Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Worship

I read an interesting article from the June edition of National Geographic.  The article conveyed that there is a new theory which is a major shift from the traditional theory about when religion arose in early civilizations. The traditional theory is that the nomadic hunter-gatherers settled down for purposes of agriculture, developed community, arts, and then religious worship. The religion was believed to be a construct of necessary social development to maintain class structure and the morality of the community.

However, archeologists have discovered a religious temple with no signs that it came after civilization, but before and then the society organized around it.  Worship preceded a society, rather than developing out of a society.  The writer was of the persuasion that a supernatural world was a man-made construct serving man made purposes, but the archeological theory was interesting none-the-less.

It would seem that we could agree that humanity has been poised for worship since the beginning of our existence.  Even those who would see themselves as having no religious or spiritual interests can be found singing with their hands out stretched at a concert.  Others relish the outdoors with a spiritual adoration.

Interestingly, it seems that many (not all) atheists are also very interested in Buddhist spirituality. This way they can have the benefits of spiritualism devoid of the religious tenants and theistic beliefs they disavow.  Most it would seem will allow a place for spirituality as long as Western religious tenants are not interwoven in the package.

Worship is birthed out of our desire to connect with something greater than us whether we direct it to God, a celebrity, nature, or a favorite pass time.  We also thrive on community. We want to connect with people. It’s in our nature to be communal, but we just can’t seem to get close enough to a human to satisfy that desire for meaningful connection.  Often relationships fail to work because people are seeking more than a human can give.  This is why a strand of three cords is not easily broken, but two cords often cannot handle the strain of seeking what can be only found in the missing cord in the other person. 

Worship draws man out of himself into connectivity with God.  The depths of man can connect with God in a way that it is impossible to connect with another human.  When we replace that God connection with a human we have an unhealthy relationship.  We seek intimacy, and we can find temporary fulfillment of that desire, but eventually all that is available to us to find connection fails to fulfill the desire.  We think it is the other person and for a time we reach a new high with a new person, but again we fail to attain because we have worn through the experience and are again in search for something more. 

Worship is the act of man which brings about that spirit to Spirit connection we so desperately need and awakens our being to His Being.  Worship comes in many forms, not all of them are a matter of singing and dancing.  Worship is also giving, and loving, and doing that which God has called you to do.  Obedience to the call of God is an act of worship. But even these things cannot take the place of physically exalting God through some form of expression.  Cry out to Him and He will draw near to you.  

40 comments:

boomSLANG said...

Good afternoon,

"The writer was of the persuasion that a supernatural world was a man-made construct serving man made purposes[...]" ~ Karla

I agree with him(or her)

"Even those who would see themselves as having no religious or spiritual interests can be found singing with their hands out stretched at a concert."

You can also find babies with their hands outstretched to their mother(or father), and these little people don't have "religious or spiritual interests". So, indicative of nothing, really, except that maybe they want their bottle, pacifier, or 'blankie'. I don't think anyone would say a baby "worships" any of those things.

"Others relish the outdoors with a spiritual adoration."

And yet, others just relish the good ol' outdoors, adoring nature.

"Most it would seem will allow a place for spirituality as long as Western religious tenants are not interwoven in the package."

True, and taking it one step further, there are also those people who can be "spiritual" without invoking anything supernatural, whatsoever, simply by understanding their relationship with the natural world.

"It’s in our nature to be communal, but we just can’t seem to get close enough to a human to satisfy that desire for meaningful connection."

I have to ask---are you speaking for me, too? I hope not, because I am very close to other humans in my life, and in many instances, wouldn't change a thing.

"Often relationships fail to work because people are seeking more than a human can give."

True, like having unrealistic expectations of someone.

"This is why a strand of three cords is not easily broken, but two cords often cannot handle the strain of seeking what can be only found in the missing cord in the other person."

Huh? I understand the mechanics of why a three-cord strand is stronger than a two-cord strand, but I don't quite get how that relates to a relationship between two human beings, specifically, making it stronger by adding a third party.

boomSLANG said...

"Worship draws man out of himself into connectivity with God." ~ Karla

And of course, that works, not just with "Yahweh", but with "Allah", "Brahman", and myriad other gods throughout history.

"The depths of man can connect with God in a way that it is impossible to connect with another human."

Evidence?

"When we replace that God connection with a human we have an unhealthy relationship."

So, since I lack belief in "God", you know that all of my relationships with other people are "unhealthy", do you?

"We seek intimacy, and we can find temporary fulfillment of that desire, but eventually all that is available to us to find connection fails to fulfill the desire."

Again, are you speaking for yourself, here? Or do you claim to know for certain that people who have connections with their friends, and family, etc., are "unfulfilled"?

"We think it is the other person and for a time we reach a new high with a new person, but again we fail to attain because we have worn through the experience and are again in search for something more."

If we are unfulfilled and/or in a dysfunctional relationship, there's nothing wrong with moving on in search of something more.

"Worship is the act of man which brings about that spirit to Spirit connection we so desperately need and awakens our being to His Being."

Says who?

"Worship comes in many forms, not all of them are a matter of singing and dancing. Worship is also giving, and loving, and doing that which God has called you to do."

I can "give" and "love" without being "called" to do it. But that's just me.

"Obedience to the call of God is an act of worship. But even these things cannot take the place of physically exalting God through some form of expression. Cry out to Him and He will draw near to you."

I cried out to "Him"(the Christian biblegod) for 2/3rds of my life, and received no answers or "signs" that could not be chalked up to coincidence or pure chance. Hence, I don't believe there is any "God" there. But not to worry, I'll get what I deserve in the end, right?

Karla said...

Boom, thank you for your comments.

To answer your question about the three cords -- I was referring to a couple who has relationship with God. And it is that mutual relationship with God that makes the relationship stronger.

Karla said...

Boom "So, since I lack belief in "God", you know that all of my relationships with other people are "unhealthy", do you?"

I don't know that about you or anyone. I was specifically referring to anyone who "seeks more than a human can give." People sometimes try to find in a human relationship what they can only find in God and that strains the human relationship.

Boom "I can "give" and "love" without being "called" to do it. But that's just me."

