shall I dig back through the comments where you stated that since "the condition of man has changed", that what might have been "good" for punishment before then, might not be applicable for punishment now????? You have made it abundantly clear that man changes with the times(or since a certain "time"), and thus, the only logical conclusion is that the idea of "good" changes right along with it. Remember, you said we "ought not" STONE defiant teens today, despite that that practice was "good" at one time.

continues..."He does what is good in each and every situation because He can do nothing outside of His own good nature. I do not understand why this is so foreign and idea."[bold added]

Because if this "God" has its "own", specific "nature", it still hasn't been established that this a type of "good" that is actually benefical to me or the rest of humanity. For all I know, its idea of "good" is harmful. Jim Jones' followers believed his actions/laws/commands were "good", and look where that got them.

IOW, I'm not taking your "word for it".

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: "Are you saying that an all-powerful, all-knowing being cannot think of a more humane way to 'torment' people?"

Karla responds..."He isn’t tormenting anyone."

Okay, if you insist on wasting time by resorting to word-play, I'll ask the question another way:

Are you saying that an all-powerful, all-knowing being cannot think of a more humane way to implement what it and its followers call "justice"?

continues...."Our own life leads us to the place of eternal separation from Him, and that place isn’t lovely, it is horrid, for it is a place not designed for us to inhabit."

Yes, our "own life", which of course, does not necessarily mean our actions or intentions, but what we believe/don't believe.

continues...."['Hell'] isn’t a place God sends us, it’s a place our nature ties us to if we continue outside of relationship with the only one that can give us the righteous life that sets us free from such an eternal bondage."

And for possibly the hundreth time---I cannot have a "relationship" with whom I do not believe exists. Thus, simply repeating what needs to happen to avoid "Hell" - or if you prefer to soften the blow - repeating what needs to happen in order to avoid being "separated from God", is utterly meaningless to the unconvinced.

continues..."Only God can know the heart..."

If "God" knows my "heart", then said "God" knows what would convince me of its existence. Thus, the ball is in its own court, as far as I'm concerned. If "God" hates being "tested" worse than seeing its creation go to "Hell", then there's not much I can do about that.

continues..."...and ['God' can] do what is good for that person accordingly."

I'm not following you. If I end up in "Hell", is that "good" or "bad"? I look forward to your one-word answer..i.e.. "good" or "bad".

continues..."I trust He will do the right thing for them whatever that may be."

Yes, "God" has so many options.

Are you kidding me? Karla, let's remember we're talking the Xian philosophy here, where everything is black and white...i.e.."heaven"/"hell"; "saints"/"sinners"; "saved"/"unsaved"; "Christians"/"nonchristians".

IOW, things like individuality and intentions mean jack-squat to "God". We've been over this myriad times. If I die an Atheist, I get "Hell". Whether I really, honestly sought "God" is immaterial to "God. Whether I wanted to believe, the same.

Karla: "We are talking about the Christian God, so it would make sense to accept the definition Christians commonly employ for omnipotent...."

It would make "sense" to you. Just like it makes "sense" to you and your Xian readership that "omnipresence" makes "omnipotence" and "omniscience" compatible, because, as the apologetic goes, "God" is not bound by "space" and "time"(i.e..is "transcendent"). Yet, if we stick to the colloquial definition of "omnipresent", that is, being in ALL places at ALL times, then "God" is *always* present in both space and time, and thus, cannot be a "transcendent" being(unless of course, if you have your own custom definition of that word, too)

Karla said...

Boom “Are you saying that an all-powerful, all-knowing being cannot think of a more humane way to implement what it and its followers call "justice"?”

The preservation of human life is not the standard of goodness. God is. It’s not about finding a way that doesn’t hurt a human. Sin causes pain, destruction, and death. Even without God sovereignly bringing justice the natural progression of sin brings about pain, destruction, and death. God bringing about justice before the natural progression runs its course is actually bringing mercy at the same time. For His justice is always equally merciful and His mercy is equally just. The two are never separate.


Boom “Yes, our "own life", which of course, does not necessarily mean our actions or intentions, but what we believe/don't believe.”

