Friday, August 20, 2010

My Thoughts On Mosque At Ground Zero Controversy

Until yesterday I had not really been paying much attention to the Mosque being built at Ground Zero controversy. I knew it was in the works. I had thoughts about it, but did not realize the scope of the details concerning it.

My primary thought was that the same rights that protect any religion from building anything protected them as well and to forbid one risks forbidding all. However, I now see that there is more to the story.

Apparently, according to Mayor Rudy Giuliani, it is possible that funding for this project is coming from terrorist groups in the Middle East. Moreover, New York officials have asked in an effort to promote healing and good will for the Imam to come to the negotiation table regarding the placement of this Mosque. The request has been met with silence.

Moreover, this Imam stated in a 60 Minutes interview that while he could not say that America was responsible for the events of 9/11, we were an accessory to the tragedy. On Sean Hannity’s show, last night, Giuliani and the Attorney General of New York expressed great concern about this project continuing at the designated location.

They agreed that unless there was proof of illegal activity in the funding of this building that it was well within their rights. However, just because you have the right to do something legally, it doesn’t make it ethically right. Respect for the families who lost people on that infamous day ought to lend to renegotiation of the location of this building.

Just the same, the actions of one Imam and those associated with him, ought not cause anger towards other Muslim people who would not think of trying to build there. Giuliani even said, if it was any other Muslim group from the many who have Mosques in New York, he would not be as concerned. There seems to be something peculiar in the spirit behind this choice that has Americans across the political spectrum quiet disturbed.

At the same time, Jesus said to love your enemy and to do good to those who persecute you. So if this is a strategic placement to further unsettle Americans, then while there is a place for publicly expressing our dismay and, for some, even anger, there is also a greater place to do so with respect and love. That does seem to be the ultimate paradox, to love your enemy and to do good to those who do wrong to you. What would that look like in this situation? How does a nation, not just an individual, practice this wisely?

120 comments:

CyberKitten said...

I have to wonder how far away would the mosque have to be to be an 'acceptable' distance from Ground Zero.....

Also: Loving your *enemy*...?

Are all Muslims your enemy? Or are they supposed to be *our* enemy now...?

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"...Mosque being built at Ground Zero..."

There is no Mosque being built at ground zero. There is, however, a proposed community center which includes, amongst many other things, a prayer room, not at Ground Zero, but two NY city blocks away.

Here's a comment I posted on Facebook regarding this issue:

1. Islam had as much to do with 9/11/2001 as Christianity has to do with bombing abortion clinics, the actions of the KKK, and the demonstrations of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. Should we not allow churches near bombed abortion clinics, because the bombers claim to be Christians?

2. Why can people not see the irony of us trying to restrict religious freedom due to the acts of an extremist group that hates all our freedoms, especially our religious ones?

3. It's not being built ON Ground Zero, it's two NY city blocks away. How far away is ok?

I stood and wept in front of my TV that day in September of 2001. I went and spent time with loved ones that day mourning for those lost and praying for their families and all those working through their exhaustion to find survivors and help the injured. One thing I did not do was blame Islam. I saw the peaceful Muslims in my city, I saw Muslims mourning for the lost that day, in later days I learned of Muslims, working in the WTC, who were victims just like anyone from any other world view or religion.

If we restrict just one freedom because of the cowardly acts that day who is really winning?

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

And "Mayor" Rudy Giuliani hasn't been mayor cine 2001. ;-)

Karla said...

Cyber,

To the first question, I don't know.

To the second, no all Muslims are not my enemy. Islam is not my enemy and Arabic people are not my enemy. Terrorists regardless of culture or creed, have positioned themselves as the enemy of Americans and other Westerners. My point was, even if someone is one's enemy, love is the proper response.

Karla said...

1. I disagree, but delineating why would probably not get us anywhere.

2. I agree that religious freedom cannot be restricted, but I don't see this as fully a matter of religion. If the Japanese set up a big cultural center right next to where Pearl Harbor took place 9 years after the event, it would be the same thing. I would have no qualm with all Japanese because of the acts of some, but the act would be insensitive.

3. It seems there is more behind it than just a benign construction of an Islamic building near Ground Zero. It has a strategicness about it that concerns me. However, I could be wrong and it may be harmless and coincidental, I just don't get that feeling right now.

I too cried and mourned over the tragedy. I spent much time watching the coverage so that I could identify as best as possible with those who were directly suffering. I too didn't and don't blame a people group or a religion, but see it as the action of extremists, but I have concerns that those extremist may be behind the construction of this particular building, if not my concerns are unfounded. If so, then I have cause for concern.

I have great hope for the Arabic nations and people.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: I have great hope for the Arabic nations and people.

Presumably 'hope' that they'll all become Christian? Or Capitalist consumers?

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one!

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Mike said: "1. Islam had as much to do with 9/11/2001 as Christianity has to do with bombing abortion clinics, the actions of the KKK, and the demonstrations of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. Should we not allow churches near bombed abortion clinics, because the bombers claim to be Christians?"

Karla replied: "1. I disagree, but delineating why would probably not get us anywhere."

Are you saying that Islam its self led to the 9/11 attacks while Christian based beliefs are not responsible for the others? The terrorists would agree with you in the case of 9/11, but the three groups I mentioned would disagree with you.

Karla said: "2. I agree that religious freedom cannot be restricted, but I don't see this as fully a matter of religion. If the Japanese set up a big cultural center right next to where Pearl Harbor took place 9 years after the event, it would be the same thing. I would have no qualm with all Japanese because of the acts of some, but the act would be insensitive."

Ok, so churches near abortion clinics that have been bombed are insensitive too, and pretty much all the churches should be removed from Salem, MA too.

Karla said: "3. It seems there is more behind it than just a benign construction of an Islamic building near Ground Zero. It has a strategicness about it that concerns me. However, I could be wrong and it may be harmless and coincidental, I just don't get that feeling right now."

"Seems" is all I've seen, I'd like to see some evidence. Feisal Abdul Rauf is a Sufi who writes for such radical terrorist publications as Beliefnet.

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

A few people have made an excellent point by asking those who are concerned, exactly what distance from Ground Zero would be an "acceptable" distance to build this place.

I'm curious about this, as well. So? What distance? 3.75 city blocks? 2.3 miles?

Mike: "Should we not allow churches near bombed abortion clinics, because the bombers claim to be Christians?"

Good point, I see the double standard, as well.

Karla: "At the same time, Jesus said to love your enemy and to do good to those who persecute you."

Well, the bible says that "Jesus" said to "love your enemy", yes.

So, if we allow a circular argument for sake of discussion..i.e..the bible says Jesus said [such-and-such], and the bible is true because the bible says so, the fact of the matter is, people aren't just setting out to "persecute" us; they're setting out to KILL us.

So, assuming "Jesus" said to "love your enemy", I'd be curious to know where (or if) he draws the line. Of course, this idea of killing your religious opponent is nothing new and is certainly not unique to Islam. This is why I'm curious to know where and why "Jesus" draws the line when it comes to one's enemies.

Karla said...

Boom "So, assuming "Jesus" said to "love your enemy", I'd be curious to know where (or if) he draws the line. Of course, this idea of killing your religious opponent is nothing new and is certainly not unique to Islam. This is why I'm curious to know where and why "Jesus" draws the line when it comes to one's enemies."

That's a good question. Jesus gave His life for those who were currently His enemies. I mean those who directly had a hand in sending Him to the cross, as well as spiritually everyone who has ever been a spiritual enemy of Him.

The first apostles met their death through martyrdom. They chose to take love your enemies and do good to those who do wrong to you to the nth degree.

Would my love for people be great enough to do good to someone who wants to kill me? I don't know. I've never been faced with that.

If you notice, my post went in two directions. I started with my first thoughts of not really being interested in the controversy as I saw it as a matter of religious freedom that they have a right to act upon. But then I delineated some concerns. However, I ended it asking people to consider how one should respond who wants to practice loving those who may not have our best interest in their heart. So despite the concerns, I am thinking how can I, and people in general, show love as our response?

Karla said...

Mike, should I not respond to the deleted post. Should I consider it retracted?

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"Mike, should I not respond to the deleted post. Should I consider it retracted?"

I didn't delete it.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Here it is again:

Mike said: "1. Islam had as much to do with 9/11/2001 as Christianity has to do with bombing abortion clinics, the actions of the KKK, and the demonstrations of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. Should we not allow churches near bombed abortion clinics, because the bombers claim to be Christians?"

Karla replied: "1. I disagree, but delineating why would probably not get us anywhere."

Are you saying that Islam its self led to the 9/11 attacks while Christian based beliefs are not responsible for the others? The terrorists would agree with you in the case of 9/11, but the three groups I mentioned would disagree with you.

Karla said: "2. I agree that religious freedom cannot be restricted, but I don't see this as fully a matter of religion. If the Japanese set up a big cultural center right next to where Pearl Harbor took place 9 years after the event, it would be the same thing. I would have no qualm with all Japanese because of the acts of some, but the act would be insensitive."

Ok, so churches near abortion clinics that have been bombed are insensitive too, and pretty much all the churches should be removed from Salem, MA too.

Karla said: "3. It seems there is more behind it than just a benign construction of an Islamic building near Ground Zero. It has a strategicness about it that concerns me. However, I could be wrong and it may be harmless and coincidental, I just don't get that feeling right now."

"Seems" is all I've seen, I'd like to see some evidence. Feisal Abdul Rauf is a Sufi who writes for such radical terrorist publications as Beliefnet.

boomSLANG said...

"That's a good question." ~ Karla

I thought so/think so, too... that's why I asked.

"Jesus gave His life for those who were currently His enemies." ~ Karla

If "Jesus" is currently alive, then in the colloquial sense, he isn't dead, and if he isn't dead, then he didn't die, and if he didn't die, then it is contradictory(as well as confusing and misleading) to say "he gave his life". But this is for another discussion.

"Would my love for people be great enough to do good to someone who wants to kill me? I don't know. I've never been faced with that." ~ Karla

Here's the thing---you don't have to be in that situation to be able to produce an answer to the question I'm asking. I'm merely asking, ought we "love" and "do good" to those who want us dead(?) If so, what is your rationale, and if your rationale is, "because Jesus said[yadda, yadda, yadda]" or "because Jesus did[yadda, yadda, yadda]", then I ask that you please remember that according to the same source in which said "Jesus" presumably said/did those things, it was not that long ago that it was evidentally perfectly "moral" to KILL those whom you love, if in fact they were pursecuting you and/or attempting to lead you away from "God". To be clear, this would include family members.

So, "love your enemy" is evidentally not absolute, well, unless you are arguing that in certain instances to "love" and "do good" to your enemy means to kill them. If that's the case, then why can't we just look at the fact that some Muslims want to kill us as their way of "loving" us?

Karla said...

Mike “Are you saying that Islam its self led to the 9/11 attacks while Christian based beliefs are not responsible for the others? The terrorists would agree with you in the case of 9/11, but the three groups I mentioned would disagree with you.”

I wasn’t saying anything really, other than I didn’t want to open that discussion.



Mike “Ok, so churches near abortion clinics that have been bombed are insensitive too, and pretty much all the churches should be removed from Salem, MA too.”

We are talking about a tragedy on a much larger and continuing scale. We are currently at war with groups that were responsible for the attacks and those groups may be funding this building. It is my understanding that this is illegal no matter what building. If they were funding a fast food franchise in America I think it would be illegal. When I heard this kind of information is when I began to be interested in the controversy. Before that, my opinion was, even if it doesn’t feel right, they have the same freedom I do to build whatever religious building they want to wherever is legally permitted. So my concern is not a matter of religion or any kind of desire to limit religious freedom.

Karla said...

Mike "I didn't delete it"."

Not sure what happened then.

Karla said...

Boom “I thought so/think so, too... that's why I asked.”

I have never been to New York City. So I don’t really know how it is all laid out to see exactly where this building is in proximity to Ground Zero. Even the governmental leaders of New York seem intent on requesting negotiation on its location. However, they ask this, rather than demand it because it is well within the rights of any religious group to build on land they own. I do not wish any legal action to be taken against them UNLESS they do something illegal in the process.



Boom “If "Jesus" is currently alive, then in the colloquial sense, he isn't dead, and if he isn't dead, then he didn't die, and if he didn't die, then it is contradictory(as well as confusing and misleading) to say "he gave his life". But this is for another discussion.”

I believe you are aware that the Resurrection would account for my wording as you know this is what I believe even if you don’t accept any of it as true.


Boom “Here's the thing---you don't have to be in that situation to be able to produce an answer to the question I'm asking. I'm merely asking, ought we "love" and "do good" to those who want us dead(?) If so, what is your rationale, and if your rationale is, "because Jesus said[yadda, yadda, yadda]" or "because Jesus did[yadda, yadda, yadda]", then I ask that you please remember that according to the same source in which said "Jesus" presumably said/did those things, it was not that long ago that it was evidentially perfectly "moral" to KILL those whom you love, if in fact they were persecuting you and/or attempting to lead you away from "God". To be clear, this would include family members. “

Yes we should do good to those who hate us or want us dead. Because loving ones enemies is actually loving them and who would do something unloving to someone they truly love? On the other hand, this doesn’t mean that there isn’t a place for a just war, but that’s another discussion we have already had.


Boom “So, "love your enemy" is evidentally not absolute, well, unless you are arguing that in certain instances to "love" and "do good" to your enemy means to kill them. If that's the case, then why can't we just look at the fact that some Muslims want to kill us as their way of "loving" us?”

That makes no sense.

Karla said...

Boom “I thought so/think so, too... that's why I asked.”

I have never been to New York City. So I don’t really know how it is all laid out to see exactly where this building is in proximity to Ground Zero. Even the governmental leaders of New York seem intent on requesting negotiation on its location. However, they ask this, rather than demand it because it is well within the rights of any religious group to build on land they own. I do not wish any legal action to be taken against them UNLESS they do something illegal in the process.



Boom “If "Jesus" is currently alive, then in the colloquial sense, he isn't dead, and if he isn't dead, then he didn't die, and if he didn't die, then it is contradictory(as well as confusing and misleading) to say "he gave his life". But this is for another discussion.”

I believe you are aware that the Resurrection would account for my wording as you know this is what I believe even if you don’t accept any of it as true.


Boom “Here's the thing---you don't have to be in that situation to be able to produce an answer to the question I'm asking. I'm merely asking, ought we "love" and "do good" to those who want us dead(?)"

Yes, we should do good to those who hate us or want us dead. Because loving ones enemies is actually loving them which is doing what is best for them.

Boom “So, "love your enemy" is evidentally not absolute, well, unless you are arguing that in certain instances to "love" and "do good" to your enemy means to kill them. If that's the case, then why can't we just look at the fact that some Muslims want to kill us as their way of "loving" us?”

That makes no sense.

CyberKitten said...

I'm still interested in what you meant by: I have great hope for the Arabic nations and people.

Care to elaborate?

boomSLANG said...

"I believe you are aware that the Resurrection would account for my wording as you know this is what I believe even if you don’t accept any of it as true." ~ Karla

Yes, I know the "Resurrection" is part of your argument. But in this instance when you say, "Jesus said[this, that, and the other thing]", this, IMO, is part of the immediate problem before us, specifically, relating to the controvsery of 911, and now at Ground Zero.

Each side is "faith"-based. Each side is doing precisely what they *believe* their respective "God" is telling them. Each side is using their respective "Holy" book as a reference. Neither side can be falsified, and because of this, it now means the agendas of Muslim extremists(Al Qaeda) and Christian extremists, such as the KKK and Shirley Phelps and her dispicable congregation(i.e..her family), are making the world I/we live in a more dangerous place than it needs to be.

So, while normally I just grant your beliefs "true" for sake of argument, in this case, I think it's important to point out that saying, "God says"[this, that, and the other thing], is part of the PROBLEM.

In any case, I said debating whether or not biblegod "gave His life" was for another discussion.

Moving on...

"Yes, we should do good to those who hate us or want us dead. Because loving ones enemies is actually loving them which is doing what is best for them." ~ Karla

As long as you're prepared to agree that KILLING your enemy, just as we are doing right now in the Middle East, is sometimes "what is best for them". Please note, I'm not disputing that we should defend ourselves when threatened; I'm merely saying it is totally absurd to say that KILLING people is showing them that we "love" them. Again, absurd.

Previously, me: “So, 'love your enemy' is evidentally not absolute, well, unless you are arguing that in certain instances to 'love' and 'do good' to your enemy means to kill them. If that's the case, then why can't we just look at the fact that some Muslims want to kill us as their way of 'loving' us?”

You respond: "That makes no sense."

Right. So, you at least implicitly agree with the rhetorical point I was making, and that is that "loving" one's "enemy" is NOT absolute. When we KILL our enemy in self-defense, we are doing this out of love for ourselves, not the the person(s) we are killing. Moreover, this is a perfectly moral/ethical stance to take if said enemy is trying to kill us for no good reason. That the "Holy Qu'ran" says Muslims should do certain things(like kill the infidel) doesn't necessarily justify a "good reason" for doing those things, just as Christians doing certain things because the "Holy Bible" says so doesn't necessarily justify a "good reason".

boomSLANG said...

