Tuesday, April 27, 2010

The Absolute Eternal Nature of God

God is absolute rather than relative. It is us who are relative to Him. He is the Subject, and we the object. God relates to man according to man’s relation to God. God’s action may be different in relation to one man versus another man, for it is men that vary and God that is stationary. God is constant, but we are not. Thus God responds consistently as Himself, but we being relative to Him are responded to according to our positional relation to Him.


Men change, God does not. Therefore if God still responded to man like man was yesterday, then God would be operating according to the past rather than the present. However, God is always the eternal now, having no past and no future. He doesn’t exist in time, but is the Creator of time. His existence is outside of time, distinct from time, separate and above that which is created. He only enters into time by choice, but does not have His habitation within time. This is why man being united with God has a new eternal home for our nature rises to have relationship with Him because He has already descended so that we may ascend. God doesn’t come and join us in time, but has us join Him in eternity releasing us from the bounds of time. This is why Jesus went to prepare a place for us in heaven for us to have our being in His Being in His home which is now also ours.


We were born eternal and were subjected to temporal existence when we fell from our relation to God. Peter Kreeft writes, “Being became a being, the Subject became an object, God became a man, I AM became He” expressly to release us from our fallen existence to a place of being sons and daughters of God.


Kreeft writes, “Jesus was not God represented, but God presented, God made maximally present, God known by sight and even touch as well as by faith. Heaven had come to earth. It was not a new concept of heaven but a new presence of Heaven.” Moreover he explains, “In all His encounters, He becomes in time what He is eternally.”


God does not manifest in time differently than He really is. He is always Himself weather as the Father or as the Son. He enters time to reveal Himself to us, for we could not know Him unless He manifested His identity in a way we can know. He has done this in creation, in the Incarnation, in the revelation of Scripture, and He does this forevermore through Christ.


Christ, now having habitation in us since we are lifted up to also be in Him, reflects through us to the world. We become the agents of His body manifesting His heavenly reality, where we have our being, to this earth where we live as foreigners. The cross is both horizontal and vertical. It bridges heaven and earth, but also distributes heaven to earth making the latter reflect the true glory of the former.

15 comments:

boomSLANG said...

As I've said before, relocating fallacious arguments doesn't correct them.

For example, Karla, you just contradicted yourself with the following....

"Men change, God does not. Therefore if God still responded to man like man was yesterday, then God would be operating according to the past rather than the present."[bold, mine]

In order for "God" to not operate(take certain actions) "according to the past", "God" must therefore operate "according to the future". You've just made that crystal clear. However, that requires change on the part of "God", or else "God" is stuck operating according to the past.

If the "condition of man"(as you call it) has changed(as you say it has), then the laws/commands that once applied to man *before* his "condition" presumably changed, no longer apply. IOW, what was seen as "good" for man *before* he changed, might not apply any longer. For instance, it was once the "moral" and "good" thing to do to stone defiant teenagers as punishment, according to christian theology..i.e.."the Word of God".

If the "Word of God" hasn't changed/doesn't change, then perhaps someone can tell me why we don't see any people stoning their children today, in the year 2010. For the record, I won't accept "it's just coincidence".

Moreover, certainly, every sane, intelligent adult who has raised children into adults, knows that, when it came to parenting, they didn't apply the same type of parental discipline to their 18 yr-old son or daughter as they did when said son or daughter was a pre-teen, child, toddler, or infant. That is just common sense. The parent(the authority figure) *must* take into consideration that their offspring evolves from infant, to toddler, to child, to teen, to adult. Thus, the same "commands"/"laws" certainly cannot apply at all times; at all stages of human development, thus, they change.

While throughout the course of this development(evolution), each level of discipline might be based on what is "good" for the subject, that "good" is based on the avoidance of harm and seeing to it that said subject survives.

"He['God'] doesn’t exist in time, but is the Creator of time." ~ Karla

You have your choice: Either "God" does not exist in time and is therefore not "omnipresent", or "God" is "omnipresent", and therefore, must exist "in time", since the definition of "omnipresent" is, existing in ALL places at ALL times.

