Thursday, April 1, 2010

Justice & Mercy: Philosophical & Practical

God's attributes are not parts of Him, they are each the whole of Him. He is all His attributes at all times. He is one, thus His attributes are one. We speak of them individually, but we err when we extract one without reference to the others. For instance, God is just and He is merciful. He does not choose to be merciful in one situation and just in another, He is equally just and merciful in every situation. To us we might see His response as more of an action of justice rather than mercy, but in reality it is just as merciful as it is just. This is why King David, when given a choice between being punished by being given to His enemies or being punished by God, he chose God for he knew that God's punishment would be exactly right, good, and merciful.


In the same way, our actions ought to be that which lines up with His goodness. Therefore, when our mercy does not include justice or our justice is not constrained by mercy then we are not in line with what is good. God is also love. Love is not unrestrained mercy. In fact, justice and mercy are not at odds with each other or with love. Perfect love is perfectly just and merciful at the same time for God is all of these attributes eternally. They all are anchored together in Him as one.


Any of these attributes lived out apart from the rest would be harmful and not a true representation of the attribute. Love without justice is not real love. Justice without mercy is not really just. Mercy without justice is not really being merciful. True love is not just a balance of justice and mercy, but is a full composite of both for the two cannot be rightly separated.


People who are recipients of constant mercy devoid of justice are not helped, but hindered from attaining personal responsibility. They cannot mature into the people they ought to be if they are saved from every just consequence of their choices.


People ought to be allowed the freedom to be irresponsible, but at the same time it is good to not remove the consequences of the actions. In Danny Silk's book, Loving Your Kids on Purpose, he explains that we all have choices. He encourages parents to give their children the freedom to make those choices while they are in the safety of the parent's home so that their lessons are learned early in life and do not become perpetual problems into adulthood. A child forgets her lunch at home, and Mom does not drive it to her, for she would now experience a lesson in consequences as she decides how to acquire lunch for herself due to her forgetfulness. The action was both one of mercy and one of justice. It was just for the child to not have the lunch she forgot, and merciful for the mom to provide her the opportunity to learn this lesson.


Today's society has elevated tolerance as a virtue and personal irresponsibility as a public problem rather than a private one. This nation was founded to be a place where people are free to make their way in the world with their property and life protected by the enforcement of laws enacted for this purpose. However, it was never intended to be a place where the poor and unhealthy are enjoined from being thus. It was never to be a place where the those who are responsible are forced to surrender their hard earned goods to those who are not. Today freedom has been encroached upon to aid the whole by requiring the few to not only be responsible for themselves, but for those who are irresponsible as well.


In a world where personal irresponsibility is protected by a removal of due consequences, people are apt to become more irresponsible rather than less. It is human nature not to take care of oneself when someone is willing and able to do it for you. Why would a child learn to tie his shoe if mom and dad never stop doing it for him? Why would a child learn to feed herself, if mom never expects them to do it and does it for her? Why would someone who knows how to fish, choose to fish when fish are abundantly handed to him?


I once had a professor who said, if he had enough money in his estate to enable his children to never have to work again, he would bequeath it all to charity rather than to his children. He said he did not want to create lazy children by giving them what it ought to take hard work to acquire.


I used to struggle to understand why the Bible says that if someone in a community is not working they ought not to be able to eat the food. The same Bible says to give to the poor. Then I realized that the “poor” being spoken of are not those who choose not to work or who squander their earnings, but those who are physically incapable of providing for themselves. The “poor” were not those who didn't have money because they were not working, but those who couldn't work and thus justly needed provision. Still this was a voluntary giving out of love and compassion and not a giving out of compulsion of a national law. One is giving, the other is legalized stealing.


While it is good to be a cheerful giver, it is not good to produce ravenous takers. Giving when there is genuine need will produce the fruit of a grateful receiver. Becoming a provider of a person who is able to provide for themselves creates an unhealthy dependency the sucks the life out of the relationship making one the master and the other the slave regardless of the best of intentions. This steals the integrity of the person receiving such aid and makes them feel lousy and unable to be productive keeping them in bondage. The way of freedom is the way of responsibility and the way of irresponsible people experiencing their consequences. This way the consequences act as a motivator to correct ones course.


If we are to live according to justice and mercy there must be a justice and mercy by which we conform. If there is no supreme Justice then there is no injustice. In closing, consider the following popular quote by C.S. Lewis from Mere Christianity.


My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless -I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

120 comments:

CyberKitten said...

karla quoted Lewis: My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.

Except that the universe is neither cruel nor unjust - it is simply indifferent.

karla quoted again: But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?

From the culture you were born into Mr Lewis.

and karla quoted again: Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own.

Which is dead wrong. Our ideas of justice - like so many other of our ideas - are cultural determined by whatever society or age we are accidentally born into. We take on board the concepts of justice and so on as we grow up and interact with the world and the people in it. This is why these concepts vary from place to place and from age to age. They are not 'private' ideas but public ones we have each internalised!

karla quoted again: But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies.

Which really illustrates what Lewis is nowhere near the great thinker some people consider him to be.

karla quoted again: Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless -I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense.

Because it makes sense to *us* - now. Roman ideas of justice or even medieval ones make a lot less sense because the times and our cutures are different. If we dropped a medieval French jurist into a modern court he would be both amazed and confused by the modern idea of justice for the reasons I've already mentioned.

karla quoted again: If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...

Nonsense! We have *given* the universe meaning (or at least most people have tried to) for the very reason that it has none of its own. We assign meaning to things because without it people feel uncomfortable. Many people bend over backwards to avoid that kind of discomfort.

Karla said...

Cyber "Except that the universe is neither cruel nor unjust - it is simply indifferent."

What do you mean by that? Are you saying that rape, incest, murder, slavery, etc. is just "indifferent"? That it has no real horridness?

It still amazes me how strikingly different our worldviews are.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: What do you mean by that?

The universe does not care about us because the universe is incapable of caring. The universe is largely made up of vacuum with small rock planets dotted around for a bit of variety. The universe is not a living thing with intentions. It cannot be cruel because it cannot be cruel. It does not care because there is nothing to care.

Karla said: Are you saying that rape, incest, murder, slavery, etc. is just "indifferent"? That it has no real horridness?

Of course there is horridness! You just have to watch the news, read the newspapers or read history books to understand that. Some of the horridness is caused by natural events such as earthquakes, some of it is caused by the way we treat each other. But that is not the *universe* being cruel. Its part of the natural process (earthquakes etc..) as well as mans inhumanity to man.......

karla said: It still amazes me how strikingly different our worldviews are.

Right back at you..... [grin] But it does go to show how two people in contemporary and comparible cultures can come to radically different views of things - it's almost as if that sort of thing could explain a lot of the differences in worldview we can see around the world and have seen throughout history......

boomSLANG said...

Cyberkitten remarks.. Except that the universe is neither cruel nor unjust - it is simply indifferent.

Karla inquires..."What do you mean by that?"

I'll wager that he means that the Universe has no sentience--it is impartial, impersonal, and therefore, cannot be things like "cruel". Cruelty requires intent, which requires sentience.

Karla wants to know..."Are you saying that rape, incest, murder, slavery, etc. is just 'indifferent'? That it has no real horridness?"

I'm trying to figure out how you made the ennormous jump from a non-sentient Universe, to the actions of sentient, conscious beings.

While on the subject of "horridness", wouldn't we be horrid people if we could stop "rape", "incest", "murder", and on, and on, but stood by and did nothing? What do you think, Cyber'?

CyberKitten said...

boom said: I'll wager that he means that the Universe has no sentience--it is impartial, impersonal, and therefore, cannot be things like "cruel". Cruelty requires intent, which requires sentience.

Exactly my point.

boom said: While on the subject of "horridness", wouldn't we be horrid people if we could stop "rape", "incest", "murder", and on, and on, but stood by and did nothing? What do you think, Cyber'?

Yes.

Karla said...

Cyber “Of course there is horridness! You just have to watch the news, read the newspapers or read history books to understand that. Some of the horridness is caused by natural events such as earthquakes, some of it is caused by the way we treat each other. But that is not the *universe* being cruel. Its part of the natural process (earthquakes etc..) as well as mans inhumanity to man......”

When I was thinking of justice v. injustice I wasn’t thinking of what nature does, but what humans do and don’t do. So that’s why I was confused by your response. I think Lewis was saying by “universe” that there is injustice in the world and if he can see that there is injustice than there must be a just.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: I think Lewis was saying by “universe” that there is injustice in the world...

...and that's a major reason why such things cause so much confusion - by saying one thing but meaning another how are we supposed to respond appropriately?

...and saying that there is injustice in the world is like saying it gets dark @ night. Duh! Talk about stating the obvious....

karla said: and if he can see that there is injustice than there must be a just.

No, it doesn't. He (and we) see injustice in the world because he (and we) have a concept of justice. What I'm willing to bet though is that our ideas of justice are different. If we had been born in ancient Rome, medieval Paris or medieval Japan our ideas of justice would be different and we would still see (different) injustice in the world.

We pick up the idea of justice and injustice from the culture we grow up in. We are not given it by God but acquire it throughout our lives. If you study the concept of justice in any particular culture you can see how it changes over time. That's because its a human construct [as I keep saying].

Karla said...

karla said: I think Lewis was saying by “universe” that there is injustice in the world...

Cyber “...and that's a major reason why such things cause so much confusion - by saying one thing but meaning another how are we supposed to respond appropriately?”

I never thought he meant the nature by using the word “universe”, but I can see how it would be interpreted as that to a person who has a naturalistic worldview.

Cyber “...and saying that there is injustice in the world is like saying it gets dark @ night. Duh! Talk about stating the obvious....”

Ah, something we agree on.

karla said: and if he can see that there is injustice than there must be a just.

Cyber “No, it doesn't. He (and we) see injustice in the world because he (and we) have a concept of justice”

How?


Cyber “What I'm willing to bet though is that our ideas of justice are different. If we had been born in ancient Rome, medieval Paris or medieval Japan our ideas of justice would be different and we would still see (different) injustice in the world.”


Our ideas of what is just may be different, but we are both emphatic that there is injustice. So either we are both in error and the things we think are unjust are as indifferent as things caused by nature itself, or there is some such thing as what is truly Just. This is what Lewis was getting at.



Cyber “We pick up the idea of justice and injustice from the culture we grow up in. We are not given it by God but acquire it throughout our lives. If you study the concept of justice in any particular culture you can see how it changes over time. That's because its a human construct [as I keep saying]. “


That’s a theory. But where did the culture we grew up in get it? Where did such an idea start? What basis does the concept really have in reality?

What if it changes over time and between cultures because some cultures are getting closer to real justice and some are getting further away and the change doesn’t mean that “justice” has changed, but that our understanding of it has gotten better or worse?

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Our ideas of what is just may be different, but we are both emphatic that there is injustice.

Yes, but I bet we will disagree on the details even if we agree generally... and the reason we generally agree is because we are from very similar cultures. We both have an idea of justice but they are different ideas merely called the same thing.

karla asked: But where did the culture we grew up in get it? Where did such an idea start?

All ideas/concepts have a history. You can trace them back into antiquity. Beyond that, as there are no written records pre-civilisation, I have no idea where specific ideas came from - but just like the ones we do know about they would have originated in the minds of men.

karla asked: What basis does the concept really have in reality?

You mean outside of us? None. We invented them. They do not exist independently of us.

karla said: What if it changes over time and between cultures because some cultures are getting closer to real justice and some are getting further away and the change doesn’t mean that “justice” has changed, but that our understanding of it has gotten better or worse?

That's because you hold a Platonist view of things which you have adopted from the ancient Greeks via the Roman Catholic church and then through Protestantism..... The 'outside' standard you think you can measure such things against is actually an internal cultural standard with a clear history. If you had grown up in another culture who held that standards are external you'd simply have a different external standard - that wasn't actually external at all!

Karla said...

karla said: Our ideas of what is just may be different, but we are both emphatic that there is injustice.

Cyber replied “Yes, but I bet we will disagree on the details even if we agree generally... and the reason we generally agree is because we are from very similar cultures. We both have an idea of justice but they are different ideas merely called the same thing.”

We may disagree on details. I conceded that. However, that doesn’t refute that we both see injustice.

karla asked: But where did the culture we grew up in get it? Where did such an idea start?

Cyber “All ideas/concepts have a history. You can trace them back into antiquity. Beyond that, as there are no written records pre-civilisation, I have no idea where specific ideas came from - but just like the ones we do know about they would have originated in the minds of men.”

So you do not have evidence that it originated with men? When we look at the animal world we do not see one animal eating another as an injustice, we see it as the natural way of life – we see at as amoral. How is it then when one human kills another to take their food (not even talking about cannibalism) so that they can eat we see it as an injustice?

karla asked: What basis does the concept really have in reality?

Cyber “You mean outside of us? None. We invented them. They do not exist independently of us.”

So how do we determine what is unjust? It seems if we look at it according to your worldview, then there is no real justice – it is all provisional based on what we may or may not believe because of the culture we live in . . . So we may see an unjust world, but it could be neither just nor unjust. The actions of people can be just as indifferent as the natural world for are we not nothing more than nature ourselves. We cannot rise above nature if there is nothing above to rise too. We cannot separate ourselves from it to look at ourselves and see if there is really justice or injustice. If there is no supernatural then we are of the same system we analyze. How can we even declare anything just or unjust? Maybe stepping on an ant or killing a child is just as indifferent as anything else.

karla said: What if it changes over time and between cultures because some cultures are getting closer to real justice and some are getting further away and the change doesn’t mean that “justice” has changed, but that our understanding of it has gotten better or worse?

Cyber “That's because you hold a Platonist view of things which you have adopted from the ancient Greeks via the Roman Catholic church and then through Protestantism..... The 'outside' standard you think you can measure such things against is actually an internal cultural standard with a clear history. If you had grown up in another culture who held that standards are external you'd simply have a different external standard - that wasn't actually external at all! “

You didn’t really answer my question. You just said why you think I see it that way.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: So you do not have evidence that it originated with men?

We only have records of ideas such as justice back into known history. We can see how they developed and changed over time in a range of cultures. We can see the origin of some things - like logic - but other ideas (maybe justice) would have originated in pre-history and so left little or no evidence of their actual beginning. This does *not* mean that such ideas came from God. If we can show the historical development of ideas and concepts back to the dawn of history it is logical to assume that any that originated before that were part of a similar process to the ones we do have direct evidence for.

karla said: How is it then when one human kills another to take their food (not even talking about cannibalism) so that they can eat we see it as an injustice?

Because we have the capacity to see it as injustice - because we are self-aware beings, unlike the majority of other animals. We can conceptualise and use these concepts to explain the world around us. We have even invented the concept of God.....

karla said: So how do we determine what is unjust?

By referencing what our culture considers to be unjust. Our concept of justice has expanded a great deal in the last few hundred years, so much so that we are even applying it to non-humans and to the Earth itself. Such ideas, not that long ago, were probably unthinkable.

karla said: It seems if we look at it according to your worldview, then there is no real justice – it is all provisional based on what we may or may not believe because of the culture we live in..

That's right. There is no absolute (or real as you term it) justice. The idea of justice is totally dependent on the time and the culture we're talking about.

karla said: So we may see an unjust world, but it could be neither just nor unjust.

No. It's unjust because we see it as unjust. Just because we do not have a mythical exterior measure doesn't mean we can't judge things.

karla said: We cannot rise above nature if there is nothing above to rise too. We cannot separate ourselves from it to look at ourselves and see if there is really justice or injustice.

We are most certainly part of nature and we should recognise that fact. We are at the same time aware that we are part of nature which makes us different. We may have an animal nature - because we are animals - but we also have the capacity to choose how we behave. We have evolved free will which enables us not to behave as simply animals.

karla said: How can we even declare anything just or unjust? Maybe stepping on an ant or killing a child is just as indifferent as anything else.

There are some cultures who believe that killing a mouse is as bad as killing a child. We can learn a lot from societies with that kind of compassion to *all* life.

karla said: You didn’t really answer my question. You just said why you think I see it that way.

You continually put forward the idea of an external yardstick that we can measure cultures against. The problem is that the yardstick is part of your culture and is not external to you. It was invented by Plato (probably) and has been used by Christianity ever since. As far as I am aware you have never presented any evidence for this yardstick except to say that there *must* be one! Yet the yardstick concept also has a history which can be traced back to the ancient Greeks. Like everything else we talk about here it is a human invention created in the minds of men.

Karla said...

Cyber "Because we have the capacity to see it as injustice - because we are self-aware beings, unlike the majority of other animals. We can conceptualise and use these concepts to explain the world around us. We have even invented the concept of God....."

How are we self-aware if we are inside nature and there is nothing outside? How can we see from outside -- how can we look at ourselves unless we have the ability to position ourselves outside in some capacity?

CyberKitten said...

karla said: How are we self-aware if we are inside nature and there is nothing outside? How can we see from outside -- how can we look at ourselves unless we have the ability to position ourselves outside in some capacity?

Because we have evolved that capacity. Self-aware creatures such as ourselves have a *huge* advantage over creatures that are not self aware. We can plan, imagine alternatives and put in place fall-back positions when things go wrong. We can see 'outside' ourselves because we have the imagination to do so. If I concentrate I could see this room I'm in from a point outside of myself. I can imagine myself right this minute looking down from the top of the Empire State building - where I've never been - because I have the evolved imagination to do so. It is an incredibly powerful ability which is directly responsible for our place in the world. Without that level of creativity and imagination, without such a degree of self-awareness, we'd be little different from any other large mammal. With it we are capable of many things.

Karla said...

Cyber, I agree with everything except that the source is evolution. We cannot have evolved to see outside of ourselves if there is no outside vantage point. Our creative and imaginative ability to do so speaks to me of our supernatural nature rather than our natural one.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Cyber, I agree with everything except that the source is evolution.

Why not?

karla said: Our creative and imaginative ability to do so speaks to me of our supernatural nature rather than our natural one.

Oh? Seems perfectly natural to me. I think, yet again, you're looking for a supernatural explanation where a natural one will do.

boomSLANG said...

Cyber, I agree with everything except that the source is evolution. We cannot have evolved to see outside of ourselves if there is no outside vantage point. ~ Karla

What on nature's green earth do you mean, exactly, by... "see outside of ourselves"?

You talk of being "self-aware". I get that, but I suspect that you mean something more. I'm sensing thinly-veiled godspeak. If I'm wrong, and we're just talking "self-aware", then consider that lower apes have self-awareness.

So? Does that mean that apes are "supernatural"?

If a man riding a motorcycle without a helmet slams into a concrete telephone pole and sustains massive brain injury, thus, putting him in a permanent vegetative state---his eyes opened and fixed; his cognitive senses non-responsive; tubes keeping him alive artifically---should we believe he's "self-aware"? I would think not, yet, if "self-awareness" and being "supernatural" are uniquely characteristic of one another, why wouldn't/why couldn't the man's supposed "super"-nature take over and bypass the man's natural, physically traumatized brain?

'Any proponent of dualism?

Karla said...

Boom “What on nature's green earth do you mean, exactly, by... "see outside of ourselves"? “

I mean in order to be self-aware we need to be able to see from a vantage point (not physically) of being outside of nature, being able to see from beyond nature looking back and analyzing ourselves and our world.

In the natural, it’s like when Alexis De Tocqueville came from France to see what America was all about – he not being an American had a vantage point to analyze America. He could see what we who live here all the time cannot see.

To see what really is in this world we have to be able to be separated from it in some aspect in order to have any credence to what we see.

As to your motorcycle accident question: there are instances of people having experiences when they were able to see everything going on while they were in a coma or dead. These are heavily documented.

Karla said...

Cyber, I don't think a natural one will do, but since you believe that is all there is, it seems to have to do for you.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Cyber, I don't think a natural one will do...

Why not? Are you saying that natural processes cannot explain or adequately explain things like being self-aware? Our understanding of brain mechanisms is still at the early stages but I know of no mysteries being laid at the door of the supernatural....

karla said: but since you believe that is all there is, it seems to have to do for you.