No not what we believe or don’t believe, but who we are or who we are not.

Karla said...

Boom “And for possibly the hundreth time---I cannot have a "relationship" with whom I do not believe exists. Thus, simply repeating what needs to happen to avoid "Hell" - or if you prefer to soften the blow - repeating what needs to happen in order to avoid being "separated from God", is utterly meaningless to the unconvinced.”

I understand that. This is why there is evangelism. This why God calls us to show others His love and to demonstrate His power and the reality of Him and His Kingdom. This is why He Himself pursues people. Lots of things are happening all the time that you won’t be able to see until you are in Him that are at work to help you get to that place.



Boom “If "God" knows my "heart", then said "God" knows what would convince me of its existence. Thus, the ball is in its own court, as far as I'm concerned. If "God" hates being "tested" worse than seeing its creation go to "Hell", then there's not much I can do about that.”

If you remember I did not agree with CL’s statements about “testing God.”



Boom “I'm not following you. If I end up in "Hell", is that "good" or "bad"? I look forward to your one-word answer..i.e.. "good" or "bad".”

It is not the good place for us. It is not our home; it is not our intended destination. It is not pleasant, it is torment. It is not where God wants us, but He allows us to have our own will and for that will out outweigh His will for us. Which is why a person’s will never coming into the good alignment with God will lead them further and further away from him until hell is the result.



Boom “Are you kidding me? Karla, let's remember we're talking the Xian philosophy here, where everything is black and white...i.e.."heaven"/"hell"; "saints"/"sinners"; "saved"/"unsaved"; "Christians"/"nonchristians".”

It’s not so black and white as many Christians would have people believe. I used to think that way. But it really isn’t black and white. Like I have said, God is relational and He isn’t abiding by some outside formula when dealing with people. He responds relationally. And each person is a different person in a different place in life. God doesn’t fit in a box and neither do we. Each of us is unique and each of us is someone He is pursuing with His love.


Boom “IOW, things like individuality and intentions mean jack-squat to "God". We've been over this myriad times. If I die an Atheist, I get "Hell". Whether I really, honestly sought "God" is immaterial to "God. Whether I wanted to believe, the same. “


Your seeking God and wanting to know Him does matter a great deal and that is a path that leads to finding Him and knowing Him. I do believe you that if you could only see that God exists, and not just any God, but a God that is good in mercy and justice and a God who truly loves you undeniably that you would walk right into life with Him. There’s time. I’m not an advocate of telling people they are not promised tomorrow and scare them into coming to Jesus.

Karla said...

Boom “ Again, if "God" doesn't adhere to an external standard of "morals", then "God" HAS no "morals", thus, "God" follows no "morals", thus, "God" is amoral. “

Please tell me this. If you say that God has to be amoral – does that rule out in your mind that He could be good? Are “amoral” and “good” incompatible terms?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "It’s not about finding a way that doesn’t hurt a human. Sin causes pain..."

So, "It's not about finding a way that doesn't hurt a human." 'Got it.

So then, who cares if "Sin causes pain", since what hurts or is bad for humans doesn't matter/is not relevant?

Previously, me: “Yes, our 'own life', which of course, does not necessarily mean our actions or intentions, but what we believe/don't believe.”

Karla responds...."No not what we believe or don’t believe, but who we are or who we are not."

Right, and regarding who I am, or who I am not---if I >> AM NOT << a person WHO is a "Christian" at the time of my death, I get "Hell".

Again, logic says that I cannot become a "Christian" if I don't believe "Christianity" is true. So, despite your habitual equivocation on this matter, you've resolved nothing.

Previously, me: “And for possibly the hundreth time---I cannot have a relationship' with whom I do not believe exists. Thus, simply repeating what needs to happen to avoid 'Hell' - or if you prefer to soften the blow - repeating what needs to happen in order to avoid being 'separated from God', is utterly meaningless to the unconvinced.”

Karla responds..."I understand that. This is why there is evangelism. This why God calls us to show others His love and to demonstrate His power and the reality of Him and His Kingdom."