Or, there's a third option(the most convenient), and that is to make up your own definition of "omnipresent".

BTW, to comtemplate; to decide; to design; to create, are all temporal activities--they require "time". Thus, the proposition that a being(to "be" requires time, too) "created time" is utterly nonsensical.

Karla said...

Boom “In order for "God" to not operate(take certain actions) "according to the past", "God" must therefore operate "according to the future". You've just made that crystal clear. However, that requires change on the part of "God", or else "God" is stuck operating according to the past.”

He operates according to the present—the now.


Boom “If the "condition of man"(as you call it) has changed(as you say it has), then the laws/commands that once applied to man *before* his "condition" presumably changed, no longer apply.”


The laws were fulfilled in Jesus. Life with Jesus is not about laws, but about love. Laws were to bring us to see the need for Christ to change our nature, because we are incapable of doing all the right things.


Boom “ IOW, what was seen as "good" for man *before* he changed, might not apply any longer. For instance, it was once the "moral" and "good" thing to do to stone defiant teenagers as punishment, according to christian theology..i.e.."the Word of God".”

God is the absolute, not any law. The answer to the moral problem is neither legalism nor relativism, but Christ. God is looking for us to have a changed nature, not to conform to an external set of right behaviors. However, most of the time you will hear Christians making it all about conforming to rules of behavior. I used to think that way, but I don’t anymore. I cannot point to an absolute list of moral behaviors that are universal—I can only point to a good being who is the only example and essence of Good.


Boom “If the "Word of God" hasn't changed/doesn't change, then perhaps someone can tell me why we don't see any people stoning their children today, in the year 2010. For the record, I won't accept "it's just coincidence".

I don’t think you are following me. The old covenant laws, (the laws of Moses) are not applicable now because of the change that was brought by Christ coming into the world. The laws and sacrifices were a shadow of what was to come, but were not the end in themselves.



Boom “Moreover, certainly, every sane, intelligent adult who has raised children into adults, knows that, when it came to parenting, they didn't apply the same type of parental discipline to their 18 yr-old son or daughter as they did when said son or daughter was a pre-teen, child, toddler, or infant. That is just common sense. The parent(the authority figure) *must* take into consideration that their offspring evolves from infant, to toddler, to child, to teen, to adult. Thus, the same "commands"/"laws" certainly cannot apply at all times; at all stages of human development, thus, they change. “

I agree. God always does the good thing for the NOW situation. He doesn’t rule according to yesterday or tomorrow, but according to NOW.

Karla said...

Boom “While throughout the course of this development(evolution), each level of discipline might be based on what is "good" for the subject, that "good" is based on the avoidance of harm and seeing to it that said subject survives.”


Yes, God responds to John as is good for John and to Lucy as is good for Lucy and to Bernard as is good for Bernard. He responds with perfect mercy and justice to each person. But the “good” standard is not a law of “no harm and the survival of the subject” but according to what really is the merciful and just thing for the particular person or people. Sometimes allowing someone to experience the consequences of their sin (which causes pain to them) can be better for the person than extracting them from the consequences. Sometimes for another person whose heart is in a different posture extracting them from their consequences is better for them than having them go through the pain which could harden their heart. God knows the heart and knows what is best for each person and He cares what is best for them. But He also allows them to refuse His efforts and have their own way as He does not force Himself on anyone.




Boom “You have your choice: Either "God" does not exist in time and is therefore not "omnipresent", or "God" is "omnipresent", and therefore, must exist "in time", since the definition of "omnipresent" is, existing in ALL places at ALL times.”

Omnipresent = He is always present eternally. He enters time, but He does not abide in time.



(BTW, it will probably be Monday before I respond again.)


Boom “BTW, to comtemplate; to decide; to design; to create, are all temporal activities--they require "time". Thus, the proposition that a being(to "be" requires time, too) "created time" is utterly nonsensical. “

He had no Beginning, but He did create a beginning of time when he created the universe.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "['God'] operates according to the present—the now."