Oh, it doesn't *have* to do... it's simply sufficient to offer explanations for things. As we no longer live in the Middle ages I don't think we need to fill gaps in our knowledge with God.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “What on nature's green earth do you mean, exactly, by... 'see outside of ourselves'?"

Karla: "I mean in order to be self-aware we need to be able to see from a vantage point (not physically) of being outside of nature...."

So, as I suspected, when you speak of "self-aware", you mean something *more*---something "outside of", or beyond, "nature".

Okay, we know what you mean. Now, do you have any evidence that we need to be beyond nature to be "self-aware"?... I mean, aside from just asserting it?

continues..."In the natural, it’s like when Alexis De Tocqueville came from France to see what America was all about – he not being an American had a vantage point to analyze America. He could see what we who live here all the time cannot see."

Good grief. What does that prove or illustrate? A man who lived in one country went to another country he wasn't familiar with. So? Name something the man could "see" when he got to my country that I couldn't "see" if I, too, wanted to "see" it.

continues..."To see what really is in this world we have to be able to be separated from it in some aspect in order to have any credence to what we see."

Arrrg.

This is spiritual gibberish. What exactly do you mean when you say, "see what really is in this world"[bold added].

And when you say "separated"---separated how?

You frequently utilize language that is ambiguous, and we don't know what you actually mean until 39 posts later, if even then. To me, it just looks like you are equivocating, at best; asserting your premise true in your argument, at worst.

BTW, as I previously stated, we know that some of the lower apes are capable of things like reasoning, empathy, and self-awareness. So, again---apes have tapped into the "supernatural" then, right?

Karla: "As to your motorcycle accident question: there are instances of people having experiences when they were able to see everything going on while they were in a coma or dead. These are heavily documented."

I wasn't, and I am not now, disputing that there are documented instances of people who are near death and/or in a coma, who fully recuperate and who report of having had an experience of some sort. That, of course, is evidence of nothing, except that a physical brain can still function, and thus, "experience", absent of full consciousness. That doesn't answer my question, though.

If an individual's "mind", or "personality", can presumably exist independently of a physical brain, why, in the case of a traumatized(or diseased) physical brain, is the "personality" affected at all?

If a diseased brain can't recognize the grandkids, why should I believe grandpa's fully dead, decomposed brain can recognize someone?

Karla said...

I'll respond to comments again next week. I'm going to be traveling so I won't be able to really respond for a few days.

Karla said...

karla said: Cyber, I don't think a natural one will do...

Cyber “Why not? Are you saying that natural processes cannot explain or adequately explain things like being self-aware? Our understanding of brain mechanisms is still at the early stages but I know of no mysteries being laid at the door of the supernatural....”

Yes I am saying that natural processes cannot adequately explain self-awareness. At least not in the manner in which I mean the term. We could again be meaning different things. I believe you supplied the term.


karla said: but since you believe that is all there is, it seems to have to do for you.

Cyber “Oh, it doesn't *have* to do... it's simply sufficient to offer explanations for things. As we no longer live in the Middle ages I don't think we need to fill gaps in our knowledge with God.”

If you approach a “gap” as not needing a supernatural answer, then you will always find a natural one no matter how inept it may be to fill said gap. At the same time, if I approach every “gap” as never having a natural answer I will always have a supernatural one no matter how inept it is. I think we need to be after what is truly the best potential answer rather than approaching it before hand as having to be natural or supernatural. Most of the time I think it is probably both, for even the natural world I see as not being fully separate from the supernatural one.

Still I do not put forth God as a “God of the gaps” thing, but as a Being that gives good support to the entire system both natural and supernatural.

Karla said...

Boom “So, as I suspected, when you speak of "self-aware", you mean something *more*---something "outside of", or beyond, "nature".”

I mean that we have an aspect to us that is distinct from nature by which we can reason and critique the world around us.



Boom “Okay, we know what you mean. Now, do you have any evidence that we need to be beyond nature to be "self-aware"?... I mean, aside from just asserting it? “


For our reason about things to have any credence it needs to have an element that is able to be separate from the system of things. Otherwise we are not really employing reason, but just acting in accordance with our DNA and all that we do and say are products of that without any real responsibility or difference from the actions of a mountain lion or a snake.


Boom “And when you say "separated"---separated how?“

We have to have a supernatural element to our make up in order to be positioned in such a way that we can reason about the world around us.



Boom “You frequently utilize language that is ambiguous, and we don't know what you actually mean until 39 posts later, if even then. To me, it just looks like you are equivocating, at best; asserting your premise true in your argument, at worst.”

I apologize. I really am trying to learn how to how to avoid being ambiguous. When I use Christian jargon I feel it often carries connotations and definitions inadequate to my way of thinking and when I use plain language without reference to words such as “supernatural” to try and come at it in a way that may be more clear I seem to create more confusion.

I do see your challenges as valuable for the most part in helping me find the right language that adequately conveys my meaning. I do not see every disagreement as a matter of misinterpretation, and I think even if the interpretation was correct there would most likely still be disagreement. But I do really desire to overcome the worldview language barrier.


Boom “BTW, as I previously stated, we know that some of the lower apes are capable of things like reasoning, empathy, and self-awareness. So, again---apes have tapped into the "supernatural" then, right? “

I have not studied any of this research, but if animals can analyze the world around them by method of reason rather than some natural instinct then they would have to have a supernatural aspect to their nature.


Karla: "As to your motorcycle accident question: there are instances of people having experiences when they were able to see everything going on while they were in a coma or dead. These are heavily documented."

Boom “I wasn't, and I am not now, disputing that there are documented instances of people who are near death and/or in a coma, who fully recuperate and who report of having had an experience of some sort. That, of course, is evidence of nothing, except that a physical brain can still function, and thus, "experience", absent of full consciousness. That doesn't answer my question, though.”


The physical brain cannot be what is functioning if the person is brain dead.


Boom “If an individual's "mind", or "personality", can presumably exist independently of a physical brain, why, in the case of a traumatized(or diseased) physical brain, is the "personality" affected at all?”

The natural expression of the personality maybe what is affected rather than the spiritual person himself.


Boom “If a diseased brain can't recognize the grandkids, why should I believe grandpa's fully dead, decomposed brain can recognize someone?”

I’m not sure I follow you here.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Yes I am saying that natural processes cannot adequately explain self-awareness. At least not in the manner in which I mean the term.

I fail to see why not. Although we don't fully understand it yet I see no reason to propose some sort of supernatural agency or substance to explain why we are aware of being aware.

karla said: We could again be meaning different things. I believe you supplied the term.

What do you mean by it?

karla said: I think we need to be after what is truly the best potential answer rather than approaching it before hand as having to be natural or supernatural.

I certainly (rather obviously) assume a naturalistic answer to any question. However, when such an answer is not forthcoming I simply say we do not know. I do not, at this point, put forward a supernatural answer when a natural one cannot - at least right now - be found. It seems to me IMO that you both assume a supernatural answer in preference to a natural one and fill any ignorance you have of a subject with the supernatural too. It's as if you live in a world that's pre-science.

BTW - If you're interested I have a few book reviews coming up (including today's) that might interest you. I'll let you know when the others are posted.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: I mean that we have an aspect to us that is distinct from nature by which we can reason and critique the world around us.

As we are fully part of the natural world how can we "have an aspect to us that is distinct from nature"....? Our reasoning ability is an evolved function the same as all of our other abilities....

karla said: For our reason about things to have any credence it needs to have an element that is able to be separate from the system of things.

HUH? What do you mean by 'system of things'...?

karla said: Otherwise we are not really employing reason, but just acting in accordance with our DNA and all that we do and say are products of that without any real responsibility or difference from the actions of a mountain lion or a snake.

But our reason is a product of our DNA because our DNA is responsible for producing the complexity of the brain which gives rise to our various faculties. We are not 'slaves' to our DNA because our DNA has, through the process of evolution, given us free will.

karla said: We have to have a supernatural element to our make up in order to be positioned in such a way that we can reason about the world around us.

Why?

karla said: if animals can analyze the world around them by method of reason rather than some natural instinct then they would have to have a supernatural aspect to their nature.

No. A creature able to reason is 'fitter' in an evolutionary sense than one who can't. As brain complexity increases creatures are able to reason more - giving rise to more reasoning creatures. It is hardly surprising that a creature such as ourselves with pretty good reasoning abilities has basically conqurered the planet.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I mean that we have an aspect to us that is distinct from nature by which we can reason and critique the world around us."

Again, some of the lower apes and even dogs can "reason". That we are the most intelligently evolved species, and subsequently, that we can "critique the world around us", is not evidence that we are beyond "nature".

Karla: "For our reason about things to have any credence it needs to have an element that is able to be separate from the system of things."

I have no clue what you just said, and I'll wager that you don't either, short of simply asserting that "supernaturalism" is true because you believe it is.

In any event, I don't see any evidence.

continues...."Otherwise we are not really employing reason..."

Elephants, dolphins, magpies, chimps, and killer whales can employ reason when they memorize colors, cue cards, and solve puzzles. Assuming these animals aren't "supernatural", are these animals not really employing reason?

continues..."but just acting in accordance with our DNA and all that we do and say are products of that...."

Fallacy of composition. Just because the end result, or the "product", of the sum of our parts is greater than the parts, themselves, this does not diminish the value of said product.

continues..."without any real responsibility or difference from the actions of a mountain lion or a snake."

We have more responsibility than than a snake or mountain lion because we are more evolved, more intelligent, and more civilized. That's fairly simple.

Previously, me: "And when you say 'separated'---separated how?"

Karla responds..."We have to have a supernatural element to our make up in order to be positioned in such a way that we can reason about the world around us."

Reference please.

Karla..."... if animals can analyze the world around them by method of reason rather than some natural instinct then they would have to have a supernatural aspect to their nature."

I never said that it was anything other than a natural ability for other animals to reason and be self-aware. It is you who asserts that in order to do so, it must be more than "nature", so it is you who has the burden of proof.

boomSLANG said...

Karla..."The physical brain cannot be what is functioning if the person is brain dead."

Are you aware that the brain is comprised of different lobes, each serving different functions? In other words, the lobe that houses the "personality"(memories, etc) can be "dead", while another part is fully alive and keeping the vital involuntary bodily functions going...i.e..breathing, heartbeat, etc.

Karla..."The natural expression of the personality maybe what is affected rather than the spiritual person himself."

When "Christians" are awarded their "resurrected bodies", are their personalities intact, or not? Yes, or no?

Previously, me: “If a diseased brain can't recognize the grandkids, why should I believe grandpa's fully dead, decomposed brain can recognize someone?”

Karla: "I’m not sure I follow you here."

If an elderly person has advanced Alzheimer's disease, and he or she can no longer recognize people they've known for most of his or her adult life, why should I believe that when this person expires and their brain is fully dead and fully decomposed, that said person will all of the sudden recognize people in another location, for instance, in "heaven"?

If a "mind" can exist independently of a brain, then it would follow that an Alzheimer's patient's "mind" should function irrespective of whether their "brain" is functioning at full capacity. This isn't the case, of course, and this is actually compelling evidence against a mind/body duality. That's what I'm saying.

boomSLANG said...

Cyberkitten: "We are not 'slaves' to our DNA because our DNA has, through the process of evolution, given us free will."

Actually, I would say we are "slaves" to our natural "free will", because we have evolved to make choices based on what end we desire the most. It's an interesting subject.

Karla said...

Boom "We have more responsibility than than a snake or mountain lion because we are more evolved, more intelligent, and more civilized. That's fairly simple."

And intelligence and greater evolution and civilization makes us more responsible because. . .?
We say so? Or some say so?

Karla said...

Boom "If a "mind" can exist independently of a brain, then it would follow that an Alzheimer's patient's "mind" should function irrespective of whether their "brain" is functioning at full capacity. This isn't the case, of course, and this is actually compelling evidence against a mind/body duality. That's what I'm saying."

Problems with the brain can inhibit physical expression of the eternal person. However, I have heard of many times when a person with Alzheimer's gets incredibly lucid right before death as the transition into eternity begins to happen.

Karla said...

Boom "Actually, I would say we are "slaves" to our natural "free will", because we have evolved to make choices based on what end we desire the most. It's an interesting subject."

It is an interesting subject indeed.

Has there ever been any observation of such a phenomena evolving? Have scientists conducted controlled experiments to measure evolution happening in an animal or a person?

Karla said...

Cyber “What do you mean by it?”

I mean that we can reason about ourselves and our world. We are not bound by instincts or controlled by nature. We can philosophize and analyze.

Cyber “I certainly (rather obviously) assume a naturalistic answer to any question. However, when such an answer is not forthcoming I simply say we do not know. I do not, at this point, put forward a supernatural answer when a natural one cannot - at least right now - be found. It seems to me IMO that you both assume a supernatural answer in preference to a natural one and fill any ignorance you have of a subject with the supernatural too. It's as if you live in a world that's pre-science.”

It’s not that a prefer it or that I need it to fill in something I do not know. It is that I see the supernatural answer as being the most viable and necessary answer that best undergirds the physical world.

Cyber “BTW - If you're interested I have a few book reviews coming up (including today's) that might interest you. I'll let you know when the others are posted. “

Thank you. I visited you blog and read the latest book review and commented. I look forward to reading the others

Karla said...

Cyber “As we are fully part of the natural world how can we "have an aspect to us that is distinct from nature"....? Our reasoning ability is an evolved function the same as all of our other abilities....”

Has anyone observed reason evolving? Where is the proof of this?


Cyber “HUH? What do you mean by 'system of things'...?”

Nature is a system. If we are natural only we are part and parcel of that system. We have no ability to think from above the system so that we can think about it.

Cyber “But our reason is a product of our DNA because our DNA is responsible for producing the complexity of the brain which gives rise to our various faculties. We are not 'slaves' to our DNA because our DNA has, through the process of evolution, given us free will.”

I would have to agree with Boom that it would be more accurate to say one is a slave of their DNA if there is no transcendence of this natural world rather than saying we have gained transcendence of it when there is no way to transcend.

karla said: We have to have a supernatural element to our make up in order to be positioned in such a way that we can reason about the world around us.

Cyber “Why?”

See what I said above.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "And intelligence and greater evolution and civilization makes us more responsible because. . .? We say so? Or some say so?"

Based on the past, you should probably first clarify what you mean when you talk about the human race being "responsible". IOW, "responsible" to whom/for what...?...?...?

Karla: "Problems with the brain can inhibit physical expression of the eternal person."

Show me any pathology or medical report that uses the term "eternal person". Until/unless you can do so, you are employing unproven, pseudo-"spiritual" jargon in an attempt to affirm your premise.

If, by chance, when you say, "eternal person", you mean "soul", then my question remains:

Why would the "soul" need to express itself physically, when we are to believe that said "soul" will express itself just fine when the physical body is completely annihilated?

continues...."However, I have heard of many times when a person with Alzheimer's gets incredibly lucid right before death as the transition into eternity begins to happen."

And once more, that there is a "transition into eternity" upon death, has yet be confirmed. Here you are again begging the question(which you do frequently)

In any event, what about those Alzheimer patients and other brain-traumatized patients who do not become "incredibly lucid" before death? Will you accept that as "evidence" against a mind/body dualism?

Karla: "Has there ever been any observation of such a phenomena evolving? Have scientists conducted controlled experiments to measure evolution happening in an animal or a person?"

Since it is clear that you are a bible-inerrantist, and thus, that you are one of the many who reject what science tells us about Evolution by Natural Selection because it disagrees with the Genesis "Creation" account, why on earth would I waste my time telling you about what science tells us about our human needs/desires evolving, since you will likely reject that too? In fact, you have gone on record to say that you could "never be an Atheist", so that right there speaks volumes. It tells me that you will reject, a priori, any and all evidence that suggests that you could be wrong. Actually, the consummate description of a religious conviction.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Has anyone observed reason evolving?

Do you *really* want to go there?

Did anyone *observe* Genesis.....?

karla said: Where is the proof of this?

Well, for one thing there's comparative behaviour studies. As creatures move 'up' the evolutionary ladder we see evidence of increasing reasoning ability. Then there's comparative brain studies and even the study of our own brains which show evidence of evolutionary steps - and, of course, the fossilised skulls of countless animals who existed before us. We can estimate brain size and complexity from these. It appears to be the case that as brain size and complexity increases so does reasoning functionality. It is not the case that we alone reason and no other creature does. Other creatures reason to a lesser extent depending on their brains.

karla said: We have no ability to think from above the system so that we can think about it.

You mean we can't think outside the box if we're inside the box?

How exactly are we thinking 'from above' the system - you're really going to have to explain what you mean by that!

karla said: I would have to agree with Boom that it would be more accurate to say one is a slave of their DNA if there is no transcendence of this natural world rather than saying we have gained transcendence of it when there is no way to transcend.

Actually I think that we are one of the few (maybe even the only) creatures that are *not* slaves to our DNA. Whilst we will never be completely free from our animal nature - unless we excise the animal from us - we have the evolved ability to choose to be more than animals. Because we are self-aware we can decide how to act, when to act and (probably more importantly) when not to act. This ability which is the result of our DNA gives us the opportunity to move beyond the demands of our DNA.

Our abilities do not need supernatural explanations. It is perfectly possible - indeed highly likely - that we have the abilities that we do through the evolutionary process. I am certainly unaware of any of our attributes that can only be explained supernaturaly!

Karla said...

Boom said “We have more responsibility than a snake or mountain lion because we are more evolved, more intelligent, and more civilized. That's fairly simple.”

I responded “And intelligence and greater evolution and civilization makes us more responsible because. . .? We say so? Or some say so?"

Then Boom again “Based on the past, you should probably first clarify what you mean when you talk about the human race being "responsible". IOW, "responsible" to whom/for what...?...?...? “

I am curious what you meant by the word pursuant to your statement. I mean being responsible for our actions. Being responsible to others rather than just fending for ourselves like animals in a jungle. Why do our actions have a moral culpability whereas the animal kingdom just kills and eats as they please?

Boom “Why would the "soul" need to express itself physically, when we are to believe that said "soul" will express itself just fine when the physical body is completely annihilated?”

Because not everyone has learned to see beyond the physical. We currently live in a world that is both physical and spiritual and I don’t know if the physical will ever be done away with, but there will be a day where the two are more conjoined than today when things fit together “more like a centaur than a horse and rider” (to borrow from C.S. Lewis).

Boom “In any event, what about those Alzheimer patients and other brain-traumatized patients who do not become "incredibly lucid" before death? Will you accept that as "evidence" againsta mind/body dualism?”

Those instances where it does not happen do not provide explanation for the times lucidity happens.

Boom “Since it is clear that you are a bible-inerrantist, and thus, that you are one of the many who reject what science tells us about Evolution by Natural Selection because it disagrees with the Genesis "Creation" account, why on earth would I waste my time telling you about what science tells us about our human needs/desires evolving, since you will likely reject that too?”

I desire to know the views other people have. The answers they give to these questions. I don’t just want to know about what I believe, I am fascinated by the perspectives of others and I believe there is some truth in all perspectives so I may very well encounter something that rings as true.


Boom “ In fact, you have gone on record to say that you could "never be an Atheist", so that right there speaks volumes. It tells me that you will reject, a priori, any and all evidence that suggests that you could be wrong. Actually, the consummate description of a religious conviction. “

Are you saying that evolution evidences atheism? So since I wouldn’t be an atheists, I shouldn’t concern myself with evolutionary theory? I won’t ever be a communists, but I just bought Engle’s and Marx’s Communist Manifesto because I want to learn the views of others that are oppositionary to my own. Not for the express purpose of refuting them, but out of a desire to learn.

Karla said...

karla said: Has anyone observed reason evolving?

Cyber “Do you *really* want to go there?”

Yes.

Cyber “Did anyone *observe* Genesis.....?”

That’s my point. Creation may not be proven by science, but neither is evolution. To look at both scientifically rather than philosophically or Biblically one would have to say both are theories.


Cyber “Well, for one thing there's comparative behaviour studies. As creatures move 'up' the evolutionary ladder we see evidence of increasing reasoning ability. Then there's comparative brain studies and even the study of our own brains which show evidence of evolutionary steps - and, of course, the fossilised skulls of countless animals who existed before us. We can estimate brain size and complexity from these. It appears to be the case that as brain size and complexity increases so does reasoning functionality. It is not the case that we alone reason and no other creature does. Other creatures reason to a lesser extent depending on their brains.”