And yet, your evangelizing convinces no one but the already-convinced. In fact, if I'm convinced of anything at all, it's that if a Supreme Intelligence actually existed, it would most certainly not leave it up to people such as yourself to convince others.

continues..."This is why He Himself pursues people."

But goes into hiding. Another in the long line of utterly nonsensical propositions.

continues..."Lots of things are happening all the time that you won’t be able to see until you are in Him that are at work to help you get to that place."

How convenient. Until I'm "in Him", I cannot see that I'm able to be "in Him".

It doesn't get much more circular than that, does it?(rhetorically asked).

Previously, me: “I'm not following you. If I end up in 'Hell', is that 'good' or 'bad'? I look forward to your one-word answer..i.e.. 'good' or 'bad'.”

Karla responds...."It is not the good place for us."

and...

"It is not our home; it is not our intended destination."

and...

"It is not pleasant, it is torment."

and...

"It is not where God wants us, but He allows us to have our own will and for that will out outweigh His will for us."

and...

"Which is why a person’s will never coming into the good alignment with God will lead them further and further away from him until hell is the result."

Here's the question again: If I end up in "Hell", is that "good", or "bad"? (hint: it's multiple choice)

Previously, me: “Karla, let's remember we're talking the Xian philosophy here, where everything is black and white...i.e..'heaven'/'hell'; 'saints'/'sinners'; 'saved'/'unsaved'; 'Christians'/'nonchristians'.”

Karla responds..."It’s not so black and white as many Christians would have people believe."

Excuse me? YOU have me believing this, especially when you've conceded in the past that there is NO "middle ground" when it comes to "Heaven"/"Hell". Shall I dig back through the other threads to quote you? I asked you a very specific, pointed question on this very subject, and you gave a definitive "no"--there is no "middle ground".

boomSLANG said...

Karla...."Like I have said, God is relational and He isn’t abiding by some outside formula when dealing with people. He responds relationally. And each person is a different person in a different place in life. God doesn’t fit in a box and neither do we. Each of us is unique and each of us is someone He is pursuing with His love."

All of that is irrelevant, since, like I have said---only one thing matters: Whether or not I DIE a "Christian".

If one of my deepest, most sincere intentions was to believe in "God", but I ultimately was unable to honestly believe, Mr. "relational" does not care---I STILL get "Hell". Whereas, someone who out-and-out rejects "God", and/or, who has made a deal with "the Devil", gets a sentence that's no worse than mine.

I'm sorry, but that is a complete mockery of "Just".

Karla..."There’s time. I’m not an advocate of telling people they are not promised tomorrow and scare them into coming to Jesus."

The family belief-system you've been indoctrinated with, by its very nature, uses scare tactics. Hence, why constituents of yours going around saying things like the day is coming that I "will believe".

Previously, me: “Again, if 'God' doesn't adhere to an external standard of 'morals', then 'God' HAS no 'morals', thus, 'God' follows no 'morals', thus, 'God' is amoral.”

Karla responds..."Please tell me this. If you say that God has to be amoral.."

I didn't say "God has to be" anything. Again, I don't see any evidence for this "God", and thus, I am going on what you and your bible have to say on the matter, therefore, if your rendering is "true", it is *then* that "God" is amoral.

continues..."does that rule out in your mind that ['God'] could be good?"

Charles Manson is ill. He is an amoral creature, as opposed to an immoral person, the difference being, the latter knows when they act in opposition to "good"; the former does not(and doesn't care)

Healthy-minded, sane people can say what Charles Manson does is "good"/"not good", but that is because healthy-minded, sane people have a standard of "good" that is derived from the concept of the avoidance of unnecessary harm to ourselves, and others.

If, hypothetically, Charles Manson's lawyers were to argue that their client says he's the very definition of "good", itself, or that he is "good" by nature, we, as healthy-minded, sane people, would laugh those men right out of the courtroom. They'd be unemployed. You, Karla, would be right there with the rest of us. Yet, interestingly, sanity and healthy-mindedness go out the window when it comes to "Yahweh". You are not consistant in your beliefs.

Karla said...

Karla: "It’s not about finding a way that doesn’t hurt a human. Sin causes pain..."