Yes, and hopefully you'd agree that "the present" is one point in time(i.e..now), while the past is another point in time that has come and gone.

If you agree, then my position is underscored, illustrating the inescapable:

What "God" says is "good" is time-relative. When you try to circumvent this inescapable fact with irrelevant apologetics such as....

"The laws were fulfilled in Jesus." ~ Karla

....my point is underscored further, in that, if laws/commands that were previously "good" have been "fulfilled", then said laws/commands no longer apply, in which case, said laws/commands are NOT "Absolute"---they do not apply in "the now", and thus, they are not useful in perpetutity.

Please stop defending your errors--it makes you look dishonest, and it makes me want to scream.

Previously, me: “ IOW, what was seen as 'good' for man *before* he changed, might not apply any longer. For instance, it was once the 'moral' and 'good' thing to do to stone defiant teenagers as punishment, according to christian theology..i.e..'Word of God'.”

Karla attempts...."God is the absolute, not any law."

In Christendom, "God"[biblegod] MAKES the laws, and presumably penned the "commandments", himself. You can insist "God that is Absolute" all you want, but the "morality" that you and your Christian constituents insist is based on the Christian worldview, is NOT "Absolute", as shown in the above example(that you previously ignored).

continues..."The answer to the moral problem is neither legalism nor relativism, but Christ."

Forgive me---what exactly does that "answer"? BTW, are you conceding there's a "moral problem"? What "problem"? The difference between "right" and "wrong" is something that you get from "Christ"/"Christianity", right? Yes, I believe so. And if so---if your biblegod decides the difference between "right" and "wrong"---then that difference is completely arbitrary if said "God" rules >> independently << of any external "morality".

Karla: "God is looking for us to have a changed nature, not to conform to an external set of right behaviors."

Begging the question(that's a logical fallacy in case you "forgot").

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "However, most of the time you will hear Christians making it all about conforming to rules of behavior."

Actually, I hear "Christians" claiming to "follow Christ" as their "moral" guide. 'Funny thing---each Christian I encounter claims to be guided by this supposed "Holy Spirit", yet, evidentally, the "Holy Spirit" tells them completely different things about what is "moral"! Ain't that somethin'?

continues..."I cannot point to an absolute list of moral behaviors that are universal.."

Oh, really? That's interesting. So what's the distinction between the difference between "right" and "wrong" coming from an "absolute list", or an "absolute being"? If the difference between "right" and "wrong" is "absolute"(unchanging, as in NOT time-relative), then an "absolute being" is no different than refering to a list, if said being presumably does NOT change.

It seems to me that if the difference between "right" and "wrong" came from a "being" who is "absolute"; a being who supposedly never changes, then said being could put down on a list what is "moral" and what isn't, since said being supposedly NEVER changes, itself.

Karla: "now, I maintain that there I can only point to a good being who is the only example and essence of Good."

Maintain it all you'd like. I've grown accustomed to you standing by your errors.

Here's what's happening now---you contradict yourself when/if, on the one hand, you maintain that there is no absolute mandate(list) of moral behaviors that tell us "right" from "wrong", while on the other hand you maintain that there is an "absolute", universal "good" that comes from, or is, a "God". Inconsistant.

continues defending...."I don’t think you are following me. The old covenant laws, (the laws of Moses) are not applicable now because of the change that was brought by Christ coming into the world. The laws and sacrifices were a shadow of what was to come, but were not the end in themselves."

I don't think you are following me, and personally, I don't think you want to follow me.

Karla, "Christ coming into the world" is an entirely useless, irrelevant apologetic. Why? Because TODAY'S "Christians" STILL maintain that "morality"..i.e...the difference between "right" and "wrong", COMES FROM the Christian worldview.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I agree. God always does the good thing for the NOW situation. He doesn’t rule according to yesterday or tomorrow, but according to NOW."

And guess what, Karla? "NOW" is NOT STATIC!!!!!!! IOW, "NOW" changes as time changes(goes forward), and therefore, there cannnot be an "Absolute" standard of "good"; there cannot be a standard that doesn't change. It MUST change!

continues...."God responds to John as is good for John and to Lucy as is good for Lucy and to Bernard as is good for Bernard."