Thank you for giving a response on this. How do we know which way is up? And how do we know that humans have moved up, rather than always having been up?



Cyber “You mean we can't think outside the box if we're inside the box?”

Exactly!

Cyber “How exactly are we thinking 'from above' the system - you're really going to have to explain what you mean by that!”

We could only do so if we have a supernatural aspect to our nature. That we are beings of two spheres, one natural and one supernatural.


Cyber “Actually I think that we are one of the few (maybe even the only) creatures that are *not* slaves to our DNA. Whilst we will never be completely free from our animal nature - unless we excise the animal from us - we have the evolved ability to choose to be more than animals. Because we are self-aware we can decide how to act, when to act and (probably more importantly) when not to act. This ability which is the result of our DNA gives us the opportunity to move beyond the demands of our DNA. “

I would agree that we do have this self-awareness and that we are uniquely distinct from animals. But what if we have always been thus? What if this isn’t because we evolved to a higher state of being, but have always been so? Shouldn’t the skeptic question evolution just as he questions everything else?

Cyber “Our abilities do not need supernatural explanations. It is perfectly possible - indeed highly likely - that we have the abilities that we do through the evolutionary process. I am certainly unaware of any of our attributes that can only be explained supernaturaly! “


Maybe we have been so content with the naturalistic answer that we haven’t been able to see the need for a supernatural one. I know the inverse could be said of me, and I am comfortable exploring natural answers, but I’m not seeing them have sufficiency to explain our uniqueness.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Creation may not be proven by science, but neither is evolution.

Proven beyond all doubt? No. Proven sufficiently? Yes. There are mountains of evidence to support evolution.... Where is the evidence to support Special Creation?

karla said: To look at both scientifically rather than philosophically or Biblically one would have to say both are theories.

Except that Creationism *isn't* a scientific theory. It's a piece of Christian philosophy.

karla said: And how do we know that humans have moved up, rather than always having been up?

The fossil record. There was a time (actually for most of the existence of life on Earth) when mankind in any form did not exist. We are still putting together the details but we're getting a good idea of our evolutionary path.

karla said: We could only do so if we have a supernatural aspect to our nature. That we are beings of two spheres, one natural and one supernatural.

So you keep asserting - but you're not really answering my question. Why aren't natural explanations of our abilities enough to explain what we can do? Why do we need supernatural explanations to make sense of things like us being self-aware? What makes natural explanations inadequate?

karla said: I would agree that we do have this self-awareness and that we are uniquely distinct from animals.

I think our uniqeness is of degree rather than of kind. We are animals - that's frankly undeniable. It just so happens that we *know* we're alive.

karla said: But what if we have always been thus?

Please define 'always'.

karla said: What if this isn’t because we evolved to a higher state of being, but have always been so?

Because we have hard evidence that we have evolved.

karla said: Shouldn’t the skeptic question evolution just as he questions everything else?

Yes, and I do.

karla said: Maybe we have been so content with the naturalistic answer that we haven’t been able to see the need for a supernatural one.

Actually naturalistic answers to these questions haven't been around for that long. For most of human history answers (so called) have been provided by supernatural explanations.

karla said: I am comfortable exploring natural answers, but I’m not seeing them have sufficiency to explain our uniqueness.

Why not?

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

Karla: "I don’t just want to know about what I believe, I am fascinated by the perspectives of others and I believe there is some truth in all perspectives so I may very well encounter something that rings as true."

Truth in all perspectives? Who cares, you've decided another's perspective is not going "ring true" enough for you to change your position, so.

Me, previously: "In fact, you have gone on record to say that you could 'never be an Atheist', so that right there speaks volumes. It tells me that you will reject, a priori, any and all evidence that suggests that you could be wrong. Actually, the consummate description of a religious conviction."

Karla responds..."Are you saying that evolution evidences atheism?"

No. I'm saying that evolution evidences that the Creationist proposition that everything was specially created in its present form is a demonstrably erroneous proposition. It's noteworthy to point out, BTW, that millions of Christians ACCEPT evolution. But that doesn't hurt their "faith" in Christianity.

Karla: "So since I wouldn’t be an atheists, I shouldn’t concern myself with evolutionary theory?"

Be concerned all you like. On the other hand, what is "concern" if you won't act on it?

continues...."...I want to learn the views of others that are oppositionary to my own. Not for the express purpose of refuting them, but out of a desire to learn."

What is the point of learning new information if that information might correct old information that you fully intend to keep? For example, you had this to say to Cyberkitten, regarding evolution....

"Creation may not be proven by science, but neither is evolution." ~ Karla

Aside from the fact that Evolution by Natural Selection is proven fact of science, what are you saying? Are you saying that "creation" is just as flimsy as "evolution" because neither are "proven" by science? Is that what you are saying???????

This is precisely what creationists do...i.e..they spend the majority of their time attempting to bash holes in "evolution" and the scientific method, thinking that "creation" will be "true" be default, and "faith" will be reliable by default. Which of course, are glaring non-sequiturs.

Karla, "evolution" is falsifiable. Find me an Irish setter fossil from the Permian period, and whAmmO!..."evolution" is falsified!

Now---what would falsify "creation"? Name a situation or senario, where, if true, it would falsify "creation".

Cyber asks... “How exactly are we thinking 'from above' the system - you're really going to have to explain what you mean by that!”

Karla responds...."We could only do so if we have a supernatural aspect to our nature."

and...

"That we are beings of two spheres, one natural and one supernatural."

Begging the question---fallacy. My goodness...when...?...?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I am curious what you meant by the word['responsibility'] pursuant to your statement."

I meant it in the colloquial sense; the face-value sense. Why I decided as an after-thought that you should clarify it, is because, many times, we will do multiple exchanges only to come to find out that you meant something entirely different all along---something that another word would best describe.

continues...."I mean being responsible for our actions. Being responsible to others rather than just fending for ourselves like animals in a jungle. Why do our actions have a moral culpability whereas the animal kingdom just kills and eats as they please?"

Because we are more intelligent; more evolved, and subsequently, we know that living in groups means we have to consider others.

As for the "animal kingdom"--why do you suppose that the bigger, more powerful animals haven't eaten us "as they please", in fact, to our extinction? Could it be because we're more intelligent, and thus, we know how/when/why to stay out of the way of these animals? Hmmmm, I wonder...?...?

Previously, me: “Why would the 'soul' need to express itself physically, when we are to believe that said 'soul' will express itself just fine when the physical body is completely annihilated?”

Karla responds..."Because not everyone has learned to see beyond the physical. We currently live in a world that is both physical and spiritual and I don’t know if the physical will ever be done away with, but there will be a day where the two are more conjoined than today when things fit together 'more like a centaur than a horse and rider' (to borrow from C.S. Lewis)."

Not one word of that answers my question. You posit a "soul"(which is presumably non-physical) on zero objective evidence. As best as I can tell, you've simply followed-up with a bunch more assertions on zero evidence.

BTW, what makes you think that borrowing from/quoting Xian apologists will being convincing to the unconvinced?

Previously, me: “In any event, what about those Alzheimer patients and other brain-traumatized patients who do not become 'incredibly lucid' before death? Will you accept that as 'evidence' against a mind/body dualism?”

Karla: "Those instances where it does not happen do not provide explanation for the times lucidity happens."

My goodness. Okay, and those instances where it does happen do not provide explanation for the times "lucidity" doesn't happen.

Me, previously: “Since it is clear that you are a bible-inerrantist, and thus, that you are one of the many who reject what science tells us about Evolution by Natural Selection because it disagrees with the Genesis 'Creation' account, why on earth would I waste my time telling you about what science tells us about our human needs/desires evolving, since you will likely reject that too?”

Karla responds..."I desire to know the views other people have. The answers they give to these questions."

But the bottom line is that you have zero intention of changing your mind, regardless of other's views/answers.

Again, this would only make sense, considering your previous admission that you could "never be an Atheist".

Karla said...

karla said: Creation may not be proven by science, but neither is evolution.

Cyber “Proven beyond all doubt? No. Proven sufficiently? Yes. There are mountains of evidence to support evolution.... Where is the evidence to support Special Creation?”

Honestly, I have not studied much of the science of either, but the philosophy of the two propositions. The philosophical questions of origin are not answered by evolution.


karla said: To look at both scientifically rather than philosophically or Biblically one would have to say both are theories.

Cyber “Except that Creationism *isn't* a scientific theory. It's a piece of Christian philosophy.”

There is a huge lack of study in this field. One, because those who embark on it are often ostracized from the scientific community and even lose their tenor or other credentials when they attempt such research or put forth their critique scientifically of evolution.

This does need to be overcome though and shouldn’t be an excuse.


Cyber “The fossil record. There was a time (actually for most of the existence of life on Earth) when mankind in any form did not exist. We are still putting together the details but we're getting a good idea of our evolutionary path.”

Hmm. I know the dating of such fossils are often suspect.


karla said: We could only do so if we have a supernatural aspect to our nature. That we are beings of two spheres, one natural and one supernatural.

Cyber “So you keep asserting - but you're not really answering my question. Why aren't natural explanations of our abilities enough to explain what we can do? Why do we need supernatural explanations to make sense of things like us being self-aware? What makes natural explanations inadequate?”

I’ve explained that to be truly self-aware we must be able to see from outside of the box.


Cyber “I think our uniqeness is of degree rather than of kind. We are animals - that's frankly undeniable. It just so happens that we *know* we're alive.”

We would have the same likeness and DNA being made from the same Creator as we would had we “evolved” so this isn’t evidence. However, humanity remains distinct and we have no bones of half men and half apes. We have no records of animals increasing in reasoning. There is no animal drawn artwork on cave walls.



Cyber “Please define 'always'.”

What if we hadn’t evolved to be self aware from a lower life form, but came onto the seen as self-aware sentient beings that are distinct from the animal kingdom in this manner. What if scientists are assuming our self-awareness must have evolved because they do not every consider we were created that way by God? Thus the natural answer is sought after and perpetuated without evidence.


Cyber “Because we have hard evidence that we have evolved.”

Have you personally studied this evidence or are you accepting the conclusions of scientists? I have not studied it myself. I don’t trust that that evidence is sound either.

Cyber “Yes, and I do.”

Good. Not that I am an advocate of ardent skepticism, but it is fair that you exercise it on evolution just as you would creationism.

Karla said...

Boom “I meant it in the colloquial sense; the face-value sense. Why I decided as an after-thought that you should clarify it, is because, many times, we will do multiple exchanges only to come to find out that you meant something entirely different all along--something that another word would best describe. “

That’s fair.

continues...."I mean being responsible for our actions. Being responsible to others rather than just fending for ourselves like animals in a jungle. Why do our actions have a moral culpability whereas the animal kingdom just kills and eats as they please?"

Boom “Because we are more intelligent; more evolved, and subsequently, we know that living in groups means we have to consider others. “

So it’s not a matter of morality, but of sustaining our own existence? The “moral” thing is that which perpetuates the race? Rather than anything that really is good or bad? Is this correct according to your worldview? (you’ve heard a lot about what my worldview is, I want to know more about yours)


Boom “As for the "animal kingdom"--why do you suppose that the bigger, more powerful animals haven't eaten us "as they please", in fact, to our extinction? Could it be because we're more intelligent, and thus, we know how/when/why to stay out of harm's way? Hmmmm, I wonder...?...? “

That’s a self preservation rather than a moral matter. But I am wondering if that is the same to you?



Boom “BTW, what makes you think that borrowing from/quoting Xian apologists will being convincing to the unconvinced?”

I wasn’t borrowing to be convincing, but to use a good term to explain the role of the natural and supernatural. I used his name so as not to plagiarize the words.


Boom “But the bottom line is that you have zero intention of changing your mind, regardless of other's views/answers. Again, this would only make sense, considering your previous admission that you could "never be an Atheist". “

I’ll never be a Hindu either, but I am really interested to learn all about Hinduism and how they look at the world. Do you have no interest in learning about other cultures and beliefs that you do not hold as your own? I do not only learn about things I wish to adopt as my own belief, as I said I just picked up a book by communists, not be become a communist.

Karla said...

Boom “Truth in all perspectives? Who cares, you've decided another's perspective is not going "ring true" enough for you to change your position, so. “

I might not ever become a Hindu, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t truths in Hinduism. I really don’t see why anyone wouldn’t want to learn about a myriad of perspectives?



Boom “No. I'm saying that evolution evidences that the Creationist proposition that everything was specially created in its present form is a demonstrably erroneous proposition. It's noteworthy to point out, BTW, that millions of Christians ACCEPT evolution. But that doesn't hurt their "faith" in Christianity.”

Yes there are many Christians who do. Some who have never researched it beyond what they were taught in school and some who are fully committed to evolution. That doesn’t mean I’m sold on the idea.



Boom “Be concerned all you like. On the other hand, what is "concern" if you won't act on it?”

So I shouldn’t be interested in learning about communism from a communist unless I am investigating it with the prospect of becoming a communists?


Boom “What is the point of learning new information if that information might correct old information that you fully intend to keep? For example, you had this to say to Cyberkitten, regarding evolution....”

If I found new information that was true that corrected old information I would adopt the new.

"Creation may not be proven by science, but neither is evolution." ~ Karla

Boom “Aside from the fact that Evolution by Natural Selection is proven fact of science, what are you saying? Are you saying that "creation" is just as flimsy as "evolution" because neither are "proven" by science? Is that what you are saying???????”

I’m saying that you guys believe things as true without the burden of proof you put on the things I believe.

Boom “This is precisely what creationists do...i.e..they spend the majority of their time attempting to bash holes in "evolution" and the scientific method, thinking that "creation" will be "true" be default, and "faith" will be reliable by default. Which of course, are glaring non-sequiturs.”

I agree this is done and shouldn’t be done this way.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: The philosophical questions of origin are not answered by evolution.

That's probably because it's a philosophical question - rather than a scientific one (they're different things you know) - and because, by and large, evolution theory doesn't really look at the origins of life... just the origins of species..... Evolution attempts to explain the diversity of life, not the origin of life.

karla said: Hmm. I know the dating of such fossils are often suspect.

Really? By how much?

karla said: However, humanity remains distinct and we have no bones of half men and half apes.

Erm, yes we do..... Apart from the fact that we *are* apes in the first place!

karla said: Thus the natural answer is sought after and perpetuated without evidence.

But karla... There is *lots* of evidence. Scientists didn't just make this stuff up and decide amongst themselves that they had an answer. They found evidence and built theories around it - then went to look for more evidence. Can I advise that you read some scientific books on the subject? I'm sure that they'd be a great help in your understanding of it.

karla said: Have you personally studied this evidence or are you accepting the conclusions of scientists?

Are you asking if I'm an evolutionary biologist or even a scientist? No, I'm not. My degrees are all in the humanities. There are many fields I do not have degrees in - but this doesn't stop me doing reading on the subject or watching documentaries and drawing my own conclusions. I am a fairly intelligent person who has been educated to such an extent that I can use my natural reasoning faculty with a fair degree of confidence. So I can be presented with the evidence and understand it enough to give it a high enough confidence level to accept it. I don't simply accept what a scientist says because he's or she's a scientist. Such enquiry (on my side) is on-going. Although I cannot keep up with every development in every field of science I do try to keep up with the edited highlights. When I get the opportunity I read as much as I can on subjects that interest me. I use this knowledge to form opinions on, amongst other things, scientific matters. It is, therefore, my less than expert opinion that evolution makes *far* more sense than creationism.

karla said: I have not studied it myself. I don’t trust that that evidence is sound either.

How can you say that you don't trust the evidence when you haven't studied the evidence?

What about it don't you trust? Do you think that evolution is one vast conspiracy to convince people that God doesn't exist?

karla said: Not that I am an advocate of ardent skepticism, but it is fair that you exercise it on evolution just as you would creationism.

You, yourself, seem to be *ardently* skeptical about some things - evolution for one. Do you think it's even possibly true? If you could put a percentage of possibility for evolution what would that be? Less than 50% obviously... [grin] but how far down would you go?

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: "Because we are more intelligent; more evolved, and subsequently, we know that living in groups means we have to consider others."

Karla responds..."So it’s not a matter of morality, but of sustaining our own existence?"

If you are assuming that the two are mutually exclusive, then I'm wondering why you'd assume that. IOW, why can't it be both? Surely you wouldn't disagree that existence, itself, precedes any type of subjective meaning in life. I mean, if whether or not we exist is secondary, well, I think we'd be extinct by now. Moreover, if we are intelligent beings, then I think it's logical that we'd expect to see the most intelligent of the intelligent figuring out that a code of ethics(aka "morality") works better if we are to live in groups, as opposed to no such system. And lo-and-behold, we see just what we'd expect to see. The more intelligent and educated "groups"(societies) tend to be the most civilized, advanced, and thriving.

continues..."The 'moral' thing is that which perpetuates the race?"

The "moral" thing is what tends to avoid unnecessary harm, thus, yes, perpetuating the human race.

continues...."Rather than anything that really is good or bad?"

You seem to be equivocating in your use of the modifier, "really". What exactly are you implying when you ask if something "really is good"? I hope that you're not going where I think you might be..i.e..back to the "Absolute Good"/"Absolute Morality" issue, as I fully concede that there is no "Absolute good". "Good" is a relative concept, as I've illustrated over and over and over and over.

continues...."Is this correct according to your worldview?" (you’ve heard a lot about what my worldview is, I want to know more about yours)

I've told you what my "worldview" is regarding "morality", but here you are asking the same questions again. There's a pattern here.

Karla: "I wasn’t borrowing to be convincing, but to use a good term to explain the role of the natural and supernatural. I used his name so as not to plagiarize the words."

Okay, well, I'm unconvinced, all the same, that there is a "supernatural" realm that plays a "role" in anything.

continues...."I’ll never be a Hindu either, but I am really interested to learn all about Hinduism and how they look at the world."

And the point continues to be lost on you.

I have nothing against the idea of learning about other cultures, religions, or seeking new knowledge in general. I'm saying that when it comes to "Atheism", you've concluded, a priori(before hand), that it's a position you could never adopt.

Thus, I am taking that into account when you ask me, personally, to explain certain things to you, because after all, it's my option whether or not I want to explain something to someone who intends to dismiss what I have to say out-of-hand, to preserve their own convictions.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I really don’t see why anyone wouldn’t want to learn about a myriad of perspectives?"

When guests arrive on your blog and you minster to them, would you prefer them to view what you're telling them as a "perspective", or as a "Truth"? IOW, if a visiting Muslim has zero intention of viewing your "perspective" as "Truth", do you really think it matters if they "learn" your "perspective"?

Karla: "Yes there are many Christians who do. Some who have never researched it beyond what they were taught in school and some who are fully committed to evolution. That doesn’t mean I’m sold on the idea."

I never suggested that you should be "sold on the idea[of evolution]" because other Christians accept evolution. You should be sold on it because it's a proven scientific theory. You don't doubt atomic theory or gravitational theory, do you?

Previously, me: “Be concerned all you like. On the other hand, what is 'concern' if you won't act on it?”

Karla responds...."So I shouldn’t be interested in learning about communism from a communist unless I am investigating it with the prospect of becoming a communists?"

No one is disputing that "communism" happens or happened. No one's religious views are at stake if "communism" happens or happened. On the other hand, if "evolution" happened/happens, there are serious implications involved. Again, if "evolution" is true, that means that living organisms were NOT "created" as we see them now, a la "Genesis". This is why bible-literalists such as yourself must reject "evolution" in order to preserve an "inerrant" bible.

continues..."If I found new information that was true that corrected old information I would adopt the new."

Okay, in that case, what hypothetical new information would falsify your religious beliefs?

Karla: "I’m saying that you guys believe things as true without the burden of proof you put on the things I believe."

And again, Evolution by Natural Selection is a proven fact of science. It is an inductive argument? Yes---but it is *also*, a) observable now, and b) testible/falsifiable.

But let's suppose none of that is true.

Okay; done.

Now, whERE is the "science" in "creation", Karla?? Where are there currently tests being conducted for "creation"? What senario, if true, would falsify "creation"?