Cyberkitten: "I'm still interested in what [Karla] meant by: 'I have great hope for the Arabic nations and people'."

Yeah, me too. Also, you never know, there might be a distinction between "great hope" and plain ol' "hope", just like we are told there is a distinction between "True Hope" and plain ol' "hope".

Karla said...

Cyber “I'm still interested in what you meant by: I have great hope for the Arabic nations and people.
Care to elaborate?”

I have hope that life will become better for their nations. That they will one day have prosperous nations and that the Arabic people will enjoy great liberty and good things for their people.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

I hope those things too, Karla.

Karla said...

Boom “Each side is "faith"-based. Each side is doing precisely what they *believe* their respective "God" is telling them. Each side is using their respective "Holy" book as a reference. Neither side can be falsified, and because of this, it now means the agendas of Muslim extremists(Al Qaeda) and Christian extremists, such as the KKK and Shirley Phelps and her dispicable congregation(i.e..her family), are making the world I/we live in a more dangerous place than it needs to be.”

Do you realize that in both cases that people can advocate being a representative of a belief system that may not actually be a fair representative of that belief? Just because someone says they follow Jesus and then goes and does something horrible does not mean Jesus or His teachings have anything to do with their actions. (ie) the KKK or Phelps or actions of some Muslims or any other belief. There were plenty of lives lost at the hand of atheists too, but that by no means says all atheists are Stalins and Mussolinis.

There are times when a religious teaching or leader can directly influence something that most people would decry as wrong such as leading a mass suicide or some other atrocity. But just because someone says they do something because of their God doesn’t mean God has anything to do with it or that that religion has anything to do with it.

Karla said...

Boom, as to your other question, I don't think love and justice are contradictory, but I don't think in every self-defense situation -- killing is the answer. Nor in every self defense situation is defending the answer.

boomSLANG said...

"I have hope that life will become better for their nations. That they will one day have prosperous nations and that the Arabic people will enjoy great liberty and good things for their people." ~ Karla

'Sounds good, but can they do this while remaining non-Christian? Frankly, I would actually be shocked if you said "yes". But in that case - and if you mean "hope" in the colloquial sense of the word - I don't see how any reasonable person wouldn't hope for that. The problem is, their "nations" are largely of the Islamic Faith, and proponents of said faith use the Qu'ran as their "moral" guide because they believe it is the "Will and Testament" of the "Creator of the Universe", and part of that "Will" is that the infidel must be put to death, as well as their woman subjugated.

Now, does that sound like it will lead to "great liberty and good things for their people"??

"Do you realize that in both cases that people can advocate being a representative of a belief system that may not actually be a fair representative of that belief? Just because someone says they follow Jesus and then goes and does something horrible does not mean Jesus or His teachings have anything to do with their actions." ~ Karla

And the reverse is true---just because someone does something good does not mean "Jesus or His teachings have anything to do with their actions", underscoring my point: We don't need "God" to be "good".

Moreover, I can guarantee you that the Phelps can take the same book that you proudly carry under your arm and extract scripture that supports their views. Isn't it interesting how those who are the compassionate, lovey-dovey, live and let live types(Karla) depict their "LORD" just like themselves, and the radical, angry, bigoted, racist types(Shirley Phelps) depict their "LORD" just as themselves?

"...that by no means says all atheists are Stalins and Mussolinis." ~ Karla

Stalin and his Communist ilk didn't act the way they did because they weren't religious enough. They acted the way they did because they were too much like religion and its authoritarianism.

And FYI, there is such a thing as "Christian Communism".

CyberKitten said...

karla said: I have hope that life will become better for their nations. That they will one day have prosperous nations and that the Arabic people will enjoy great liberty and good things for their people.

As we hope for all mankind.....

boomSLANG said...

"Boom, as to your other question, I don't think love and justice are contradictory, but I don't think in every self-defense situation -- killing is the answer." ~ Karla

Please stop equivocating. We are not debating what the proper response is "in every self-defense situation". I'm saying, in an established hypothetical situtation where > WE < determine killing is necessary and just, I'm saying that doing so is extending love to ourselves, not to the person we're killing.

Once more, the Christian motif "love your enemy" is NOT "Absolute". If nothing else, we know it isn't absolute because at one point in time it was perfectly "moral" and acceptable to kill non-Christians, even family members.

Karla said...

Boom “Now, does that sound like it will lead to "great liberty and good things for their people"??”

Nope.


Boom “Moreover, I can guarantee you that the Phelps can take the same book that you proudly carry under your arm and extract scripture that supports their views. Isn't it interesting how those who are the compassionate, lovey-dovey, live and let live types(Karla) depict their "LORD" just like themselves, and the radical, angry, bigoted, racist types(Shirley Phelps) depict their "LORD" just as themselves?”

People can make their god in their image instead of realizing that we are to align with His image and not make Him into ours. However, Scripture apart from the Spirit of God does not bring life. Any created thing, no matter how good, can be used for ill purposes. Anything can be twisted. Anything can be used in a corrupt manner. A pen can be a completely harmless tool used as a writing instrument, or it can kill someone if used skillfully by a trained assassin or someone of that knowledge. Just because someone wields something in a manner that brings harm, doesn’t mean there is a problem with the thing itself.


Boom “Stalin and his Communist ilk didn't act the way they did because they weren't religious enough. They acted the way they did because they were too much like religion and its authoritarianism.”

My point is that these kind of examples work both way. It won’t matter the answers I give about the difference between one person and another, so why should your reason make a difference? It may very well make a difference, but I can accept that difference, you don’t seem willing to do likewise.

Karla said...

Boom "Once more, the Christian motif "love your enemy" is NOT "Absolute"."

Love is absolute. What that looks like is contingent upon many factors.

I do see what you are saying about killing, and I'm not arguing for one human to kill another. I don't think I could ever do that in any scenario. Maybe if I had to protect a child though I would still hate for that to be the outcome of any altercation.

Boom "If nothing else, we know it isn't absolute because at one point in time it was perfectly "moral" and acceptable to kill non-Christians, even family members."

You keep bringing this up. I don't know of a time that this was ever the moral thing to do. There is no Scripture verse telling followers of Jesus to kill those who are not. In fact, Paul wrote at the time that the Church was under persecution by Nero to respect one's leaders and to pray for them. Jesus said do good to those who persecute you. So I don't know where you get that from?

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “Now, does [following the Qu'ran] sound like it will lead to 'great liberty and good things for their people'??”

Karla responds..."Nope."

'Didn't think so. So, 'care to delineate exactly what you think will acheive that end for the Muslim nations in question?

"People can make their god in their image[...]" ~ Karla

Oh yes---they can, and do, you included.

"...instead of realizing that we are to align with His image and not make Him into ours." ~ Karla

Let me know when you all agree on what "His image" is.

"However, Scripture apart from the Spirit of God does not bring life." ~ Karla

Yes, we've seen it before. One cannot discern "Scripture" *until* they have the "Spirit of God" dwelling inside them. And as always, I say, "How convenient".

"Any created thing, no matter how good, can be used for ill purposes." ~ Karla

Then I would imagine that the creation of "evil", itself, can be used for "ill purposes". In fact, to me, creating "evil" in order to generate a demand for a solution to that "evil" is an "ill purpose".

"Anything can be twisted." ~ Karla

True.

"Just because someone wields something in a manner that brings harm, doesn’t mean there is a problem with the thing itself." ~ Karla

If the instructions on said "thing" explicitly say it's okay to harm a person or group of persons unnecessarily, then yes, there's a problem with the "thing", itself.

Me, previously: “Stalin and his Communist ilk didn't act the way they did because they weren't religious enough. They acted the way they did because they were too much like religion and its authoritarianism.”

Karla responds..."My point is that these kind of examples work both way."

You mean, "both ways, as in, you think that there's a corollary, when in fact, there is not. Atheists who happen to be Communists(the two are NOT mutually inclusive) do not have a doctrine or holy writ to refer to that backs the wholesale killing of a specific group of people.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: "Once more, the Christian motif 'love your enemy' is NOT 'Absolute'."

Karla responds...

"Love is absolute."

Despite that I don't know what you mean when you say "Love is absolute"(nor do I believe that you know, either), what does that have to do with who we "love", absolutely, namely, our enemies??????

"What that looks like is contingent upon many factors" ~ Karla

So, "absolute", but "contingent". 'See any problems?

"I do see what you are saying about killing, and I'm not arguing for one human to kill another." ~ Karla

I'm not saying that one human being killing another is something that you are "arguing for". I know perfectly well that you know that killing is not the prefered option, and this underscores my point: At times when killing our enemy is necessary(and the moral thing to do), this is NOT an act of "love" towards those we are killing, but an act of love towards ourselves.

I reiterate---the Christian motif, "love your enemy" is NOT absolute. There are times when it is unreasonable(and immoral) to "love your enemy".

Previously, me: "If nothing else, we know it isn't absolute because at one point in time it was perfectly 'moral' and acceptable to kill non-Christians, even family members."

Karla responds..."You keep bringing this up. I don't know of a time that this was ever the moral thing to do."

Then I am to believe that you've never read Deuteronomy(which I don't believe). So, you no doubt have some sort of defense(apologetic) in store. In fact, here it is......

"There is no Scripture verse telling followers of Jesus to kill those who are not."[Italics added]

So now(when it's convenient), "Jesus" isn't "One" with "The Father"; he's simply "Jesus" meek and mild of the New Testament. And let me guess..the 'Old Law' was for the Jews, right? Well, I'm sorry, if that is your apologetic, it doesn't hold up. If you take that position, you underscore that the "Word of God", which at one time clearly condoned the killing of any non-christian who would lead you away from "the LORD", is NOT absolute, if in fact this "Old Law" has been abolished, made obsolete...or if you prefer, "fulfilled".

"In fact, Paul wrote at the time that the Church was under persecution by Nero to respect one's leaders and to pray for them. Jesus said do good to those who persecute you. So I don't know where you get that from?" ~ Karla

You know perfectly well to which part of the "Word of God" I refer. But I know; I get it.... it's okay to equivocate(lie), as long as it's for "Jesus".

Karla said...

Boom “'Didn't think so. So, 'care to delineate exactly what you think will achieve that end for the Muslim nations in question?”

I don’t see much point in doing that at present.

"People can make their god in their image[...]" ~ Karla

Boom “Oh yes---they can, and do, you included.”

Sometimes, I’m sure I do.

"...instead of realizing that we are to align with His image and not make Him into ours." ~ Karla

Boom “Let me know when you all agree on what "His image" is.”

All people do not need to agree in order for my statement to be true.

Boom “Yes, we've seen it before. One cannot discern "Scripture" *until* they have the "Spirit of God" dwelling inside them. And as always, I say, "How convenient".”

There is a lot that can be heard and known before having that relationship with God. I know it sounds very mysterious and ethereal.

Boom “Then I would imagine that the creation of "evil", itself, can be used for "ill purposes". In fact, to me, creating "evil" in order to generate a demand for a solution to that "evil" is an "ill purpose".”

Evil was never created. It was the absence of the good that God created. It’s the anti-matter so to speak. It wasn’t something created, it is something manifested from doing that which is not in line with the real good. Evil is the corruption of what is true and real. It is a twisting, a turning, a distortion of what is good.


Boom “If the instructions on said "thing" explicitly say it's okay to harm a person or group of persons unnecessarily, then yes, there's a problem with the "thing", itself.”


If it was really telling them to do something wrong, yes. But many people read or hear what they want to even if it is not being said. My point in bringing up Stalin and the like is that one can always find extremist in any group and we cannot judge the whole by the extreme especially when the example of the extreme isn’t even a good representation of even an extreme. For instance, you would argue that atheism taken to its greatest extreme would not look like Stalin just as I argue that Christianity would not look like Phelps. (I had never even heard of Phelps before hearing his name from atheists and I still know very little regarding him other than what I’ve been told). We both have good reasons for that argument, but without trusting each other we can chose to go on thinking our example could really be more valid than the mainstream. I choose not to think of atheists in terms of Stalins.

Karla said...

Boom “Despite that I don't know what you mean when you say "Love is absolute"(nor do I believe that you know, either), what does that have to do with who we "love", absolutely, namely, our enemies??????”

I think you can love and carry out justice at the same time. Love doesn’t always look like tolerance. It is a very careful thing, but I think a Christian can be in the military and truly love his enemies and still carry out his job to the fullest degree with great integrity and wisdom, without any hatred and malice in his heart. I think it would be an incredibly difficult task, but I think it could be rightly done. This is a great topic though, it’s something I am spending some time thinking about.



Boom “I'm not saying that one human being killing another is something that you are "arguing for". I know perfectly well that you know that killing is not the prefered option, and this underscores my point: At times when killing our enemy is necessary(and the moral thing to do), this is NOT an act of "love" towards those we are killing, but an act of love towards ourselves.”

Not necessarily. One could still love the person, the people group, but still have the right thing to do is to take that life. I think outside of a war situation, this would be an extremely rare occurrence. I know in Jewish law the death penalty is something that can only occur when there are two or three eye witnesses to the crime that warrants that penalty. I think you can still love the person while carrying it out. You do not have to have hatred and unforgiveness towards the person to kill even if it is in a war situation. Though the propensity is for it to be an unloving act, I don’t think it always is.


Boom “I reiterate---the Christian motif, "love your enemy" is NOT absolute. There are times when it is unreasonable(and immoral) to "love your enemy".”

If you see love as unreserved tolerance than I see why you can’t see what I am saying. But love is something different than that, it is not divorced from justice or righteousness. Nor is justice divorced from mercy. This is why the loving/good/righteous thing does not always look the same. When I discipline my nephew in love it is going to look different than how I discipline my niece because the loving thing looks different even though I respond to both of them in love. They are different people and one action towards one would not be love where as the same action towards the other would be. Not because love is different, but because they are different. Hence, love being absolute, but looking differently.

Karla said...

Previously, me: "If nothing else, we know it isn't absolute because at one point in time it was perfectly 'moral' and acceptable to kill non-Christians, even family members."

Karla responds..."You keep bringing this up. I don't know of a time that this was ever the moral thing to do."

Boom “Then I am to believe that you've never read Deuteronomy(which I don't believe). So, you no doubt have some sort of defense(apologetic) in store. In fact, here it is......”

Where did you find Christians in Deuteronomy?




Boom “So now(when it's convenient), "Jesus" isn't "One" with "The Father"; he's simply "Jesus" meek and mild of the New Testament. And let me guess..the 'Old Law' was for the Jews, right? Well, I'm sorry, if that is your apologetic, it doesn't hold up. If you take that position, you underscore that the "Word of God", which at one time clearly condoned the killing of any non-christian who would lead you away from "the LORD", is NOT absolute, if in fact this "Old Law" has been abolished, made obsolete...or if you prefer, "fulfilled".”

Okay, I see where you are coming from. I still don’t know the particular passage you are referring to, but I do know there were times in the OT where God had them wipe out people as a judgment to those people and a protection to the Jewish people because of sin practices that could harm the human race if it continued to spread. But, we have been over that God did respond to people differently before Christ came and dwelt among us and made way for us to dwell in Him directly, and I’ve been over those reasons.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “So, 'care to delineate exactly what you think will achieve that end for the Muslim nations in question?”

Karla responds.."I don’t see much point in doing that at present."

Really? You have a solution to one of the greatest problems facing the human race and you don't see a point in disclosing it right now?

Previously, Karla: "People can make their god in their image[...]"

Me: Oh yes---they can, and do, you included.

"Sometimes, I’m sure I do." ~ Karla

Then why attempt to make a distinction between "people"[who "make their god in their image"], and you and your god?

Previously, Karla: "...instead of realizing that we are to align with His image and not make Him into ours."

Me: Let me know when you all agree on what "His image" is.

"All people do not need to agree in order for my statement to be true." ~ Karla

Yes, but you're begging the question no matter how you cut it. A statement that says, we all need to align with god's image, merely asserts its premise true. From a nonbeliever's standpoint, I'm merely saying that it would be more convincing if believers all agreed on what this supposed "image" of this supposed "God" was.

All believers claim to have the "Spirit of God" dwelling in them and that they're being guided by this "Spirit". Curiously, this "Spirit" is telling them to proclaim things and behave in ways that totally conflict. And now we have your admission that you, too, make "God" in your own image at times, so, there you go---you underscore my point(which you do frequently).

"There is a lot that can be heard and known before having that relationship with God. I know it sounds very mysterious and ethereal." ~ Karla

No, it sounds like equivocal poppycock, that is, unless one has this "relationship with God", then it all makes perfect "sense". And again, I say, how convenient.

"Evil was never created." ~ Karla

So when the Bible lists "create evil" as one of biblegod's accomplishments, the bible is wrong; it's a lie. Yes?