Yes, yes!.....and "God" responds to Elisha "as is good for Elisha".

For instance, like the time when said (fictional) biblical character encountered some children who made fun of him for being "bald", "God", being his "bad-ass", perfectly "good" self, did what was "good" for Elisha by having two "she-bears" rip the children to shreds! If that's "good", who needs enemies!!?!

continues...."[biblegod] responds with perfect mercy and justice to each person. But the 'good' standard is not a law of 'no harm and the survival of the subject' but according to what really is the merciful and just thing for the particular person or people."

And once more, if this "God" - WHATEVER said "God" does/commands/orders - is perfectly and equally "good", "just" and "merciful"(as you've gone on record to assert), then NOTHING prevents said "God" from waking up one day and deciding that all Atheists in America should be KILLED. Moreover, if on "Judgment Day" said "God" rules that I deserve to be tormented in "Hell", then YOU, Karla, MUST see that as a "good" thing, simply by how you define "good". But interestingly, when previously asked if it would be "good" if I went to "Hell", you categorically say it is *NOT* "good". Just one more in a long line of contradictory statements from you.

BTW, you never explained how, if the biblegod you worship rules its final ruling and I get "Hell", that this is "merciful". Please explain how that is "merciful". It seems to me that your biblegod's "mercy" only goes so far.

Karla: "Omnipresent = He is always present eternally. He enters time, but He does not abide in time."

i.e...Christian makes up his or her own definition that supports his or her worldview. And good grief, what do you mean by "abide in time"????

Karla: "He had no Beginning, but He did create a beginning of time when he created the universe."

Really? So then you can conceive of a "time" when "time" didn't exist, can you???

Karla said...

Boom "Karla, "Christ coming into the world" is an entirely useless, irrelevant apologetic. Why? Because TODAY'S "Christians" STILL maintain that "morality"..i.e...the difference between "right" and "wrong", COMES FROM the Christian worldview."

Lots of Christians will say there is a moral law, moral absolutes, by which we ought to adhere to to be "good" and to be good followers of Christ. I used to think this way, I no longer do.

When people advocate moral relativism Christians will respond with moral absolutes, almost always. We will point to some universal moral principal and say all people need to always adhere to this. But when we do that we are pointing to a shadow rather than the thing itself. We are pointing to a sign rather than the thing signified.

The absolute good is a personal God a Being. The good for us is to be in Him and our ways mirroring His ways is a by product of that relationship and is an external expression of it rather than the thing itself. For too long Christianity has been focused on morality as if making people behave well was the main goal of being a Christian. It is not.

While God is always perfectly good, He does respond according to our own personal condition and circumstances with perfect mercy and justice in every situation. Thus His response does look different because in His infinite wisdom He is expresses that goodness in a finetuned manner that is just right for the person He is relating to.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "Lots of Christians will say there is a moral law, moral absolutes, by which we ought to adhere to to be "good" and to be good followers of Christ. I used to think this way, I no longer do."

So then those "Christians" who still "think" that way are wrong, is that what you are saying? Yes, or no? To be clear, those "Christians" who believe that there is an "absolute morality" and that it comes from a set of unchanging laws/commandments, are mistaken.

a) yes

b) no

continues...."When people advocate moral relativism Christians will respond with moral absolutes, almost always."

Yes, and they'd be wrong, just as you were wrong when you responded that way as recently as in *OUR* past conversations. The thing is, you are still erroneously advocating moral absolutism.

continues..."We will point to some universal moral principal and say all people need to always adhere to this. But when we do that we are pointing to a shadow rather than the thing itself."

Why-oh-why are you talking metaphorically?..e.g.."shadow"? The "we" are theists, and theists assert that an Absolute morality exists, and when they are asked how they know this, what they "point to" is their respective "Holy" doctrines, which they assert were authored by their respective deities. There's nothing ambiguous about it.

continues...."We are pointing to a sign rather than the thing signified."