IOW, you are attempting to put what science tells us is true on the same ground with what religious dogma tells us is true.

My question again is this: is that "ground" firm?..or flimsy?

a) firm

b) flimsy

If "a", then evolution, like "creation", is on FIRM ground. If "b", then "creation", like evolution, is on flimsy ground.

Karla said...

Cyber “That's probably because it's a philosophical question - rather than a scientific one (they're different things you know) - and because, by and large, evolution theory doesn't really look at the origins of life... just the origins of species..... Evolution attempts to explain the diversity of life, not the origin of life.”

They are different, but they ought to be compatible. If something is true scientifically it should not contradict philosophical logic.


Cyber “Really? By how much?”

I’ve heard of studies where scientist were given a set of bones and told they were ancient and they did their test to find the date and concluded they were millions of years old when they were only hundreds of years old.


Cyber “Erm, yes we do..... Apart from the fact that we *are* apes in the first place!”

lol. That’s scientific speculation, not fact.


Cyber “But karla... There is *lots* of evidence. Scientists didn't just make this stuff up and decide amongst themselves that they had an answer. They found evidence and built theories around it - then went to look for more evidence. Can I advise that you read some scientific books on the subject? I'm sure that they'd be a great help in your understanding of it.”

Sometimes I wonder. Lol. I would love some book recommendations.

karla said: Have you personally studied this evidence or are you accepting the conclusions of scientists?

Cyber “Are you asking if I'm an evolutionary biologist or even a scientist? No, I'm not. My degrees are all in the humanities.”

No I was just asking if this is an area you have studied the research about. Admittedly, I have not studied science like I have studied history and philosophy. Though I do want to remedy that somewhat.

Cyber “How can you say that you don't trust the evidence when you haven't studied the evidence?”

Because I do know how to see a worldview behind something and it is that underlying worldview that makes me distrustful of the conclusions. In the same way I trust scientists who give evidence for creation who are not Christians more than those who are. Because I do know the worldview changes how we see things.


Cyber “What about it don't you trust? Do you think that evolution is one vast conspiracy to convince people that God doesn't exist?”

No I don’t think it is that. I think sometimes it is used that way, but not all the time. I do not trust the worldview that often accompanies the popularized science so that makes me more skeptical of the conclusions.




Cyber “You, yourself, seem to be *ardently* skeptical about some things - evolution for one. Do you think it's even possibly true? If you could put a percentage of possibility for evolution what would that be? Less than 50% obviously... [grin] but how far down would you go? “


I am ardently skeptical of some things because I stand firmly on other things that are contradictory to the others. If there is truth than there are things that are false and it is because of the truth that I cannot accept things that contradict the firm true things.

I do know that I need to study the topic a lot more though.

Karla said...

Previously, me: "Because we are more intelligent; more evolved, and subsequently, we know that living in groups means we have to consider others."

Karla responds..."So it’s not a matter of morality, but of sustaining our own existence?"

Boom “If you are assuming that the two are mutually exclusive, then I'm wondering why you'd assume that. IOW, why can't it be both? Surely you wouldn't disagree that existence, itself, precedes any type of subjective meaning in life. I mean, if whether or not we exist is secondary, well, I think we'd be extinct by now.”’

How can we assume though that our existence is of primary importance? If we have no Designer and we happened to evolve from lesser life forms, whose to say we don’t need to get out of the way for another breed of superior life forms to inhabit the earth. Or on the other hand, whose to say that killing off a weaker part of our population wouldn’t enhance our survival?

I really do not see how, (trying to think according to naturalism), sustaining our own existence is the height of morality.

I see that if we did not we would not be here having such a conversation, but so what. We wouldn’t know we were missing out on such a thing.

Boom “Moreover, if we are intelligent beings, then I think it's logical that we'd expect to see the most intelligent of the intelligent figuring out that a code of ethics(aka "morality") works better if we are to live in groups, as opposed to no such system. And lo-and-behold, we see just what we'd expect to see. The more intelligent and educated "groups"(societies) tend to be the most civilized, advanced, and thriving. “

Yes I can understand this part: that humans choosing to live in groups need agreed upon rules to govern their behavior for the greater good (or rather the best benefit to the life of the whole group—we have yet to determine if this is the essence of goodness). But that does not make those rules good or bad, but merely agreed upon. Thus they aren’t a matter of morality, but of a social contract of what a people likes or dislikes.

Karla said...

Karla: "I really don’t see why anyone wouldn’t want to learn about a myriad of perspectives?"

Boom “When guests arrive on your blog and you minster to them, would you prefer them to view what you're telling them as a "perspective", or as a "Truth"? IOW, if a visiting Muslim has zero intention of viewing your "perspective" as "Truth", do you really think it matters if they "learn" your "perspective"?”


I wouldn’t say I am ministering. . . Anyway to answer your question I would prefer that people consider what I say and search it out for themselves to see if it is true. I don’t want anyone to take my word for it. It would merely be my perspective to them until the point and time they adopt it as truth. I’m fine with that. I do of course believe what I am saying to be true to the best of my understanding of what is true or else I wouldn’t go around talking about it as such. However, I still don’t want anyone to accept it as true just because they read it on my blog. Nor would I want someone to believe me because they are my friend. I want them to seek out the truth for themselves.


Boom “I never suggested that you should be "sold on the idea[of evolution]" because other Christians accept evolution. You should be sold on it because it's a proven scientific theory. You don't doubt atomic theory or gravitational theory, do you?”

I don’t believe evolution to be proven.


Boom “No one is disputing that "communism" happens or happened. No one's religious views are at stake if "communism" happens or happened. On the other hand, if "evolution" happened/happens, there are serious implications involved. Again, if "evolution" is true, that means that living organisms were NOT "created" as we see them now, a la "Genesis". This is why bible-literalists such as yourself must reject "evolution" in order to preserve an "inerrant" bible.”

I’ve seen very convincing arguments for how evolution is compatible with the Bible. I still do not agree with those arguments. But my reasons for not accepting evolution are not just because it appears to contradict Genesis, for God could have used evolution in creation, but I just haven’t read anything yet that I found overly convincing as of yet that evolution is accurate.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: lol. That’s scientific speculation, not fact.

I'm curious, is it just "scientific speculation" that germ theory is the explanation for physical illness? Or do you accept it as "fact"? Or wait... maybe I'm jumping the gun---perhaps you still believe "demons" cause illness. Yes?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "How can we assume though that our existence is of primary importance?"

Lol! 'Never a dull moment here, that's for sure.

Well, if we didn't exist, Karla, then feel free to explain how anything else pertaining to our existence would matter.

continues...."If we have no Designer and we happened to evolve from lesser life forms, whose to say we don’t need to get out of the way for another breed of superior life forms to inhabit the earth."

Good question(finally).

Okay, firstly, if a "superior life form" comes to earth, that has nothing to with how life has evolved ON earth.

Secondly, if these visitors make it clear that they intend to harm us, unnecessarily(which WE determine), then fighting back is the moral thing to do. We should use whatever technology we have availible to us to exterminate these visitors, the same way that we exterminate bugs that threaten our sheltor, crops, and thus, our well-being.

continues..."Or on the other hand, whose to say that killing off a weaker part of our population wouldn’t enhance our survival?"

First off, "weaker", how?

Secondly, sane, civilized human beings recognize that other human beings are no less human just because we might feel they are inferior in some way.

Incidentally, the most obvious example of human beings killing other human beings I see going on right now is where one group thinks the other group's religious beliefs are inferior. Imagine that.

continues..."I really do not see how, (trying to think according to naturalism), sustaining our own existence is the height of morality."

Well, perhaps you can't see it because no one here is saying that "our own existence is the height of morality". I've said the two are tied together. Yes.

True, the fact that people lie to spare people's feelings certainly isn't going threaten our existence. On the other hand, we are sometimes deliberately deceitful to others in order to SPARE people's feelings..i.e..to not harm their feelings, unnecessarily. It's really not all that hard to grasp.

In any event, is not an "Absolute" that we shouldn't lie.

continues.."I see that if we did not we would not be here having such a conversation, but so what. We wouldn’t know we were missing out on such a thing."

Yikes. Well, okay, so then it doesn't matter if we're "missing out", in which case, my point is underscored: It would only "matter" IF we existed. Sheeez!

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Yes I can understand this part: that humans choosing to live in groups need agreed upon rules to govern their behavior for the greater good (or rather the best benefit to the life of the whole group—we have yet to determine if this is the essence of goodness). But that does not make those rules good or bad, but merely agreed upon. Thus they aren’t a matter of morality, but of a social contract of what a people likes or dislikes."

You JUST GOT DONE saying that you understand that said rules are for the "greater GOOD"[bold and upper case letters, mine].

You then employ your hidden premise, that is, that "good" is devoid of meaning unless "God" decrees it. <<< That.....that is a fallacious premise and it has been refuted over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, AGAIN.

Once more: If "God" decrees the difference between "good" and "bad", then there IS NO "good"/"bad"; "moral"/immoral", in which case, "God" is without morals, making said "God" amoral, by definition.

Karla, "good" is relative. What is "good" doesn't have to be "Absolute" to be useful. Please stop defending your errors.

Karla: I wouldn’t say I am ministering. . .

I would. You're at the least, providing a service by defending your blog.

Karla: "Anyway to answer your question I would prefer that people consider what I say and search it out for themselves to see if it is true."

I assume you mean objectively true, versus subjectively true. IOW, I don't need to search out anything to concede that I believe that you believe your beliefs are subjectively "true".

continues..."I don’t want anyone to take my word for it."

If I took people's "word for it", I may as well be a Scientologist, Mormon, or Muslim.

In any event, the ball is biblegod's court; not mine.

And as stated previously, said "God" is going to do what is "good" for me in the end.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: If something is true scientifically it should not contradict philosophical logic.

Quantum Mechanics. It might defy logic (apparently) but it *very* true.... and of course, as we have seen in the past, our idea of logic differs somewhat. Science investigates the world and discovers things about it. If those discoveries appear to go against logic this does not automatically mean that they are in some way 'wrong'. It means that we must continue investigating until it starts to make sense - which might actually overthrow our idea of what is logical in that case. Logic does not trump reality (which is sometimes very messy indeed).

karla said: I’ve heard of studies....

I'll stop you there. Don't listen to rumour - read some science.

karla said: lol. That’s scientific speculation, not fact.

Erm... No it's not. It's a FACT.

karla said: I would love some book recommendations.

Here's two books I'll be reading soon. They might help:

Human Evolution - A Very Short Introduction by Bernard Wood.

Why Evolution is True by Jerry A Coyne

karla said: Admittedly, I have not studied science like I have studied history and philosophy. Though I do want to remedy that somewhat.

That would definitely help [laughs]

karla said: I do not trust the worldview that often accompanies the popularized science so that makes me more skeptical of the conclusions.

You mean Naturalism?

karla said: If there is truth than there are things that are false and it is because of the truth that I cannot accept things that contradict the firm true things.

You mean that you firmly believe that your beliefs are True. Therefore anything that contradicts your beliefs is *automatically* either wrong or deeply suspect...... I think that's known as having a closed mind.

karla said: I do know that I need to study the topic a lot more though.

Yes, you do.

karla said: How can we assume though that our existence is of primary importance?

Primary importance to who? Us?

karla said: If we have no Designer and we happened to evolve from lesser life forms, whose to say we don’t need to get out of the way for another breed of superior life forms to inhabit the earth.

If a superior life form shows up at some point - if it hasn't already - we're toast basically!

karla said: Or on the other hand, whose to say that killing off a weaker part of our population wouldn’t enhance our survival?

Many societies have done this - the Spartans for example.

karla said: I really do not see how, (trying to think according to naturalism), sustaining our own existence is the height of morality.

Why would you expect it to be? I don't see my existence or human existence at the expense of others particularly moral.

karla said: Thus they aren’t a matter of morality, but of a social contract of what a people likes or dislikes.

No. it's not. It's what *works*. Many of our ethical ideas are about enhancing social cohesion.

karla said: I don’t believe evolution to be proven.

That's your *belief*. It doesn't mean that evolution isn't proven - just that you (and quite a few other American's) don't believe it.

karla said: I just haven’t read anything yet that I found overly convincing as of yet that evolution is accurate.

What would convince you?

Karla said...

Cyber “Here's two books I'll be reading soon. They might help:

Human Evolution - A Very Short Introduction by Bernard Wood.

Why Evolution is True by Jerry A Coyne”

Thank you.



Cyber “You mean Naturalism?”

Yes.



Cyber “You mean that you firmly believe that your beliefs are True. Therefore anything that contradicts your beliefs is *automatically* either wrong or deeply suspect...... I think that's known as having a closed mind.”

No I mean there are things that have to be true for other things to be true and when the fundamentals of truth are pulled out then there is nothing left for the thing being argued for to stand upon as true.


karla said: How can we assume though that our existence is of primary importance?

Cyber “Primary importance to who? Us?”

Oh I guess I see your logic. If we are the top of the food chain and there is nothing greater than ourselves on this earth then the perpetuation of our existence would be of tantamount importance and thus the universal standard of ethics. My questions, then do not work unless my worldview is presumed rather than yours. Interesting. . .


Cyber “If a superior life form shows up at some point - if it hasn't already - we're toast basically!”

I see.


Cyber “Many societies have done this - the Spartans for example.”

We still do, but doing it doesn’t make it right or just.


karla said: I really do not see how, (trying to think according to naturalism), sustaining our own existence is the height of morality.

Cyber “Why would you expect it to be? I don't see my existence or human existence at the expense of others particularly moral.”

I am now seeing how your worldview supports this proposition. I live from a place of considering others more important than myself because love is not self-seeking. I see caring about others as a love thing rather than a perpetuating the survival of humanity thing.



Cyber “No. it's not. It's what *works*. Many of our ethical ideas are about enhancing social cohesion. “

But what if there is a way to live in community that doesn’t employ moral rules and restrictions by societal agreement, but by a love for one another that compels us by desire to seek to do what is best for the others in our community, nation, and world? What if it doesn’t have to be a matter of duty but a matter of love.


Cyber “That's your *belief*. It doesn't mean that evolution isn't proven - just that you (and quite a few other American's) don't believe it.”

It isn’t about who believes it or not, but what is so. It either is proven or isn’t. My belief doesn’t make it not proven if it is, that is true.



Cyber “What would convince you? “

That there is no creation/Creator but an impersonal evolution? Everything I have experienced and learned and know to be true would have to be debunked thoroughly and then new firmer answers as to why I experienced all that I have experienced (miracles, God speaking to me, knowledge I couldn’t have naturally known, etc.) would need to be established. Then maybe I could consider such an evolution.

Karla said...

Boom “I'm curious, is it just "scientific speculation" that germ theory is the explanation for physical illness? Or do you accept it as "fact"? Or wait... maybe I'm jumping the gun---perhaps you still believe "demons" cause illness. Yes? “


I do accept that germs cause illness. I also accept that sometimes an illness can have a spiritual cause.

Karla said...

Boom “Well, if we didn't exist, Karla, then feel free to explain how anything else pertaining to our existence would matter.”

I see where your coming from.


Boom “Secondly, if these visitors make it clear that they intend to harm us, unnecessarily(which WE determine), then fighting back is the moral thing to do. We should use whatever technology we have availible to us to exterminate these visitors, the same way that we exterminate bugs that threaten our sheltor, crops, and thus, our well-being.”

What if we evolve into a higher life form? I mean what would make us think that if evolution is true that it stops with our current existence? For one, are there any signs that humans are evolving and 2) if we did and we had a race of humans and a new race of super evolved humans and they did not have our best interest at heart – then what? (just curious—not really giving this argument to prove anything I’m saying)



Boom “First off, "weaker", how?”

Handicapped. Elderly. Mentality challenged. Anyone not contributing to society but becoming a “burden” to society, Etc.

Boom “Secondly, sane, civilized human beings recognize that other human beings are no less human just because we might feel they are inferior in some way.“

See I think that is a sign of a moral compass that is greater than just human rationality.

Boom “Incidentally, the most obvious example of human beings killing other human beings I see going on right now is where one group thinks the other group's religious beliefs are inferior. Imagine that.”

I would say that Hitler was one of the biggest examples of such brutality based on his belief that certain people didn’t have a right to exist. In the Sudan, women and children are continually being enslaved and brutalized because they are seen as inferior. Such slave trafficking such as was depicted in the movie Taken is a world wide problem.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I do accept that germs cause illness. I also accept that sometimes an illness can have a spiritual cause."

So, since "science" is self-correcting, then if scientists discovered that they were wrong in their current theory that germs cause illness, and if they had no replacement theory(explanation), would you then, by default, attribute ALL illness/disease to a "spiritual cause"? Yes or no? If "no", why not, and what would you attribute it too?

Previously, me: “Well, if we didn't exist, Karla, then feel free to explain how anything else pertaining to our existence would matter.”

Karla responds: "I see where your coming from."

Good. So you agree that existence is of prime importance.

Karla: "What if we evolve into a higher life form?"

You would have to be more specific as to what you mean by "higher". I'll assume that you mean more intelligent/more civilized/better evolved to deal with earth's adverse conditions.

Okay. So? What if?

continues..."I mean what would make us think that if evolution is true that it stops with our current existence?"

Nothing. No proponent of evolution thinks that the process "stops with our current existence".

continues..."For one, are there any signs that humans are evolving..."

Yes. For one thing, each new generation has new variations of genetic code. This is in the form of mutations. Some mutations, as you might know, cause genetic defects. Others actually improve physical fitness of the species.

There is also lactose tolerance in adults. Originally, adults only got (natural) milk early in life. If they had tried to drink farm milk in adult life, they'd have gotten sick.

continues..."if we did and we had a race of humans and a new race of super evolved humans and they did not have our best interest at heart – then what? (just curious—not really giving this argument to prove anything I’m saying)"

I assume you mean if said race meant to cause us unncessary harm, and if so, the same thing applies: We should do whatever's in our power to stop them. On the other hand, we have no reason to believe that an evolved version of *humanity*, meaning, evolved intellectually, too, is going destroy other humans.

Me, previously: "Secondly, sane, civilized human beings recognize that other human beings are no less human just because we might feel they are inferior in some way."

Karla responds: "See I think that is a sign of a moral compass that is greater than just human rationality."

It's human rationality with humanity's best interest at heart. Karla, we don't need to be "commanded" to "love our neighbor" or to read from a 200 yr-old book to be reminded that people want to be treated like we expect to be treated.

Karla: "I would say that Hitler was one of the biggest examples of such brutality based on his belief that certain people didn’t have a right to exist."

Right in line with what we see in the bible..i.e..preserving "God's chosen". It boils down to racism. Do you see any Amalekites anywhere?

BTW, communism and Atheism are not mutually inclusive. For instance, there is such a thing as Christian Communism. 'Just thought you should know.

Karla: "Sudan, women and children are continually being enslaved and brutalized because they are seen as inferior."

And I'm not saying we shouldn't do what we can to stop this.

continues.."Such slave trafficking such as was depicted in the movie Taken is a world wide problem."

So, at face value, you agree that it's immoral to enslave and brutalize human beings. Okay, is that always immoral? Is is there a time or conditions when it's "good"????

boomSLANG said...

Correction: Meant "2000 yr-old book"

CyberKitten said...

karla said: I do accept that germs cause illness. I also accept that sometimes an illness can have a spiritual cause.

Really? Such as....? Which diseases and what spiritual cause?

Oh, and how do you tell the difference between a diseased caused by a natural and one caused by superatural means? Presumably the lack of bacteria in the supernatural case?

...and can I just say that you seem to live in a very strange world... almost medieval in fact.....

CyberKitten said...

karla said: If we are the top of the food chain and there is nothing greater than ourselves on this earth then the perpetuation of our existence would be of tantamount importance and thus the universal standard of ethics.

No. Just because we are, arguably, on top of the food chain doesn't make everything we do to perpetuate our existence moral. Might does not might right.

Cyber “Many societies have done this - the Spartans for example.”

karla said: We still do, but doing it doesn’t make it right or just.

Not from our standards no... but it seemed to work for them... at least for a long while....

karla said: I live from a place of considering others more important than myself because love is not self-seeking.