You are designed to love and be loved. It's not a calling, it's who you are. It is enhanced by connecting with God who is the ultimate source of love.

"I cried out to "Him"(the Christian biblegod) for 2/3rds of my life, and received no answers or "signs" that could not be chalked up to coincidence or pure chance. Hence, I don't believe there is any "God" there. But not to worry, I'll get what I deserve in the end, right?"

Boom, I appreciate your being real with me on this. I know you can't receive me saying this, but God isn't out to give you what you deserve, He is for you not against you. His plan is to give you everything that belongs to Him, more than anyone could possibly earn by deserving.

He loves you. I'm really not saying that as some religious platitude. His heart swells with love for you and your destiny is not one of getting just deserves, but finding the love of the ultimate Father -- a love you do not have to earn or work up belief for. The time for trying to be good enough, or discover belief is past, He is going to open doors for you to step into that will reveal Him in a new revelation -- one that you will be able to experience the substance of. The Lord is doing something even now with you that is turning a new chapter in your life. Change is coming for you.

boomSLANG said...

"To answer your question about the three cords -- I was referring to a couple who has relationship with God. And it is that mutual relationship with God that makes the relationship stronger." ~ Karla

This, of course, is an assertion that you cannot prove. In fact, that Christians get divorced at about the same statistical rate as non-Christians do, is evidence against your assertion.

"I don't know that about you or anyone. I was specifically referring to anyone who 'seeks more than a human can give.' People sometimes try to find in a human relationship what they can only find in God and that strains the human relationship."

This is meaningless godspeak to people who don't believe that there is something more than "a human can give". **In any case, this, too, is a bald-face assertion that you cannot prove.

"You are designed to love and be loved."

See here**, above.

"It's not a calling, it's who you are."

Who I am is who I am.

"It is enhanced by connecting with God who is the ultimate source of love."

See here**, above.

Previously, me: I cried out to "Him"(the Christian biblegod) for 2/3rds of my life, and received no answers or "signs" that could not be chalked up to coincidence or pure chance. Hence, I don't believe there is any "God" there. But not to worry, I'll get what I deserve in the end, right?"

You respond: "Boom, I appreciate your being real with me on this. I know you can't receive me saying this, but God isn't out to give you what you deserve[...]"

I can't receive you saying it, as in, accept it, because it's equivocal, and as far as I can tell, it is meant to get out answering the direct, pointed question before you. It doesn't matter what biblegod's intentions are for me. I either deserve my "second death"(Revelations) in "hell" if I should end up there, or I don't deserve it. It's binary. So? yes or no?

boomSLANG said...

"He is for you not against you." ~ Karla

And on the other hand, he's not "for me", either, since he evidently gives some people what they require for evidence to believe, but not others.

"His plan is to give you everything that belongs to Him, more than anyone could possibly earn by deserving."

If an omnipotent and omniscient "God" cannot get his/her/its "plan" seen to fruition, then I'm sorry, but that is his/her/its problem. Quite frankly, said "God" could have simply "planned" better. For instance, "God" could have created only those whom he/she/it knew would believe. This way the "plan" gets met, no one's free will is tampered with, and no one gets "hell".

"He loves you."

But if I don't reciprocate that "love"(which would require I believe "He" exists), I am incinerated in never ending hellfire. How lovely.

"I'm really not saying that as some religious platitude."

No, you're saying it to avoid having to deal with certain aspects of your beliefs, beliefs that, IMO, leave you severely conflicted----so conflicted, in fact, that you cannot answer simple questions on the subject.

"His heart swells with love for you and your destiny is not one of getting just deserves, but finding the love of the ultimate Father -- a love you do not have to earn or work up belief for."

And again, all of that means nothing to me unless I believe, and I cannot believe until I see convincing evidence.

"The time for trying to be good enough, or discover belief is past, He is going to open doors for you to step into that will reveal Him in a new revelation -- one that you will be able to experience the substance of. The Lord is doing something even now with you that is turning a new chapter in your life. Change is coming for you."

Oh? So, you're a "Prophet" now, are you? Tell me, how do your "Divine premonitions" lesson the pain and torment of those already in "hell"? Do the people there deserve to be there? Yes, or no?

Best,

boomSLANG said...

Hi, again,

Small favor: If you would, could you please go on record and confirm that I haven't insulted you nor breached any terms of your blog by my line of questioning? I want to make sure we're on good terms. BTW, I know that the tough questions can leave one conflicted about what one believes, as I was once a devout believer myself, and it was painful to have to face the fact that, in some instances, I just didn't have good answers. The concept of "hell" being one of the things I couldn't honestly reconcile.

best,

Karla said...

Hi Boom,

We are good. I actually just logged on to respond to the last posts. I have been very busy lately and haven't had time. I don't know if I can write up a full response right now or not, but I'm going to start on it and get it to you as soon as I can.

Karla said...

Boom “This, of course, is an assertion that you cannot prove. In fact, that Christians get divorced at about the same statistical rate as non-Christians do, is evidence against your assertion.”

Not all Christians include God in their marriage and even Christian’s who do are not infallible. However, I have witnessed those who have very strong marriages as a result of the presence of God in their lives.


Boom “This is meaningless godspeak to people who don't believe that there is something more than "a human can give". **In any case, this, too, is a bald-face assertion that you cannot prove.”

People can seek more than is healthy from a relationship regardless of their belief in God. I think we can agree on that.


Boom “I can't receive you saying it, as in, accept it, because it's equivocal, and as far as I can tell, it is meant to get out answering the direct, pointed question before you. It doesn't matter what biblegod's intentions are for me. I either deserve my "second death"(Revelations) in "hell" if I should end up there, or I don't deserve it. It's binary. So? yes or no?”

It has everything to do with His good intentions for you which are not that you fail to find Him, and it’s not for you to experience the condemnation of sin, or its eventual final destination of hell. He came so that you DO NOT get what sin makes you deserve, but what He graciously gives by justifying you, by taking the deserved penalty for you. This is why my focus is one of grace that comes through Jesus rather than the hell that comes through man serving himself and being trapped in a sinful nature.

So yes, so you have it directly: a sinner deserves hell. Myself included. God is the one that makes the difference and gives us life instead of death.

Karla said...