"It was the absence of the good that God created." ~ Karla

Oh, good grief! You're kidding, right!!?! Okay, assuming you're not kidding, then it makes sense to you if someone says, "When the child's father left his daughter at home with the pitbull, he didn't create an unsafe, potentially deadly environment...no, he created the absense of a safe environment, and therefore, should be exonerated!!"

Right?

boomSLANG said...

"If [the written instructions on something] was really telling them to do something wrong, yes. But many people read or hear what they want to even if it is not being said." ~ Karla

I reiterate---both the "Holy Bible" and "Holy Qu'ran" contain language that condones the killing of the "infidel"(nonbelievers, respectively). So, perhaps you should revise your statement to, "Many people don't read or don't hear what is clearly there, while others do."

"My point in bringing up Stalin and the like is that one can always find extremist in any group.." ~ Karla

To which group are you refering when you reference Stalin??

"...we cannot judge the whole by the extreme especially when the example of the extreme isn’t even a good representation of even an extreme." ~ Karla

People are people are people are people, and a group of people shouldn't be judged or not tolerated because of one or two. I've never argued differently. I'm saying that *IF* the group conform to and adhere to and propagate philosophies that are harmful to people outside of their group, then those philosophies are fair game to be judged and they do NOT have to be tolerated, especially if a subdivision of a group are trying to kill us based on those philosophies, which, BTW, would make them our enemy, whom we do NOT have to "love". That's pretty much how/why this whole conversation was spawned.

"For instance, you would argue that atheism taken to its greatest extreme would not look like Stalin just as I argue that Christianity would not look like Phelps." ~ Karla

You don't listen. Phelps and her gang of racist bigots do what they do because of their interpetation of a specific doctrine. Stalin and other proponents of authoritianism and communism might have incidentally been atheists, however, atheism has NO doctrines to (mis)intepret. IOW, there is no corollary where you erroneously believe there is one.

"I think you can love and carry out justice at the same time." ~ Karla

Me, too. If all other options fail and we have no choice but to KILL our enemy, that is justice, and it is an act of love. Yes. However, it is NOT an act of "love" to those we've just killed, but an act of love to ourselves and our children. Please concede this point and stop defending it.

boomSLANG said...

"I think a Christian can be in the military and truly love his enemies and still carry out his job to the fullest degree with great integrity and wisdom, without any hatred and malice in his heart" ~ Karla

It's extremely difficult to not be ad hominem with you. What you just said is utterly insane. Any normal human being, "Christian", or not, whose duty it is to KILL people, is not thinking about how much they LOVE the people they are killing. They are thinking about STAYING ALIVE. Moreover, if one's stray bullets are killing innocent woman and children, and one *knows* this, how is it "love" to go ahead and do it anyway????

"This is a great topic though, it’s something I am spending some time thinking about" ~ Karla

Yes, thinking about various ways to defend nonsensical philosophies; not thinking that you could be wrong.

Again, this is what you have to do short of admitting you're wrong..i.e..you have to defend nonsense by creating apologetics.

"You do not have to have hatred and unforgiveness towards the person to kill even if it is in a war situation." ~ Karla

More equivocation. Just because a soldier doesn't have "hated and unforgiveness" toward his enemy doesn't mean he "loves" his enemy be default, nor does it mean he should love his enemy.

"[love is] not divorced from justice or righteousness. Nor is justice divorced from mercy." ~ Karla

At the point in which our enemy says that they will stop trying to blow us up, that is the point where we can think about showing "mercy". To do so before hand is to put ourselves and those we love in danger. IOW, it is perfectly moral/ethical to love ourselves more than people who, for no good reason, want us dead.

As for "justice", if group B goes to trial for the unlawful killing of group A, and if group B is found guilty, has "justice" been served if person X comes along and says, "Here, take me, and let group B go!"

Yes, or no?(multiple choice)

"Where did you find Christians in Deuteronomy?" ~ Karla

Will you honestly try to get out of this on a loophole? That's the best you've got? I was paraphrasing and I inadvertently said "non-Christians", when non-believers would have been better, or to be precise, "he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God.."

So, corrected, it was the perfectly moral thing to do to kill those who would lead you away from biblegod, including family members.

"Okay, I see where you are coming from. [....] But, we have been over that God did respond to people differently before Christ came and dwelt among us and made way for us to dwell in Him directly, and I’ve been over those reasons." ~ Karla

Right, and we've also been over how "those reasons" are only satisfying to those who are already convinced. To those who see the bible as precisely what the already-convinced say it is..i.e..the "infallible, unchanging Word of God", it makes not one drop of difference that "God" responds to people "differently" now. If a parent used to beat the living tar out of child with a golf club, but said parent doesn't do that anymore because the child is an adult now and doesn't need discipline, does that excuse the prior behavior of the parent? No.

There is no "statute of limitation" on dispicable, inhumane behavior.

Karla said...

Boom “Yes, but you're begging the question no matter how you cut it. A statement that says, we all need to align with god's image, merely asserts its premise true. From a nonbeliever's standpoint, I'm merely saying that it would be more convincing if believers all agreed on what this supposed "image" of this supposed "God" was.”

Maybe, but the point is that it’s not about aligning with a belief about who He is, but aligning with who He is relationally so there will always be something lacking from any description and because none of us are perfect, none of us can absolutely describe Him perfectly and we are each growing in knowledge from different places in our journey. Some will turn and try and tell the world God is like XYZ because it is how God needs to relate to them in that season and then they will grow into more understanding and see while the former had some truth it wasn’t the complete picture and the more one grows the more they see they don’t have the complete picture and the less they portend to know it.

Boom “All believers claim to have the "Spirit of God" dwelling in them and that they're being guided by this "Spirit". Curiously, this "Spirit" is telling them to proclaim things and behave in ways that totally conflict.”

Not really. I hear from people following the Christian religion all the time who haven’t a clue about having a personal relationship with Jesus. I just reviewed several articles on Helium about what makes a Christian and they were all about how one has to believe the right things about Jesus and do the right things and read the Bible. None of them said being a Christian was an infusion of Jesus tangibly into your life. None of them said anything about God dwelling within you. So I do wonder how many Christians do believe Jesus experientially rather than believing about Him because they hold the Bible as the primary over knowing Him personally. Hence part of the reason for my other post.



Boom “So when the Bible lists "create evil" as one of biblegod's accomplishments, the bible is wrong; it's a lie. Yes?”

I know the verse you are referring to and it means calamities of judgment not evil as in wrong doing.

"It was the absence of the good that God created." ~ Karla

Let me try restating that because it looks like I am saying God created the absence of good rather than evil.

Evil is the absence of the good which God created. Thus, God did not create that which is not good, but because good was created there is necessarily that which is not good. An apple is good, but someone can choose to chuck the apple at someone’s head and that’s not good. God didn’t make anyone do something wrong, but because there is a right and freedom there is the potential for wrong. That potential was not actualized, hence not manifested by God, but by man.

boomSLANG said...

"...but the point is that it’s not about aligning with a belief about who He is...." ~ Karla

Right; got it. But you can't seem to grasp that I couldn't care less what one believer, to the next, thinks Christianity is "about". That is subjective opinion, which is my point.

"I hear from people following the Christian religion all the time who haven’t a clue about having a personal relationship with Jesus." ~ Karla

Are you talking about people you encounter who *ADMIT* that they haven't clue about this? If not, and you're just speculating, just who do you think you are to say what you know about someone's personal "relationships", including theirs with "Jesus"??? Do you realize how arrogant you sound when you do this???

"I just reviewed several articles on Helium about what makes a Christian and they were all about how one has to believe the right things about Jesus and do the right things and read the Bible. None of them said being a Christian was an infusion of Jesus tangibly into your life." ~ Karla

And yet, despite that Karla knows the one, the only, the one "True" criteria for being a "True Follower of Jesus", she is in no better a position to prove this than the people she claims "haven't a clue".

"None of them said anything about God dwelling within you." ~ Karla

Are you suggesting that if you gather all the Christians, who, when asked what it means to be a True Believer, they talk about "God dwelling within [them]", and put them in a building together, that they would all agree on what is moral and what isn't and what "God" desires of them, and what "God" doesn't desire of them???? I seriously hope not.

"..So I do wonder how many Christians do believe Jesus experientially rather than believing about Him because they hold the Bible as the primary over knowing Him personally." ~ Karla

Find me ONE person who professes to be a "True Christian" who admits that he or she doesn't "believe
Jesus experientially". Just one. IOW, I'll wager that you cannot, because again, ALL Christians believe they believe correctly. That you (arrogantly) claim to know whether they believe correctly or not, is besides the point.

boomSLANG said...

"I know the verse you are referring to and it means calamities of judgment not evil as in wrong doing" ~ Karla

Yes, yes, I'm familiar with this apologetic, and it is as unconvincing as it is when "Ryft", or any other apologists use it.

Obviously, "wrong doing" cannot be created, because "wrong doing" is an action. However, beings who have a propensity to commit "wrong doing", can be, and were, according to the bible, created.

**"God" created beings who have the propensity to commit "evil", as in "wrong doing". Thus, "God" is ultimately responsible for that type of "evil", as well as the "calamities" type.

"Evil is the absence of the good which God created"

See here***, above.

"God did not create that which is not good, but because good was created there is necessarily that which is not good." ~ Karla

So, wherever "good" exists, its opposite, "not good"(aka "evil"), necessarily exists. That seems to be what you're saying, in which case, "evil" necessarily exists where "good" exists, including in "Heaven". Mind you, this is based on your own argument.

"An apple is good, but someone can choose to chuck the apple at someone’s head and that’s not good." ~ Karla

What if "God" says it's "good" to throw an apple or some other dense object, say, a stone, at a certain person's head? Then what?

"God didn’t make anyone do something wrong, but because there is a right and freedom there is the potential for wrong." ~ Karla

And as I stated, "God" creating the "potential for wrong"(potential for "evil") is no different than "creating evil". Moreover, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, infinitely intelligent being could prevent the effects of "evil" without necessarily harming the free will of those who can choose to commit it. If you need an example from a mere mortal, I'll provide one.

"That potential was not actualized, hence not manifested by God, but by man." ~ Karla

And again, "God" gave man his nature; man did not CHOOSE that nature. Thus, "God" is ultimately responsible.

Karla said...

Boom "Are you talking about people you encounter who *ADMIT* that they haven't clue about this? If not, and you're just speculating, just who do you think you are to say what you know about someone's personal "relationships", including theirs with "Jesus"??? Do you realize how arrogant you sound when you do this??"

I'm talking about people who think it is all about believing intellectually by faith certain doctrines espoused in Scripture about Jesus rather than ever mentioning having a relationship with Jesus, God's indwelling or any experience with Jesus.

I am not talking about me discounting anyone who says they have or have had a relationship with Jesus.

Not all people who say they are Christians claim to know Jesus experientially or even know they can.

Just wanted to clear that up, I'll respond to other comments later.

Karla said...

Boom "At the point in which our enemy says that they will stop trying to blow us up, that is the point where we can think about showing "mercy". To do so before hand is to put ourselves and those we love in danger. IOW, it is perfectly moral/ethical to love ourselves more than people who, for no good reason, want us dead."

Are you arguing that mercy and love should not be extended to enemies?

Is your contention with my post that I said we should love our enemies, and you don't think we should?

Or only that if one is in the position of killing one's enemy that love for the enemy is impossible?

Karla said...

Boom “Obviously, "wrong doing" cannot be created, because "wrong doing" is an action. However, beings who have a propensity to commit "wrong doing", can be, and were, according to the bible, created.”

Being’s created with freedom logically have that propensity.


Boom “**"God" created beings who have the propensity to commit "evil", as in "wrong doing". Thus, "God" is ultimately responsible for that type of "evil", as well as the "calamities" type.”

No the beings that used their freedom in a way that is harmful to them, hence a wrong way, bear the responsibility and yet God took all that debt of responsibility and put it on Himself voluntarily because of His love for us.


Boom “So, wherever "good" exists, its opposite, "not good"(aka "evil"), necessarily exists. That seems to be what you're saying, in which case, "evil" necessarily exists where "good" exists, including in "Heaven". Mind you, this is based on your own argument.”

No, evil doesn’t exist wherever good exist, but it has potential for existence where there is freedom. Thinking about this more, Lucifer was an angel in heaven before he chose evil, so at that time the same freedom was there even in heaven. Jesus while in human form was tempted by Satan which meant He faced the potential for doing evil and yet did not succumb to temptation. Heaven though is the atmosphere of God so evil would not exist there because those that are in heaven are those that have new holy natures having been born again and infused with the Spirit of God which means our freedom is in God and not tied to a sin any longer. Not because we have lost freedom, but because we have dealt with sin. The first time around, through Adam, freedom had not yet been misused and in need of sanctification. (btw, the above is just thoughts that I’m having about the question, it’s nothing I’ve read before or even thought about enough to really firmly give the above answer—so it’s kind of a maybe how it works—I don’t’ know for sure).


Boom “And as I stated, "God" creating the "potential for wrong"(potential for "evil") is no different than "creating evil". Moreover, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, infinitely intelligent being could prevent the effects of "evil" without necessarily harming the free will of those who can choose to commit it. If you need an example from a mere mortal, I'll provide one.”

You are asking for something analogous to a round square by that statement.


Boom “And again, "God" gave man his nature; man did not CHOOSE that nature. Thus, "God" is ultimately responsible. “

Is there any point for me to even continue to answer these comments? I do it to respect the time you took in crating them, but I just don’t want to waste your time further because we have been over this before and this is the conclusion you stick with which is fine.

boomSLANG said...

"I'm talking about people who think it is all about believing intellectually by faith certain doctrines espoused in Scripture about Jesus rather than ever mentioning having a relationship with Jesus, God's indwelling or any experience with Jesus." ~ Karla

Believing "intellectually by faith" is contradictory.

"Faith", in a religious/"Spiritual" context, is to maintain and continue belief where the intellect and empirical evidence leave off. For example, I once asked you how you maintain belief that snakes, donkeys, and shrubs speak/spoke the human language; how you maintain belief that cadavers can be raised from the dead; how you maintain belief that virgins can give conceive a child(since there's no objective evidence for such things), and your response, paraphrased, was that if one can believe the first chapter of Genesis, the rest is easy.

That, Karla, is a statement of "faith", not "intellect".

About those who believe that they have this "relationship with Jesus"(which you will undoubtly bring up), if one knows that they have this "relationship", and if one knows it intellectually, then one doesn't need "faith" to maintain that supposed "knowledge". Moreover, if this "relationship" is as real as what believers maintain that it is, then I'm just wondering why on earth you'd assume that just because believers don't mention their respective relationships with "Jesus" if they should happen to be discussing Christianity with you, that this somehow means that people don't believe in or put stock in said "relationship"?? I haven't ever once mentioned my "relationship" with my mother to you. Does that mean that I don't think my relationship with my mother is "experiential", and/or important, and/or valuable?

I'll wager (and hope) that you'd answer "no" to that, in which case, why then, do you make assumptions about people if they don't happen to mention their "relationship with Jesus" to you??

"Not all people who say they are Christians claim to know Jesus experientially or even know they can." ~ Karla

Again, more assumptions. You seemingly assume that because some Christians don't outwardly proclaim "to know Jesus experientially"(like you outwardly proclaim it), that this somehow means that they are claiming to not have this "relationship", by default.

Notwithstanding, here's the bottom line: If knowing what it means to "follow Jesus" was entirely dependent upon what believers took away from their respective personal relationships with "Jesus", there would be even more confusion than there already is(and there already is a lot).

Hence, where the bible(aka the "Word of God") comes into play; hence, why believers reference said bible when they want to know or show another person the one True Way™ to "follow Jesus".

boomSLANG said...

"Are you arguing that mercy and love should not be extended to enemies?" ~ Karla

NO. Please-oh-please pay careful attention so we can move past this.

I am arguing that how we treat our enemies is *dependent* upon the circumstances and that it is *WE* who interpret the circumstances and act accordingly. IOW, there is no "set", absolute way to act towards enemies. You can give them the benefit of the doubt, yes, but only up until a certain point, and generally, that point is the point when you cannot reason with them, and the benefit of doubt is removed especially when they want to harm us for no good reason.

If you cannot reason with people who want TO KILL YOU, then you extend love to yourself by defending yourself(and your family), even if that means killing said enemy.

And BTW, since "mercy" in the colloquial sense means helping someone who doesn't necessarily deserve it, and justice in the colloquial sense means giving someone precisely what they deserve, then how do you reconcile a "God" who is both perfectly "merciful" and perfectly "Just"? 'Just curious.

Previously, me: “Obviously, 'wrong doing' cannot be created, because 'wrong doing' is an action. However, beings who have a propensity to commit 'wrong doing', can be, and were, according to the bible, created.”

Karla responds: "Being’s created with freedom logically have that propensity."