I too can see circumstances where I am less important than others.... neither self-sacrifice nor altruism are unknown to me....

karla said: It isn’t about who believes it or not, but what is so. It either is proven or isn’t.

Exactly. Evolution is a proven fact with which you do not agree - because of your beliefs to the contrary (as you have explained).

karla said: Everything I have experienced and learned and know to be true would have to be debunked thoroughly and then new firmer answers as to why I experienced all that I have experienced would need to be established.

So... not *that* much then.... [grin]

karla said: I mean what would make us think that if evolution is true that it stops with our current existence?

It doesn't. Evolution is happening all around us on a daily basis. It has never stopped and never will until all life is extinguished on Earth.

karla said: if we did and we had a race of humans and a new race of super evolved humans and they did not have our best interest at heart – then what?

If such a thing happened we would probably fight - and if they were truely superior we'd loose... just like Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals....

karla said: See I think that is a sign of a moral compass that is greater than just human rationality.

It's called (IIRC) Cosmopolitanism - invented by the Ancient Greeks.

karla said: I would say that Hitler was one of the biggest examples of such brutality based on his belief that certain people didn’t have a right to exist.

It's a form of Utopianism - the belief that the world would be a much better place if only group X didn't exist. Nazism was just one of its more virulent forms.

Karla said...

Boom “So, since "science" is self-correcting, then if scientists discovered that they were wrong in their current theory that germs cause illness, and if they had no replacement theory(explanation), would you then, by default, attribute ALL illness/disease to a "spiritual cause"? Yes or no? If "no", why not, and what would you attribute it too?”

I’m not talking about attributing illness to a spiritual cause when science doesn’t have an answer for it. It could just be something they haven’t discovered yet. I’m saying sometimes things can have a spiritual cause even when they are also naturally explained. And sometimes there isn’t a spiritual cause.


Boom “Good. So you agree that existence is of prime importance.”

I see that in your worldview that makes sense. But I don’t share that worldview.


Boom “You would have to be more specific as to what you mean by "higher". I'll assume that you mean more intelligent/more civilized/better evolved to deal with earth's adverse conditions. “

Yeah that’s what I meant.

Boom “Okay. So? What if?”

So a hypothetical more advanced people does not mean they trump the lower advanced people’s moral code?



Boom “Nothing. No proponent of evolution thinks that the process "stops with our current existence".

I would think they couldn’t say that it stops with us, but I hadn’t heard of evidence of it continuing only that it is such a slow process (taking millions of years) that we cannot see it happening. At least I thought that was how the argument went.


Boom “Yes. For one thing, each new generation has new variations of genetic code. This is in the form of mutations. Some mutations, as you might know, cause genetic defects. Others actually improve physical fitness of the species.

There is also lactose tolerance in adults. Originally, adults only got (natural) milk early in life. If they had tried to drink farm milk in adult life, they'd have gotten sick.”

Interesting.





Boom “It's human rationality with humanity's best interest at heart. Karla, we don't need to be "commanded" to "love our neighbor" or to read from a 2000 yr-old book to be reminded that people want to be treated like we expect to be treated. “

Well what I was talking about wasn’t a matter of command, but a matter of real heart change to where we love people not because we ought to, or because we gain anything from it, but because we do really love them.

Karla: "I would say that Hitler was one of the biggest examples of such brutality based on his belief that certain people didn’t have a right to exist."

Boom “Right in line with what we see in the bible..i.e..preserving "God's chosen". It boils down to racism. Do you see any Amalekites anywhere? “

It wasn’t a matter of favoritism. God destroyed nations or people at times as a judgment, not because he was playing favorites. Israel received His judgment too. (That’s as far down that path I’m heading again right now).


Boom “BTW, communism and Atheism are not mutually inclusive. For instance, there is such a thing as Christian Communism. 'Just thought you should know.”

True. I was only using communism as an example.


Boom “And I'm not saying we shouldn't do what we can to stop this.”

I agree this needs to be stopped. I have met Christians who have started non-profit businesses like an organic coffee business to raise the money to go in and rescue women and children from these situations. Also Ravi Zacharias’s daughter goes into red light districts to help bring women out to safety. The organization Invisible Children does a lot to help as well.

Karla said...

karla said: I do accept that germs cause illness. I also accept that sometimes an illness can have a spiritual cause.

Cyber “Really? Such as....? Which diseases and what spiritual cause?”

It’s not a particular thing. I can’t give a list of diseases. Anything we are ill with can have a spiritual cause even a headache. However, I think most of the time it is only natural.


Cyber “Oh, and how do you tell the difference between a diseased caused by a natural and one caused by superatural means? Presumably the lack of bacteria in the supernatural case? “

The only way I would have of knowing is God revealing it to me that something more is going on than a natural thing. I think bacteria would still be there either way.


Cyber “...and can I just say that you seem to live in a very strange world... almost medieval in fact..... “

Well it could be by world that’s strange, or it could be yours. (-:

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I’m not talking about attributing illness to a spiritual cause when science doesn’t have an answer for it."

I know that you're not "talking about" it; I'm the one talking about it, and I'm doing so to make a point. I'm trying to find out if you'd make your "God did it!" hypothesis the "default" explanation when/if an explanation can't be provided from a naturalistic/scientific standpoint.

Since you go on to say....."It could just be something they[scientists] haven’t discovered yet", this shows inconsistancy on your part, because you invoke a "supernatural" explanation..aka "God did it!" regarding other things for which "science" doesn't have an absolute answer. For instance, the origins of the universe.

continues..."I’m saying sometimes things can have a spiritual cause even when they are also naturally explained."

How convenient. I don't suppose you've ever heard of "Occam's Razor".

Previously, me: “Good. So you agree that existence is of prime importance.”

Karla responds.."I see that in your worldview that makes sense. But I don’t share that worldview."

Yes, to the theist, the existence of humanity is secondary to pleasing their respective deities. Understood. Sadly, to the theist, "the end is near", and it's actually a good thing. This is why said belief(my former belief) disgusts me. I am ashamed to have actually believed it for so long.

Karla: "So a hypothetical more advanced people does not mean they trump the lower advanced people’s moral code?"

You seem to be assuming that the more advanced human beings would somehow not have their own humanity as a foundation for a "moral code", and I'd be curious to know why you assume that. Remember, the more advanced human beings didn't sprout up over night; it would happen over thousands if not millions of years.

Previously, me: “Yes. For one thing, each new generation has new variations of genetic code. This is in the form of mutations. Some mutations, as you might know, cause genetic defects. Others actually improve physical fitness of the species.

There is also lactose tolerance in adults. Originally, adults only got (natural) milk early in life. If they had tried to drink farm milk in adult life, they'd have gotten sick.”

Karla responds..."Interesting."

But is it "interesting" enough that you'll accept it has credible evidence that refutes your currently-held belief that "man" and all other living organisms where "created", as is? If not, why not?

Also, do you accept the scientific explanation for "gravity"? If so, why do you accept that, but yet, you are skeptical of the scientific theory for the diversity of life we see on our planet? IOW, there seems to be some inconsistancy on your part, and I'd like to find out why.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "Well what I was talking about wasn’t a matter of command, but a matter of real heart change to where we love people not because we ought to, or because we gain anything from it, but because we do really love them."

We can do that without belief in invisible, conscious beings.

Karla: "It wasn’t a matter of favoritism."

Yes it was, and today's Christianity is clearly the same. Biblegod arranged for his "son"(or himself, depending on how you look at it) to be brutally murdered in a Roman execution. The only people who benefit from this substitutionary "Atonement" are Christians. NONE else. If that's not favoritism, then I don't know what is.

continues..."God destroyed nations or people at times as a judgment, not because he was playing favorites. Israel received His judgment too."

What if part of the "judgment" of this "God" you speak of decided to exact "Justice" by telling you and other Christians to DESTROY all nonbelievers? Would that be a "Judgment" that you'd consider "good" enough to support? If not, please explain why you would not support "God".

Previously, me: “...I'm not saying we shouldn't do what we can to stop [women and children who are being enslaved and brutalized because they are seen as inferior]”

Karla responds..."I agree this needs to be stopped. I have met Christians who have started non-profit businesses like an organic coffee business to raise the money to go in and rescue women and children from these situations."

And I would ask those "Christians" the same question that I asked you(the same question, that for some reason, you ignored).

Here it is again:

"So, at face value, you agree that it's immoral to enslave and brutalize human beings. Okay, is that always immoral? [Or] is there a time or conditions when it's 'good'?"

Well?

CyberKitten said...

karla said: The only way I would have of knowing is God revealing it to me that something more is going on than a natural thing.

As I said before - Medieval thinking........

karla said: Well it could be by world that’s strange, or it could be yours. (-:

The world is interestingly strange and strangely interesting.... Naturalism is unusual in the history of Western beliefs. For most of human history people generally thought like you - supernaturally.....

Karla said...

Boom “I know that you're not "talking about" it; I'm the one talking about it, and I'm doing so to make a point. I'm trying to find out if you'd make your "God did it!" hypothesis the "default" explanation when/if an explanation can't be provided from a naturalistic/scientific standpoint.”

No. I am NOT saying if science can’t give a natural explanation for the illness it must have a spiritual cause or even that it is likely to be a spiritual cause. I am saying that sometimes even though there is a natural explanation there is also a spiritual root to the problem.


Boom “Since you go on to say....."It could just be something they[scientists] haven’t discovered yet", this shows inconsistancy on your part, because you invoke a "supernatural" explanation..aka "God did it!" regarding other things for which "science" doesn't have an absolute answer. For instance, the origins of the universe.”

This is not inconsistent. I do not invoke a supernatural answer because science doesn’t have an absolute answer regarding origins or anything else. Science isn’t the only methodology to learning truth. Philosophy is another such discipline where we deal with the question of origin. I’m not giving a God of the Gaps argument. I don’t plug in the word God or the word supernatural just because scientists haven’t come up with an answer. I am advocating that the real answer is God, not because of any gap, but because His being real makes sense of our existence.


Boom “Yes, to the theist, the existence of humanity is secondary to pleasing their respective deities. Understood. Sadly, to the theist, "the end is near", and it's actually a good thing. This is why said belief(my former belief) disgusts me. I am ashamed to have actually believed it for so long.”

What do you mean by “end”? I do not believe this world will end, but rather it will be renewed.

Also, you use the wording “pleasing their respective deities.” This shows me I still haven’t been understood. I don’t know if it is because it doesn’t matter how I put things that is the way you are going to see it, or if I haven’t explained things well, or what. I will assume it is my lack of clarity that leads to this misinterpretation.


Boom “You seem to be assuming that the more advanced human beings would somehow not have their own humanity as a foundation for a "moral code", and I'd be curious to know why you assume that. Remember, the more advanced human beings didn't sprout up over night; it would happen over thousands if not millions of years.”

No. I was asking if their code could trump our code. But I guess your saying we would become them and that code would be whatever it is at the time?

Karla said...

Boom “But is it "interesting" enough that you'll accept it has credible evidence that refutes your currently-held belief that "man" and all other living organisms where "created", as is? If not, why not? “

I do wonder if the lactose intolerance is from babies receiving formula instead of natural milk from their mothers. Just the same, I think we have changed over time based on our environment and genetics, but I don’t think we have changed so much that we were once less than human.



Boom “Also, do you accept the scientific explanation for "gravity"? If so, why do you accept that, but yet, you are skeptical of the scientific theory for the diversity of life we see on our planet? IOW, there seems to be some inconsistancy on your part, and I'd like to find out why. “

Yes I accept gravity. I’m skeptical of the worldview of science at times, not the study of biology, chemistry, physics, etc. I’m skeptical of the conclusions that make statements about who we are and why were are. See my worldview being both natural and supernatural is affirming of the natural world. The naturalist ability to explore truth is confined to the natural world. It’s limited. However, science too is limited to study of the natural world. But philosophy can study the metaphysical and as long as science doesn’t try to trump that metaphysical study then I don’t have a problem with it and am fascinated by such exploration.

Karla said...

Boom “Yes it was, and today's Christianity is clearly the same. Biblegod arranged for his "son"(or himself, depending on how you look at it) to be brutally murdered in a Roman execution. The only people who benefit from this substitutionary "Atonement" are Christians. NONE else. If that's not favoritism, then I don't know what is.”

Ah, no. The person who benefits wasn’t a Christian before they came to benefit. So it wasn’t favoritism. It is for any who want to enter the open door of Jesus which is the path to Himself who is the eternal life. Eternal Life is the person Jesus. It isn’t something Jesus bestows to us apart from Himself. He doesn’t reach into His pocket and dish out some eternal life. He is that Eternal Life. Anyone at all can have that life by entering Him. It doesn’t matter if they were a Satanist, a mass murderer, or a little child.


Boom “What if part of the "judgment" of this "God" you speak of decided to exact "Justice" by telling you and other Christians to DESTROY all nonbelievers? Would that be a "Judgment" that you'd consider "good" enough to support? If not, please explain why you would not support "God". “


God doesn’t tell us to destroy nonbelievers. He tells us to love them. In fact, He tells us to love those who persecute us and those who are our enemies. And it isn’t that we are to do so because He “tells us” but because He loves all these people and His love is inside of us and naturally albeit supernaturally flows out. This is why Jesus says if someone professes to love Him but hates their brother they are lying, because there is no hate coming from Jesus and if we are in His love we will not hate either.

Karla said...

"So, at face value, you agree that it's immoral to enslave and brutalize human beings. Okay, is that always immoral? [Or] is there a time or conditions when it's 'good'?"

There are times when judgment is righteous. Sin leads to such enslavements, harm, destruction, and death. Most of the time that happens without God doing anything to them. Sometimes God does do something like taking a people or person into a situation where they are under judgment on earth in order to help them turn away from the sin that harms them and to the life they can have in God. God’s judgment is always both just and merciful at the same time.
At the same time, even in our human justice system we put people in prison (that’s an enslavement). If someone attacks our nation and puts our people in harms way we go to war with that nation or group of militants. There are just consequences for actions.

Moreover, I am a follower of Christ, and as an individual, not enlisted in the military, or a member of a police force, I am to follow the example of Christ to bless those who persecute me and do good to those who do wrong to me and to love (truly unconditionally love my enemy). That is my code of ethics, the love of Christ that dwells within me to be shown to all people. We no longer live in the old covenant days of God leading us into battle. Things are different now. But judgment still happens, but not by our hand.

Karla said...

Cyber “As I said before - Medieval thinking........”

Well you can dismiss it as that if you want to. That’s your choice.

Cyber “The world is interestingly strange and strangely interesting.... Naturalism is unusual in the history of Western beliefs. For most of human history people generally thought like you - supernaturally..... “

Maybe naturalism isn’t progressive thinking . . . but a thinking out of alignment with the rest of humanity. Maybe we have become so “civilized” that we can’t see the spiritual anymore. I still think if you spent a week with people who fully believe and claim to experience supernatural things you would experience something naturalism won’t explain. That could be spending a week with an African tribe or a week with a church group that sees miracles, signs, and wonders on a regularly basis.

boomSLANG said...

Karla "I am NOT saying if science can’t give a natural explanation for the illness it must have a spiritual cause or even that it is likely to be a spiritual cause. I am saying that sometimes even though there is a natural explanation there is also a spiritual root to the problem."

And to which I again say, how convenient. You've illustrated perfectly how theists, despite that today's science has disproved and replaced myriad previously-held erroneous explanations that were biblically-based, can still, even today, sit back and attribute a "spiritual root".

This is how "supernaturalism" can never be falsified. If I'm wrong, then please offer a hypothetical senario, where if true, it would falsifiy "supernaturalism".

Previously, me: "...you invoke a 'supernatural' explanation..aka 'God did it!' regarding other things for which ['science' doesn't have an absolute answer. For instance, the origins of the universe."

Karla responds: "I do not invoke a supernatural answer because science doesn’t have an absolute answer regarding origins or anything else."

The "because" is not the issue. We know *why* you believe what you believe. I'm pointing out that if for one gap in our current knowledge you are willing to say things like, "It could just be something they[scientists] haven’t discovered yet", why aren't you willing to say it for every gap in our knowledge, since the words, "I don't know" is more honest than invoking the "supernatural" explanation, "God did it!"(which isn't an explanation at all).

Moreover, even if science one day discovers how the universe came into existence, you, the "supernaturalist", can simply say things like, "Yes, but there's a spiritual root to that!"

continues.."Science isn’t the only methodology to learning truth. Philosophy is another such discipline where we deal with the question of origin."

Philosophize all you'd like. No human being was there for the "Singularity". The end. Thus, no human being knows for certain. Yet, you claim to know for certain. The "philosophy" on which you base your certainty is a book that contains information that is purported to be Absolute, Universal "Truth", yet, much of which today's science has proven to be falsehood. There is a glaring problem with that, at least, for those like yourself who are bible-inerrantists.

Karla: "I am advocating that the real answer is God, not because of any gap, but because His being real makes sense of our existence."

Again, the "because" is not the issue. To date, you have not put forth any objective confirmation for what you are "advocating". On top of that, today's science has disproven much of the leading "source" for what you are "advocating"...i.e. the bible.

Previously, me: "Sadly, to the theist, 'the end is near', and it's actually a good thing."

Karla responds: "What do you mean by 'end'?"

The end of human existence *ON* earth; the extinction of the human race.

continues..."I do not believe this world will end, but rather it will be renewed."

Yes, the elite "chosen" will spend "eternity" rejoicing in a permanent state of unadulterated bliss, while the balance will spend "eternity" in a place of torment.

As I've said before, I find this "philosophy" disgusting, immoral, and yes, a clear case of favoritism. I can only say that I'm sorry you've been victimized into believing such rubbish.

boomSLANG said...

Karla "No. I was asking if their code could trump our code. But I guess your saying we would become them and that code would be whatever it is at the time?"

The "code" would evolve right along with the "superior" version of humanity. That said, I have no reason to believe that said "code" will not be based the avoidance of unnecessary harm(like it is now), and instead, go backwards to being based on the barbaric, immoral "codes" of the world's leading revealed "truths"..i.e..Chrisitianity, Judaism, Islam.

Karla: "I think we have changed over time based on our environment and genetics, but I don’t think we have changed so much that we were once less than human."

Karla, there is mounds of evidence that we evolved from simpler life-forms.

Notwithstanding, I'll wager that you believe that "dust" is "less than human", don't you?

IOW, it's "okay" with you and your "creationist" constituents that humans evolved from "dust", as long a "God" had a hand in that transition. But you have a "block" when it comes to the notion that we evolved from lower life-forms as the result of a natural transistion. I see confirmation bias.

Karla: "Yes I accept gravity."

So why not believe, for instance, that when an apple breaks loose from a branch, that Yahweh is using his invisible hand and lowering the apple to ground? That could give "gravity" a "spiritual root", couldn't it? Is that a viable theory in your estimation? Or is it just an natural occurance that doesn't need "God"?

continues..."I’m skeptical of the worldview of science at times, not the study of biology, chemistry, physics, etc."

You've gOT to be kidding me. Karla, "biology", "chemistry", and "physics" are in the field of science.

continues..."I’m skeptical of the conclusions that make statements about who we are and why were are."

Science doesn't attempt to answer the "why" of existence, only the "how".

continues.."See my worldview being both natural and supernatural is affirming of the natural world."

The "natural world", alone, affirms the natural world. Again, see "Occam's Razor".

Karla: "...philosophy can study the metaphysical and as long as science doesn’t try to trump that metaphysical study then I don’t have a problem with it and am fascinated by such exploration."

True, philosophers can use "philosophy" to philosophize on what you call "the metaphysical". However, they cannot "study" it in the empirical sense, for if they could, we'd have some objective evidence for "the metaphysical". To date, there is no such evidence and the subject amounts to speculation.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “Biblegod arranged for his 'son'(or himself, depending on how you look at it) to be brutally murdered in a Roman execution. The only people who benefit from this substitutionary 'Atonement' are Christians. NONE else. If that's not favoritism, then I don't know what is.”

Karla responds..."Ah, no. The person who benefits wasn’t a Christian before they came to benefit."

Are you serious? If there was a time "before they came to benefit"[bold added], then the clear implication is that they had not yet benefited.