Boom “And on the other hand, he's not "for me", either, since he evidently gives some people what they require for evidence to believe, but not others.”
I can’t argue with how you feel about that.


Boom “If an omnipotent and omniscient "God" cannot get his/her/its "plan" seen to fruition, then I'm sorry, but that is his/her/its problem. Quite frankly, said "God" could have simply "planned" better. For instance, "God" could have created only those whom he/she/it knew would believe. This way the "plan" gets met, no one's free will is tampered with, and no one gets "hell".”
This reasoning assumes that the life of individual people are more important than anything else and is the ultimate standard of good. I do not see it this way.

Boom “But if I don't reciprocate that "love"(which would require I believe "He" exists), I am incinerated in never ending hellfire. How lovely.”
We’ve been over this that is not what brings about hell.

Boom “No, you're saying it to avoid having to deal with certain aspects of your beliefs, beliefs that, IMO, leave you severely conflicted----so conflicted, in fact, that you cannot answer simple questions on the subject.”
That estimation of my intents fits with your belief of my dishonesty, but hopefully we can get past that judgment you have made about me.

Boom “And again, all of that means nothing to me unless I believe, and I cannot believe until I see convincing evidence.”
No you don’t have to believe first. That’s what I am saying.

I said: "The time for trying to be good enough, or discover belief is past, He is going to open doors for you to step into that will reveal Him in a new revelation -- one that you will be able to experience the substance of. The Lord is doing something even now with you that is turning a new chapter in your life. Change is coming for you."

Boom “Oh? So, you're a "Prophet" now, are you? Tell me, how do your "Divine premonitions" lesson the pain and torment of those already in "hell"? Do the people there deserve to be there? Yes, or no?”
Not a Prophet, but I do believe what I wrote is from the Lord to you.

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

I had no idea you'd post a response within minutes of my request. Hence, the deleted comment.

Okay, previously, I said....

“This, of course, is an assertion that you cannot prove. In fact, that Christians get divorced at about the same statistical rate as non-Christians do, is evidence against your assertion.”

You respond: "Not all Christians include God in their marriage and even Christian’s who do are not infallible. However, I have witnessed those who have very strong marriages as a result of the presence of God in their lives." ~ Karla

This isn't helpful in any way. On the one hand, you're saying even some Christians who have "God" in their marriage, fail, because having "God" evidently doesn't guarantee infallibility. On the other hand, you're saying you've seen "God" keep some marriages together. These results are completely indistinguishable from secular marriages in which some marriages are highly successful, and others fail. So, again, you're making unprovable assertions.

"People can seek more than is healthy from a relationship regardless of their belief in God. I think we can agree on that." ~ Karla

Yes. But I also think we can agree that those who don't believe that there is anything more than humanity, aren't going to go looking for something "more" than their partner being human. IOW, for millions, being "human" is enough.

Previously, me: “I can't receive you saying it, as in, accept it, because it's equivocal, and as far as I can tell, it is meant to get out answering the direct, pointed question before you. It doesn't matter what biblegod's intentions are for me. I either deserve my 'second death'(Revelations) in 'hell' if I should end up there, or I don't deserve it. It's binary. So? yes or no?”

You respond: "It has everything to do with His good intentions for you which are not that you fail to find Him, and it’s not for you to experience the condemnation of sin, or its eventual final destination of hell." ~ Karla

Was that a "yes", or "no", to the direct question you are supposedly addressing?

Assuming it's neither, that "God" doesn't "intend" for me (or anyone) to go to "hell" isn't convincing, since "God" still allows "hell" to subsist. Secondly, that "God" doesn't intend for me (or anyone else) to go to "hell" isn't going to change anything in the long run. Thirdly, I notice you immediately fault me if I don't "find God", instead of faulting "God" for not giving me the evidence that would convince me.

Lastly, if none of that matters, I'll simply rephrase my question:

There are human beings (supposedly) in "hell" this minute. Do they deserve to be there, or not?

Yes, or no?

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

""He came so that you DO NOT get what sin makes you deserve, but what He graciously gives by justifying you, by taking the deserved penalty for you." ~ Karla

Ah, so it is "sin" that makes me and other non-Christians "deserve" to be in "hell".

Okay, what if I don't believe in "sin", and therefore, don't willingly go to "hell"? Who will see to it I'm put there?

And as for "taking the death penalty for [me]". Why don't we allow that policy in our judicial system if the judicial system of "God" is so much better, as in, "good" and "just"?

"This is why my focus is one of grace that comes through Jesus rather than the hell that comes through man serving himself and being trapped in a sinful nature." ~ Karla

That you choose to "focus" on the "get out of jail free" card is immaterial to the glaring immorality of the despicable concept known as "hell".

"So yes, so you have it directly: a sinner deserves hell. Myself included. God is the one that makes the difference and gives us life instead of death." ~ Karla

Thank you! Finally.

So, to follow your beliefs to their logical conclusion, a couple things become obvious:

a) if Karla doesn't go to "hell", she is clearly NOT getting what she just got saying she "deserves". That doesn't sound like "justice" has been served to me. But that's just me.

b) "Sin" MUST BE punished; all "sinners" DESERVE to go to "hell".

So, it would follow that it is a "GOOD" thing that "Justice" has been served if myself, Mike, and Cyber' end up in "Hell" with the rest of the "sinners"?

a) yes

b) no

Karla said...

Boom “I had no idea you'd post a response within minutes of my request. Hence, the deleted comment.”

I didn’t think I would be able to, but I ended up having some uninterrupted time.


Boom “This isn't helpful in any way. On the one hand, you're saying even some Christians who have "God" in their marriage, fail, because having "God" evidently doesn't guarantee infallibility. On the other hand, you're saying you've seen "God" keep some marriages together. These results are completely indistinguishable from secular marriages in which some marriages are highly successful, and others fail. So, again, you're making unprovable assertions.”

No I’m not saying that God sovereignly keeps some marriages together, but that the couple’s relationship with the Lord helps bond the marriage together. There is a difference and the fallibility is on the side of the couple. I didn’t say I proved anything.


Boom “Yes. But I also think we can agree that those who don't believe that there is anything more than humanity, aren't going to go looking for something "more" than their partner being human. IOW, for millions, being "human" is enough.”