The only tangible, material, physical "thing" that you can "point to" is your bible. And for the record, we now have your full admission that "morality" doesn't come from any written "Absolute" lists of laws(so that would include the ones in the bible).

"The absolute good is a personal God a Being."

What "God"? What "Being"? I see "Christians" doing a lot of pointing, but I don't see any "God". Where? Who? If you mean the deity of the Christian bible, I don't see any evidence, whatsoever, that this "Being" is "good". I see just the opposite---I see a being who is not "good".

Karla, is it EVER "good" to keep, beat, trade, and sell slaves? Is it EVER good to dash children against ROCKS? Is it EVER "good" to punish teenagers by throwing stones at them? Is it EVER "good" to have wild animals maul children when/if they make fun of someone??

No, it is NOT, and Karla, you KNOW it is not.

Karla, YOU are more moral, more compassionate, and more loving than "Yahweh". NONE of the aformentioned atrocious behaviors are beneficial to the human race, whether those things were carried out then, or whether they are carried out now or in the future. Those things cause unnecessary harm to you, me, and our fellow human beings. THAT is the closest you're going to come to a "standard" of "morality".

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "For too long Christianity has been focused on morality as if making people behave well was the main goal of being a Christian. It is not."

So, you seem to be saying that how humans behave is actually secondary to believing in "God", or if you prefer it in your own lingo, "Being in God"(which requires belief).

If so, I'm convinced! After all, there is only one unforgivable way to "behave", and that is to not believe in "God". You could murder, rape, molest children; you could lie, cheat, steal, and none of that matters. As long as you profess "Jesus" as your "Savior"(which requires a belief that there is such a being), ALL is forgiven.

Thus, there is only one relevant "sin"..i.e..the unforgiable "sin" of being a non-christian.

"While God is always perfectly good, He does respond according to our own personal condition and circumstances with perfect mercy and justice in every situation"

So, for the third time---if on "Judgment Day" biblegod hands down a final ruling of "Hell" for me, then you, Karla, see this as a "perfectly good" thing, a "perfectly just" thing, and an instance of your biblegod being "merciful". Well?

a Yes

b) No

My next question is this: If your biblegod hands down a final ruling of "Hell", do you, Karla, *feel that I deserve that ruling?

a) Yes

b) No

*Please NOTE, said ruling doesn't have to be up to you to have an opinion about it. You have an opinion on other things that is based on "God", and thus, you can give your opinion on the above, too.

The questions are clear and concise---I await your answers

Karla said...

Boom “So then those "Christians" who still "think" that way are wrong, is that what you are saying? Yes, or no? To be clear, those "Christians" who believe that there is an "absolute morality" and that it comes from a set of unchanging laws/commandments, are mistaken.

a) yes

b) no”


To the best of my current understanding I think such doctrine is wrong. The essence of good isn’t a set of absolute laws, but a personal absolute Being.



Boom “Yes, and they'd be wrong, just as you were wrong when you responded that way as recently as in *OUR* past conversations. The thing is, you are still erroneously advocating moral absolutism.”

I think in our whole conversation I have been saying I’m not advocating for a moral law, but for a good God. I’ve been developing out that position ever since, but I’ve been pretty consistent to that end.



Boom “Why-oh-why are you talking metaphorically?..e.g.."shadow"? The "we" are theists, and theists assert that an Absolute morality exists, and when they are asked how they know this, what they "point to" is their respective "Holy" doctrines, which they assert were authored by their respective deities. There's nothing ambiguous about it. “

But the Bible, while true, is not in itself the essence of Truth. It is like a finger pointing beyond itself, and not to itself. The same goes for moral precepts, they are not the absolute good, when a moral precept is true it reflects the good, but is not itself the good.


Boom “The only tangible, material, physical "thing" that you can "point to" is your bible. And for the record, we now have your full admission that "morality" doesn't come from any written "Absolute" lists of laws(so that would include the ones in the bible).”

Correct that is what I am saying. See what I explained in the paragraph above.