Boom “So, "It's not about finding a way that doesn't hurt a human." 'Got it. “

Boom “So then, who cares if "Sin causes pain", since what hurts or is bad for humans doesn't matter/is not relevant? “

I did not say it didn’t matter or was not relevant. The good is the same as the right. It is good for a person to feel pain if they touch a hot stove so that they stop doing it and therefore stop the path of destruction. If there was no pain the person would severely burn their hand because they would not remove it. There would be no warning of danger. Pain is a warning. But to not heed the warning will lead to the result that one was being warned about. Not taking one’s hand off of the hot stove is not good, but that does not change the impending results of not doing so.


Boom “Again, logic says that I cannot become a "Christian" if I don't believe "Christianity" is true. So, despite your habitual equivocation on this matter, you've resolved nothing. “

Belief is a portion of it, yes, but not the whole of it. You can believe its all true all day long and not enter in to life with God.


Boom “How convenient. Until I'm "in Him", I cannot see that I'm able to be "in Him". “

That’s not what I said, I said when you are in Him you will be able to see His hand in leading you there through a myriad of different ways.


Boom “Here's the question again: If I end up in "Hell", is that "good", or "bad"? (hint: it's multiple choice)”

See here you make it black and white not me. I can’t just answer a or b without explanation. I stand by the answer I already gave.

Boom “Excuse me? YOU have me believing this, especially when you've conceded in the past that there is NO "middle ground" when it comes to "Heaven"/"Hell". Shall I dig back through the other threads to quote you? I asked you a very specific, pointed question on this very subject, and you gave a definitive "no"--there is no "middle ground".”

There is not a third location for eternity. That is not what I was referring to when I was talking about black and white.

Karla said...

All of that is irrelevant, since, like I have said---only one thing matters: Whether or not I DIE a "Christian".

Boom “If one of my deepest, most sincere intentions was to believe in "God", but I ultimately was unable to honestly believe, Mr. "relational" does not care---I STILL get "Hell". Whereas, someone who out-and-out rejects "God", and/or, who has made a deal with "the Devil", gets a sentence that's no worse than mine. “

I don’t think anyone is perpetually in a place of being unable to choose life in Christ. God has already done the work to make it possible for anyone to enter in to life with Him. I understand you feel that you are currently in a place where you are unable to believe, but that does not mean you will perpetually be thus.


Boom “The family belief-system you've been indoctrinated with, by its very nature, uses scare tactics. Hence, why constituents of yours going around saying things like the day is coming that I "will believe".”

I do not use them. It’s me your talking to, not someone else. And I do not approve of them being used.



Boom “Charles Manson is ill. He is an amoral creature, as opposed to an immoral person, the difference being, the latter knows when they act in opposition to "good"; the former does not(and doesn't care)”

Are you saying an amoral God would be ill?

Boom “Healthy-minded, sane people can say what Charles Manson does is "good"/"not good", but that is because healthy-minded, sane people have a standard of "good" that is derived from the concept of the avoidance of unnecessary harm to ourselves, and others. “

How do we determine what a health mind is? Are we who see things as good and other things as bad healthy because we are the majority? Who determines what is unnecessary harm? I assume we do. So who decides when we disagree? Where did these bad things come from? Why do we do what we know is bad?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I did not say it didn’t matter or was not relevant. The good is the same as the right. It is good for a person to feel pain if they touch a hot stove so that they stop doing it and therefore stop the path of destruction."

You are using an inapt analogy in an attempt to make a rhetorical point. No one denies a "stove" exists and is "hot". Moreover, if someone burns themselves on a hot stove, it is likely by accident, not because someone is holding their hand on it to punish them, although, I don't doubt that some twisted, despicable, mentally ill person or persons have done this.

continues..."If there was no pain the person would severely burn their hand because they would not remove it."

Once I feel the pain(and "torment") of "Hell", can I remove myself from it? No, of course not, hence, why I am not being unreasonable to call the unending, perpetual torment of human beings in "Hell" just what it is----torture. A "punishment" is remedial. "Hell" is not remedial.

Karla.."Belief is a portion of it, yes, but not the whole of it. You can believe its all true all day long and not enter in to life with God.