Ok, sure.


Boom “Assuming it's neither, that "God" doesn't "intend" for me (or anyone) to go to "hell" isn't convincing, since "God" still allows "hell" to subsist. Secondly, that "God" doesn't intend for me (or anyone else) to go to "hell" isn't going to change anything in the long run. Thirdly, I notice you immediately fault me if I don't "find God", instead of faulting "God" for not giving me the evidence that would convince me. “

You seem to be looking for me to say things that offend your way of thinking so you can confront me with them. You also seem to not want to even think that there may be a justice in all of this.

Lastly, if none of that matters, I'll simply rephrase my question:

“There are human beings (supposedly) in "hell" this minute. Do they deserve to be there, or not?

Yes, or no?”

Yes.

Karla said...

Boom, I'm going to respond to the other post either tonight or tomorrow. I've run out of available time at the moment to get to them.

boomSLANG said...

"No I’m not saying that God sovereignly keeps some marriages together, but that the couple’s relationship with the Lord helps bond the marriage together. There is a difference and the fallibility is on the side of the couple. I didn’t say I proved anything." ~ Karla

Right, 'doesn't prove anything, and therefore, it's just one more bald assertion that is useless in a discussion with someone who is unconvinced.

Previously, me: "Assuming it's neither, that 'God' doesn't 'intend' for me (or anyone) to go to 'hell' isn't convincing, since 'God' still allows 'hell' to subsist. Secondly, that 'God' doesn't intend for me (or anyone else) to go to 'hell' isn't going to change anything in the long run. Thirdly, I notice you immediately fault me if I don't 'find God', instead of faulting 'God' for not giving me the evidence that would convince me."

You respond: "You seem to be looking for me to say things that offend your way of thinking so you can confront me with them."

First and foremost, I'm looking for you to say things that address the pertinent questions, and I'm looking for (and hoping for) those answers to make sense and be consistent with your claims. And make no mistake, that people believe that I deserve to be burned alive in "hell", is, yes, offensive, and if you believe it, yes, that belief offends me. But as sure as I'm hitting this keyboard, I'm sure that if it were any other person or entity saying that people should be BURNED alive, for ANY reason, you would be right along side of me being offended and denouncing it.

But of course, since it is "God" (allegedly) saying it, and since it is "God" who is promising Karla that, under the right conditions, she can live forever in the clouds, she then suspends her innate sense of reason and compassion and she accepts and swallows it---hook, line, and sinker.

"You also seem to not want to even think that there may be a justice in all of this." ~ Karla

If all people are "sinners"(as you claim), and if "sin" MUST be punished(as you claim), and if "the wages of sin is DEATH"(as the bible claims), then if just ONE "sinner" is granted clemency, "justice" has not been served, in that instance.

So, yes, I want to think a "God" can be "just". However, I also, a) expect that "God" to consistently implement "Justice"(in other words, NO favoritism), and b) expect this "God" to have a judicial system that is better than our own. That is not being unreasonable, IMO.

Previously, me: "There are human beings (supposedly) in 'hell' this minute. Do they deserve to be there, or not? Yes, or no?"

"Yes" ~ Karla

And again, aside from you affirming the sad reality that some people support barbaric, disgusting beliefs in the name of "God", you ultimately believe that "justice" has been served for those who end up being burned alive in "hell", while others get off the hook because they satisfied the wishes of "God". That's some "Justice" you and your "God" have got there.

boomSLANG said...

"Boom, I'm going to respond to the other post either tonight or tomorrow. I've run out of available time at the moment to get to them." ~ Karla

Okay.

Karla said...

Boom “Okay, thanks. When/if you get time, I'm particularly interested in once and for all getting a direct, unambiguous answer to whether or not the occupants of "hell"(either current occupants, or future) deserve to be there. For instance, if, say, myself, Mike, and Cyberkitten are non-believers until the day we die, and thus, we end up in "hell", do we deserve to be there? It is it a "good" and "just" punishment, or isn't it?”

You mention certain people, and that is not something I can judge for I do not know the state of their heart and their connection with the Lord.

As for those who are in hell, there are none there that are unjustly there. Sin separates us from God, but when we pass on from this life, into eternity that state of separation becomes eternal. Likewise, those who have life in God have that eternally.

Karla said...

Boom “a) If Karla doesn't go to "hell", she is clearly not getting what she "deserves". That doesn't sound like "justice" has been served. “

Those who go to heaven go there because they are in Jesus and He took their deserves for them making them justified – Just as If I’d never sinned. Sin no longer brings condemnation to those who are in Christ because Christ makes us clean, not by our works, but by His grace.


Boom “b)it is "sin" that makes me and other non-Christians "deserve" to be in "hell". Okay, what if I don't believe in "sin", and therefore, don't willingly go to "hell"? Who will see to it I'm put there?”

If you don’t believe in gravity and walk off of a tall building will you fare any better than someone who believed there is gravity?


Boom “And as for "taking the death penalty for [me]". Why don't we allow that policy in our judicial system if the judicial system of "God" is so much better, as in, "good" and "just"?”

Our judicial system is law based, rather than love based. It doesn’t have much room for grace. It needs more grace. People may sacrifice themselves for a good person, or a good friend, but most won’t do so for an enemy. But Jesus, while we were basically enemies of God, died for us so that we might live. This shows a greater love than most humans are willing to live. He died so that we will have HIS LIFE, not so that will go to hell, but so that we won’t.

Karla said...

Boom “That you choose to "focus" on the "get out of jail free" card is immaterial to the glaring immorality of the despicable concept known as "hell".”

I understand that the idea of hell bothers you immensely, but there is a larger story and God gave His own Son to save us from death. However, Jesus is not just a fire insurance plan. He didn’t’ just die to keep us from hell. Hell is a result of sin, but God designed us to live free from sin and that life – and it is for life that He sets us free from death.


Boom “So, to follow your beliefs to their logical conclusion, "Sin" MUST BE punished; all "sinners" DESERVE to go to "hell", and last but not least, it is a "GOOD" thing that "JUSTICE" has been served if myself, Mike, and Cyber' end up in "Hell" with the rest of the "sinners"?

a) yes

b) no “

I know you are using names to personalize it so that I can be confronted with what you believe is God doing something abhorrent to my friends, but once you use names you are asking something of me I cannot know. I do not know their destinies and I won’t pretend to know.