I obviously need to be more specific: When it's all said and done, and humanity has been dispersed to their respective eternal destinies, only "Christians" reaped the benefit of this "Atonement". We've been over this in past discussions, and here you are again defending it with same weak, thoroughly unconvincing apologetics.

Karla, if "Christianity" wasn't FAVORITISM, then "heaven" wouldn't be for "Christians", exclusively. It's that simple.

continues...Eternal Life is the person Jesus. It isn’t something Jesus bestows to us apart from Himself. He doesn’t reach into His pocket and dish out some eternal life. He is that Eternal Life. Anyone at all can have that life by entering Him. It doesn’t matter if they were a Satanist, a mass murderer, or a little child."

For what seems like the hundredth time, that there is a "solution" for avoiding "hell" is 100% irrelevant to the fact that only "Christians" end up in "heaven", while all non-Christians end up in "Hell". It's cut-n-dry, Karla.

Moreover, this supposed "solution" is utterly useless to someone who is NOT convinced that any of what you spout here is actually true, in which case, regurgitating that I can get such-n-such-n-such by "entering Him" is also utterly useless until/unless I'm able to believe it's true. 'Get it?

Karla: "God doesn’t tell us to destroy nonbelievers."

I see no evidence of a "God" saying anything to any human being---I only see theists and their respective holy books claiming to know what "God" is telling them. In that case, the bible clearly says that nonbelievers are to be killed(deut)

continues.."He tells us to love them."

"He tells" you to "love" people when he wants you to "love" them, and "He tells" you to kill people when he wants you to kill them.

continues..."In fact, He tells us to love those who persecute us and those who are our enemies."

In other words, "God" tells you to exhibit more compassion and patience than "God" can exhibit.

continues...."And it isn’t that we are to do so because He 'tells us' but because He loves all these people and His love is inside of us and naturally albeit supernaturally flows out."

Yes, yes, biblegod loves you, well, unless you don't reciprocate that "love", then its off to "Hell" with you. Absurd. Compulsory "love" is nothing less than manipulation, and it should be denounced.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "This is why Jesus says if someone professes to love Him but hates their brother they are lying, because there is no hate coming from Jesus and if we are in His love we will not hate either."

Then how do you reconcile the scripture that says that you cannot be a disciple unless you hate your mother, father, and even your own life? 'Got an apologetic for that, too?

Previously, me: "So, at face value, you agree that it's immoral to enslave and brutalize human beings. Okay, is that always immoral? [Or] is there a time or conditions when it's 'good'?"

Karla responds: "There are times when judgment is righteous."

Notice, I didn't ask when or whether "judgment is righteous". I want to know if there is ever time when making people slaves against their will is "good".

continues..."Sin leads to such enslavements, harm, destruction, and death."

I'm not talking about "sin". I want to know if there is ever time when making people slaves against their will is "good".

continues..."Most of the time that happens without God doing anything to them."

I want to know if there is ever time when making people slaves against their will is "good".

continues..."Sometimes God does do something like taking a people or person into a situation where they are under judgment on earth in order to help them turn away from the sin that harms them and to the life they can have in God."

I'm not talking about what "God" does. I want to know if there is ever time when making people slaves against their will is "good". Well?

continues..."God’s judgment is always both just and merciful at the same time."

Yes, yes.... and let's not forget "good", too. As you stated previously, you trust that "God" is going to do what's "good" for me, whether that be "Heaven", or whether that be "Hell"(i.e..the only two choices "God" can come up with)

But of course, that's not the subject we're dealing with right now. Here's what I'm after: I want to know if there is ever time when making people slaves against their will is "good".

continues..."At the same time, even in our human justice system we put people in prison(that’s an enslavement)."

Yes, there is "enslaving" human beings who deserve it, and there is enslaving human beings who do NOT deserve it. I'm talking about the latter, and here's the question again: I want to know if there is ever time when making people slaves against their will is "good".

continues..."If someone attacks our nation and puts our people in harms way we go to war with that nation or group of militants. There are just consequences for actions."

There's good news, and there's bad news. The good news is that you concede that people who seek to harm us, unnecessarily, should be stopped. The bad news is that your long, drawn-out apologetic(above) DOES NOT answer my question, whatsoever.

Here's the question: I want to know if there is ever time when making people slaves against their will is "good". For instance, in the example that YOU used regarding what's happening in Sudan.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "We no longer live in the old covenant days of God leading us into battle. Things are different now."

Yes, "different". We're wiser, more educated, more civilized, more compassionate, and there is not one scrap of evidence that we got this way by upholding the inhumane, barbaric, out-moded, out-dated "principles", "codes" or "commands" found the bible.

If humanity is one way now, and another way back then, and if "Justice" is exacted based on which way humanity is at a certain time, then this is clearly evidence that "Justice" is TIME-relative, therefore, NOT "Absolute"/"Universal". Please stop fighting me on this.

Karla said...

Boom you really do twist what I say and ignore what I am really saying. I don't see how we can have a conversation when this keeps happening. I might respond to your latest comments tomorrow.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Well you can dismiss it as that if you want to. That’s your choice.

Well, it's more of a label than a dismissal... but you do seem to be having very similar thought processes I understand that people before around 1650 used to have.... Maybe I should call it 'Pre-Modern' rather than Medieval......

karla said: Maybe naturalism isn’t progressive thinking . . .

I'd call it 'Modern' rather than progressive... but progressive will do too.... certainly better than regressive.....

karla said: but a thinking out of alignment with the rest of humanity.

It's certainly out of alignment with most of human history....

karla said: I still think if you spent a week with people who fully believe and claim to experience supernatural things you would experience something naturalism won’t explain.

One part psychology, one part sociology and one part anthropology I'd guess..... There are *many* studies written by people who have spent time in such communities.... I've even read some of them [grin]

boomSLANG said...

"Boom you really do twist what I say and ignore what I am really saying." ~ Karla

LOL! I'm sorry Karla, but if you think that you can get off that easily, you are oh-so-mistaken. There are literally HUNDREDS of exchanges here between you and me, and if you expect me to believe that I've "twisted" your words each and every time you attempt to put into words what you are "really saying", you're going to need some evidence. Mind you, this charge against me is coming from someone who is constantly revising/re-wording what she is "really saying".

Karla, I've soundly refuted several of your arguments. But to give benefit of doubt, feel free to delineate concisely, where I've "twisted" your words, and/or, point out what I'm ignoring.

continues...."I don't see how we can have a conversation when this keeps happening."

I'm more concerned how we can have a conversation when you keep defending your errors and inventing reasons why you cannot address my counter-arguments without regurgitating the same (unconvincing) apologetics over and over.

continues..."I might respond to your latest comments tomorrow"

I frankly don't care if you respond, or not. The writing is on the wall. I mean, if we can engage each other over the course of half a year, but you, at any time it suits you, can affirm your premise true in your argument by simply stating what you believe(as you did in the "The Nature of Belief" thread), and further, if you think you've done a "good" job by doing so, then we are wasting each other's time, and you are clearly wasting your time with this blog(with the exception of keeping the already-convinced, convinced)

Karla said...

I'm sorry Boom. I shouldn't have made that statement. I have been feeling that way, but I shouldn't have put that on you. It's not your fault that you interpret my world view through yours I do the same in the inverse.

Karla said...

Karla continues..."I’m skeptical of the worldview of science at times, not the study of biology, chemistry, physics, etc."

Boom responded "You've gOT to be kidding me. Karla, "biology", "chemistry", and "physics" are in the field of science."


I didn't say they weren't. I said I am skeptical of some of the worldviews scientists have but that doesn't mean I don't value biology, chemistry, physics, etc. (Which, yes of course are science, I wasn't saying differently.)

CyberKitten said...

karla said: I said I am skeptical of some of the worldviews scientists have but that doesn't mean I don't value biology, chemistry, physics, etc.

But.... It's that scientific world view that produces the value in biology etc... If it wasn't for the scientific 'worldview' we'd still pretty much be in the 15th Century....(knowledge wise)

Karla said...

Boom “I obviously need to be more specific: When it's all said and done, and humanity has been dispersed to their respective eternal destinies, only "Christians" reaped the benefit of this "Atonement". We've been over this in past discussions, and here you are again defending it with same weak, thoroughly unconvincing apologetics.”

Yes, only those who are in God have life with God (hence the term Christian (Christ follower or little Christ). I don’t see how that is favoritism. The only way to have the atonement is to be in God the door (Jesus) is open for that to happen to any who will come in. So no favoritism. Some come and some don’t. It’s like setting a million dollars on a table and saying anyone who wants to have this can have it. Say some people take it and others think there must be a trick or don’t believe it is really there and they don’t take it. Well those who have the money have it and those who don’t, don’t. There wasn’t favoritism; there was just a choice and an expression of wills – some willing to receive and some willing not to for whatever reason.



Boom “Karla, if "Christianity" wasn't FAVORITISM, then "heaven" wouldn't be for "Christians", exclusively. It's that simple.”

I disagree as I explain above. Yes, truth is exclusive of non-truth and if there is a way there are paths that are not the way. So there is that. But this is not a matter favoritism.



Boom “Moreover, this supposed "solution" is utterly useless to someone who is NOT convinced that any of what you spout here is actually true, in which case, regurgitating that I can get such-n-such-n-such by "entering Him" is also utterly useless until/unless I'm able to believe it's true. 'Get it?”

You can not believe that it is possible to “enter into God” all you want, but to keep responding as if the thing I’m presenting is something different than that is to tell me what I believe and then to refute that thing you create.


Boom “I see no evidence of a "God" saying anything to any human being---I only see theists and their respective holy books claiming to know what "God" is telling them. In that case, the bible clearly says that nonbelievers are to be killed(deut)”

Where does the Bible say that Christians are to kill non-Christians? I have never read this.


Boom “"He tells" you to "love" people when he wants you to "love" them, and "He tells" you to kill people when he wants you to kill them.”

Where does the Bible proclaim Christians ought to do this?


Boom “In other words, "God" tells you to exhibit more compassion and patience than "God" can exhibit.”

No the love I have is the love that is His that flows through me. Jesus lived this out to the fullest even to the cross. Notice Peter cut the guard’s ear off and Jesus stopped him and healed the ear and told him not to take up swords against the guards.

Karla said...

Boom “Yes, yes, biblegod loves you, well, unless you don't reciprocate that "love", then its off to "Hell" with you. Absurd. Compulsory "love" is nothing less than manipulation, and it should be denounced. “

Here is where I see you do not understand me. It is the Love that saves us from our own destruction. It isn’t a compulsory love; its entering love given freely to us that saves us and transforms our nature to righteousness and holiness. It is His love that sets us free from the bondage of sin that drags us towards hell and away from the life of God that is our salvation. It isn’t God saying “love me or die”, rather He is saying “you are dying, enter my love and you will live because only I contain the life that resurrects your spirit and restores your soul.” Then God says, “look I made the way open for you, I did the work, just come in and partake.” The life isn’t something God gives to us like granting a wish, it is something that is in Him and can only be accessed by also being in Him. It can’t be given out any other way for it isn’t out there to give, to it in Him and the way is also in Him this is why Jesus said the often repeated words, “I am the way the truth and the life, no one can come to the Father but by me.” This wasn’t arrogance, this is the way it is, the Truth, Life, and Way is a Person not a doctrine.

Karla said...

Boom “I'm not talking about "sin". I want to know if there is ever time when making people slaves against their will is "good".”

Boom “Yes, there is "enslaving" human beings who deserve it, and there is enslaving human beings who do NOT deserve it. I'm talking about the latter, and here's the question again: I want to know if there is ever time when making people slaves against their will is "good".”


Undeserved, no sin in the equation, and against one’s will?

I don’t see how that is good.

boomSLANG said...

"I'm sorry Boom. I shouldn't have made that statement." ~ Karla

'No big deal. On the other hand, if you have been feeling this way..i.e..that I twist and/or ignore what you are attempting to "really say", it seems that the next logical step is for you provide some *specific* examples of where you feel I'm doing this, that is, if any kind of meaningful discussion is to take place. In my view, where discussion becomes pointless is when/if one (or the other) makes broad generalizations regarding their opponent's arguments, or if one (or the other) simply affirms the truth of the very thing that is at issue in his or her argument...i.e..begging the question(logical fallacy).

Sadly, the latter you do quite frequently, and you don't appear to be willing to break yourself of it.

"I’m skeptical of the worldview of science at times, not the study of biology, chemistry, physics, etc." ~ Karla

If you are "skeptical of the worldview of science (at times)", then by association, you are skeptical of the worldview of biologists, chemists, and physicists, all of whom utilize the very same scientific method(s).

To my understanding, your "skepticism" of science's worldview only comes into play when said worldview directly refutes your bible, which you believe to be "inerrant". IOW, there is nothing at stake for you to accept gravitational theory or atomic theory, but since evolutionary theory directs refutes the "Genesis" account of "creation"..i.e..that all living things were created "as is" by "God", you are suddenly "skeptical". That is how I intepret your position.

Moreover, I am inclined to say that there is confirmation bias on your part, because you have gone on record to say that you don't fully understand evolutionary theory.(and your statements reflect that you don't)

Karla said...

Boom “Yes, "different". We're wiser, more educated, more civilized, more compassionate, and there is not one scrap of evidence that we got this way by upholding the inhumane, barbaric, out-moded, out-dated "principles", "codes" or "commands" found the bible. “

And yet, the Bible underpins all of Western society.



Boom “If humanity is one way now, and another way back then, and if "Justice" is exacted based on which way humanity is at a certain time, then this is clearly evidence that "Justice" is TIME-relative, therefore, NOT "Absolute"/"Universal". Please stop fighting me on this.”


It’s not a matter of time but a matter of the condition of humanity. Justice is relational to the particular person or generation under a particular condition (old covenant, new covenant, no covenant) these things change the right just way judgment comes. As I’ve said God is the only absolute good and absolute truth. I can’t point to anything else that compares not even a moral code—not even our interpretation – my own included of the Bible. None of that is absolute. Only God is.

Karla said...

Boom “No big deal. On the other hand, if you have been feeling this way..i.e..that I twist and/or ignore what you are attempting to "really say", it seems that the next logical step is for you provide some *specific* examples of where you feel I'm doing this, that is, if any kind of meaningful discussion is to take place. In my view, where discussion becomes pointless is when/if one (or the other) makes broad generalizations regarding their opponent's arguments, or if one (or the other) simply affirms the truth of the very thing that is at issue in his or her argument...i.e..begging the question(logical fallacy).”

Thanks for being a good sport about it. You are right it isn’t fair to give sweeping generalizations without showing specifics.


Boom “Sadly, the latter you do quite frequently, and you don't appear to be willing to break yourself of it.”

I do take this into consideration and I welcome the critique.


"I’m skeptical of the worldview of science at times, not the study of biology, chemistry, physics, etc." ~ Karla

Boom “If you are "skeptical of the worldview of science (at times)", then by association, you are skeptical of the worldview of biologists, chemists, and physicists, all of whom utilize the very same scientific method(s). “

Yes I am skeptical of the worldviews of all of it, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to learn more science in all the fields or that I dismiss it all, that would be wrong and not fair. I do value science, but it’s not been one of my favorite subjects – I find it difficult like math. I enjoy history, language, literature, philosophy etc.


Boom “To my understanding, your "skepticism" of science's worldview only comes into play when said worldview directly refutes your bible, which you believe to be "inerrant". IOW, there is nothing at stake for you to accept gravitational theory or atomic theory, but since evolutionary theory directs refutes the "Genesis" account of "creation"..i.e..that all living things were created "as is" by "God", you are suddenly "skeptical". That is how I intepret your position.”

I guess you could say that.


Boom “Moreover, I am inclined to say that there is confirmation bias on your part, because you have gone on record to say that you don't fully understand evolutionary theory.(and your statements reflect that you don't) “

Oh, yes I certainly need to study it more and am getting way ahead of my area of study to even have this debate in detail.

Karla said...

Cyber “But.... It's that scientific world view that produces the value in biology etc... If it wasn't for the scientific 'worldview' we'd still pretty much be in the 15th Century....(knowledge wise) “

It’s the Christian worldview that provided a framework for science to happen. Christians for centuries have seen learning about the natural world as learning more about God’s creation and do so with a wonder and an awe and joy of discovery of just how wonderfully detailed and beautiful this world is.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "Yes, only those who are in God have life with God.."

Thank you for that honest consession.

continues..."I don’t see how that is favoritism."

Oh, you don't?

Let me try again:

If the "gift" of salvation has been paid(PAST TENSE) for every single human being, then EVERY SINGLE human being would be eligible to, as you put it in Christianese, "have life with God". Yet, since only "Christians" are eligible to "have life with God"(as you've just conceded above), then said "Christians" are favored over non-Christians..i.e...FAVORITISM.

Made simpler, those who "accept the gift"(which, as we've extablished possibly hundreds of times requires belief), are favored by "God" over those who do not "accept the gift". I cannot make it any clearer.

continued defense..."The only way to have the atonement is to be in God the door (Jesus) is open for that to happen to any who will come in."

..::sigh::

Karla, in your estimation, how many flippin' times do you think you've said people need to "be in God"??? 10? 20? 100? 1000?

I implore you to actually try to entertain what I'm saying to you. Ready? Ready..?...?

Here we go again...

Human beings who cannot honestly believe that this "offer" has a referent in reality, cannot---repeat C-A-N-N-O-T simply "will" themselves into believing something that they find UNbelievable to begin with. 'Get it?

Thus, for you to keep regurgitating that "anyone" can "be in God", or similar spiritual jargon that has no proven referent in reality, is >> IMMATERIAL << to the unconvinced.

This really, really isn't a problem for people like me(the unconvinced), since I am equally unconvinced that "Allah" is going to send me to Jahannum(i.e..Islamic Hell). What I'm telling you is that I'm no more afraid of the Christian "Hell" than I am afraid of the Islamic version "hell". Karla, "Hell" is a problem for theists and their respective theologies. Until some objective confirmation from theists is offered that their respective versions of "hell" exist, or until someone can explain why being scared into believing something is a "good" reason to believe it, then my position remains the way it's been..i.e..that this is all man-made BS meant to scare people into believing. You are a victim, Karla. You are trying to "save" me(and others) from something that doesn't exist.

defense continues..."It’s like setting a million dollars on a table and saying anyone who wants to have this can have it."

NO!!!!!! the Christian concept of "salvation" is most certainly NOT "like" the notion of "setting a million dollars on a table". That is a HORRIBLY inapt analogy.

Karla, **if you set a "million dollars on a table" people can pick it with their hands and examine it. They can weigh it, smell it, they can test it, they can photograph it. They can take to a bank a see if it's real money, or counterfeit. Most certainly, the money isn't going to jump off the table and go hide in the clouds and ask you to "seek" it. 'See the difference(s)????

boomSLANG said...

"million dollars" analogy continued.....

"Say some people take it and others think there must be a trick or don’t believe it is really there and they don’t take it." ~ Karla

See above, here**, and reread it until it sinks in.

Karla, if people think the money being offered is a "trick", they can have a direct, one-on-one CONVERSATION with the person offering the money. If people are skeptical that the money is legal tender, they can take it to a bank.

defense continues..."...those who have the money have it and those who don’t, don’t."

Those who "have the money" can PROVE they have it!!!!!

defense continues...."There wasn’t favoritism; there was just a choice and an expression of wills – some willing to receive and some willing not to for whatever reason."

Yet, if I was told that if I didn't take the money that I would be "tormented", that would be a clear case of manipulation.

Your analogy fails miserably.

Karla" " Yes, truth is exclusive of non-truth and if there is a way there are paths that are not the way. So there is that. But this is not a matter favoritism."

I have no clue what you just said, I don't think you do, either.

"So there is that"??? whaa? Huh?

Yes, "truth is exclusive of non-truth". Okay, so? How is that relevant to someone who is unable to see your position as reasonable, let alone, "truth"???? If all people, regardless of what they believe or accept as "truth", got into "heaven", then I wouldn't be arguing that "Christianity" is "favoritism". As it stands, it is.

Karla..."You can not believe that it is possible to 'enter into God' all you want.."