And when beings who have the freedom and subsequent propensity to commit "evil" do just that, the individual who created them is ultimately responsible, *especially* if said individual had prescience that this would occur. Moreover, as I mentioned previsously, there are ways to prevent the effects of "evil" without necessarily tampering with one's free will. Did you miss that example?

Previously, me: “**'God' created beings who have the propensity to commit 'evil', as in 'wrong doing'. Thus, 'God' is ultimately responsible for that type of 'evil', as well as the "calamities' type.”

Karla responds: "No the beings that used their freedom in a way that is harmful to them, hence a wrong way, bear the responsibility and yet God took all that debt of responsibility and put it on Himself voluntarily because of His love for us."

We've been over this perhaps dozens of times, and since you are intent on repeating/defending fallacious arguments and faulty reasoning, I'm happy to keep correcting you.

Here we go....

- it does not follow that a one-time decision to make a wrong choice, or as you say, a "harmful" choice, makes someone "inherently evil", because if that were the case, we'd never be able to choose to do one single "right" or "unharmful" thing, and we KNOW that this is not the case. Seriously now, had the infamous garden duo chosen to obey and NOT eat the "forbidden fruit", would that then make them "inherently good"? Note, if someone is "inherently good", then they are unable to be "bad", in which case, he or she is no longer a free agent.

- the chronology flaw concerning the incident in question is that "Adam" and his accomplice had not eaten of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil", in which case, they wouldn't have had a frame of reference for what's "right" and what's "wrong".

- even in the event that you solve the above dilemmas, holding others responsible for the crimes of one person(and a possible accomplice) is a mockery of "justice".

- a person (or "God") who pays my debts, and/or, lives out my sentencing for a crime or trespass that I commited, has averted "justice" and mocked the concept of "responsibilty".

boomSLANG said...

"['evil'] has potential for existence where there is freedom" ~ Karla

Yes or no.....is there "freedom" in "Heaven"???? If "no", we see the immediate problem. If "yes", then there is the potential for "evil", according to what you just got done stating.

If you argue that the occupants of "Heaven" will never, ever, ever, EVER want to choose "evil" over what you call "righteousness", then that is no different than a group of robots programmed to be "righteous".

You attempt..."Heaven though is the atmosphere of God..."

Karla, I don't care what colorful godspeak you use in your equivocal defenses. We are either free beings, or we aren't. It's binary. The location of a free agent is 100% irrelevant.

you continue...."so evil would not exist there because those that are in heaven are those that have new holy natures having been born again and infused with the Spirit of God which means our freedom is in God and not tied to a sin any longer." ~ Karla

Again, I don't care what colorful wording you use in your apologetic. We are either free beings, or we aren't. Whether your "freedom is in God", or whether it is a bread box, you are either a free agent, or you aren't. Pick one.

Previously, me: “And as I stated, 'God' creating the 'potential for wrong'(potential for 'evil') is no different than 'creating evil'. Moreover, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, infinitely intelligent being could prevent the effects of 'evil' without necessarily harming the free will of those who can choose to commit it. If you need an example from a mere mortal, I'll provide one.”

Karla responds: "You are asking for something analogous to a round square by that statement."

You are grasping at straws now. If you'll re-read what I said, you'll see that the only thing I'm "asking" is if you need an example of what I'm talking about. What I'm proposing is perfectly feasible, so I don't quite know where you're coming up with this "round square" bit.

Karla, the effects of this supposed "evil" can be controlled, without, a) eliminating said "evil", or b) tampering with our "free will". I'm confident that you've seen my previous exampleS and simply choose to ignore them because they devastate your theology.

In any event, I'll give another:

You're babysitting your nephew for an afternoon and he discovers a nail file on the coffee table. You tell him, "Hey, don't touch that or I'll spank you!"

Your nephew, against your explicit instructions to not touch the file, picks up the file and goes running through the house. You, using your intelligent mind, your good nature, and your desire to NOT endanger those you love, TAKE the file and put it out of reach of your nephew.

Do you see what has happened? In taking that file, you have removed the danger, and guess what?... you haven't harmed your nephew's free will one iota! Your nephew still has the freedom to want to do what you have told him NOT to do. In fact, if your nephew is like most kids, he'll want to do what he's not supposed to do even more.

Much in the same way, "God" can prevent the > effects < of someone who chooses to commit "evil". For example, he can cause a stroke to the step father who RAPES his step daughter. "God" will have then protected the child that Christians insist he "loves" so much, and it didn't harm the free will of the despicably evil step father. He still intended to follow through, whether he had a stroke, or not.

Now, how you get a "round square" out of that, I don't know.

boomSLANG said...

Karla, before I re-try to post my responses again, can you confirm that you're removing them???

Thanks.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Weird, it looks like a lot of comments are missing, at least from where I am. I'll check when I get home. The one Karla thought I deleted is gone and then my re-post of that comment appears to be gone too.

boomSLANG said...

DaNg it! Stupid gremlins!

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Karla has posted things on my blog too that never showed up, not even in spam. The internet doesn't like Karla. ;-)

Karla said...

I'm not removing anything. Not sure what is happening.

Karla said...

Boom I am getting the comments through to my e-mail. Don't need to repost. I will copy and paste as I respond.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Hmmm...on the blogger.com dashboard it says "We have enabled automatic spam detection for comments. You should occasionally check the comments in your spam inbox." Maybe that's it? I don't use blogger's commenting system so I can't check.

Karla said...

Mike, good thinking. Found them. I didn't know there was a comment spam box. I just found it upon your suggestion.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Is there a way to whitelist us? I'm sure it see's our rapid fire discussions as spam.

Karla said...

Boom, I might not get time to respond to the latest comments until Monday. Have a great weekend guys.

Karla said...

Mike, I'll check on that. I think this is a new feature. They just updated blogspot with new features and profiles designs and stuff.

Karla said...

I don't see that option yet. Hopefully my clicking Not Spam on your posts will filter it through right in the future. I will keep an eye on the spam box now that I know it's there and I did get everything to my e-mail.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Sounds like that should do it. "You can help improve our ability to automatically detect spam comments by checking your Spam Inbox and deleting spam comments and marking real comments that may have been flagged as spam as Not Spam."

Karla said...

Boom “Believing "intellectually by faith" is contradictory.“

I was summarizing what some Christians believe it’s all about. I don’t use the term faith in that manner.

Boom “"Faith", in a religious/"Spiritual" context, is to maintain and continue belief where the intellect and empirical evidence leave off. For example, I once asked you how you maintain belief that snakes, donkeys, and shrubs speak/spoke the human language; how you maintain belief that cadavers can be raised from the dead; how you maintain belief that virgins can give conceive a child(since there's no objective evidence for such things), and your response, paraphrased, was that if one can believe the first chapter of Genesis, the rest is easy.”

I don’t use it in that manner either. See my post on Faith written a while back.


Boom “Moreover, if this "relationship" is as real as what believers maintain that it is, then I'm just wondering why on earth you'd assume that just because believers don't mention their respective relationships with "Jesus" if they should happen to be discussing Christianity with you, that this somehow means that people don't believe in or put stock in said "relationship"?”

I am not talking about when a person is responding to a question of what it means to be a Christian and they do not once mention anything about knowing Jesus, but only believing doctrines about Jesus. It’s like some think its like this: I believe Jesus is the Son of God (check) I believe He was crucified (check) I believe He died, was buried and rose again (check). I believe He ascended to heaven and will return at a later date in the future for those who believe (check). I believe the Bible is true (check)

But I am saying, so what! Even the devil believes all that. Belief isn’t intellectual assent to a set of factual propositions. It is a tangible in twining of one heart/spirit to God through Jesus and this experience of the divine is an infusion of faith. It isn’t faith to believe the aforementioned propositions, at least not faith as the Bible speaks of faith. Faith is that internal connecting between God and man that wells up tangibly in a person.


Boom “I haven't ever once mentioned my "relationship" with my mother to you. Does that mean that I don't think my relationship with my mother is "experiential", and/or important, and/or valuable?”

No. But if someone asked you what life is like as her son and you responded with a detailed description of what she looks like, where she was born, and where she lives now, it would raise the question as to whether you understood the question or whether you knew your mother.


Boom “I'll wager (and hope) that you'd answer "no" to that, in which case, why then, do you make assumptions about people if they don't happen to mention their "relationship with Jesus" to you??”

I addressed this above.


Boom “Notwithstanding, here's the bottom line: If knowing what it means to "follow Jesus" was entirely dependent upon what believers took away from their respective personal relationships with "Jesus", there would be even more confusion than there already is(and there already is a lot). “

I’m really not talking about a description at all.

Boom “Hence, where the bible(aka the "Word of God") comes into play; hence, why believers reference said bible when they want to know or show another person the one True Way™ to "follow Jesus". “

Some do. Do you see much Scripture in what I write? I sometimes add it, but usually only if my post was for a Christians audience.

Karla said...

Boom “I am arguing that how we treat our enemies is *dependent* upon the circumstances and that it is *WE* who interpret the circumstances and act accordingly.”

Well that is how you would see it with a worldview that does not include God. Without mutual understanding of the existence of God, I can’t give an answer you would find meaningful.


Boom “ IOW, there is no "set", absolute way to act towards enemies. You can give them the benefit of the doubt, yes, but only up until a certain point, and generally, that point is the point when you cannot reason with them, and the benefit of doubt is removed especially when they want to harm us for no good reason.”

I agree that reason seldom works in such situations.


Boom “If you cannot reason with people who want TO KILL YOU, then you extend love to yourself by defending yourself(and your family), even if that means killing said enemy.”

Love can turn an enemy into a friend more effectively than reason. It can heal the wounds that cause the positioning of someone as an enemy of someone else. However, there is a just place for killing that is not murder and is not brought on out of a lack of love for the enemy. I do understand what you are saying, I just don’t agree with it.

Boom “And BTW, since "mercy" in the colloquial sense means helping someone who doesn't necessarily deserve it, and justice in the colloquial sense means giving someone precisely what they deserve, then how do you reconcile a "God" who is both perfectly "merciful" and perfectly "Just"? 'Just curious.”

If justice and mercy are always in the context of goodness and love then a merciful justice would be doing exactly what is good for the person – the response would neither be too severe nor too soft that it would be detrimental to a person or people. Unrestrained compassion can cripple a person that needs to meet just discipline, but severe justice without mercy can also cripple the person or community of people.


Boom “And when beings who have the freedom and subsequent propensity to commit "evil" do just that, the individual who created them is ultimately responsible, *especially* if said individual had prescience that this would occur. Moreover, as I mentioned previsously, there are ways to prevent the effects of "evil" without necessarily tampering with one's free will. Did you miss that example?”

I see no grounds to put God on trial. I know you think that if He exist that He is negligent to have allowed evil. I can’t explain it all perfectly, but I do trust Him and His ways. I know you can give all kinds of arguments why it doesn’t seem fair, but I see no injustice on His part and that isn’t because I refuse to look at the facts, but because I have found Him personally to be trustworthy.

Karla said...

Boom “Yes or no.....is there "freedom" in "Heaven"???? If "no", we see the immediate problem. If "yes", then there is the potential for "evil", according to what you just got done stating. “

Yes there is freedom in heaven. There is no evil nor will there be.


Boom “If you argue that the occupants of "Heaven" will never, ever, ever, EVER want to choose "evil" over what you call "righteousness", then that is no different than a group of robots programmed to be "righteous".”

We already chose righteousness on earth. The first people had that choice and chose evil. We have that choice again and those who are choosing Christ and His righteousness are being made righteous and are returning to the freedom found in goodness. We were not forced to enter that life, goodness, freedom, in Christ, we were given a choice to enter it and once in that is brought to full culmination in heaven and sin, death, pain, destruction, evil is no longer of any potentiality there because we have entered goodness where it doesn’t exist.


Boom “Again, I don't care what colorful wording you use in your apologetic. We are either free beings, or we aren't. Whether your "freedom is in God", or whether it is a bread box, you are either a free agent, or you aren't. Pick one.”

It makes a world of difference.


Boom “Do you see what has happened? In taking that file, you have removed the danger, and guess what?... you haven't harmed your nephew's free will one iota! Your nephew still has the freedom to want to do what you have told him NOT to do. In fact, if your nephew is like most kids, he'll want to do what he's not supposed to do even more.”

But I wouldn’t have dealt with what was in his heart to do that which he was asked not to do. I just removed the choice. That example doesn’t work. He’s not free; I’m controlling his environment in that scenario. If he wouldn’t have done exactly what I asked Him not to it matters not if the harm is removed of the object he wasn’t to touch, if his heart was poised to do it.


Boom “Much in the same way, "God" can prevent the > effects < of someone who chooses to commit "evil". For example, he can cause a stroke to the step father who RAPES his step daughter. "God" will have then protected the child that Christians insist he "loves" so much, and it didn't harm the free will of the despicably evil step father. He still intended to follow through, whether he had a stroke, or not.”

But we all are the people doing harm to others. We are all in positions to “get what we deserve” because our hearts betray us all the time. God’s plan helps the victim and the victimizer. For we are all both in various points in our life. We have all hurt others and have all been hurt. It brings us all into freedom away from evil and the consequences of that evil. It brings us into the kind of life where we don’t have to choose bad over good because we can become good in God and live out of that goodness doing good. That is the life that He can bring us to, that is what He promises. That is why when I say freedom in God, I mean a freedom that can be free of the propensity of evil a freedom that could only come about by choice and not by force which is a greater freedom than the first time around. I know this sounds unclear, but I’m not trying to equivocate, but only to share deep truths that can be difficult to express especially in such few words.

boomSLANG said...

"I was summarizing what some Christians believe it’s all about." ~ Karla

And guess what, Karla? What "some Christians believe it's all about" doesn't interest me; it's totally irrelevant to my original point of contention, which is/was, the Christian motif "love your enemy", and whether or not we ought to "love" and "do good" to our enemies, unconditionally, namely, those who want to KILL us for no good reason(s).

I'm saying the answer is "no", and while it is evident that you disagree with me, per ususal, you've yet to provide any reasoning to back your position other than because "Jesus(and the bible) say so".

Previously, me: “'Faith', in a religious/'Spiritual' context, is to maintain and continue belief where the intellect and empirical evidence leave off. For example, I once asked you how you maintain belief that snakes, donkeys, and shrubs speak/spoke the human language; how you maintain belief that cadavers can be raised from the dead; how you maintain belief that virgins can give conceive a child(since there's no objective evidence for such things), and your response, paraphrased, was that if one can believe the first chapter of Genesis, the rest is easy.”

You respond: "I don’t use ['Faith'] in that manner either.

If you believe the above-mentioned concepts..i.e..talking donkeys and vegetation, etc., and if this is predicated on the opening lines of the first chapter of Genesis(which you've gone on record to say just that), then that is a statement of "faith".

But if you'd like, you can prove me wrong by simply providing some evidence that the first chapter of Genesis is true. Where is the objective confirmation that "Genesis" is true????

"See my post on Faith written a while back." ~ Karla

Why should I believe there will be less double-talk or less equivocation in some other post of regarding "faith", when you've just equivocated on the subject, above?

"It’s like some [Christians] think its like this...[insert **irrelevant description of what some Christians believe being a Christian is all about]" ~ Karla

See here**, above.

"Belief isn’t intellectual assent to a set of factual propositions." ~ Karla

You can ask one hundred Christians what "belief" is and you could feasibly get one hundred different answers. IOW, Christianity is one giant, subjective grab-bag. It is laughable that you keep on with this subject, as if, even if I believed that you possessed the One True criteria that makes a "True Believer™
"(which I do not believe), that you've accomplished something.

Using the human language, show me how the Xian motif, "love your enemy" is Absolute, and show me why it is not contradictory to follow/worship a "God" who, out of the other side of his mouth, says it's okay to KILL your enemy if they happen to be trying to lead you away from "God".

BTW, "Satan" is surely the enemy, right Karla? Should Christians "love Satan"? Yes or no?

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

Okay, evidentally, the glich with posts strangely disappearing hasn't been fixed. Until it is, I would prefer that you don't extract my posts from your email and selectively post responses to them. IOW, there are many points that you didn't address.

Thanks.

Karla said...

I found one comment in the spam box. I have one comment on my e-mail that was not that one that now shows as deleted here? Did you remove it or is blogspot having some serious issues?

Karla said...

Also, why are you defining faith for me when you are not a proponent of faith at all?

Many Christians may accept your definition, but I do not--I used to, but I see now the popular usage is not accurate. If you want to know more about my thoughts on the topic of faith see my post on the topic.

Karla said...

Boom "And guess what, Karla? What "some Christians believe it's all about" doesn't interest me; it's totally irrelevant to my original point of contention, which is/was, the Christian motif "love your enemy", and whether or not we ought to "love" and "do good" to our enemies, unconditionally, namely, those who want to KILL us for no good reason(s)."