Yes, you've regurgitated this apologetic dozens and dozens of times, don't we know. The problem, each and every time, is that this apologetic IS IMMATERIAL to the unconvinced. Please---really, really try to grasp what I'm saying to you. Ready?

Karla, I CANNOT "enter in to life" with "Yahweh" any more that I can enter into life with Gumby, Santa, or the toothfairy. I lack belief in all of the above.

Karla: "That’s not what I said, I said when you are in Him you will be able to see His hand in leading you there through a myriad of different ways."

No, actually, here's what you said....

"Lots of things are happening all the time that you won’t be able to see until you are in Him that are at work to help you get to that place."[emphasis, mine] ~ Karla

Again, as stated, there are things "at work" that are supposedly there to "help" me to acheive belief, aka, "get to that place", aka, "be in Him", aka, be a "Christian", but according to you, I won't see those things "UNTIL"(capitalization, mine) I am "in Him"---to which I again say...how convenient.

Previously, me: "If I end up in 'Hell', is that 'good', or 'bad'?"

Karla responds..."See here you make it black and white not me. I can’t just answer a or b without explanation."

No, I don't want to make it "black and white". I want to know if you will second-guess your biblegod's final judgment, based on this....

"Only God can know the heart and do what is good for that person accordingly." ~ Karla

I simply want to know this: If your "God" thinks "Hell" is ultimately "good" for me, do you also think my going to "Hell" is "good"? Yes, or no? Notice, you don't have know, yourself, if I'm going to "Hell", in order to answer the question.

continues..."There is not a third location for eternity. That is not what I was referring to when I was talking about black and white."

Right, there are only two options(from an "omnipotent" being?), those being "heaven" and "hell", and what determines who, goes where, is based on who is "saved"/"unsaved"; "Christian"/"nonchristian"; "forgiven"/"not forgiven".

i.e..BLACK and WHITE.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: "If one of my deepest, most sincere intentions was to believe in 'God', but I ultimately was unable to honestly believe, Mr. 'relational' does not care---I STILL get 'Hell'. Whereas, someone who out-and-out rejects 'God', and/or, who has made a deal with 'the Devil', gets a sentence that's no worse than mine."

Karla responds...."I don’t think anyone is perpetually in a place of being unable to choose life in Christ."

- I never said ONE THING about not being able to "choose". The issue - the one that you keep circumventing(ignoring) - is that I cannot simply "choose" to believe that which I do NOT find believable in the first place!!!

- I notice that you didn't elaborate on the distinction between both of the examples of nonbelievers I provided. You insist your biblegod is "relational", so it seems odd that you'd ignore this point.

continues..."God has already done the work to make it possible for anyone to enter in to life with Him."

More equivocation. That "God" has made it possible for people to avoid eternal damnation is immaterial to the fact that people cannot will themselves to believe that which they don't find believeable in the first place.

Here, let me try this another way:

L. Ron Hubbard has made it possible for you to avoid being overtaken by Thetans, by providing a way out of this mess, and that way out is Dianetics. Grab your copy today, and you, too, can be in L. Ron Hubbard like me!!

Karla: "I understand you feel that you are currently in a place where you are unable to believe, but that does not mean you will perpetually be thus."

Unless biblegod gives me the evidence that it knows will convince of its existence, yes, I will perpetually be a nonbeliever/skeptic. Again, the ball is in its court, not mine.

Previously, me: “The family belief-system you've been indoctrinated with, by its very nature, uses scare tactics.”

Karla responds...."I do not use them. It’s me your talking to, not someone else. And I do not approve of them being used."

Yes, you and I are talking(and getting nowhere). Notwithstanding, whether I talk to you, or not, the Christian philosophy, itself, uses manipulation, guilt, intimidation..i.e..fear tactics.

So, unless you don't approve of the bible, there is no reason you shouldn't approve of Xians using scare-tactics. Remember, one of your constituents insists that "Jesus" talks about "Hell" more than anything else.

Karla: "Are you saying an amoral God would be ill?"