NO where have I said what you are espousing about getting into "heaven" is not "possible". It might very well be "possible" that credible evidence can be offered that your fantastic claims are "truth". However, it hasn't yet, so I am UNABLE to believe any of it. That doesn't preclude a possibility.

Karla: "Where does the Bible say that Christians are to kill non-Christians? I have never read this."

Specifically, it says kill those who would lead you away from Christ, even family members. And it's in Deuteronomy, hence, the "(deut)".

CyberKitten said...

karla said: It’s the Christian worldview that provided a framework for science to happen.

Science certainly grew out of a christian (and in particular Protestant) worldview in Western Europe - yes.

karla said: Christians for centuries have seen learning about the natural world as learning more about God’s creation....

Yes. Many of the early modern scientists were christians who studied the world to better understand Gods work. But what they discovered and especially what those who came after them discovered made the religious world view obsolete - often much to their own shock and dismay.

karla said: And yet, the Bible underpins all of Western society.

Erm, No. It doesn't. If you want to point to one thing that underpins Western society it's the Ancient Greeks and the Romans who followed them - which pre-dated the Bible.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “In other words, 'God' tells you to exhibit more compassion and patience than "God" can exhibit.”

Karla responds: "No the love I have is the love that is His that flows through me."

Bull'. The "love" you have is because you are, by nature, a loving, compassionate individual. Hence, why you extract and focus on the "lovey-dovey" scripture, while the more aggressive "bad-ass" Christians extract and focus on when their biblegod is "bad-ass". Karla, it's called "Self-Projecting as God".

Karla....Jesus lived this out to the fullest even to the cross.

Begging the question/bare assertion(logical fallacies)

continues..."Notice Peter cut the guard’s ear off and Jesus stopped him and healed the ear and told him not to take up swords against the guards."

Begging the question/bare assertion(logical fallacies).

But for sake of argument, why didn't this alleged "Jesus" guy stop the bears from mauling the children when they made fun of a bald man?

Previously, me: "Yes, yes, biblegod loves you, well, unless you don't reciprocate that 'love', then its off to 'Hell' with you. Absurd. Compulsory 'love' is nothing less than manipulation, and it should be denounced."

Karla responds..."Here is where I see you do not understand me. It is the Love that saves us from our own destruction."

You like child/parent analogies, so I will use one.

If a parent sees that his or her child is heading for "destruction", what good parent goes into hiding and lets the free will of child take precedence over the safety of the child? 'Listening.

continues...."It isn’t a compulsory love"

Yes it is.

continues...."its entering love given freely to us that saves us and transforms our nature to righteousness and holiness.""It isn’t God saying...."

Right, it isn't "God saying" anything at all, that is, until/unless that you can prove that the philosophy that you espouse was authored by a "God". Until then, it is Karla giving her subjective interpretation of a 2000 yr-old book that she claims was inspired by a "God".

continues...[It isn't 'God' saying] 'love me or die', rather He is saying 'you are dying, enter my love and you will live because only I contain the life that resurrects your spirit and restores your soul'."

Fine, have it your way. If I don't "enter" your biblegod's "love", my "soul" is not "restored" and I end up in "hell".

I don't doubt that you can sit there and rework/reword your position myriad different ways. The problem is, no matter how you worded it thus far, it is clearly a "love" based on CONDITIONS. That is, unless you are saying that "God" still loves those in "Hell" as he stands by and watches. In which case, that is a new, bizzare version of "love" that I want nothing to do with.

boomSLANG said...

"It’s the Christian worldview that provided a framework for science to happen." ~ Karla

LOL!!!! Please, anyone---provide a source and/or some good reasoning to support this claim.

Karla said...

Hey Boom & Cyber, I see your comments, I'll respond when I get some time to do so, maybe today, or maybe tomorrow or Monday.

Karla said...

Boom “If the "gift" of salvation has been paid(PAST TENSE) for every single human being, then EVERY SINGLE human being would be eligible to, as you put it in Christianese, "have life with God". Yet, since only "Christians" are eligible to "have life with God"(as you've just conceded above), then said "Christians" are favored over non-Christians..i.e...FAVORITISM. “

We are all equally eligible. We don’t have life with God because we are Christians, but we are Christians because we have life with God. Essentially you are saying it is favoritism for those who have life with God to have it.

Boom “Made simpler, those who "accept the gift"(which, as we've extablished possibly hundreds of times requires belief), are favored by "God" over those who do not "accept the gift". I cannot make it any clearer.”

God enables us all to have belief in Him. Your lack of belief is not because God isn’t evident enough. I know you believe that is all it boils down to.


Boom “Karla, in your estimation, how many flippin' times do you think you've said people need to "be in God"??? 10? 20? 100? 1000? “

I don’t know how else to say it. It isn’t a matter of believing a certain thing. It’s like a woman doesn’t become pregnant by believing in pregnancy, but by being impregnated. The same is true with God, the life comes from God’s life coming into us and us coming into Him.

BTW, I don’t give this as a defense, but as an explanation of how it all works.


Boom “Human beings who cannot honestly believe that this "offer" has a referent in reality, cannot---repeat C-A-N-N-O-T simply "will" themselves into believing something that they find UNbelievable to begin with. 'Get it? “

A person not entering relationship with Jesus for whatever reason does not mean that such a relationship is favoritism. There is not a person that is ineligible to receive Christ. There may be factors hindering your belief at the moment, but that does not mean you are ineligible to find the truth. You seek to know what is true and that puts you in the posture of finding Him who is the Truth.


Boom “Karla, **if you set a "million dollars on a table" people can pick it with their hands and examine it. They can weigh it, smell it, they can test it, they can photograph it. They can take to a bank a see if it's real money, or counterfeit. Most certainly, the money isn't going to jump off the table and go hide in the clouds and ask you to "seek" it. 'See the difference(s)???? “

Boom I don’t think what is seen is more real than what is unseen. The analogy may be of something natural and seen, but that does not mean it doesn’t illustrate my point. Our belief or lack of belief doesn’t change the money sitting on the table fully available. Believing that it is there doesn’t get one the money, until their hand connects with it and obtains it. Even if the person is blind and deaf and needs someone else to tell them it is there before them to take doesn’t change the fact that it is there for them as much as for the one who can see it.

Karla said...

Boom “Karla, if people think the money being offered is a "trick", they can have a direct, one-on-one CONVERSATION with the person offering the money. If people are skeptical that the money is legal tender, they can take it to a bank.”

We can have such a conversation with God too. He invites us to taste and see for ourselves.


Boom “Those who "have the money" can PROVE they have it!!!!!”

And people who have the Lord can demonstrate His power.





Boom “Yet, if I was told that if I didn't take the money that I would be "tormented", that would be a clear case of manipulation.”

No but you wouldn’t have the money. That’s just it. It isn’t the act of not coming to God that brings on the peril of hell—we are already in that place and it is God that pulls us out.



Karla" " Yes, truth is exclusive of non-truth and if there is a way there are paths that are not the way. So there is that. But this is not a matter favoritism."

Boom “I have no clue what you just said, I don't think you do, either. “

I’m saying that if there is a Way of truth then there are other ways that are not truth. It isn’t a matter of favoritism, but of truth. If God Himself is the source of life we need to have life then not having Him means continuing in our existence without him that leads to a destructive end because He isn’t in that way—that is precisely why that way is bad for us.


Boom “Yes, "truth is exclusive of non-truth". Okay, so? How is that relevant to someone who is unable to see your position as reasonable, let alone, "truth"???? If all people, regardless of what they believe or accept as "truth", got into "heaven", then I wouldn't be arguing that "Christianity" is "favoritism". As it stands, it is.”

What you are asking for is for God to be something He is not. Or that there be no way to not be in God—which would mean God makes us stay in Him from the beginning. Neither of these are possible and neither are the way of things.




Karla: "Where does the Bible say that Christians are to kill non-Christians? I have never read this."

Boom “Specifically, it says kill those who would lead you away from Christ, even family members. And it's in Deuteronomy, hence, the "(deut)". “

Um, are you saying there is a verse in Deuteronomy that talks about being lead away from Christ? Christ had not yet come at this point. This verse would not have been to Christians. I would still like to see this verse, reference please?

Karla said...

"It’s the Christian worldview that provided a framework for science to happen." ~ Karla

Boom says “LOL!!!! Please, anyone---provide a source and/or some good reasoning to support this claim.”


But Cyber says, “Science certainly grew out of a christian (and in particular Protestant) worldview in Western Europe - yes.”



And Cyber says “Yes. Many of the early modern scientists were christians who studied the world to better understand Gods work. But what they discovered and especially what those who came after them discovered made the religious world view obsolete - often much to their own shock and dismay.”


Science never made the religious worldview obsolete, but some have accepted science as a replacement.


Cyber says “Erm, No. It doesn't. If you want to point to one thing that underpins Western society it's the Ancient Greeks and the Romans who followed them - which pre-dated the Bible.”


But the Bible did enter in to the Western worldview and has been a huge part of Western culture first through Catholicism then through Protestantism and on into the colonization of America.

Karla said...

Boom “If a parent sees that his or her child is heading for "destruction", what good parent goes into hiding and lets the free will of child take precedence over the safety of the child? 'Listening.”

No one can make a child enter relationship with them. If the only way to save the child is for the child to have relationship with his father who is standing there with open arms--that cannot be forced. We can’t enter life by force, only by choice and we can make that choice only because God already chooses us. But to effectuate the reality of His choice we surrender to His love and are thereby brought into Him and protected from all that is outside of Him.



Boom “I don't doubt that you can sit there and rework/reword your position myriad different ways. The problem is, no matter how you worded it thus far, it is clearly a "love" based on CONDITIONS. That is, unless you are saying that "God" still loves those in "Hell" as he stands by and watches. In which case, that is a new, bizzare version of "love" that I want nothing to do with. “

He does love those that are lost. He grieves that they are on a path that alienates them from His love, but His love is still poured out for them it is just unreciprocated. His love doesn’t send anyone to hell. It’s our own nature that has us on that path; it is His nature that saves us from that path. He has no joy at seeing anyone lost to hell.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Science never made the religious worldview obsolete, but some have accepted science as a replacement.

Sorry, but yes, it did. The religious worldview has been growing progressively obsolete since the 17th Century.

karla said: But the Bible did enter in to the Western worldview and has been a huge part of Western culture first through Catholicism then through Protestantism and on into the colonization of America.

The Bible has certainly had a significant impact on Western culture - emphasis on the word 'had' here. However, it is not, nor has it ever been, the *foundation* of Western culture, which is what you implied. The West would no doubt be a different place if the Bible had never been writen (or if different books made it into the Canon) but that is all. Personally I fail to see how it would have been a worse place and quite possibly it might have been a better one - but we'll never know that for sure.

Karla said...

Cyber "Sorry, but yes, it did. The religious worldview has been growing progressively obsolete since the 17th Century."

I agree it has been declining. And the role of science has played a part in that. However, I do not see science being incompatible with Christianity nor vice versa. Albeit the predominate world view of those who esteem science over Christianity is humanism which is contradictory. But the metaphysical world view is not something caused by science for science can only study the physical rather than the philosophical.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: However, I do not see science being incompatible with Christianity nor vice versa.

That really depends on the christian's grasp on reality. For instance - if a person is a Young Earther you are immediately incompatable with Science.

karla said: Albeit the predominate world view of those who esteem science over Christianity is humanism which is contradictory.

Contradictory how exactly? [looks confused]

I see no contradictions [puts telescope to eye]

karla said: But the metaphysical world view is not something caused by science for science can only study the physical rather than the philosophical.

Science doesn't study the metaphysical because by and large it's *very* idle speculation! Science likes it best when it deals with the *real* world!

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "We are all equally eligible."

We are all presumably "eligible" before the supposed final ruling..i.e..."Day of Judgment", yes. However, on this supposed day, biblegod only grants believers access to "Heaven", while the balance of humanity gets to spend eternity in "Hell", as promised.

IOW, believers are favored over nonbelievers, aka favoritism.

continues..."We don’t have life with God because we are Christians, but we are Christians because we have life with God."

Irrelevant, hair-splitting sematics. Believers "have life with God" because they believe. Telling me why believers believe, is redundant, and it is as useless as a one-legged man in a bum-kicking contest.

continues..."Essentially you are saying it is favoritism for those who have life with God to have it."

Karla, on this supposed "Day of Judgment", do Christians decide if they have "life with God"? Or does "God" decide? If I'm not mistaken, according to doctrine it's the latter, and thus, I reiterate---this "God" that you worship favors believers.
That's what I'm saying, and I stand by it because it's true(assuming that "Christianity" is true for sake of argument).

Karla, biblegod favors believers over non-believers. The end.

continues..."God enables us all to have belief in Him."

Gee, I can take this a couple of different ways. Saying that I've been enabled to believe could simply mean that I've been given "free will". On the other hand, when you say this.....

"Your lack of belief is not because God isn’t evident enough" ~ Karla

....this is a different claim, altogether, because you are essentially calling me a liar each and every time I tell you that I'm unable to honestly believe that Christianity is "true". You are essentially saying that I have adaquate evidence to believe, but that I choose to reject that "evidence" for some alterior reason, perhaps because I want to be tormented, or perhaps because I want to be able to kill, rape, and molest without having to be accountable.

So which is it? Are you saying that I have "free will"? Or are you saying that you, Karla, KNOW my mind and my life-experiences?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "I know you believe that is all it boils down to."

Please STOP deliberately misrepresenting my position. Let me make this clear, AGAIN:

I concede that, for believers..i.e..the already-convinced, there is more to it than just "belief", based, alone, on the bazillion times that you've pointed this out. The part that you fail to grasp each and every flippin' time, is that from the standpoint of the *unconvinced*, one has to FIRST harbor a belief that "Christianity" is true as a starting point. For instance, if biblegod appears to me, and assuming I'm not forced to believe it's the real-deal, then I have to choose whether I believe its real, or not.

Thus, while you insist that one doesn't have to be a "Christian" to "experience God[biblegod]", you fail to consider that I'm certainly not going to become a believer based on an encounter that I *DO NOT* believe was real. 'Get it?

Karla: "I don’t know how else to say it."

Try anything besides what you've been saying. Your apologetics are...well, they speak for themselves.

Karla: "It isn’t a matter of believing a certain thing."

YES IT IS!!!! If John Travolta tells Karla all about how she needs to be audited and become a "Clear", and that doing so will improve her life immensely because it will make her impervious to the evil influence of the Thetans, I'll wager that none of that is going mean jack-squat to her *UNTIL* she believes a specific thing, namely, that the claims of "Scientology" are "true".

continues..."It’s like a woman doesn’t become pregnant by believing in pregnancy, but by being impregnated."

Another inapt analogy. If "a woman" chooses to become "pregnant", once this is accomplished she can *PROVE* that she is "pregnant", and moreover, she is "pregnant" whether she wants to believe it, or not; whether she likes it, or not.

continues...."The same is true with God.."

Wrong. Believers cannot prove that they are, as you put it in Christianese, "in God". The best they can do is assert it over and over and over, just as you do it here.

continues..."the life comes from God’s life coming into us and us coming into Him."

Unproven assertion, and immaterial until/unless one is convinced that all of that is achievable. You are essentially saying that one needs to believe in order to become a believer.

continues..."BTW, I don’t give this as a defense, but as an explanation of how it all works."

It's an "explanation" that cannot be demonstrated.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "A person not entering relationship with Jesus for whatever reason does not mean that such a relationship is favoritism."

You DO NOT listen. I did *NOT* once say that people who convince themselves that they have a "relationship with Jesus" is "favoritism". I gave a clear, concise explanation of the part that constitutes "favoritism". Go back and READ what I actually said.

Previously, me: “Those who 'have the money' can PROVE they have it!!!!!”

Karla responds....."And people who have the Lord can demonstrate His power."

Not in any empirically, testible, repeatable way---no they can't.

Karla, lying is lying, even if it's for "Jesus".

continues..."There may be factors hindering your belief at the moment, but that does not mean you are ineligible to find the truth."

If this "truth" is what you say it is, unless I find it before I expire, I will receive a sentencing of "Hell" by your "all-loving", "all-merciful" biblegod.

Thus, while I may be "eligible" until that point in time, AFTER that point in time it is supposedly "too late", in which case, I am NO LONGER "eligible", in which case, your biblegod >> favored << people like you(believers), over people like me(non-believers).

Repeat: Your biblegod FAVORS believers over nonbelievers.

Karla: "Boom I don’t think what is seen is more real than what is unseen."

Guess what, Karla? B-I-G whoopty. That you "think" this does not one scrap of good for those who are unconvinced. It is simply you asserting what you believe just one more time, as if you've haven't tried that angle before.

continues..."The analogy may be of something natural and seen, but that does not mean it doesn’t illustrate my point. Our belief or lack of belief doesn’t change the money sitting on the table fully available."

And your illustrating that point does not mean that my point has not been illustrated.

continues..."Believing that it is there doesn’t get one the money, until their hand connects with it and obtains it."

Right, so being offered a some of money means very little, unless, a) the money is real, and b) it is actually in your hands.

Now, if you could kindly just prove that "Jesus" is "real" and that you have a "relationship" with him, then I'll hold your "money" analogy in a high regard. Until/unless you do so, your "money" analogy is one in a long, long line of unconvincing, incongruent analogies.

Karla: "We can have such a conversation with God too."

Prove it.

continues..."He invites us to taste and see for ourselves."

And I have likewise spent 2/3rds of my life inviting this supposed "God" into my life, for example, in the way of very sincere prayer, only to be completely ignored, *except* for ambiguous little "signs" that could easily be contributed to coincidence or things that could otherwise have a perfectly natural explanation. The bottom line, is that if there a "God" who wants me to know him/her/it, then he/she/it knows exactly what evidence would be UNambiguous enough for me to believe.

Again, the ball is not in my court; it's your biblegod's court(assuming it actually exists).

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "It isn’t the act of not coming to God that brings on the peril of hell—we are already in that place and it is God that pulls us out."

Perfect. This is just another way of saying that I was born condemned. If that is somehow supposed to make the religious dogma that you promote more believable, considered your efforts having failed.

The idea that we are, by nature, condemned and worthy of death, and further, that we need to be exonerated of this, is perhaps the biggest mockery of "Justice" that I can imagine. Such stupidity is not worthy of my belief.

Karla: "I’m saying that if there is a Way of truth then there are other ways that are not truth."

Wow. Thank you for that bit of profound revelation.

Now, if you or any theist could just prove that you know the "Way of truth".....?

continues..."It isn’t a matter of favoritism, but of truth."

Whether it's "a matter" of "truth", or not, is not the issue. In the end, the deity of the Christian philsosophy favors believers over nonbelievers, otherwise, Atheists and other non-believers would land in "Heaven", too. Since they do not, the Christian philosophy is an example of favoritism, whether it's "true", or false.

Previously, me: "If all people, regardless of what they believe or accept as 'truth', got into 'heaven', then I wouldn't be arguing that 'Christianity' is 'favoritism'. As it stands, it is.”

Karla responds..."What you are asking for is for God to be something He is not."

I'm "asking God" to be more moral, or at least, AS moral, as we the human race are. So, yes, I agree---that is something that, according to Christians and their bibles, "He is not".

Karla, I don't feel that I am being unreasonable to expect a presumably "infinitely intelligent" being to be MORE "just"; MORE "compassionate"; MORE moral than we are.

Karla: "Um, are you saying there is a verse in Deuteronomy that talks about being lead away from Christ?"

Ah, yes, that's what I get for paraphrasing a word that is used interchangably with another. Okay, my mistake-- I meant "God"/"the LORD".

In any event, are you expecting me to believe that you don't know exactly to which verse I refer? Yes, or no? Answer that(honestly), and then we'll see about providing the exact verse.

Karla said...

Boom “We are all presumably "eligible" before the supposed final ruling..i.e..."Day of Judgment", yes. However, on this supposed day, biblegod only grants believers access to "Heaven", while the balance of humanity gets to spend eternity in "Hell", as promised.”

It isn’t that He grants access, but more accurately that He is the access. This is why I keep repeating myself that Jesus is salvation, He is the eternal life. It isn’t something He hands to those who believe in Him, it is something we have because we are in Him. He is the Way and the Life.