Boom “What "God"? What "Being"? I see "Christians" doing a lot of pointing, but I don't see any "God". Where? Who? If you mean the deity of the Christian bible, I don't see any evidence, whatsoever, that this "Being" is "good". I see just the opposite---I see a being who is not "good".”

You know who I’m talking about even if you don’t believe He is real.

Boom “Karla, is it EVER "good" to keep, beat, trade, and sell slaves? Is it EVER good to dash children against ROCKS? Is it EVER "good" to punish teenagers by throwing stones at them? Is it EVER "good" to have wild animals maul children when/if they make fun of someone??”

Are we back to this now? The judgments of God will not look just to you until you experience that He is good.

Karla said...

Karla: "For too long Christianity has been focused on morality as if making people behave well was the main goal of being a Christian. It is not."

Boom “So, you seem to be saying that how humans behave is actually secondary to believing in "God", or if you prefer it in your own lingo, "Being in God"(which requires belief). “

No, I’m saying that a new nature corrects the actions of a person. The actions do not correct the nature, but the nature corrects the actions. We transform into those who do right because we are right instead of because we ought to do right.


Boom “If so, I'm convinced! After all, there is only one unforgivable way to "behave", and that is to not believe in "God". You could murder, rape, molest children; you could lie, cheat, steal, and none of that matters. As long as you profess "Jesus" as your "Savior"(which requires a belief that there is such a being), ALL is forgiven.”

Salvation isn’t about behavior even professing Jesus. Jesus is salvation.



Boom “So, for the third time---if on "Judgment Day" biblegod hands down a final ruling of "Hell" for me, then you, Karla, see this as a "perfectly good" thing, a "perfectly just" thing, and an instance of your biblegod being "merciful". Well?

a Yes

b) No”

Again, judgment day isn’t the day God rules to send some to hell and bring some to heaven. That is already what it will be because of who we already are. God isn’t sending anyone to hell or granting anyone heaven. We are either already in Him or already not in Him when we pass from life on earth.

We are born under the yoke of sin right out of the gate. We are already condemned by our sin for our sin does something to us in the physical and spiritual world that alienates us from God. When God sent Jesus, He gave us our choice back. We now have the choice Adam had to be a son of God or to go our own way. We make that choice for ourselves; God doesn’t make it for us.

Hell is not the good choice, but it is ours to make. God’s desire is that we do not end up there, but He allows us the freedom to go our own way. Now, I know you are going to say who in their right mind would ever choose hell. But it’s the path that we do choose, that path of doing things our own way. Many times we do choose it in ignorance, but all the while God is pursuing our hearts to draw us into His love and goodness and away from the judgment of sin.


Boom “My next question is this: If your biblegod hands down a final ruling of "Hell", do you, Karla, *feel that I deserve that ruling?

a) Yes

b) No”

All sinners deserve the consequences of our sin. I deserve hell, but God paid the price for me by His grace and He did so for you to so you do not have to have the path deserved, but the path of grace. A path not earned, but freely given and extended to you.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: “To be clear, those 'Christians' who believe that there is an 'absolute morality' and that it comes from a set of unchanging laws/commandments, are mistaken.

a) yes

b) no”


Karla: "To the best of my current understanding I think such doctrine is wrong."

I'll take that as a "yes", Christians are mistaken, and this is fascinating news. All of those Christians who want the "10 Commandments" on display on government property, such as in our courthouses, are misguided.

continues...."The essence of good isn’t a set of absolute laws, but a personal absolute Being."

I'll grant you the distinction, but you've failed to illustrate a meaningful difference.

You've established that "Christians" can't refer to a list, mandate, or doctrine of "moral" laws that are "Absolute"(i.e..applies at ALL times, in ALL places), so how is having "relationship" with an "absolute Being" any different? If you rely on said being when you are faced with a decision that requires you to know "right" from "wrong", how is that "absolute" information gleaned from said being, and moreover, how do you know that the information is coming from a being who's ideal of "good" is an ideal that is even beneficial to us? Good grief, I'm certainly not going to worship or respect a being who once believed it was "good" to stone defiant teens, keep slaves, and sic wild animals on sassy kids. Not now; not ever.