In general, yes it is just that the wages of sin is death and eventually hell. And it is also justice when we are saved by Jesus from that eventual eternity to be placed with Him in heavenly places. Again, Jesus came not to condemn sinners, for their sin condemned them already, He came to set them free from the sin, the direct early results of sin, and from the eternal consequence of sin. Not just so, but to set them free into life everlasting. So that not only are they not bound by the identity of sinners, but they are set free unto life.

This means we aren’t just saved from eternal death, but we are given eternal life and that life is the life and love of God flowing through us. God does not want anyone to perish – so perishing is not His intention for anyone. He is not sitting up their joyful of anyone being forever separated from Him. No good parent is pleased that their son is serving time for murder, but they do not think it is unjust for their guilty son to serve time for the crime. Just the same, it would be their preference for the whole thing to never have occurred and their son never be experiencing jail time. In this world they cannot serve His time for him and wipe away the guilt and shame of their son. They cannot heal him of what caused him to want to kill someone.

But Jesus does have such access to bring such healing and such relief and He can take the place of our just deserves and give us a new life free from the past and free from the punishment of sin. So while the punishment is just, there is something better and that something is available to each of us; Jesus.

Karla said...

Boom “Previously, me: "Assuming it's neither, that 'God' doesn't 'intend' for me (or anyone) to go to 'hell' isn't convincing, since 'God' still allows 'hell' to subsist.”

It needs to exist. We are eternal beings so we continue after a natural death. Those who lived separate from God will continue separate from God. God is not making them separate from Him.

Boom “Secondly, that 'God' doesn't intend for me (or anyone else) to go to 'hell' isn't going to change anything in the long run.”

I think that’s pretty much the same statement as your first statement.

Boom “Thirdly, I notice you immediately fault me if I don't 'find God', instead of faulting 'God' for not giving me the evidence that would convince me."

God says in Romans that He has made himself known in this earth to such an extent that men are without excuse. At the same time, it’s not a blame game. Like I said, I think God is doing something with you even now that it won’t be a matter of examining arguments to see if belief can be possible, but belief will just happen because you will know first-hand His good nature and His love for you.



Boom “First and foremost, I'm looking for you to say things that address the pertinent questions, and I'm looking for (and hoping for) those answers to make sense and be consistent with your claims. And make no mistake, that people believe that I deserve to be burned alive in "hell", is, yes, offensive, and if you believe it, yes, that belief offends me. But as sure as I'm hitting this keyboard, I'm sure that if it were any other person or entity saying that people should be BURNED alive, for ANY reason, you would be right alongside of me being offended and denouncing it.”

Whether my answers make sense to you and are consistent with my claims, what then? Does that make a difference to you?

Karla said...

Boom “But of course, since it is "God" (allegedly) saying it, and since it is "God" who is promising Karla that, under the right conditions, she can live forever in the clouds, she then suspends her innate sense of reason and compassion and she accepts and swallows it---hook, line, and sinker.”

We only have the ability to reason because He created us with the ability to reason. How then do you think that the proper employment of reason would be against Him? I mean we are talking about consistency, if God exist and created us than our reason is created by Him. How is it, if this world I speak of is true, the world where God exist, and created me, and my ability to think and reason, that I get to judge Him?


Boom “If all people are "sinners"(as you claim), and if "sin" MUST be punished(as you claim), and if "the wages of sin is DEATH"(as the bible claims), then if just ONE "sinner" is granted clemency, "justice" has not been served, in that instance.”

That would be true, unless another factor is introduced where someone took our punishment for us therefore justifying us Himself. We are justified by Jesus. It isn’t something granted to us because of what He did, thus something that suddenly everyone can reap from, but it is something that He has for us that is in Him and only accessed by us also being in Him. It’s not something He grants, but something He is. The Resurrection Life we need is Him so that is why it is of utmost importance to be born of Him and that is why intellectual belief in a system or a doctrine can’t do it.

Boom “So, yes, I want to think a "God" can be "just". However, I also, a) expect that "God" to consistently implement "Justice"(in other words, NO favoritism), and b) expect this "God" to have a judicial system that is better than our own. That is not being unreasonable, IMO.”

See above response.


Boom “And again, aside from you affirming the sad reality that some people support barbaric, disgusting beliefs in the name of "God", you ultimately believe that "justice" has been served for those who end up being burned alive in "hell", while others get off the hook because they satisfied the wishes of "God". That's some "Justice" you and your "God" have got there.”

No, not because they did something to satisfy God, but because they are in Christ and Christ is the Life. They didn’t fulfill His wishes for His benefit so that they get life, they entered life itself. Big difference.

boomSLANG said...

"You mention certain people, and that is not something I can judge for I do not know the state of their heart and their connection with the Lord." ~ Karla

Good morning,

I asked the question about certain people, yes. You seem to be perfectly fine with giving your opinion when it comes to millions of human beings whom you don't know, being tortured and tormented with hellfire. Yet, when it comes to people you know on a personal level, I'm sensing apprehension.

With that being said, it is a simple fact that, in a hypothetical court ruling, one doesn't need to BE the "judge" in order to give their opinion of the policies and/or sentencing of the "judge". That hypothetical situation was spelled out for you, but I'll repeat it:

**If(key word), between now and the time we take our last breath, myself, Mike, and Cyberkitten do NOT experience "the Lord" and we die Atheists and are subsequently sentenced to "hell", is that a "good" and "just" sentencing for us? Yes, or no? And again, you're merely being asked to give your opinion like you so often do when it comes to other issues regarding Christian doctrine. This should be no different; it should be simple.

"As for those who are in hell, there are none there that are unjustly there."

This concession should make it all the more easy to answer here**, above. I await that answer, and hopefully we can move on.

"Sin separates us from God, but when we pass on from this life, into eternity that state of separation becomes eternal."