Boom “Irrelevant, hair-splitting sematics. Believers "have life with God" because they believe. Telling me why believers believe, is redundant, and it is as useless as a one-legged man in a bum-kicking contest.”

No we have life with God because we have Him and He us. Even the devil believes and yet it credits him nothing. It really isn’t semantics; I am talking about something differently than what you are talking about.


Boom “Karla, on this supposed "Day of Judgment", do Christians decide if they have "life with God"? Or does "God" decide? If I'm not mistaken, according to doctrine it's the latter, and thus, I reiterate---this "God" that you worship favors believers.”

Eternal Life doesn’t become granted to us upon a day of judgment. We already have it or we don’t because we are already reborn as sons and daughters of God or we have not been. Whatever you are talking about is not something I believe.


Boom “So which is it? Are you saying that I have "free will"? Or are you saying that you, Karla, KNOW my mind and my life-experiences? “

You most certainly do have free will. I wasn’t saying you have experienced sufficient evidence, but that does not mean God hasn’t provided it and you just haven’t seen that yet. I fully believe you are honest that your experiences haven’t included evidence of the reality of God.

Karla said...

Boom “I concede that, for believers..i.e..the already-convinced, there is more to it than just "belief", based, alone, on the bazillion times that you've pointed this out.”

Okay.


Boom “The part that you fail to grasp each and every flippin' time, is that from the standpoint of the *unconvinced*, one has to FIRST harbor a belief that "Christianity" is true as a starting point. For instance, if biblegod appears to me, and assuming I'm not forced to believe it's the real-deal, then I have to choose whether I believe its real, or not. “

Yes you do have that choice, however, I think at the point that that choice becomes real, intellectual belief is no longer a factor, the belief we would then be talking about is a trust and an acceptance of God or a rejection of Him. Right now you see no choice because you don’t see anything there to choose. Once a choice is evident, the kind of belief you speak of will already be there.

Boom “Thus, while you insist that one doesn't have to be a "Christian" to "experience God[biblegod]", you fail to consider that I'm certainly not going to become a believer based on an encounter that I *DO NOT* believe was real. 'Get it?”

I accept that. I am not discounting your statements of needing evidence or encounters sufficient enough to have a choice in the first place. I just haven’t gotten the feeling you understand that salvation isn’t something God bestows upon people because they believe things that are true about him, but it is something we gain when we know Him relationally.




Boom “Wrong. Believers cannot prove that they are, as you put it in Christianese, "in God". The best they can do is assert it over and over and over, just as you do it here.”

There are proofs, but on an on-line forum there isn’t really a whole lot you can see from my life example nor experience from demonstrations of His power. All you have is the words I type and for all you know I am really good at faking being kind and respectful and could be a really mean person or a crazy person.

Karla said...

Boom “And I have likewise spent 2/3rds of my life inviting this supposed "God" into my life, for example, in the way of very sincere prayer, only to be completely ignored, *except* for ambiguous little "signs" that could easily be contributed to coincidence or things that could otherwise have a perfectly natural explanation. The bottom line, is that if there a "God" who wants me to know him/her/it, then he/she/it knows exactly what evidence would be UNambiguous enough for me to believe. “


I’m really sorry Boom. I hear your frustration in this and I do care. I don’t know if it means anything to you, but I am praying for you and I do earnestly want to see you have divine revelation of His reality and His love. I feel God saying that He is already pleased with you and already loves you and that He does not reject you.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “We are all presumably 'eligible' before the supposed final ruling..i.e...'Day of Judgment', yes. However, on this supposed day, biblegod only grants believers access to 'Heaven', while the balance of humanity gets to spend eternity in 'Hell', as promised.”

Karla responds..."It isn’t that He grants access, but more accurately that He is the access."

Karla, stop equivocating--it makes you look dishonest. There is either a specific day of accountability, or there isn't. If there is, then ON that supposed day it does not matter if your biblegod "is the access", because, presumably, then it will be TOO LATE. And thus, those who didn't have "the access" prior to the "deadline" get "Hell".

Repeat: Biblegod favors believers over nonbelievers.

continues..."This is why I keep repeating myself that Jesus is salvation, He is the eternal life."

Repeat it all you'd like. Each and every time that you do repeat it, I'm happy to keep repeating that what you are saying is totally, 100% immaterial to someone who doesn't believe.

Karla regurgitates..."It isn’t something He hands to those who believe in Him, it is something we have because we are in Him. He is the Way and the Life."

Irrelevant--there is either a "Judgment Day", or there isn't. Pick one, and be consistant with your choice.

repeats...."No we have life with God because we have Him and He us. Even the devil believes and yet it credits him nothing. It really isn’t semantics; I am talking about something differently than what you are talking"

NO--what you are doing is attempting to circumvent the issue I raised by proffering apologetics that are only useful to the ALREADY-convinced. Did you miss my analogy about "Scientology"? In order to accept what Scientologists are offering me, I have to *FIRST* believe that "Scientology" has the potential to be "true"; has a referent in reality, otherwise, it is meaningless to me. The same is true for "Christianity" and what you are offering.

Again, your words reflect that I must essentially believe, in order for it to be believable. That would work for *ANY* belief-system.

continues..."Eternal Life doesn’t become granted to us upon a day of judgment. We already have it or we don’t because we are already reborn as sons and daughters of God or we have not been."

Really? This is very interesting. So, since ALL "Christians" proclaim to be "True Christians"---that is, they ALL believe that they've been "reborn as sons and daughters of God", that means it is so, right? That means that all professing Christians from ALL denominations are granted access to "Heaven", right? Even Shirley Phelps and her Westborough bunch of idiots have guaranteed access to "Heaven", simply because they believe it. Right?

If NOT, then who or what decides which "Christians" are worthy, legit' "Christians", and which are not? If not "God", then who?

"You most certainly do have free will."

Really?

Right this instant, does "God" know for absolute certain whether I'll die a believer, or not?

a) yes

b) no

boomSLANG said...

Karla...."I wasn’t saying you have experienced sufficient evidence..."

You were saying that every person is given sufficient evidence. THAT is what you were saying.

Karla: "....but that does not mean God hasn’t provided it and you just haven’t seen that yet."

You and I disagree on what constitutes credible evidence. Notwithstanding, your "all-knowing" biblegod knows what would convince me, and thus, if it withholds this evidence, it must ultimately take responsibility.

continues..."I fully believe you are honest that your experiences haven’t included evidence of the reality of God."

Yet, if I die twenty minutes from now, you also fully believe that is was me who was culpable for not "being in God", since you and yesteryear's theists created a "God" who can never screw up.

Heads, "God" wins; tails, "God" wins. The "faith" can never fail the person; only the person can fail the faith. How convenient.

Me, previously: “I concede that, for believers..i.e..the already-convinced, there is more to it than just 'belief', based, alone, on the bazillion times that you've pointed this out.”

responds.."Okay"

And? Am I supposed to believe that you won't repeat the same apologetic again?

continues..."Right now you see no choice because you don’t see anything there to choose. Once a choice is evident, the kind of belief you speak of will already be there."

And again, if I die twenty minutes from now not having seen "anything there to choose", I fall into the latter of one of two groups: 1) saved 2) unsaved.

Remember, in Christendom there is NO "middle ground", according to you.

That is the most screwed-up sense of "Justice" I've ever seen. People's intentions ultimately mean nothing.

continues..."I just haven’t gotten the feeling you understand that salvation isn’t something God bestows upon people because they believe things that are true about him, but it is something we gain when we know Him relationally."

Perhaps I can give you that feeling once I believe, which of course, requires a belief that there is a "Him" with whom I can have a "relationship". At this point, I do not believe, and in fact, the actions and words of "Christians" who make this claim(including you) are good evidence that no one does, and that Christians are self-deluded.

Karla: "There are proofs, but on an on-line forum there isn’t really a whole lot you can see from my life example"

Karla, if you had "proof" of a hitherto unknown, supernatural realm or being, your face would be plastered on every scientific journal across the globe. You would be too busy making television appearances and going on tours to be operating a Christian blog. Please don't insult my intelligence. The anecdotes that you'd offer me are no different than any Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist could offer.

"I’m really sorry Boom. I hear your frustration in this and I do care. I don’t know if it means anything to you, but I am praying for you and I do earnestly want to see you have divine revelation of His reality and His love."

You're "praying for" me? That is just another way of blaming me, since I can assume that you wouldn't have to ASK your biblegod via "prayer" to give me convicing evidence.

If you're going to get on your knees and beg, then beg your biblegod to give people like me the evidence they'd require for belief, because, after all, there is "more to" being "saved" than just belief(according to you), and moreover, my believing doesn't require me to accept the policies, morality, behavior, etc., of this "God", as we've established numerous times.

Karla said...

Boom “Really? This is very interesting. So, since ALL "Christians" proclaim to be "True Christians"---that is, they ALL believe that they've been "reborn as sons and daughters of God", that means it is so, right? That means that all professing Christians from ALL denominations are granted access to "Heaven", right? Even Shirley Phelps and her Westborough bunch of idiots have guaranteed access to "Heaven", simply because they believe it. Right? “

Proclaiming something doesn’t make it true. All people who know Jesus are already reborn as son’s and daughters of God regardless of denomination.


Boom “If NOT, then who or what decides which "Christians" are worthy, legit' "Christians", and which are not? If not "God", then who?”


God knows who has relationship with Him. This isn’t something He decides on some future day of judgment, but something that is true for each person who is in Christ from the beginning of that relationship.



"You most certainly do have free will."

Boom “Really?

Right this instant, does "God" know for absolute certain whether I'll die a believer, or not?

a) yes

b) no “


I’m not going down that road again. Sorry.

Karla said...

Boom "You're "praying for" me? That is just another way of blaming me, since I can assume that you wouldn't have to ASK your biblegod via "prayer" to give me convicing evidence."

Wow, you really misjudge me. Remember when I said I felt you were twisting things I say. . . Here you take something meant in full compassion and kindness and change it to be something demeaning and blame casting.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: "So, since ALL 'Christians' proclaim to be 'True Christians'---that is, they ALL believe that they've been 'reborn as sons and daughters of God', that means it is so, right? That means that all professing Christians from ALL denominations are granted access to 'Heaven', right? Even Shirley Phelps and her Westborough bunch of idiots have guaranteed access to 'Heaven', simply because they believe it. Right?"

"Proclaiming something doesn’t make it true."

Right, so it may be the case that neither you, nor any other professing "Christian", knows for certain that you are what you say you are, or that you know what you claim to know. Thank you for that disclosure. With any luck, you won't back-peddle.

"All people who know Jesus are already reborn as son’s and daughters of God regardless of denomination."

D%mn it, Karla, you are asserting true the very thing that is at issue, aka, begging the question! What is immediately at issue, is how we can be sure that people "know Jesus", if simply professing it doesn't mean it's true, as we've JUST established above.

What objective confirmation can you or ANY professing "Christian" offer that proves that you know an invisible, conscious being, namely, "Jesus"?

Previously, me: “If NOT, then who or what decides which 'Christians' are worthy, legit' 'Christians', and which are not? If not 'God', then who?”

Karla responds...."God knows who has relationship with Him.

Okay, 'got it----"God knows", so if there is a descrepency among believers, then "God" settles this descrepency.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "This isn’t something He decides on some future day of judgment, but something that is true for each person who is in Christ from the beginning of that relationship."

So, there is no "Judgment Day", and millions of bible-believing "Christians" have it wrong. Is that your position? Notwithstanding, even if there is no such day, "God" is still the guy who knows for certain which people have a "relationship" with him, and which ones who do not. Certainly, you aren't claiming that the group of people with whom "God" knows he has "a relationship", is mutually inclusive of the group of people who claim to "know" and to "follow" this "God"? Because if you are, then that would mean that Shirley Phelps and her congregation of funeral picketers will be seated right next to you in "Heaven". After all, they know "God" and they are following the will of "God"!

Karla: "You most certainly do have free will."

Boom Really?

Right this instant, does "God" know for absolute certain whether I'll die a believer, or not?

a) yes

b) no


Karla responds..."I’m not going down that road again. Sorry."

Oh, please---'no need for apologies, as the real reason you don't answer is evident, and here it is: No matter how you answer, the answer is not satisfactory, because if you answer "yes", then I am predestined to either believe, or to not believe, depending on "God's perfect knowledge of the future", and if you answer "no", then the "omniscience" of said "God" is called into question. You fool no one, Karla.

Me, previously: "You're 'praying for' me? That is just another way of blaming me, since I can assume that you wouldn't have to ASK your biblegod via 'prayer' to give me convicing evidence."

Karla responds..."Wow, you really misjudge me. Remember when I said I felt you were twisting things I say. . . Here you take something meant in full compassion and kindness and change it to be something demeaning and blame casting."

Let's get something straight right now. You believe that I and all non-Christians are going to "Hell". If you are not against the concept of your fellow human beings being tortured...oh, wait, I'm sorry..."tormented" for eternity, then you are *for that concept, in my book. Thus, everything else is besides the point---including, the notion of having to ASK your "all-loving" biblegod to do what it takes to spare me, and including the mellow-drama paraded as "compassion" that I just witnessed.

*If I have misjudged you and you are not "for" the concept of "Hell", then you should be denouncing it

Karla said...

Boom “So, there is no "Judgment Day", and millions of bible-believing "Christians" have it wrong. Is that your position?”

I didn’t say there isn’t a Judgment Day, but that isn’t the purpose of it. It’s not like a line of trillions of people that God sorts out into categories of heaven and hell. Though many Christians may think that.


Boom “Notwithstanding, even if there is no such day, "God" is still the guy who knows for certain which people have a "relationship" with him, and which ones who do not.”


God knows and the individual knows. Others may be able to perceive this, but it isn’t for anyone outside of that person and God to make claims about.



Boom “Certainly, you aren't claiming that the group of people with whom "God" knows he has "a relationship", is mutually inclusive of the group of people who claim to "know" and to "follow" this "God"?”

There could certainly be people who claim to know God who do not in fact know Him. I can claim to be an orange all day long, but that won’t make me an orange. Also there could be those who aren’t very sure for whatever reason who do in fact know Him and are known by Him.


Boom “Because if you are, then that would mean that Shirley Phelps and her congregation of funeral picketers will be seated right next to you in "Heaven". After all, they know "God" and they are following the will of "God"!”

That’s between God and her. (I am not familiar with this person you speak of though I have heard you mention the name a few times).

Boom “You believe that I and all non-Christians are going to "Hell". If you are not against the concept of your fellow human beings being tortured...oh, wait, I'm sorry..."tormented" for eternity, then you are *for that concept, in my book. Thus, everything else is besides the point---including, the notion of having to ASK your "all-loving" biblegod to do what it takes to spare me, and including the mellow-drama paraded as "compassion" that I just witnessed.”

I’m not for that happening anymore than God is. Again you cannot seem to accept that and I can’t do more than to keep repeating it.

boomSLANG said...

Karla; "I didn’t say there isn’t a Judgment Day, but that isn’t the purpose of it."

How lovely, another goose chase.

Much to my unsurprise, you haven't stated a clear, concise explanation for what "Judgment Day" is; you've only stated what it is not. IDK, perhaps you'd prefer to call it, "Non-Judgment Day", since no one's being "judged". 'Sound good? It just makes me wonder why believers would refer to as "Judgment Day", if no one's being judged. I find that silly, yet, nothing here shocks me anymore.

continues..."It’s not like a line of trillions of people that God sorts out into categories of heaven and hell."

SOLD! Dead people can't form a "line". Dead people are dead.

continues...."Though many Christians may think that."

Right, right, and refresh my memory---why should any of us believe what Karla the "Christian" *thinks* over what some other "Christians" *think*???

Me, previously: “even if there is no such day, 'God' is still the guy who knows for certain which people have a 'relationship' with him, and which ones who do not.”

Karla responds: "God knows and the individual knows. Others may be able to perceive this, but it isn’t for anyone outside of that person and God to make claims about."

This is just another way of saying that whoever believes they "know God" cannot be mistaken. If that is not accurate, then who or what determines the falsity of those who erroneously believe they "know God" and/or "follow Jesus"????

continues..."There could certainly be people who claim to know God who do not in fact know Him."

Right, and who has the final say on this? It can't be the individual, because you *JUST* said the individual can be in error. Thus, that only leaves "God" to sort it out, as I've said all long. Yet, you take issue with this for some reason.

continues...."Also there could be those who aren’t very sure for whatever reason who do in fact know Him and are known by Him."

How very silly. If I "know Him" but don't know it, that is utterly useless to me(assuming it's even possible). It's like you make this stuff up as you go.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: “Because if you are, then that would mean that Shirley Phelps and her congregation of funeral picketers will be seated right next to you in 'Heaven'. After all, they know 'God' and they are following the will of 'God'!”

Karla responds: "That’s between God and her."

Right---'just as I've been saying: It is "God" who ultimately decides who truly "knows Him" and who is worshiping correctly enough to see "Heaven". Yet, your latest defense is that "God" doesn't sort out the "Heaven"-bound from the "Hell"-bound. Your latest argument is that "people" decide, based on whether or not they "know God". More inconsistancy on your part.

Me, previously: “You believe that I and all non-Christians are going to 'Hell'. If you are not against the concept of your fellow human beings being tortured...oh, wait, I'm sorry...'tormented' for eternity, then you are *for that concept, in my book. Thus, everything else is besides the point---including, the notion of having to ASK your 'all-loving' biblegod to do what it takes to spare me, and including the mellow-drama paraded as 'compassion' that I just witnessed.”

Karla responds..."I’m not for that happening anymore than God is.

Please STOP dancing around the issue. If in fact you are "not for that happening"..i.e.. PEOPLE BEING BURNED ALIVE IN "HELL", then logic and reason say that you are against it. If that is the case, then you should be denouncing it. Yet, you're not denouncing it; you're defending it, and it makes me ill to my stomach.

Notwthstanding, I want to clear something up once and for all. Do people like myself who end up in "Hell" deserve it?

a) yes

b) no

(multiple choice)

continues...."Again you cannot seem to accept that and I can’t do more than to keep repeating it."

YES!...yes, you most certainly can do more. You can be, and should be, DENOUNCING "Hell", that is, unless you feel that I deserve it, which we'll soon see, provided that you don't dodge the question again.

Karla said...

Boom "Right---'just as I've been saying: It is "God" who ultimately decides who truly "knows Him" and who is worshiping correctly enough to see "Heaven". Yet, your latest defense is that "God" doesn't sort out the "Heaven"-bound from the "Hell"-bound. Your latest argument is that "people" decide, based on whether or not they "know God". More inconsistancy on your part."

For you to say "worshiping correctly enough" you show you still haven't heard me. I'm signing off this conversation at least for a while. You are welcome to comment on future posts, but I'm taking a break from this conversation.

boomSLANG said...

"For you to say 'worshiping correctly enough' you show you still haven't heard me." ~ Karla

Firstly, I didn't say you said it.

Secondly, I have "heard" you, ad nauseam. From your point of view..i.e..the side that is *already-convinced* that a "God" exists, it is all about this: "Being in God".

Yes, Ma'am...'got it; 10-4; okee-dokee; understood.

The part where you evidentally fail to hear *Me*, is when I say that that is completely meaningless, 100% unconvincing pseudo-spiritual jibberish to nonbelievers. Moreover, millions of bible-believing Christians would readily concede that certain criteria MUST be met to be a true, legit', dyed-in-the-wool disciple of Christ. And why shouldn't they? The "Word of God" is replete with instances of biblegod delineating what it takes to be a true disciple. For instance, one must HATE his or her mother, father, and even their own life, to order to be a disciple. That, my dear, is perfectly consistant and in accordance with "worshiping correctly enough".

Notwithstanding, that you extract and focus on that one thing is very telling. Further, you ignore a very pointed and very pertinent question, one that is even multiple choice.

Whenever the tough questions come, you "take a break", and/or, start a new post where you simply relocate the same fallacious, unreasonable, unconvincing apologetics.

In any event, here's the question again, whenever/if ever you're prepared to continue:

Do people like myself who end up in "Hell" deserve it?

a) yes

b) no