I'm saying an "amoral God" would not be worthy of my worship. If said "amoral God" commanded things that are consistent with people who we would classify as mentally ill - such as a person who kills pregnant women and says its "good" - then yes, I'm saying that said "God" would be ill.

Karla: "How do we determine what a health mind is?"

and...

"Are we who see things as good and other things as bad healthy because we are the majority?"

and...

"Who determines what is unnecessary harm?"

Why should I answer you? I've addressed these questions and those similar in the past. I've made it clear who determines "morality"(which I concede is not Absolute), and how and why it's determined the way it is. Yet, here you are asking the same questions again.

Karla said...

Boom "I simply want to know this: If your "God" thinks "Hell" is ultimately "good" for me, do you also think my going to "Hell" is "good"? Yes, or no? Notice, you don't have know, yourself, if I'm going to "Hell", in order to answer the question."

No. Hell is not God's will for any of us. It's not the good for us. He doesn't send us there either. It's a place we were never designed to go. His desire is that none of us perish. That is why the fall was not good. That is why sin is not good. That is why life without God is not good. Not good leads to more not good if there is no redemption to the good.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: "I simply want to know this: If your 'God' thinks 'Hell' is ultimately 'good' for me, do you also think my going to 'Hell' is 'good'? Yes, or no?"

Karla responds..."No"

Last week, Karla said: "I trust ['God'] will do the right thing for [nonbelievers] whatever that may be."

As we know, there are only two choices in Christianity's world: "Heaven" or "Hell".

Notwithstanding, you said that you trust "God" to do the "right thing", "whatever that might be", suggesting that if "God" says I am deserving of "Hell", then that *IS* the "RIGHT"[bold and capitalization added] place for me.

Interestingly, today you go on record to say, "No", it is not "good" if my final destination is "Hell".

This, to me, this suggests that if "God" says something is "right", it doesn't necessarily mean that said something is "good". Yet, if "God" is the very concept of "good", "Himself"(as you insist), and if "God can't be less than Himself[i.e..'good']"(as you also insist), then I want to know how you reconcile this glaring inconsistancy.

If "God" can't "be less than good", then on what grounds are you saying that it is NOT "good" that my final destination be "Hell", if that is in fact "God's Judgment"???? IOW, in order for you to be consistant in your beliefs, you would have to say it's "good" that I go to "Hell", because of how you define "good" and from where you claim "good" comes.

Karla said...

Boom, I knew you were going to go there. Please note where I said God isn't sending anyone to hell. It's our sin that takes us on that path, not God.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "Boom, I knew you were going to go there."

Yes, of course. Be it as it may, just because you knew I was going to show inconsistancy in your own statements doesn't mean that said statements are not inconsistant.

You could always retract one of the two statements---OR, you could go on defending your errors as you've done in the past. Sadly, by the looks of things, you've chosen the latter, as seen here...

"Please note where I said God isn't sending anyone to hell. It's our sin that takes us on that path, not God." ~ Karla.

Noted.

Now, you please note that that played-out, tired ol' apologetic is totally, 100% irrelevant. The issue right now is not how/why nonbelievers get to "Hell". The issue is how you and your biblegod feel about it, respectively, and you've made it crystal clear that what "God" says is "right" for me as a nonbeliever, is not necessarily "good" in your eyes, when you've previously said things like "God can't be less than Himself[i.e..'good']".

And in that case, I reiterate: It MUST be "good" that I'm going to "Hell".

boomSLANG said...

BTW, on the "Goodness of God Revisted Again" thread, Karla, you had this to say....

"He['God'] at all times is doing or saying the just and merciful thing."

But since you also say that you "trust" that "God" will "do the right thing for [nonbelievers] whatever that may be", if that happens to be a sentencing of eternal torment in "Hell", how do you arrive at that being both "just" and "merciful"?

How is "God" being "merciful" by giving out what seems like the worst possible sentencing imaginable, on this alleged "Judgment Day"???

Karla said...

Boom, I think I am going to get off the merry-go-round on this topic for a while.

I haven't anything to say on it that I haven't already said. This is not to say I have sufficiently answered your challenges, but I wish to put this on the shelf for a while and revisit it another time perhaps.

boomSLANG said...