Karla, reasonable, sane, compassionate people know that there can be a "separation" between two or more individuals without there being a need to burn people alive. You like to water-down your doctrinal position at every possible chance, which only convinces me more, and more that you know deep down that "hell" is an immoral and unnecessary way to exact "justice".

"Likewise, those who have life in God have that eternally."

Right, and if you want to accept that (unproven) proposition as "true", you then have to accept the alternative. Otherwise, there would be no "good" reason to accept something as barbaric and gruesome as "hell".

boomSLANG said...

"Those who go to heaven go there because they are in Jesus and He took their deserves for them making them justified – Just as If I’d never sinned." ~ Karla

I'm sorry, but this is an intellectual cop-out. It would similarly be a cop-out if a convicted child-molester who killed all his victims walked away scot-free because he had personal relationship with the "judge", and after his ruling the judge said, "Gentleman of the jury, the guilty knew me, and therefore, it's as if he never molested and killed children. I'm erasing his record. He can go free!"

You know darned-well, Karla, that that is mockery of the very word "Justice". And, well, that is precisely how I see your apologetic.

"If you don’t believe in gravity and walk off of a tall building will you fare any better than someone who believed there is gravity?" ~ Karla

This is where we start going backwards..i.e..your regurgitating of unconvincing, demonstrably flawed apologetics. Yes, for anyone who doesn't believe in "gravity", a DEMONSTRABLE FACT of science, they can test it for themselves. We cannot "test" for "sin", and presumably can't know for certain if there is such a thing until we DIE. How convenient.

"Our judicial system is law based, rather than love based. It doesn’t have much room for grace. It needs more grace." ~ Karla

So, sentencing people to "hell" is an act of "love", is it? Moreover, "grace" is the antithesis of "justice". So perhaps that's why there isn't a lot of "grace" in our judicial system...i.e.. because giving people no more or no less than what they DESERVE, is the objective. Imagine that concept.

"But Jesus, while we were basically enemies of God, died for us so that we might live."

What if I don't want an innocent man to DIE for me? What if I can't feel "blessed" or "good" about it? What if I actually value "justice" more than my own selfish desires, as opposed to you, where it is evidently the other way around.

"I understand that the idea of hell bothers you immensely[...]"

And it bothers YOU, too.

"[....]but there is a larger story and God gave His own Son to save us from death."

More wasted time; more irrelevant apologetics to avoid having to deal with the part that bothers you.

"Hell is a result of sin, but God designed us to live free from sin and that life"

NO, Karla, "God" did NOT "design" us that way, because if "God" DID design us that way, the propensity to "sin" would've been ABSENT. This is you trying to have it both ways again, like you so often do. The magical garden duo did NOT choose their nature----that nature, human nature, was GIVEN to them.

"I know you are using names to personalize it so that I can be confronted with what you believe is God doing something abhorrent to my friends"

It's no secret. Yes, that's what I'm doing.

"but once you use names you are asking something of me I cannot know. I do not know their destinies and I won’t pretend to know."

Back to obfuscation, which wastes massive amounts of time. Notice, I didn't ask you to pretend to know your friend's "destinies"; I asked you to suppose, for sake of discussion, that your friends end up in "hell", and then asked if they DESERVE to be there. It's a simple request that doesn't require knowledge, yet, you make it complicated, and make no mistake, I, and I suspect others, know why that is.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: "Assuming it's neither, that 'God' doesn't 'intend' for me (or anyone) to go to 'hell' isn't convincing, since 'God' still allows 'hell' to subsist."

You respond: "It needs to exist."

Sold!...Christianity is *dependent* on the very things it warns us against: "hell" and "evil". Oh, the irony. And yet, people are just fine existing in "heaven" with no "evil". So much for consistency, oh, and that "free will" stuff? So much for that, too.

"We are eternal beings so we continue after a natural death."

*Begging the question(logical fallacy)

"Those who lived separate from God will continue separate from God. God is not making them separate from Him."

See here*, above.

"God says in Romans that He has made himself known in this earth to such an extent that men are without excuse."

And do you want me to find passages where we are asked to accept it all on "faith"? That's the problem, the Bible says one thing one minute, and something that contradicts it, another.

"At the same time, it’s not a blame game"

Maybe not overtly, but in the end, the nonbeliever gets the blame, no excuses. Mean while, Mr. "Omnipresent" hides in the clouds(for my "benefit", according to you). Absurd.

"Whether my answers make sense to you and are consistent with my claims, what then? Does that make a difference to you?"

Is this a serious question? Yes, of course it will make a difference. Whether things "make sense" or do not "make sense" is how we best know if we have true beliefs, or not. Poseidon doesn't make sense to me. I don't believe in Poseidon. Gremlins don't make sense to me. 'Don't believe in 'em. Allah? Ditto. Mormonism? Ditto. Yahweh? DITTO.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “But of course, since it is 'God' (allegedly) saying it, and since it is 'God' who is promising Karla that, under the right conditions, she can live forever in the clouds, she then suspends her innate sense of reason and compassion and she accepts and swallows it---hook, line, and sinker.”

You respond: "We only have the ability to reason because He created us with the ability to reason."

Bullocks. Unproven assertion; begging the question. But let's assume it's true. Okay "God" is going to create me with the ability to reason, and then condemn me when I do use it, and/or, ask me to believe things on "faith". Can you seriously NOT see the ridiculousness of this?

"How then do you think that the proper employment of reason would be against Him?"

The same "employment of reason" I use "against" Poseidon, Quetzacoatl, Allah, and on and on and on with the list of gods that, YOU, too, find unreasonable. That's how.

"I mean we are talking about consistency, if God exist and created us than our reason is created by Him."

Yes. And?

"How is it, if this world I speak of is true, the world where God exist, and created me, and my ability to think and reason, that I get to judge Him?"

If "God" defines "Good" and if "God" always, without exception, acts reasonable(as you insist), then what would be the problem with judging "Him"? You see, it is only when it is pointed out that your "God" is NOT always "Good"; NOT always reasonable, where you then say, "What right do I have to judge God?"

Your argument amounts to what I've been saying all along: Appeal to Authoritarianism. It goes like this: "God", whom you deem as the Authority figure, can do whatever it damned-well pleases, no matter how despicable and disgusting it may be, and to Karla, it is "Good" by shear virtue of the Authority being "God". Again, scary stuff, IMO, and you still don't see the glaring fallacy of the argument.