Me, previously: “Yes, and they'd be wrong, just as you were wrong when you responded that way as recently as in *OUR* past conversations. The thing is, you are still erroneously advocating moral absolutism.”

Karla responds: "I think in our whole conversation I have been saying I’m not advocating for a moral law, but for a good God. I’ve been developing out that position ever since, but I’ve been pretty consistent to that end. "

If that were true, then I find it interesting that in past conversations about the "Commandments", for instance, when you say they no longer apply because the "condition of man has changed", that you wouldn't have just said they never applied to begin with, since we now have your admission that we don't get "morality" from any list or lists.

And BTW, you still haven't offered a scrap of evidence that you worship a "good God". All you have is, a) your bible, and b) your word, the latter of which is inadmissible based on the fact that you've said that just because someone proclaims something, it doesn't mean it is so.

Let me spell it out---just because Karla says "morality" is based on a "good God", does not mean it is so.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "But the Bible, while tru[EDIT]

I'm sorry, "the Bible" has never been proven to be "true" in an inerrant sense. We know smearing bird's blood on people won't cure them of leprosy; we know the earth is not geocentric; we know that bats are not birds; we know man evolved from simpler life forms, and thus, was not created "as is".

Karla: "It is like a finger pointing beyond itself, and not to itself."

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe!!!

Previously, me: “What 'God'? What 'Being'? I see 'Christians' doing a lot of pointing, but I don't see any 'God'. Where? Who? If you mean the deity of the Christian bible, I don't see any evidence, whatsoever, that this 'Being' is 'good'. I see just the opposite---I see a being who is not 'good'.”

Karla responds..."You know who I’m talking about even if you don’t believe He is real."

Sarcasm is sometimes a useful tool for driving a point home, yet, in this case, it was evidentally lost on you.

In any event, yes, I am familiar with the character to whom you refer. And correct, I no longer believe in said character, and for the record, it is Christians, their apologetics, and the bible, itself, that keep me convinced that Christianity, and all religiously revealed "knowledge", is 100% bunk. In other words, your apologetics are doing the exact opposite of what you intend them to do, and what you say next in response to me is a prime example.....

Previously, me: “Karla, is it EVER 'good' to keep, beat, trade, and sell slaves? Is it EVER good to dash children against ROCKS? Is it EVER 'good' to punish teenagers by throwing stones at them? Is it EVER 'good' to have wild animals maul children when/if they make fun of someone??”

Karla responds...."The judgments of God will not look just to you until you experience that He is good."

Are you flippin' kidding me? For one thing, you have basically answered, "yes", all of the above is "good", and let me tell you that this type of thinking makes the world I live in a more dangerous place. Yes, you heard me---if biblegod decided to reinstate throwing ROCKS at human beings for punishment, Karla, you would be right in line with your basket of rocks. Sickening. Truly sad.

Secondly, your above argument is completely CIRCULAR. You are essentially saying that until/unless I see that this "God" is "good", then the things it orders will not "look just" to me. That's absurd---that's like a Muslim saying, Hey, y'all!....until you accept that Allah is good, flying planes into buildings will not look just to you!!!"

That is moronic, and I make no apologies for saying so. Ban me if you want to. 'Mean time, I will be UNapologetic in exposing your fallacious reasoning and dangerous beliefs.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I’m saying that a new nature corrects the actions of a person. The actions do not correct the nature, but the nature corrects the actions."

Yes, Karla, but ALL "Christians" claim to be things like "transformed" and have a "new nature", and be "born again", yada, yada. Yet, we see "Christians" behaving NO BETTER as a whole, than non-christians. There are "pastors" and "ministers" and "priests" in the news practically daily for all sorts of immoral, despicable acts. This tells me that, no, these people are not "in God", nor guided by any "Holy" ghost. The well-behaved "Christians" are "good", and would be "good", without "God".

Me, previously: “I'm convinced! After all, there is only one unforgivable way to 'behave', and that is to not believe in 'God'. You could murder, rape, molest children; you could lie, cheat, steal, and none of that matters. As long as you profess 'Jesus' as your 'Savior'(which requires a belief that there is such a being), ALL is forgiven.”