To my understanding, the so-called merry-go-round came to a screeching halt yesterday, when it became clear to me, and probably anyone else following along, that what you claim "God" says is "good" for us - specifically, nonbelievers such as myself - is not necessarily "good" from your POV, which finally illustrates what I've said all along:

The concept of "good" is not located in, nor defined by, "God". It is external, relative, and we determine it.

If you feel exhausted by it all, I can sympathize. After all, it's taken weeks just to get to this turning-point in the discussion.

Karla said...

I never said anything wasn't good from my point of view. I said God didn't see hell as the good place for us, it was never intended to be our home. It's not His will for us, and He doesn't send us there, our sin that separates us from Him does that.

boomSLANG said...

...::sigh::

Still defending your errors, I see.

Okay, regarding how "God" deals with the different types of nonbelievers, Karla, you had this to say....

"Only God can know the heart and do what is good for that person accordingly. ~ Karla

and this...

"I trust ['God'] will do the right thing for them whatever that may be. ~ Karla

In summation, when it comes to my final sentencing, you have made it crystal clear that "God" is going to do what's "good" for me.

So, since we know that there are only two alternatives...e.g..1) "Heaven" and, 2) "Hell", and since we know that nonbelievers are sentenced to the latter, then we can conclude that my being in "Hell" is "good". We can conclude this because of the above-quoted statement, and *also* because you've previously said(on more than one occasion)....

"God is the good" ~ Karla

and...

"God can't be less than Himself". ~ Karla

So, regarding my and countless million's being in "Hell", this is a "good" thing, based on your own statements that set out to describe where "good" comes from..i.e.."God".

Yet, when asked if my being in "Hell" is "good", you said, "No", it's *not* "good".

Karla, the inconsistancy in your words is glaring, and that you have decided to keep defending your errors speaks volumes.

BTW, that you keep expressing that nonbelievers "send" themselves to "Hell" is a red herring.

Karla, nonbelievers don't hand down their own sentencing on this alleged day of "Judgement"; your biblegod does. Your biblegod sentences people to "Hell", and "Hell" is a "good" thing, according to your description/definition of "God".

All of the damning statements are herein for anyone's review.

Karla said...

1. God is good
2. Man was created good because man was created in relationship with He who is good
3. Man was created with freedom
4. Man used freedom to go against God thereby separating Himself from God
5. That sin inside man does something to change the spiritual and physical condition of the good man to a fallen sinful man bent on the path of death and eternal separation from God
6. God set a plan in motion to rescue man from his plight
7. God’s plan is for man to experience the goodness of God for eternity by being united with God in relationship and to experience all the grandeur of that goodness
8. Hell was a place created for the demons and Satan to be held up in when the day comes that they are forever banned from the earth
9. Man’s sin placed them in the same path as the dark spiritual forces who are separated from God
10. Thus man is already by his own sin headed for a path of eternal separation which is eternal languishing in a not good abode for God’s goodness does NOT inhabit this place of hell
11. Thus Hell is not a place of goodness because God is the one who is Good and He is not dwelling there
12. It is the goodness of God that provided His own Son to pay that penalty for sin and to break the hold of hell over us
13. We can enter that place of redemption through Jesus and only through Jesus for He alone is the source of this eternal good life
14. Therefore God’s goodness is where it is good to be and Hell is not that place
15. God does not send us there, He rescues us from there through Jesus
16. We are left with the opportunity to join Jesus (which He helps us do) or to go our own way
17. Yes one needs to see that Jesus is there to begin a relationship with Him
18. He is continually wooing us and showing us the reality of His love for us
19. He does this directly, and through the world around us, and He does it through others who are already in Him who show by example, testimony, love, and power that He is truly there and loving us

Karla said...

BTW, that was my closing thoughts on this for now.

boomSLANG said...

Aah, yes, of course.

In other words, being a person who is already convinced that what you are proposing is "True", you saw fit to simply (re)state your premise "true" right in your argument..i.e..your "rebuttal".

My goodness, I don't know whether to laugh, or cry. But I know this much, Karla....

You fool no one.