Previously, me: “If all people are 'sinners'(as you claim), and if 'sin' MUST be punished(as you claim), and if 'the wages of sin is DEATH'(as the bible claims), then if just ONE 'sinner' is granted clemency, 'justice' has not been served, in that instance.”

You respond: "That would be true, unless another factor is introduced where someone took our punishment for us therefore justifying us Himself."[bold added]

There it is in plain black and white: "took our punishment FOR US"[capitalization, mine]

IOW, NOT "just", as the one who presumably committed the "crime" goes SCOT-FREE!!!! THAT, Karla, is a mockery of "Justice". Your religion mocks "justice".

Previously, me: “And again, aside from you affirming the sad reality that some people support barbaric, disgusting beliefs in the name of 'God', you ultimately believe that 'justice' has been served for those who end up being burned alive in 'hell', while others get off the hook because they satisfied the wishes of 'God'. That's some 'Justice' you and your 'God' have got there.”

You respond: "No, not because they did something to satisfy God, but because they are in Christ and Christ is the Life."

More obfuscation. Does "Christ" not desire for people to "be in Him"? Yes, of course. Does this not satisfy "Him" when it happens? Yes, of course. If nothing else is crystal clear, it is the proposition that "God" wants people to believe in "Him". And before you say, "It's about a relationship, not belief" yadda, yadda...I would first have to believe there is SOMEONE there with whom to have this "relationship". I do not.

Best,

Karla said...

Boom, I really don't see much use in continuing to debate in this manner. I wasn't going to continue it on the e-mail and I didn't plan to do it here. Your questions start out one way and then you seem to go postal on me.

I'm not trying to win an argument. It's not about being right for me. I'm only sharing with you what I believe to be true.

I'm leaving it at that for now.

boomSLANG said...

"Boom, I really don't see much use in continuing to debate in this manner." ~ Karla

What "manner" would be acceptable, short of my accepting your answers as sensible and logical(when I do not)?

"I wasn't going to continue it on the e-mail and I didn't plan to do it here. Your questions start out one way and then you seem to go postal on me."

Postal? As in, pointing our your errors over and over when you in fact repeat them over and over?

"I'm not trying to win an argument."

Oh. Well, I am. If nothing else, it is my hope that lurkers who may be honestly experiencing doubt can see that when one cannot make good, convincing arguments in support of their beliefs, then they likely don't have good reasons for holding those beliefs. I was once a silent lurker who had honest doubts, myself. No believer could ever seem to "win an argument" when it came to "hell", hence, part of why I no longer believe.

"It's not about being right for me."

That's good, because you haven't convinced me that you're "right" nor am I even convinced you really believe you're "right". I'll grant that you wished you were, though.

"I'm only sharing with you what I believe to be true."

Thank you for that honest admission. You could have just as easily said, "what I know to be true".

Maybe we've made some progress, after all ; )

"I'm leaving it at that for now."

Fair enough. The reader can decide.

Best,

cl said...

Nice article Karla. I haven't been here in quite a while, and I like how your writing has progressed.

boomSLANG,

"Fair enough. The reader can decide."

Indeed they can, and when I look, I see the same old schtick I saw months and years ago. You're not hear to learn or to have any sort of productive engagement, you simply show up and accost Karla head-to-toe in a most sloppy manner. You fisk her comments up and down introducing tangential points instead of making any attempt whatsoever to interpret her charitably. You honestly act just like the rabid fundamentalists most atheists decry. You're pushy, you're convinced you're right, you foist your beliefs onto others, you rarely admit error, and you talk down to your interlocutor. You go off on irrelevant tangents and act like this is some sort of domination conquest. It was old then, it's old now.

Chill the heck out and just try to co-exist for Pete's sake. If you think you're doing reasoned, rational skepticism, you're badly mistaken.

While you'll resopnd to me, I'd much rather hear you say something thoughtful about Karla's post, or anything for that matter, as opposed to trying to combat every single thing she says. Ask a question out of earnesty to learn.

Karla said...

CL "Nice article Karla. I haven't been here in quite a while, and I like how your writing has progressed."

Thank you. I do more writing on Helium than here these days. I need to be better about linking some of the articles over to share them here as well.

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

Boom,

I've detected earnestness at times. I think you hide behind your gruffness sometimes. I try to see past all that. I'd rather you be real, than try to be someone you are not.

boomSLANG said...

"Boom,

I've detected earnestness at times."


Good. So at least you're not prepared to write me off as some insincere guy who only wants to be combative.

"I think you hide behind your gruffness sometimes."

I have nothing to hide in the way of my position, so perhaps because we're two people sitting behind keyboards, this comes across as "hiding behind" such 'n' such, and perhaps because I'm persistent and because I blog under an alias, this contributes to what I believe is a mistaken perception of me.

"I'd rather you be real, than try to be someone you are not."

I'm not trying to be anything other than "real", Karla.

boomSLANG said...

Like clockwork....

"Ask a question out of earnesty to learn." ~ cl

Asking earnest questions led me away from Christianity. I didn't let go of it willingly, either; I fought it every step of the way. I have no reason to avoid asking questions in earnest.

In any case, at the least, I've made an earnest attempt to avoid the usual, boomslang's beating up on Karla rigmarole, by asking Karla to confirm(or deny) the following...

Small favor: If you would, could you please go on record and confirm that I haven't insulted you nor breached any terms of your blog by my line of questioning? I want to make sure we're on good terms.

Previously, me: "Fair enough. The reader can decide."

"Indeed they can, and when I look, I see the same old schtick I saw months and years ago." ~ cl

I don't know. Again, stop looking? Aside from that, I don't quite know what else to tell you, except that maybe whether or not boomslang's posts appease cl isn't the entire objective, here. 'Just a thought. Yes, maybe there are silent lurkers who are actually experiencing honest doubt(like I once did) who aren't so much concerned about who is the more "charitable", but instead, are more concerned with whose arguments make the most sense to them(like I once was).

"You're not hear to learn or to have any sort of productive engagement, you simply show up and accost Karla head-to-toe in a most sloppy manner." ~ cl

On numerous occasions I've made it crystal clear why I come here. If you have your own suspicions, great.