So what's your view on the posted topic of the Islamic Center/Mosque being built near Ground Zero? I've only heard from you a critique of my view focusing mainly on that love for enemies not being absolute. But what is your view on the topic?

boomSLANG said...

"I have one comment on my e-mail that was not that one that now shows as deleted here? Did you remove it or is blogspot having some serious issues?" ~ Karla

One disappeared(the first one), and the other, I removed.

"Also, why are you defining faith for me when you are not a proponent of faith at all?" ~ Karla

I'm not attempting to define anything "for" you. I'm simply employing the colloquial meaning of "faith", specifically, the kind that is not the same as "trust" which is built on a provable track-record. I'm talking the kind of "faith" that would be obsolete if one had "tangible"(your word) evidence.

Moreover, I'm perfectly aware that "definitions" in the context of your "spiritual" beliefs are not necessarily that of a real-world context. I also know that these "definitions" often times are the complete opposite of the term in question. For instance, while "hope" has its own definition in real-world terms, according to you, when the capitalized modifier "True" is added to it ..e.g.. "True Hope", this now means the exact opposite of plain ol' "hope", in the colloquial sense. Yes, it means possessing Absolute certainty that something sought after is going to come to fruition.

"Many Christians may accept your definition, but I do not" ~ Karla

Actually, no Christians accept that definition when it is pointed out to them that it contradicts the philosophies they espouse. 'Funny how that works.

In any event, I'm willing to have a look at your definition and entertain it for sake of discussion, *so long as* you're willing to offer some evidence that shows that the first Chapter of Genesis is "True", which, according to you, makes believing the rest of the bible "easy".

This simple task would prove that you aren't employing the type of "faith" that you insist that you reject. If you cannot/will not carry out this simple task, then you are implicitly employing the very same "faith" that you say you reject.

"So what's your view on the posted topic of the Islamic Center/Mosque being built near Ground Zero? I've only heard from you a critique of my view focusing mainly on that love for enemies not being absolute. But what is your view on the topic?" ~ Karla

I have the solution. But I don't think it would be productive to go into at the present time.

That's flippin' nuts, isn't it? Yeah? 'Sound familiar?

Karla said...

Boom “I'm not attempting to define anything "for" you. I'm simply employing the colloquial meaning of "faith", specifically, the kind that is not the same as "trust" which is built on a provable track-record. I'm talking the kind of "faith" that would be obsolete if one had "tangible"(your word) evidence.”

That’s fine, but I am not talking about it in the colloquial sense.

Boom “Moreover, I'm perfectly aware that "definitions" in the context of your "spiritual" beliefs are not necessarily that of a real-world context. “

I see the real world as inclusive of the spiritual world.

Boom “I also know that these "definitions" often times are the complete opposite of the term in question.”

Words change over time. Just because a word is defined a certain way in our culture does not mean that it has always meant that or was first used in that manner.

Boom “For instance, while "hope" has its own definition in real-world terms, according to you, when the capitalized modifier "True" is added to it ..e.g.. "True Hope", this now means the exact opposite of plain ol' "hope", in the colloquial sense. Yes, it means possessing Absolute certainty that something sought after is going to come to fruition.”

It’s not an intellectual thing though. It’s something in your spirit that is not confined to mental certainty. I can’t really help you understand this because you process everything physically and do not realize you have a spirit – until that reality is awakened in you, I am afraid some of these details will not make sense. It’s like I am trying to describe the ocean to you when you have never so much as seen a picture of it. All description will fall short of the “ah-ah” moment of standing in the sand seeing and hearing the waves crash against the shore smelling the fragrance of the ocean breeze. Those words would have no association if you hadn’t some experience of a sea shore.



Boom “Actually, no Christians accept that definition when it is pointed out to them that it contradicts the philosophies they espouse. 'Funny how that works. “

That may be true for some, but I am not dismissing the definition on grounds of any contradiction, just on accuracy of what faith means.

Boom “In any event, I'm willing to have a look at your definition and entertain it for sake of discussion, *so long as* you're willing to offer some evidence that shows that the first Chapter of Genesis is "True", which, according to you, makes believing the rest of the bible "easy".”

I did make that statement before. But I cannot prove God created, since you don’t accept that God is, nor that the physical world needed a Creator. We’ve been over that in the past. I see the evidence, but you don’t accept that as evidence, so for you, you would be employing the colloquial faith definition, but for me, I would not be.


Boom “This simple task would prove that you aren't employing the type of "faith" that you insist that you reject. If you cannot/will not carry out this simple task, then you are implicitly employing the very same "faith" that you say you reject.”

That would prove nothing because it would be your opinion that any evidence I give is not evidence or not sufficient evidence.

Boom “I have the solution. But I don't think it would be productive to go into at the present time.”

I can accept that answer if it is true and you’re not just being sarcastic.

boomSLANG said...

"That’s fine, but I am not talking about ['faith'] in the colloquial sense." ~ Karla

And again, until you lay out in detailed, precise terms what you mean by "faith" and how it applies to your beliefs, we can't move forward. Until then, I'm simply saying, based on some previous statements you've made, the type of "faith" you appear to be attempting is precisely that of which you insist that you reject.

To be clear, I mean "faith", as in, belief that does not rest on proof or material evidence.

Now, if you insist that you reject that type of "faith", then fine, I can accept that, so long as you can prove that whatever type of "faith" it is that you employ, it is built upon objective evidence. I even made it simple for you.....

Previously, you said that if one can believe that the first chapter of the bible is true, that this then makes believing the rest of the bible "easy". I'm saying, FINE. Then simply tell me upon what evidence your belief in "Genesis chapter 1" is based. Now, is that so hard to do/understand?

"I see the real world as inclusive of the spiritual world." ~ Karla

Yes, when it's convenient, like now. In any event, in the future, I'll make the distinction using some other term, as to avoid getting side-tracked. But no matter how you cut it, a "spiritual world" is unproven.

"Words change over time. Just because a word is defined a certain way in our culture does not mean that it has always meant that or was first used in that manner." ~ Karla

Feel free to reference a dictionary and/or a source from another era and/or culture and show me the meanings/origins of the terms "True Hope" or "Substantive Faith". If you can do that(and you won't be able to, because you and your church are making this stuff up as you go), then I stand corrected.

Previously, me: “For instance, while 'hope' has its own definition in real-world terms, according to you, when the capitalized modifier 'True' is added to it ..e.g.. 'True Hope', this now means the exact opposite of plain ol' 'hope', in the colloquial sense. Yes, it means possessing Absolute certainty that something sought after is going to come to fruition.”

Karla responds: "It’s not an intellectual thing though. It’s something in your spirit that is not confined to mental certainty." ~ Karla

Equivocation---a sure sign that you are backed into a corner.

So, you aren't "mentally certain", but "spiritually certain". Yes, sure. So far, in this latest rebuttal alone, you've employed your "spiritual" card twice.

Where is the objective confirmation for a "spirit" or its "realm" or its "God"??? If you don't have it, then on what grounds do you promote your "spiritual" beliefs as the Universal, Objective, Absolute Truth?

"I am afraid some of these details will not make sense. It’s like I am trying to describe the ocean to you when you have never so much as seen a picture of it." ~ Karla

If you've been paying attention, you'll notice that I haven't rejected your "descriptions", altogether, but instead, I've entertained them for sake of discussion, pointing out that they are contradictory, illogical, unfounded, and many of them just plain silly.

boomSLANG said...

"All description will fall short of the “ah-ah” moment of standing in the sand seeing and hearing the waves crash against the shore smelling the fragrance of the ocean breeze." ~ Karla

If you've been paying attention, you'll know that I've already had the "ah-hah" moment, both with "God", and standing around near the ocean smelling stuff, including red tide.

The difference is that one "ah-hah" moment is demonstrable, and one isn't. I can take people who are skeptical that the "ocean" exists to the ocean, and they can see for themselves. If I'm having doubts, I can go see for myself, too. I'll experience the "ocean" whether I want to experience it, or not. With "God", on the other hand, it is often argued by the already-convinced that you won't "find God" *unless* you want to "find God". 'Funny how that works.

"I am not dismissing the definition on grounds of any contradiction, just on accuracy of what faith means." ~ Karla

Yes, and I await that definition, and also the evidence upon which your acceptance of the opening statement of the bible is based.

Upon inspection, I see you attempt that next...

"I did make that statement before. But I cannot prove God created, since you don’t accept that God is, nor that the physical world needed a Creator." ~ Karla

Correct, I don't accept non-sequiturs as "proof" of anything, nor should I. I have no logical reason to think that "nothing" would exist as opposed to something, thus, I have no reason to believe that the universe hasn't always existed in some form or another.

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

"I see the evidence, but you don’t accept that as evidence, so for you, you would be employing the colloquial faith definition, but for me, I would not be." ~ Karla

i.e..you cannot meet the challenge; you cannot offer any sort of evidence that the first chapter of Genesis is true, in an objective sense. 'Got it.

So, IOW, you "see the evidence", just like...

~ Muslims "see the evidence" that the Holy Qu'ran is the Will and Testament of the Almighty Allah

~ Scientologists "see the evidence" that Thetans are a threat to civilization

~ UFOlogists "see the evidence" that we're being visited by spacemen

So, the fact of the matter is, there is no distinction to be made from Karla's personal "faith" that she invests in her personal beliefs, and the personal "faith" of the above-described believers.

Therefore, there is no distinction to be made from your personal, what you call, "substantive faith", and the more common, colloquial type of "faith".

Now, will you concede that one type of "faith" is no less flimsy than another? If not, why not?

"That would prove nothing because it would be your opinion that any evidence I give is not evidence or not sufficient evidence." ~ Karla

WRONG. That is incorrect. It is not merely my "opinion" that your "evidence" doesn't constitute credible evidence to me. It's fact.

Seriously, it's like we've gotten nowhwere when you say such silly things.

Previously, me: “I have the solution[to the Mosque/Ground zero controversy]. But I don't think it would be productive to go into at the present time.”

Karla responds: "I can accept that answer if it is true and you’re not just being sarcastic."

Really? You'd accept it if I would claim, but keep to myself, a solution to one of the biggest problems we face? Is that, by chance, just because you gave basically the same "answer" and you expect others to accept it?

For the record, I despise all "faith"-based, organized religion, equally. On the other hand, we have freedom of religion in our constitution. Notwithstanding, if the funds used to build religious establishments are "dirty", that should be considered and dealt with.

That said, when a church is caught being funded with "dirty" money, should it be torn down???

Karla said...

Sorry Boom, comments keep getting sent to spam box. I just published them. Apparently there are no settings to stop this from happening as of yet.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

You can report issues here: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/blogger/label?lid=1e8249fc90930d5e&hl=en

Blogger comments drive me crazy anymore since I'm never, ever logged out of Google, yet Blogger (owned by Google) makes me log in. Ugh!

Karla said...

Boom “And again, until you lay out in detailed, precise terms what you mean by "faith" and how it applies to your beliefs, we can't move forward. Until then, I'm simply saying, based on some previous statements you've made, the type of "faith" you appear to be attempting is precisely that of which you insist that you reject.”

I thought I did that in the post you read.

Boom “To be clear, I mean "faith", as in, belief that does not rest on proof or material evidence.”

I know that’s what you mean and most people mean that too though some would say that faith is based on evidence but takes that next step into something more than the evidence can verify. I used to give the latter answer. However, I just recently realized, in the last couple months really, that I’m not so sure either is an accurate definition of what faith is really about.


Boom “Now, if you insist that you reject that type of "faith", then fine, I can accept that, so long as you can prove that whatever type of "faith" it is that you employ, it is built upon objective evidence. I even made it simple for you..... “

Maybe we should break this down further . . . what constitutes “objective evidence” to you? I am not asking that to evade the question.


Boom “Previously, you said that if one can believe that the first chapter of the bible is true, that this then makes believing the rest of the bible "easy". I'm saying, FINE. Then simply tell me upon what evidence your belief in "Genesis chapter 1" is based. Now, is that so hard to do/understand?”

Again, there is no evidence I could give you that you would believe is credible even though I believe it is. Our worldviews interpret the data differently. Moreover, even though I have read research from many different sources on the topic, I am not so well versed as to make a great case for it for someone else.


"I see the real world as inclusive of the spiritual world." ~ Karla

Boom “Yes, when it's convenient, like now. In any event, in the future, I'll make the distinction using some other term, as to avoid getting side-tracked. But no matter how you cut it, a "spiritual world" is unproven.”

Something doesn’t have to be proven to be real. Nor does it need to be physical to be real. Hence my statement.

Karla said...

Karla responds: "It’s not an intellectual thing though. It’s something in your spirit that is not confined to mental certainty." ~ Karla

Boom “Equivocation---a sure sign that you are backed into a corner.“

Not so. I am speaking of things you don’t believe exist so I don’t see how you can have a grid for what I am saying. If you have never known anything by your spirit rather than your mind then what I say will all sound like nonsense.


Boom “So, you aren't "mentally certain", but "spiritually certain". Yes, sure. So far, in this latest rebuttal alone, you've employed your "spiritual" card twice. “

I can know things through my spirit before my mind apprehends it. Humans are spiritual and physical beings. You are only using half of who you are if you only live through the physical.

Boom “Where is the objective confirmation for a "spirit" or its "realm" or its "God"??? If you don't have it, then on what grounds do you promote your "spiritual" beliefs as the Universal, Objective, Absolute Truth? “

My spiritual or non-spiritual beliefs are not Absolute Truth. God is Absolute. My beliefs about Him are not. Some are going to be more accurate than others, but I don’t have an absolute monopoly on truth.

Evidence for having a spirit? This is something I have not researched. I doubt science can study this because it is not physical. The evidence you are asking me for, I cannot give. It is something you experience as true or not. Maybe there is evidence in the nature you speak of, but I don’t know of it.

Karla said...

Boom “The difference is that one "ah-hah" moment is demonstrable, and one isn't. I can take people who are skeptical that the "ocean" exists to the ocean, and they can see for themselves. If I'm having doubts, I can go see for myself, too. I'll experience the "ocean" whether I want to experience it, or not. With "God", on the other hand, it is often argued by the already-convinced that you won't "find God" *unless* you want to "find God". 'Funny how that works.”

That’s beside the point. I was simply saying that not having a shared experiential framework makes some of what I say have no grid in your world at the moment.

"I am not dismissing the definition on grounds of any contradiction, just on accuracy of what faith means." ~ Karla

Boom “Yes, and I await that definition, and also the evidence upon which your acceptance of the opening statement of the bible is based.”

Faith is something that comes about through experiencing Christ. Faith is this sense is not something that is employed when children believe in Santa Clause, but only when one connects with God.

From what I have just come to realize, I think we need a different word for the colloquial faith.

Karla said...

Boom “i.e..you cannot meet the challenge; you cannot prove that the first chapter of Genesis is true in any objective sense. 'Got it. “

No I can’t prove it to you. Anything at all that I point to you would say the opposite.


Boom “So, IOW, you "see the evidence", just like...

~ Muslims "see the evidence" that the Holy Qu'ran is the Will and Testament of the Almighty Allah

~ Scientologists "see the evidence" that Thetans are a threat to civilization

~ UFOlogists "see the evidence" that we're being visited by spacemen”


Nope. Just because you don’t think something is proven doesn’t mean it isn’t real or that it is the same as everyone else’s claims.

If you knew much about the above listed belief systems you would know they are not equal even to themselves or to what I am professing.


Boom “So, the fact of the matter is, there is no distinction to be made from Karla's personal "faith" that she invests in her personal beliefs, and the personal "faith" of the above-described believers.”

From your perspective that makes sense for you to see it that way. I’m sorry I can’t demonstrate the difference on a blog.

Boom “Therefore, there is no distinction to be made from your personal, what you call, "substantive faith", and the more common, colloquial type of "faith". “

Is that your final answer? Maybe we should move away from the topic then instead of waste time.


Boom “Now, will you concede that one type of "faith" is no less flimsy than the other? If not, why not?”

Nope, the faith I speak of that is a tangible substance resonate within me because of God living in me can heal the sick and release atmospheric changes. The faith in the colloquial sense of intellectually assenting to something that has little to no evidence has no such power.


"That would prove nothing because it would be your opinion that any evidence I give is not evidence or not sufficient evidence." ~ Karla

Boom “WRONG. That is incorrect. It is not merely my "opinion" that your "evidence" doesn't constitute credible evidence to me.”

Yours and others. But it’s not mine.


Boom “Really? You'd accept that I would sit on and keep to myself a solution to one of the biggest problems we face? Is that, by chance, just because you gave basically the same "answer" and you expect others to accept it?”

Sometimes an answer to hastily given can hurt more than it can help.

Boom “For the record, I despise all "faith"-based, organized religion, equally. On the other hand, we have freedom of religion in our constitution. Notwithstanding, if the funds used to build religious establishments are "dirty", that should be considered and dealt with. “

Fair enough.