Karla: "Salvation isn’t about behavior even professing Jesus. Jesus is salvation."

One doesn't receive "Salvation" until/unless one professes a belief that "Jesus" is their "Savior". To do so requires a belief that "Jesus" exists. To not profess the above lands one in eternal damnation("torment"), and thus, your apologetic is completely, 100% irrelevant to the point I was making, and that is that NOT professing "Jesus" as one's "Savior" is the only unforgivable "sin". Thus, it is the only relevant "sin". Once one makes the necessary profession, then all other "sins" are forgiven(overlooked).

Let's recap: The Christian biblegod, a) favors believers over non-believers..i.e..favoritism, and b) has a twisted, unadmirable sense of "Justice".

Said "God" should be denounced(if it existed)

Karla: "Again, judgment day isn’t the day God rules to send some to hell and bring some to heaven. That is already what it will be because of who we already are.

Yes, yes...."who we are", um, believer, or nonbeliever; Christian, or non-Christian; saved, or unsaved. To biblegod I am not a "who", but a "what". My intentions mean jack-crap to "God". I could intend to live a good decent life helping others, and honestly providing for my family, but unless I profess "Jesus" as my "Lord and Savior", I could end up in the same place a murdering, raping, child-molesting thug.

Karla: "God isn’t sending anyone to hell or granting anyone heaven.""We are either already in Him or already not in Him when we pass from life on earth."

"in him", where? In his pancreas? Liver? Eye-sockets? Oh, wait, you mean, believe in him.

IOW, you can't(or won't) grasp the fact that when you talk in Christianese is means nothing to a nonbeliever. This is one of the many things you do that tells me that you do NOT want to understand and/or converse with Atheists, despite your insistance that you do.

boomSLANG said...

Karla..."We are born under the yoke of sin right out of the gate. We are already condemned by our sin for our sin does something to us in the physical and spiritual world that alienates us from God."

Did you "miss" the part in our previous conversations where I said being BORN condemned and held accountible because of another's actions is a mockery of "Justice" and is IMMORAL? Do you remember when I elaborated on your previous retort where you said what happened in "the Garden" was "severe", and I said I don't give a rat's hindquarters how "severe" it is, "Original Sin" is an out-moded, unjust, and absurdly nonsensical concept? If not, that's what I'm saying now.

Karla: "When God sent Jesus, He gave us our choice back."

Out-flippin'-STANDING. Then guess what, Karla? "God" aka "Jesus" sometimes known as "Yahweh" aka the Holy Spirit", can stand right before me, just like it supposedly will one day, and I can STILL CHOOSE if I want to "follow" said being(s). None of the above have to "hide" from me, or wait...hide "for me".

Karla..."Hell is not the good choice, but it is ours to make."

Guess whAT? I don't choose "Heaven" or "Hell", Karla, because I don't believe in any such places or any of the rest of the Christian philosophy. I think it's all BS(if I haven't made that perfectly clear yet).

Now, can I just expire and die a natural death? No, of course not, not if your beliefs are true. If your beliefs are "true", I MUST go to one place or the other, and thus, "God" is the guy who will see to it that I go to one place or other. I'm certainly not going to willfully go walking into a place that I don't feel I deserve to be, thus, your "God" will have to put me there.

IOW, "God" ENFORCES its own doctrine, so why you pretend that it doesn't, I have no clue. No, wait....yes I do. It's because you KNOW deep down that people don't deserve "Hell", so you create misleading apologetics that say we "send ourselves to Hell". Bull'.

continues...."God’s desire is that we do not end up there, but He allows us the freedom to go our own way."

Yes, uh-huh....just like a parent doesn't want his or her child to run through the house with a knife, but they allow the child to go their "own way", right? Yes, of course!...any "good" parent knows that a child's free will must take precedence over the child's safety.[/massive sarcasm]

BTW, 'still waiting on an explanation on how "God" allowing people to go to "Hell" is "merciful", since you said "God" is always equally "just" and "merciful".