Boom “That said, when a church is caught being funded with "dirty" money, should it be torn down??? “

It should certainly come under the authority of the law and the consequences of the laws being broken, whether we are talking about a ministry, a church, or a minister.

Karla said...

Mike, I saw that before. It looks like a discussion forum, but not really a help forum. They need a better system.

I'll keep checking the spam box when I log on.

boomSLANG said...

Let me know when the blogger/disappearing posts issue is resolved. It doesn't make much sense for me to keep giving point-by-point rebuttals when half of them disappear.

For the time being, in one such disappearing post I asked if we should extend "love" to "Satan", assuming (confidentally)that "Satan" is the enemy. After all, this notion that we should *always* and absolutely "love [our] enemies" was originally where some of us took issue.

Karla said...

Boom “Let me know when the blogger/disappearing posts issue is resolved. It doesn't make much sense for me to keep giving point-by-point rebuttals when half of them disappear.”

Not all of them disappear. And I mark them not-spam as soon as I log on and find them in my spam box. But you don’t have to keep posting if you don’t want to. I wish the spam box was a feature I could turn off.

Boom “For the time being, in one such disappearing post I asked if we should extend "love" to "Satan", assuming (confidentally)that "Satan" is the enemy. After all, this notion that we should *always* and absolutely "love [our] enemies" was originally where some of us took issue.”

Satan isn’t a fellow human being. He is an agent of darkness of evil. Can one love evil? I don’t think that possible at least it’s not possible for that to be a good thing. Humans even when they do evil are not in their true nature evil – hence you can love them regardless of what they do. Satan is different.

Also you are the one that brought in the word “absolute.”

Also that question wasn't lost in spam it's there dated August 31st.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “[...]It doesn't make much sense for me to keep giving point-by-point rebuttals when half of them disappear.”[original quote, emphasis added]

Karla responds..."Not all of them disappear."

?

This is part of the problem. You do. not. listen.

Previously, me: “For the time being, in one such disappearing post I asked if we should extend 'love' to 'Satan', assuming (confidentally) that 'Satan' is the enemy. After all, this notion that we should *always* and absolutely 'love [our] enemies' was originally where some of us took issue.”

Karla attempts..."Satan isn’t a fellow human being."

"Satan" isn't a fellow ANYTHING, because "Satan" doesn't exist.

Now, if I choose to argue under the pretense that "Satan" exists, which, for sake of discussion, I do, then said story-book character is either an "enemy", or said character is NOT an "enemy". It's binary. Choose one.

BTW....

**Enemy:

1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.
2. a. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
b. A member or unit of such a force.
3. A group of foes or hostile forces. See Usage Note at collective noun.
4. Something destructive or injurious in its effects.

As you can see, I couldn't care less if it is argued that "Satan isn't a fellow human being". For one thing, the bible doesn't say Love your enemies if they are fellow human beings! The "Love your neighbor" clause covers that.

"He is an agent of darkness of evil." ~ Karla

See here**, above. By definition, "an agent of darkness of evil" is my "enemy" if it is...

- a "power"[check]

- "hostile force"[check]

- something "injurious"[check]

"Can one love evil?"

That's NOT the question. The question is/was, OUGHT we "love evil".(?)

"I don’t think that possible at least it’s not possible for that to be a good thing." ~ Karla

It's supposedly a "good thing" that we extend "love" to our enemies, including those who want to see our DEMISE. "Satan" surely wants to see our demise, thus, surely making him an enemy.

"Humans even when they do evil are not in their true nature evil – hence you can love them regardless of what they do. Satan is different" ~ Karla

Your constant equivocation speaks volumes. One minute you are arguing that man's "nature" is "fallen", due to his("Adam & Eve's) CHOOSING "evil" over "righteousness". Yet, this is not one bit different than when "Satan" supposedly chose "evil" over "righteousness" when he was fluttering around in "Heaven". You're not going to tell me that "God" created his Heavenly angels to be "evil", are you??? No, of course not! So, "evil" is NOT the "true nature" of "Satan", either.

There are glaring double-standards in your apologetics, yet, you keep right on defending your errors. Astounding.

"Also you are the one that brought in the word 'absolute'" ~ Karla

Because YOU are the one who claims that the "Word of God" >> IS << "Absolute", which would include the Xian motif, "Love your enemy".

Now, are conceding it's not "Absolute"? If yes, then why have you been defending it for days on end??? Sheesh

Karla said...

Boom ""Satan" isn't a fellow ANYTHING, because "Satan" doesn't exist."

Then your question is irrelevant.

You do not seem to be looking for answers to your questions, but looking to show how ridiculous you think my responses are. So what's the point here?

You are actually arguing against loving enemies, but when we were talking months ago about God bringing judgment against people, you thought that wrong and horrid. So on one hand you want love extended to all no matter their state of friend or foe, good or harmful, and on the other you want to argue against loving such people. I think you just want to argue against whatever I say.

boomSLANG said...

Until I get a chance to respond(and I plan to do so), feel free to delete the duplicate posts, none of which showed up when I refreshed the page.

Thanks.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: "Satan" isn't a fellow ANYTHING, because 'Satan' doesn't exist."

Karla responds: "Then your question is irrelevant."

Um, no, it's not "irrelevant", and had you read what came immediately after I said that, you'd know my thought-process for why discussing "Satan" is very relevant. Here's what I said immediately following the above-quoted...

Now, if I choose to argue under the pretense that "Satan" exists, which, for sake of discussion, I do, then said story-book character is either an "enemy", or said character is NOT an "enemy". It's binary. Choose one.

I notice you didn't choose one.

"You do not seem to be looking for answers to your questions, but looking to show how ridiculous you think my responses are." ~ Karla

I'm looking for answers to my questions to show that there are no answers that aren't ridiculous. You are defending nonsense(i.e...you are defending concepts that make no sense), because that's your only option, short of admitting that you're wrong.

"So what's the point here?" ~ Karla

To get you to at least entertain the possiblity that you could be wrong, despite your dogmatic insistance that you cannot be. Remember, I once thought and believed just as you do, and for many of the same reasons. I was once just as sure as you are that "God"/"Jesus" was suspending the laws of nature in the favor of myself and other "True Believers", just as you believe it. It was painful to accept and realize that I was being self-deceived. I still feel shame over it to this day.

Any other questions? If not, can you please answer mine?

boomSLANG said...

"I thought I did that in the post you read." ~ Karla

The post entitled "Substantive Faith" is the one I read, and as best as I can tell, the word "faith" appears ONE time in the opening statement where you are just asserting your position true(per usual). If I missed the sentence or paragraph that explains how "faith" is required to believe things that you aleady claim to know for certain, then feel free to paste that sentence or paragraph here.

"[....] some would say that faith is based on evidence" ~ Karla

If one has "evidence", then one doesn't need "faith". If you are arguing that "faith" is merely trusting what one claims to know for CERTAIN is "True", then that is redundant. It's akin to saying, "Oh, look at me.... I know what I know what I know!!!"

Thus, "substantive"/"faith" is certainly an oxymoron, that is, *if* one doesn't need to substantiate anything to anyone other than themselves.

On the other hand, if you insist that "Jesus is the answer" and you expect me to believe it?... you'll need to substantiate that claim with something more than subjective "evidence" and bare assertions.

Previously, me: “Now, if you insist that you reject that type of 'faith', then fine, I can accept that, so long as you can prove that whatever type of 'faith' it is that you employ, it is built upon objective evidence..”

Karla responds: "...what constitutes 'objective evidence' to you? I am not asking that to evade the question."

That which isn't subjective, so....information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.

- Can we set up experiments that test the hypothesis, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", and make an analysis?

- Can we measure anything about "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

- Can we directly observe "God" create something the way he allegedly did "In the beginning"???

If not, and yet, you believe the entire bible is predicated on, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", then it is clear that you employ the very "faith" that you insist that you reject.

"I am speaking of things you don’t believe exist so I don’t see how you can have a grid for what I am saying." ~ Karla

I don't need a "grid"; I need evidence. That is, if you expect me to believe what you're claiming. If you don't care that Atheists don't believe anything you're saying or if you don't expect them to believe anything you're saying, then fine. I can be on my merry way. But it seems to me that a lot of what you write is meant to clarify what you believe to skeptics.

"If you have never known anything by your spirit rather than your mind then what I say will all sound like nonsense."

As I mentioned previously, I believed with every bit of fervor, passion, and confidence as you do now.

And BTW, if you concede that from where I stand now that it will "all sound like nonsense", then you should have no problem when I call it just that.

"I can know things through my spirit before my mind apprehends it." ~ K

Unproven assertion..

"Humans are spiritual and physical beings." ~ K

Unproven assertion.

"You are only using half of who you are if you only live through the physical." ~ K

Unproven assertion.

"God is Absolute. My beliefs about Him are not." ~ K

The statement "God is Absolute" is, itself, a belief "about Him", in which case, according to your very own reasoning, you cannot be absolutely certain about anything concerning "God", including that "God is Absolute".

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

Boom “Now, if I choose to argue under the pretense that "Satan" exists, which, for sake of discussion, I do, then said story-book character is either an "enemy", or said character is NOT an "enemy". It's binary. Choose one.”

If you want to “argue under the pretense” then the pretense ought not to be removed in your rebuttal.


Boom “As you can see, I couldn't care less if it is argued that "Satan isn't a fellow human being". For one thing, the bible doesn't say Love your enemies if they are fellow human beings! The "Love your neighbor" clause covers that.”

The Bible tells us to hate sin, but I don’t know of a passage right off that says to hate Satan, but to resist Him standing firm in Christ. I don’t think hate is required to resist Him, at the same time I don’t think love is deemed appropriate for that which is incarnate evil either.

Well if we want an accurate definition of the word “enemy” from that passage we would need to look up the Greek and find the Greek meaning from that day. The modern English dictionary didn’t exist then, nor did the language. This is why words like “faith” do not necessarily correspond to the popular colloquial definition or dictionary definition.


Boom “That's NOT the question. The question is/was, OUGHT we "love evil".(?)”

I’m not sure it is a question of “ought” because if someone loves it isn’t because they “ought to” but because they really do.



Boom “Your constant equivocation speaks volumes. One minute you are arguing that man's "nature" is "fallen", due to his("Adam & Eve's) CHOOSING "evil" over "righteousness". Yet, this is not one bit different than when "Satan" supposedly chose "evil" over "righteousness" when he was fluttering around in "Heaven". You're not going to tell me that "God" created his Heavenly angels to be "evil", are you??? No, of course not! So, "evil" is NOT the "true nature" of "Satan", either. “

You are correct. It was not his true nature. Unlike us though, he can’t reclaim his true nature. I don’t know why that works that way for him, but it does.

I think we don’t need to respond to Satan at all, one way or another, but only to God. If we are standing firm in God we are by nature resisting Satan and the works and spirits of darkness to where they have no affect upon us. We then have no need to respond at all towards him.


Boom “There are glaring double-standards in your apologetics, yet, you keep right on defending your errors. Astounding.”

I don’t have perfect answers. Sometimes my answers are unhelpful and confusing. Sometimes your questions are the first I’ve had on the topic and my answers are the first I’ve ever given. I don’t portend to have or to know all the right answers to your very good questions. Nor to give you such answers that you have that “ah ha” movement just because I articulated something well. No answer no matter how well delivered nor how accurate could do that as far as I know.

Karla said...

"Also you are the one that brought in the word 'absolute'" ~ Karla

Boom “Because YOU are the one who claims that the "Word of God" >> IS << "Absolute", which would include the Xian motif, "Love your enemy".”

Nope. I claim God is Absolute an that the Word of God is a limited but true revelation of His. It’s not the end all absolute on all things true. He is.


Boom “Now, are conceding it's not "Absolute"? If yes, then why have you been defending it for days on end??? Sheesh “

We have established that I use the word absolute differently from you and that I am not going around telling anyone you have to love your enemy because God absolutely says to. In fact if anyone was doing it because they had to they would be doing it for the wrong reason and they might as well not do it. Love is something that comes out of a person who has love in his nature. So saying it is good to love your enemy can only go so far, because as soon as it is turned into an absolute you better do it kind of statement the love is lost and replaced with an absolute life depleting rule.

Karla said...

To get you to at least entertain the possiblity that you could be wrong, despite your dogmatic insistance that you cannot be. Boom "Remember, I once thought and believed just as you do, and for many of the same reasons. I was once just as sure as you are that "God"/"Jesus" was suspending the laws of nature in the favor of myself and other "True Believers", just as you believe it. It was painful to accept and realize that I was being self-deceived. I still feel shame over it to this day."

Do you really think I sound dogmatic?

I thought the reason at least some of you liked to frequent here was because I wasn't dogmatic.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Karla said: If you want to “argue under the pretense” then the pretense ought not to be removed in your rebuttal.

I'd agree with that.

Here's a question regarding Satan. How much of what people commonly believe about Satan is from the Bible and how much is from extra-Biblical sources?

Was Satan always "incarnate evil"? If so, was he created this way? If not, when did he become "incarnate evil"?

I've heard some people claim that one thing that separates angels from humans is that angels have no free will. Do you believe this, Karla?

I'm not trying to make any arguments here, I'm just curious.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"Do you really think I sound dogmatic?"

More catmatic than dogmatic, really. ;-)

I think what Boom is referring to is your unwavering certainty that The Truth is out there and that somehow, even in a small way, you have tapped into it.

Karla said...

Mike “I'd agree with that.”

Cool.

Mike “Here's a question regarding Satan. How much of what people commonly believe about Satan is from the Bible and how much is from extra-Biblical sources?”

Good question. I think there is a ton of myth mixed in a lot of times. That’s why I try to only state what seems to be directly expressed in Scriptures rather than speculation—though I’m sure sometimes I might have some popular notions rather than Scripture mixed in and I don’t mind that being challenged if and when it creeps up.


Mike “Was Satan always "incarnate evil"? If so, was he created this way? If not, when did he become "incarnate evil"?”

I think the Biblical story is that he was a great archangel (Lucifer) – a leader angel in heaven who got proud and thought he was better than God. God expelled him from heaven and sent him to the earth with the angels who had fallen with Lucifer. Popular tradition will often call Satan, God’s arch nemesis thinking he is the opposite power force for force of evil to God’s good. However, the Bible says he is a fallen angel not a anti-god though he does personify evil and darkness as he does not in any shape or form reflect the goodness of God any longer.

So no he was not always evil. He was not created that way. And he became it when he chose his way over God’s and was cast away forever.

If you want I can find the references to correspond to the above.

Mike “I've heard some people claim that one thing that separates angels from humans is that angels have no free will. Do you believe this, Karla?”

Well, if they had no free will Lucifer and the others (now demons) could not have fallen. So no I don’t believe that. Can more fall? I don’t know.

I think the only thing we know from Scripture is that the fallen angels will one day be cast and locked away forever where they will no longer have any habitation upon the earthly realm (physically or spiritually).

Mike “I'm not trying to make any arguments here, I'm just curious.”

I know. Thanks for the good questions. I like curious questions. And the answers are not dogma, lol, just my thoughts on it. Some are “doctrine” per se, but nothing I’m dogmatic about. I think one is a type of information/teaching and the other a mentality about it.

Karla said...

Mike “More catmatic than dogmatic, really. ;-)”

Lol. I am a cat person. . . though I love dogs too.

Mike “I think what Boom is referring to is your unwavering certainty that The Truth is out there and that somehow, even in a small way, you have tapped into it.”

I don’t think “dogmatic” fits the bill on that though. I’m unwavering on that because it would be dishonest for me to be otherwise.

I don’t expect anyone, Christian or not, to have to think as I do or do as I do. I may express that I think one way more beneficial or healthier than another for their well being, but that’s as far as it goes. No one has to do anything we are all free. My husband and I were just telling our niece and nephews that last night. They are free even as children. We treat them as free human beings regardless of their age and we help them learn to handle their freedom without manipulation or control.

boomSLANG said...

Let me know when the blogger/disappearing post problem is resolved. I still have 4 posts saved that address previous arguments.

boomSLANG said...

"If you want to 'argue under the pretense' then the pretense ought not to be removed in your rebuttal." ~ Karla

Karla,

If I say, "Satan"(or 'God') doesn't exist", it should be implict that this isn't part of my "rebuttal" or argument. Otherwise, you could just say, "Jesus exists!", and I could follow with, "No, he doesn't!", and that would be the deal-breaker for any discussion.

Let me clarify: My saying "Satan doesn't exist" is simply a reminder that, yes, I *AM* here to discuss under the pretense that you have access to this so-called "Truth"(which you've failed over and over to demonstrate), but also, since it is a common misconception of the Xian community that atheists are "choosing evil"("Satan") over "God", this hopefully disspells that totally absurd notion in case there are any silent on-lookers who are Christians(or in case you've forgotten that I'm not "rejecting" your biblegod for biblegod's antagonist, "Satan").

With that hopefully out of the way(forever), you go on to say...

"The Bible tells us to hate sin, but I don’t know of a passage right off that says to hate Satan, but to resist Him standing firm in Christ"

Notice, I wasn't inquiring if we should "hate Satan", or not. You are doing your ususal equivocation. The subject is "love your enemy", which is *also* what "the Bible tells us". I have even provided a definition of "enemy", and again, Xianity's "Satan" falls under that definition. I have shown, using reason and evidence, that we should *NOT* extend "love" and/or extend "good" to our enemies in every single situation. Thus, I have illustrated that what "the Bible tells us" isn't Absolute.

The "Word of God" is not Absolute; it is fully dependent upon its readers to interpet the circumstance and act/decide accordingly. That makes it subjective.

"Well if we want an accurate definition of the word 'enemy' from that passage we would need to look up the Greek.." ~ Karla

Poppycock. 'Tell you what, though, if we can't accept the bible's language at its face-value(which, of course, we never can when that face-value language proves you wrong), then it's your job to go gather "the Greek" meaning. I await the results of your research(with a source)

"I’m not sure it is a question of 'ought' because if someone loves ["evil"] it isn’t because they 'ought to' but because they really do." ~ Karla

Honest to pete, I don't how you come up with this stuff. How on earth does the fact that someone "really does" love such 'n' such thing or person preclude the question "ought they love" such 'n' such thing or person!!?!

"You are correct. ['Evil'] was not['Satan's'] true nature. Unlike us though, he can’t reclaim his true nature. I don’t know why that works that way for him, but it does."

IOW, you don't know why there's a double-standard, but there just is. Hopefully, you can see how unsatisfactory such answers are.

It's interesting. We, "God's creation", can reclaim our "true nature" because we were created as free agents, but for some reason, one of god's very own former angels, who is also "God's creation", was evidentally not created as a completely free agent.

And here's why: The Christian philosophy is *dependent* upon "evil" to make its "solution" necessary and appealing. That's why. Oh, the irony.

Karla said...

Boom "Let me know when the blogger/disappearing post problem is resolved. I still have 4 posts saved that address previous arguments."

I only saw one of your post in the spam box this time. I see two post in my e-mail that I have not had time to respond to yet.

boomSLANG said...

"Do you really think I sound dogmatic?" ~ Karla

Yes, I really do.

Dogmatic: adj

1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from *dogma.
2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.

*Dogma: noun

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

(Ref: American Heritage)

"...no ['Satan'] was not always evil. He was not created that way." ~ Karla

Did, or did not, "God" have prescience at the precise moment that he "created" the "archangel" known as "Lucifer"(aka "Satan")? If yes, then why did "God" create him knowing what would happen?

If "God" didn't have prescience at that moment, why not?... and when/where/how did he acquire it?

"And ['Satan'] became ['evil'] when he chose his way over God’s and was cast away forever." ~ Karla

Assuming "Lucifer" was "created" as a free agent(since he "chose his way over God's"), why wasn't he created with he ability to reclaim his "true nature" like any other free agent? As an Atheist, I am presumably free to change my mind(that's the whole point of "free will"), but yet, "Satan" is not able to change his mind?

It appears that one of two senarios is true regarding "Lucifer"(aka "Satan").

Either, a) he was created to be unable to reclaim his "true nature", or b) he was created to never, ever, ever, EVER want to reclaim his "true nature".

Whether "a", or "b", I see serious implications for the Christianity philosophy. But perhaps there's a third option that I'm over-looking(that hopefully makes at least as much sense as "a" or "b", above).

"I don’t expect anyone, Christian or not, to have to think as I do or do as I do" ~ Karla

If we had to think as Karla does, we wouldn't be free agents, would we? I do think, however, that it's fair and accurate to say that you want people to think as you do, in light of this blog and it's opening proclaimation..i.e.. "Jesus is the answer".

"I may express that I think one way more beneficial or healthier than another for their well being, but that’s as far as it goes." ~ Karla

That's as far as it goes? I see some down-playing. What I see right now is someone who is portraying themselves, like, "Oh, I'm just giving you my 2 cents for what its worth", which is seriously understated and is seriously misrepresenting the situation. I agree it's merely your opinion, yes, but most of the time you are (mis)representing your opinion as unmistaken fact.

Karla said...

Boom “If one has "evidence", then one doesn't need "faith". If you are arguing that "faith" is merely trusting what one claims to know for CERTAIN is "True", then that is redundant. It's akin to saying, "Oh, look at me.... I know what I know what I know!!!"”

No I am asserting that faith is a matter of the spirit/heart (an internal thing if you will) rather than a mind thing. It’s not something pertaining mainly to intellectual belief, but something that resonates within you. So no, I am not talking in terms of mental certainty. Haven’t you ever known something internally more than mentally?


Boom “Thus, "substantive"/"faith" is certainly an oxymoron, that is, *if* one doesn't need to substantiate anything to anyone other than themselves.“

We are talking about the term in two different plains. I am speaking in a context that you don’t live in or yet experience and you are applying what I say to the context of your world view. Thus we seem to be speaking two different languages. I don’t know how to bridge the gap as of yet.


Boom “On the other hand, if you insist that "Jesus is the answer" and you expect me to believe it?... you'll need to substantiate that claim with something more than subjective "evidence" and bare assertions.”

I know that. I am in no way trying to convince you through my words to go “okay, I get it now, I’ll believe in Jesus again.” I’m under no such delusion. I’m just trying to clear up some of the misconceptions.


Boom “That which isn't subjective, so....information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.”

All of that can be interpreted either way. I don’t think any of that would be better than actually meeting Him yourself.

Karla said...

Boom “- Can we set up experiments that test the hypothesis, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", and make an analysis?”

Would we need to if you met Him and tasted the reality of who He is? At the same time, I believe there is a place for such study and evidence, but I find that to be icing on the cake rather than the cake itself.

Boom “If not, and yet, you believe the entire bible is predicated on, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", then it is clear that you employ the very "faith" that you insist that you reject.”

I employ a different one.

"I am speaking of things you don’t believe exist so I don’t see how you can have a grid for what I am saying." ~ Karla

Boom “I don't need a "grid"; I need evidence. That is, if you expect me to believe what you're claiming. If you don't care that Atheists don't believe anything you're saying or if you don't expect them to believe anything you're saying, then fine. I can be on my merry way. But it seems to me that a lot of what you write is meant to clarify what you believe to skeptics.”

I care about atheists finding truth. I am not worried though. I know that I’m not God’s supreme way of helping people know Him—not anything close to that.

I do spend a lot of time clarifying, because I often see atheists taking positions against things I am not even positing either because they are arguing against something most Christians would posit, or they are arguing against what they think we are positing. I don’t see things the way everyone else does, and I don’t think that makes be better, but different and I can’t argue for the popularized views if I don’t share them. So a lot of clarifying has to take place.

Karla said...

Boom “If I say, "Satan"(or 'God') doesn't exist", it should be implict that this isn't part of my "rebuttal" or argument. Otherwise, you could just say, "Jesus exists!", and I could follow with, "No, he doesn't!", and that would be the deal-breaker for any discussion. “

When you brought up Satan in the context of loving your enemies, I made a distinction that Satan wasn’t a human enemy and didn’t fall in the same parameters as this principle.

As I said..."Satan isn’t a fellow human being."

Your rebuttal was "Satan" isn't a fellow ANYTHING, because "Satan" doesn't exist.

If we are going to talk about Satan for the sake of an argument then it is necessary to do so with proper context – hence the Satan you refer to whether actual or fictional is not a human and thus to give rebuttal to that statement doesn’t work.


Boom “Let me clarify: My saying "Satan doesn't exist" is simply a reminder that, yes, I *AM* here to discuss under the pretense that you have access to this so-called "Truth"

I realized that.

Boom “ but also, since it is a common misconception of the Xian community that atheists are "choosing evil"("Satan") over "God", this hopefully disspells that totally absurd notion in case there are any silent on-lookers who are Christians(or in case you've forgotten that I'm not "rejecting" your biblegod for biblegod's antagonist, "Satan").”

I’m not one of those Christians.

Boom “Notice, I wasn't inquiring if we should "hate Satan", or not. You are doing your ususal equivocation. The subject is "love your enemy", which is *also* what "the Bible tells us". I have even provided a definition of "enemy", and again, Xianity's "Satan" falls under that definition. I have shown, using reason and evidence, that we should *NOT* extend "love" and/or extend "good" to our enemies in every single situation. Thus, I have illustrated that what "the Bible tells us" isn't Absolute. “

Sometimes the good isn’t tolerance or unrestrained acceptance. Sometimes it is justice. Sometimes the best most loving thing for another person is allowing them to face the consequences of their actions and this is still love. Sometimes though it is giving a glass of water to someone who hates your guts and wants to destroy your life.

Karla said...

Boom “If I say, "Satan"(or 'God') doesn't exist", it should be implict that this isn't part of my "rebuttal" or argument. Otherwise, you could just say, "Jesus exists!", and I could follow with, "No, he doesn't!", and that would be the deal-breaker for any discussion. “

When you brought up Satan in the context of loving your enemies, I made a distinction that Satan wasn’t a human enemy and didn’t fall in the same parameters as this principle.

As I said..."Satan isn’t a fellow human being."

Your rebuttal was "Satan" isn't a fellow ANYTHING, because "Satan" doesn't exist.

If we are going to talk about Satan for the sake of an argument then it is necessary to do so with proper context – hence the Satan you refer to whether actual or fictional is not a human and thus to give rebuttal to that statement doesn’t work.


Boom “Let me clarify: My saying "Satan doesn't exist" is simply a reminder that, yes, I *AM* here to discuss under the pretense that you have access to this so-called "Truth"

I realized that.

Boom “ but also, since it is a common misconception of the Xian community that atheists are "choosing evil"("Satan") over "God", this hopefully disspells that totally absurd notion in case there are any silent on-lookers who are Christians(or in case you've forgotten that I'm not "rejecting" your biblegod for biblegod's antagonist, "Satan").”

I’m not one of those Christians.

Boom “ I have shown, using reason and evidence, that we should *NOT* extend "love" and/or extend "good" to our enemies in every single situation. Thus, I have illustrated that what "the Bible tells us" isn't Absolute. “

Sometimes the good isn’t tolerance or unrestrained acceptance. Sometimes it is justice. Sometimes the best most loving thing for another person is allowing them to face the consequences of their actions and this is still love. Sometimes though it is giving a glass of water to someone who hates your guts and wants to destroy your life.


Boom “The "Word of God" is not Absolute; it is fully dependent upon its readers to interpret the circumstance and act/decide accordingly. That makes it subjective.”

It isn’t Absolute. But it isn’t relative to personal interpretation, but God’s direction. It is true, but any passage could be misused or even used rightly at a wrong time. It was never meant as a rule book for how to live your life, but a book that points to the Lord whose love can restore new life to a person to where they live a life of love without adhering to any external control.


"I’m not sure it is a question of 'ought' because if someone loves ["evil"] it isn’t because they 'ought to' but because they really do." ~ Karla

Boom “Honest to pete, I don't how you come up with this stuff. How on earth does the fact that someone "really does" love such 'n' such thing or person preclude the question "ought they love" such 'n' such thing or person!!?!”

Because if someone is doing it because they ought to then they really don’t love in the first place. If I love my husband because it is my duty then I am not really loving him. It may very well be the right thing, but if I have to figure that out before doing it then the right thing become an external control motivator. I am talking about a life where I don’t do things because I am following the right thing, but because God has birthed a new nature in me that I can freely live rightly because I have a right center. When I don’t live rightly it is because I have stepped out of that place in God and acted outside of who I really am.

Karla said...

Boom “The "Word of God" is not Absolute; it is fully dependent upon its readers to interpret the circumstance and act/decide accordingly. That makes it subjective.”

It isn’t Absolute. But it isn’t relative to personal interpretation, but God’s direction. It is true, but any passage could be misused or even used rightly at a wrong time. It was never meant as a rule book for how to live your life, but a book that points to the Lord whose love can restore new life to a person to where they live a life of love without adhering to any external control.


"I’m not sure it is a question of 'ought' because if someone loves ["evil"] it isn’t because they 'ought to' but because they really do." ~ Karla

Boom “Honest to pete, I don't how you come up with this stuff. How on earth does the fact that someone "really does" love such 'n' such thing or person preclude the question "ought they love" such 'n' such thing or person!!?!”

Because if someone is doing it because they ought to then they really don’t love in the first place. If I love my husband because it is my duty then I am not really loving him. It may very well be the right thing, but if I have to figure that out before doing it then the right thing become an external control motivator. I am talking about a life where I don’t do things because I am following the right thing, but because God has birthed a new nature in me that I can freely live rightly because I have a right center. When I don’t live rightly it is because I have stepped out of that place in God and acted outside of who I really am.

Karla said...

Boom “Assuming "Lucifer" was "created" as a free agent(since he "chose his way over God's"), why wasn't he created with he ability to reclaim his "true nature" like any other free agent? As an Atheist, I am presumably free to change my mind(that's the whole point of "free will"), but yet, "Satan" is not able to change his mind? “

I don’t know.



"I don’t expect anyone, Christian or not, to have to think as I do or do as I do" ~ Karla

Boom “If we had to think as Karla does, we wouldn't be free agents, would we? I do think, however, that it's fair and accurate to say that you want people to think as you do, in light of this blog and it's opening proclaimation..i.e.. "Jesus is the answer".”

I don’t want anyone to think as I, but I would like people to meet Jesus and think on their own.

"I may express that I think one way more beneficial or healthier than another for their well being, but that’s as far as it goes." ~ Karla

Boom “That's as far as it goes? I see some down-playing. What I see right now is someone who is portraying themselves, like, "Oh, I'm just giving you my 2 cents for what its worth", which is seriously understated and is seriously misrepresenting the situation. I agree it's merely your opinion, yes, but most of the time you are (mis)representing your opinion as unmistaken fact.”

Obviously I think what I am saying is true or I wouldn’t be saying it. However, I don’t think I have the ultimate perspective on all things true. I enjoy dialoging with people from all perspectives because they always see something I don’t even if they are coming at the topic from a worldview that contradicts my own. This is why I was questioning why you called me dogmatic. People I know who are dogmatic act like their doctrine is absolutely true and no one no how could ever have even the slightest change in perspective on it that could in any way be worth their time in considering. I get excited when I hear someone talking about a verse or a percept or a doctrine and have a very different take on it than I have or that most have. I like to hear about it and learn about how they see it. I am not dead set on doctrines. Nor do I have concern when people have very different doctrines. The fabric of the church in this world is changing and moving away from being doctrinally aligned. We are now aligned simply because we are all brothers and sisters of the same Lord regardless of our different perspectives about Scripture, or church style, or what have you and that I like very much. So I really don’t see myself as a dogmatic person.

boomSLANG said...

{1 of 4}

"So I really don’t see myself as a dogmatic person." ~ Karla

If you recall, your question to me, was...

"Do you really think I sound dogmatic?"[emphasis added]

Thus, the reasons leading up to "so", are entirely irrelevant. I simply do not care whether you see yourself as dogmatic or not, because I'm not the least bit curious about how you see yourself. I provided definitions of "dogmatic" and "dogma", and you, your church, and the philosophies you espouse, fit those definitions to a tee. Add to that your claim that it's totally impossible that you could be mistaken, and.... well, enough said.

"No I am asserting that faith is a matter of the spirit/heart (an internal thing if you will) rather than a mind thing." ~ Karla

And once more, I do not care what you believe "faith" is "a matter of". Do you understand? The issue right now, Karla, is this: You are either claiming to know with certainty, or you aren't. If you are, then this notion that this knowledge came by way of some magical, immaterial 'tHinGaMabob', is totally irrelvant.

You, over and over, claim to know a "God" exists, and I'm simply trying to figure out in what capacity you need "faith" for that. You claim one can't "know" until/unless they have "God" taking up residence inside of them. Fine. Then once a person "knows" this has happened to them, what *EXTRA* "thing" is needed to solidify that supposed "knowledge"? I don't know how to make the inquiry any clearer.

"It’s not something pertaining mainly to intellectual belief, but something that resonates within you." ~ Karla

So, it's like a feeling. And we know how reliable feelings are, don't we?

"So no, I am not talking in terms of mental certainty." ~ Karla

The usual equivocation. We know via science that knowledge is stored and developed in the brain.

But to give benefit of doubt, even if you claim certainty via some way other than mental processes, you are still claiming certainty.

"Haven’t you ever known something internally more than mentally?" ~ Karla

You'd have to clarify what you mean by "internally". What?...do you mean, gut instinct? If so, yes, my "gut instinct" has been right-on-the-money at times! Other times?...it's been dead-wrong. This is why evidence is important to me.

boomSLANG said...

{4 of 4}

Previously, me: "I have shown, using reason and evidence, that we should *NOT* extend 'love' and/or extend 'good' to our enemies in every single situation. Thus, I have illustrated that what the Bible tells us' isn't Absolute."

Karla responds..."Sometimes the best most loving thing for another person is allowing them to face the consequences of their actions and this is still love."

So, if a Boeing Apache helicopter turns some enemy insurgents into red confetti as a consequence of their having bombed us the night before, this is an act of "love" toward them, yes?

Previously, me: “The 'Word of God' is not Absolute; it is fully dependent upon its readers to interpret the circumstance and act/decide accordingly. That makes it subjective.”

Karla responds: "It isn’t Absolute. But it isn’t relative to personal interpretation, but God’s direction. It is true, but any passage could be misused or even used rightly at a wrong time."

But even if the contents of the bible are "God's direction", that "direction" doesn't apply in *every* situation---for example, on how enemies are to be dealt with; on how rebellious teens are to be dealt with; on how prostitutes are to be dealt with; on how nonbelievers are to be dealt with, and on, and on.

IOW, "God's direction" is *dependent* upon context, making it, AGAIN, subjective. Please concede this point before we go on.

Previously, me: “Honest to pete, I don't how you come up with this stuff. How on earth does the fact that someone 'really does' love such 'n' such thing or person preclude the question 'ought they love' such 'n' such thing or person!!?!”

Karla responds..."Because if someone is doing it because they ought to then they really don’t love in the first place. If I love my husband becau[EDIT]"

We aren't talking about loving one's spouse! We are talking, specfically, about loving "evil", as seen here...

"...if someone loves ["evil"] it isn’t because they 'ought to' but because they really do." ~ Karla

And what I am saying, Karla, is that if someone really does "love evil", this does not mean that we cannot question if that's the "moral" or "good" thing to do. I'm saying, it is often times immoral to extend "love" or a "drink of water" to an "enemy". If a man wielding a 9mm wants to kill me and my family, it would be immoral(and just plain stupid) of me to offer him a flippin' drink of water. In fact, it would be my hope that he drop DEAD of dehydration, if he in fact needed water at the time.

"Obviously I think what I am saying is true or I wouldn’t be saying it." ~Karla

It isn't bad or unusual that people state what they believe to be true. People do it daily. The difference is that most people would be willing to change their views if presented with evidence that proved their previously-held views wrong, whereas, you are not willing to do that.

"I don’t think I have the ultimate perspective on all things true." ~ Karla

To have that type of perspective would make you omniscient, and to my knowledge, no one here is saying you've claimed that. You are defending an argument that doesn't exist.

"I enjoy dialoging with people from all perspectives because they always see something I don’t even if they are coming at the topic from a worldview that contradicts my own." ~ Karla

But you are fully prepared to dismiss whatever someone brings to the table if that "something" conflicts with what you have already decided is "the Truth". You may as well be saying, "Oh, I so enjoy being right all the time when I'm dialoging with people!"

boomSLANG said...

{3 of 4}

"...but I find that to be icing on the cake rather than the cake itself." ~ Karla

What "cake"? If you have a "cake", I can see, smell, touch, and taste it. Where's this "cake"?

Previously, me: “[If] you believe the entire bible is predicated on, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, then it is clear that you employ the very 'faith' that you insist that you reject.”

Karla responds: "I employ a different ['faith']."

Yes, the kind of "faith" where you know something to be "the Truth" based on knowing it "internally", which is subjective.
Unfortunately, you cannot demonstrate, externally, that "In the beginning God created[yadda, yadda]", nor have you presented one good reason for why anyone else should accept that passage on such flimsy evidence(i.e..because Karla believes it in her heart!).

Thus, the "different one" is no more useful (or reliable) than the one you reject.

"I care about atheists finding truth." ~Karla

Yes, because you are so dogmatically certain that they could not have already found it. I'm embarrassed that I once thought like you. Really.

"I am not worried though. I know that I’m not God’s supreme way of helping people know Him—not anything close to that." ~ Karla

What? You're "not worried"? Millions of Atheists and other non-Christians end up in "Hell", and with not one sign of that changing, you're "not worried"? ' Easy for you to say, I suppose. After all you're "saved", right?

"I don’t see things the way everyone else does, and I don’t think that makes be better, but different and I can’t argue for the popularized views if I don’t share them" ~ Karla

What of the "popularized views" of a literal place of torment called "Hell" don't you share??? You say that you're not like "most Christians", and most Christians I encounter have no problem with "Hell". To them, nonbelievers are getting precisely what they deserve. In fact, many Christians look forward to it.

So, do Mike, Cyber', and myself deserve "Hell", if that's where we end up? Yes or no?(multiple choice)

"When you brought up Satan in the context of loving your enemies, I made a distinction that Satan wasn’t a human enemy and didn’t fall in the same parameters as this principle" ~ Karla

And I provided a definition of "enemy" in which "Satan" clearly falls in the parameters of that definition, "human", or not.
Nonetheless, I'm willing to concede your argument, simply because there is a more serious problem, one that you have yet to overcome, and that is that "God", having prescience, created one of his heavenly angels("Lucifer") as a being whom he knew would rebel, and as a being whom he knew would be unable to reclaim its "true nature". When asked why this is, you say...

"I don't know" ~ Karla

Perhaps pray over it and ask "Jesus" why this is, and tell him that having logical answers to these questions could be instrumental in bringing atheists closer to "Him".

Anonymous said...

{2 of 4}

Previously, me: "Thus, 'substantive'/'faith' is certainly an oxymoron, that is, *if* one doesn't need to substantiate anything to anyone other than themselves."

Karla responds: "We are talking about the term in two different plains."

I'm guessing you meant "planes".

In any event, if you need only "substantiate" your "faith" to yourself, as opposed to, say, your readership, then it doesn't matter which planes we are on.

"I am speaking in a context that you don’t live in or yet experience" ~ Karla

Need I remind you that you are talking to a former believer? I know what it's like to believe based on feelings. I know how confirmation bias works, Karla.

"I’m just trying to clear up some of the misconceptions" ~ Karla

Yes, yes, of course. If someone takes issue with what you purport to be "the Truth", then he or she has a "misconception". It can't be that you, or what you believe, or that your bible are wrong.

Previously, me: “That which isn't subjective, so....information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.”

"All of that can be interpreted either way. ~ Karla

Open to interpretation defeats the whole purpose of testing, measuring, etc.

"I don’t think any of that would be better than actually meeting Him yourself." ~ Karla

And do you know what? If there is a "Him", then there is nothing stopping "Him" from making that a reality, except for...well, NOTHING.

Previously, me: “Can we set up experiments that test the hypothesis, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth', and make an analysis?”

Karla responds..."Would we need to if you met Him and tasted the reality of who He is?"

You've dodged the question.

Here is the question again: Can we set up experiments that test the hypothesis, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", and make an analysis?

Notice, the issue isn't the necessity of the question, but instead, what is possible. IOW, even if every single living human being has "tasted the reality of who He is" and was a firm believer, would it be *POSSIBLE* to set up experiments that test the hypothesis, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth', and make an analysis? To my understanding, that would be a "no".

"At the same time, I believe there is a place for such study and evidence..." ~ Karla

There is ambiguity in your use of the word, "place". Do you mean, "a place", as in, a physical address where there are studies that have produced evidence? Or do you mean, "a place", as in, a reason to look for evidence? ' Big difference.

Karla said...

Boom “Need I remind you that you are talking to a former believer? I know what it's like to believe based on "feelings" and personal experience. I know how confirmation bias works, Karla.”

I’m talking about something deeper than emotions.


Boom “Yes, yes, of course. If someone takes issue with what you purport to be "the Truth", then he or she has a "misconception". It can't be that you, or what you believe, or your bible are wrong.”

Not so. I keep hearing you and others give arguments to things I am not saying or don’t believe or misstating what I do believe (ie your definition of faith). It may be accepted by many, but it is not mine.


Previously, me: “That which isn't subjective, so....information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.”

"All of that can be interpreted either way. ~ Karla

Boom “Open to interpretation defeats the whole purpose of testing, measuring, etc.”

Ideally, but no matter what scientist I could quote or what historical documents I could point to you would find a way to say they were not accurate, or that it was not evidence. This is what I mean by interpretation.


Boom “And do you know what? If there is a "Him", there is nothing stopping "Him" from making that a reality, except for...well, NOTHING.”

Everything I can think to respond to that would be misunderstood so I’m going to say nothing.


Previously, me: “Can we set up experiments that test the hypothesis, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth', and make an analysis?”

Karla responds..."Would we need to if you met Him and tasted the reality of who He is?"

Boom “You've dodged the question.”

No, I just came at it a different way. If I have experience that God is real then I know necessarily that He created the world because I have encountered the Creator. So being unable to set up experiments to prove a past event would not create a scenario for me of unsubstantiated faith. I do not know of any such experiment, nor do I see the need for one.

Boom “There is ambiguity in your use of the word, "place". Do you mean, "a place", as in, a physical address where there are studies that have produced evidence? Or do you mean, "a place", as in, a reason to look for evidence? 'Big difference.”

Not a need for evidence, but a reason for exploring the world scientifically, not to prove things, but to see how they work and using that knowledge to aid in our daily living such as medicine and such.

Karla said...

Boom “Yes, the kind of "faith" where you know something to be "the Truth" based on knowing it "internally", which is subjective.”

Even if so, it doesn’t make it untrue.

Boom “Unfortunately, you cannot demonstrate, externally, that "In the beginning God created[yadda, yadda]", nor have you presented one good reason for why anyone else should accept that passage on such flimsy evidence(i.e..because Karla believes it in her heart!).”

I’m not asking you to accept it. Also I cannot prove to you externally that I am hungry or thirsty or have a headache. It wouldn’t make any of those things less real.

Boom “Thus, the "different one" is no more useful (or reliable) than the one you reject.”

Maybe not to you, but to me it does. I experience the faith. I’m not asking you to experience my faith. I’m not asking you to do or believe anything really.


"I care about atheists finding truth." ~Karla

Boom “Yes, because you are so dogmatically certain that they could not have already found it. I'm embarrassed that I once thought like you. Really.”

Do atheists believe in a “truth”? How could they have found something they do not believe exists? There isn’t an overarching metanarrative/story of truth in the atheists worldview. There is just a naturalistic world and naturalistic functions of biology with no inherent meaning other than what each of us and each culture gives it. So how is it dogmatic to make the statement I did?


"I am not worried though. I know that I’m not God’s supreme way of helping people know Him—not anything close to that." ~ Karla

Boom “What? You're "not worried"? Millions of Atheists and other non-Christians end up in "Hell", and with not one sign of that changing, you're "not worried"? ' Easy for you to say, I suppose. After all you're "saved", right?”

I’m not worried because I know God is good and that He will reveal Himself to each of us and we will each have that opportunity to choose life with Him. Just because you don’t think any of that is real right now, doesn’t worry me, because God is bigger than your questions and He can show you His reality which will be a lot more helpful for you than any answer I could give. You have great questions and He, not any verbal or written answers, will be the only thing that could satisfy them. And if He isn’t real than the questions do not have a whole lot of purpose and meaning and more than my answers do – we would both then be talking about nonsense.


"I don’t see things the way everyone else does, and I don’t think that makes be better, but different and I can’t argue for the popularized views if I don’t share them"~ Karla

Boom “What of the "popularized views" of a literal place of torment called "Hell" don't you share??? You say that you're not like "most Christians", and most Christians I encounter have no problem with "Hell". To them, nonbelievers are getting precisely what they deserve. In fact, many Christians look forward to it.”

I look forward to no such thing. Yes I believe it is a real place. But no I don’t wish anyone to go there. As far as deserving, I deserve it, but it didn’t matter to God, because His love frees us from what we could have otherwise deserved. The message is one of freedom not one of condemnation. Jesus didn’t come so that people could not find Him and “get what they deserve”. He came so that none of us would face that reality and experience the freedom and love of His Kingdom.

Karla said...

Boom “And what I am saying, Karla, is that if someone really does "love evil", this does not mean that we cannot question if that's the "moral" or "good" thing to do. I'm saying, it is often times immoral to extend "love" or a "drink of water" to an "enemy".”

I never said anything about loving evil. I said we are to love our enemies.

Boom “ If a man wielding a 9mm wants to kill me and my family, it would be immoral(and just plain stupid) of me to offer him a flippin' drink of water. In fact, it would be my hope that he drop DEAD of dehydration, if he in fact needed water at the time.”

First you would have to get your family out of the line of fire. But it is quiet possible that kindness would soften the would be killer into not being able to carry out his intentions. It is also possible that the most loving thing to do for the guy is to get yourself and family to safety and allow the police to capture him thereby preventing him from carrying out the deed which would be detrimental to himself as well as to his victims. I’m not saying it is absolute to always give your enemy a drink, but there is always a way of love that is the best way to go. There are a million scenarios we could try to think up, but love will always go farther to help everyone than hate or violence will.

Have you ever heard the story of Jim Elliot?

Karla said...

Boom, if you don't mind, please don't repost things multiple times. I am trying to empty the spam box regularly, but on weekends I am typically not on-line. So please be patient for me to post the things that got sent to spam. I'm getting them all to my e-mail.

boomSLANG said...

"Boom, if you don't mind, please don't repost things multiple times" ~ Karla

Good afternoon,

Please consider that if my comments don't *actually* post, then I'm not actually re-"posting" anything. If you meant to say, "please don't *attempt* to repost multiple times", then fine, I won't. Notwithstanding, either way, if your idea around this blogger problem is going to be to simply go into your spam box and selectively extract my comments and reply to them, I'd rather you NOT reply at all.

Assuming that you want to fix the problem, I wonder, have you tried enabling third party cookies? What about widget activation/deactivation on your main blog page?

Karla said...

Boom "Please consider that if my comments don't *actually* post, then I'm not actually re-"posting" anything. If you meant to say, "please don't *attempt* to repost multiple times", then fine, I won't."


Okay, then, "attempt to post"

Boom " Notwithstanding, either way, if your idea around this blogger problem is going to be to simply go into your spam box and selectively extract my comments and reply to them, I'd rather you NOT reply at all."

I didn't know how else to do it. I checked into the notifying the company of the problem, but that only dumps the question into a discussion board that didn't seem very helpful.


Boom "Assuming that you want to fix the problem, I wonder, have you tried enabling third party cookies? What about widget activation/deactivation on your main blog page?"

I do. But your solutions are Greek to me. I'll explore the options on my blog further to see if what you suggested is possible.

boomSLANG said...

"Yes I believe ['Hell'] is a real place." ~ Karla

Yes, I know, and that is just so sad to me.

In order to believe that certain people will be "saved"..i.e.."Christians", you, Karla, have to also accept that non-christians will kept alive and TORMENTED for all of eternity. Since the latter is not an idea that is palatable to you(by your own admission), you must therefore created bloated rationalizations to defend it, or at the least, be equivocal in your answers(as seen further down).

(In your defense, I can see why you and other apologists do this, because the only other option is to admit that none of it is true and that you are wrong)

"But no I don’t wish anyone to go [to 'Hell']." ~ Karla

Then as a moral human being, you should be denouncing it, not making excuses for why it is necessary. It wasn't "necessary" for your biblegod to create those whom he knew wouldn't believe. It isn't "necessary" that people be kept alive and tortured---they can simply die a natural death and cease to exist.

"As far as deserving, I deserv[EDIT] ~ Karla

This is precisely the type of equivocation to which I refer. Notice, I did NOT ask you if you think that YOU deserve "Hell"; I asked you if Mike, Cyber', and myself deserve it. I'm fully aware that you believe that you were born a wreched, not-worthy-of-life, "sinner".

Now, can you answer the question with a yes or no?

"but it didn’t matter to God, because His love frees us from what we could have otherwise deserved." ~ Karla

Absurd. If he "loved" us, "Hell" wouldn't exist. "He" presumably made the rules and knew the implications. Your great, great, great, great grandparents "Adam & Eve" didn't choose their *nature*--that nature was given to them.

"The message is one of freedom not one of condemnation." ~ Karla

The message is clear: "Love me...or burn", and there is no "freedom" in an ultimatum.

"Jesus didn’t come so that people could not find Him and 'get what they deserve'." ~ Karla

To the unconvinced, what "Jesus" supposedly came to do is meaningless. Do you understand? Well?..do you? Repeat: I can't simply "choose" to "find" something or someone I don't believe is there. 'Get it? If your "Jesus" exists, the ball has been smacked back into his court.

Karla said...

Boom, (regarding your last post) we've been over all of this many times. I haven't anything to say that hasn't been said.

boomSLANG said...

"(regarding your last post) we've been over all of this many times. I haven't anything to say that hasn't been said. ~ Karla

That gets you off the hook for the questions for which you think you have answers. Unfortunately, it doesn't work at all for the several mutliple choice, "yes or no" questions that you continually dodge, the latest being, do Mike, Cyber', and myself(Atheists) "deserve Hell". To review, you equivocated, telling me what you believe you "deserve". 'Couldn't care less.

That you cannot/will not answer the above question(and others like it) speaks volumes. The writing is on the wall, Karla.