"You fisk her comments up and down introducing tangential points[...]" ~ cl

That you think my points are only "tangential" is your opinion. I read the article, and I referenced and responded to excerpts of said article. Karla claims to know certain things, and I ask(ed) her to support the claims. I hardly see that as "tangential". Moreover, Karla is clearly not comfortable talking about "hell". 'Sorry, but I don't see the subject as only slightly connected to her beliefs. In fact, if memory serves, you're the guy who said that Jesus talks about "hell" more than any other subject.

"[...]instead of making any attempt whatsoever to interpret her charitably." ~ cl

You must have missed the times when I went on record to say that I think Karla is a kind, compassionate person, and in fact, I even made the point that she is too kind and too compassionate to be upholding certain tenets of her religious doctrine.

"You honestly act just like the rabid fundamentalists most atheists decry." ~ cl

This charge, too, is nothing new. I could give reasons for how I'm not an Atheist "fundamentalist", but I don't get the impression you're interested.

boomSLANG said...

"You're pushy, you're convinced you're right[...]" ~ cl

I'll own up to persistent. It is persistence that got blacks to be able to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. It is persistence that doctors found a vaccine for rabies. Persistence makes progress.

As far as being "convinced" that I'm right---yes, I'm convinced that I'm right, just like I was when I was a Christian. IOW, I've admitted that I was wrong once; I'll do it again.

"[...]you foist your beliefs onto others you rarely admit error, and you talk down to your interlocutor." ~ cl

What beliefs would those be?

"You go off on irrelevant tangents[...]" ~ cl

I would argue that Karla is the one who counters with irrelevancies, often times, apologetics.

"and act like this is some sort of domination conquest. It was old then, it's old now." ~ cl

Evidently there is something alluring about the oldness of these conversations.

"Chill the heck out and just try to co-exist for Pete's sake." ~ cl

Co-exist? Huh. Good one, cl. Tell that one to the world's three leading monotheistic religions.

"If you think you're doing reasoned, rational skepticism, you're badly mistaken." ~ cl

Just as you are badly mistaken if you think that your opinion of how I "do" skepticism matters to me or that it somehow precludes me from being right.

"While you'll resopnd to me, I'd much rather hear you say something thoughtful about Karla's post[...]" ~ cl

Thoughtful, as in...? What?.. something I agree with?

"[...] as opposed to trying to combat every single thing she says." ~ cl

I'm not disagreeing with what Karla says for combativeness' sake. If you want to believe that, fine, you're free to do so. I'm certainly not convinced that my being less persistent would change anything one iota, as far as finding common ground.

cl said...

Like clockwork...

Right, because I've been around here so regularly lately.

Asking earnest questions led me away from Christianity.

Irrelevant. I was admonishing you to ask Karla questions in earnestness, or at least come across that way.

In any case, at the least, I've made an earnest attempt to avoid the usual, boomslang's beating up on Karla rigmarole,

No you haven't, you're still doing the same exact thing as you were last year. But at least you're aware of how you come across. That's positive. That said, I disagree. You have not made an earnest attempt to address the meat of Karla's post. You simply latch on to isolated, out-of-context fragments, put a "minus" in front of them, then sit back smugly as if you're proceeding according to common rules of logical discourse, when you're really just being a contrarian, whether you realize it or not.

Small favor: If you would, could you please go on record and confirm that I haven't insulted you nor breached any terms of your blog by my line of questioning? I want to make sure we're on good terms.

That's not the point. You don't have to be "Loftus" or "Dawkins" -style offensive to present yourself as completely impervious to rational discourse.

Aside from that, I don't quite know what else to tell you, except that maybe whether or not boomslang's posts appease cl isn't the entire objective, here. 'Just a thought. Yes, maybe there are silent lurkers who are actually experiencing honest doubt(like I once did) who aren't so much concerned about who is the more "charitable", but instead, are more concerned with whose arguments make the most sense to them(like I once was).

You don't offer arguments. You offer trite, contrarian one-offs to everything Karla says, and, in this post as well as others, you ignore the arguments Karla offers in favor of said one-offs.

On numerous occasions I've made it crystal clear why I come here.

Yes, you have: you said you're here to "save Karla" from the error of her ways. IOW, you're convinced that you're correct, so much so that you come here to "save" Karla. Is that a spirit of honest inquiry? How is that any different than the fundamentalists you take great pains to distance yourself from? Oh yeah, nevermind... because you're right, and they're wrong. Duh!

That you think my points are only "tangential" is your opinion.

No, it's not. It's factual. "Tangential" means not directly related to the arguments at hand. Karla's central premise was a scientific discovery that supports the claim, "Humans were intrinsically predisposed towards worship," and contests the previous claim that "humans just invented religion as a means of social cohesion." In all your bluster about hell and Karla being a prophet and whatnot, you've failed to address that point. Now, in all fairness, I haven't read every word in every comment here -- mostly because your contrarian style is so amazingly boorish that I can't stomach it for longer than fifteen minutes -- so correct me if I'm wrong.

cl said...

[CONT'D]...

You must have missed the times when I went on record to say that I think Karla is a kind, compassionate person, and in fact, I even made the point that she is too kind and too compassionate to be upholding certain tenets of her religious doctrine.

It doesn't matter what you say. It matters what you do. Saying she's compassionate doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you don't interpret her arguments charitably. Think about it.

I could give reasons for how I'm not an Atheist "fundamentalist", but I don't get the impression you're interested.

I'm interested, because I honestly do strive to extend the benefit of the doubt, but in this case, I've seen the exact same thing for so damn long that it's beyond that point. If you want any respect from me as a reasoned thinker -- and don't waste your time exclaiming that you don't, because I already know --- you're going to have to earn it, not shout that you deserve it.

It is persistence that got blacks to be able to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. It is persistence that doctors found a vaccine for rabies. Persistence makes progress.

Oh, you like rhetoric? Okay... I'll play your game for seven seconds: It was persistence that motivated Hitler to get millions of Jews into the ovens, as opposed to mere thousands. It was persistence that motivated the perpetrators of 9/11 to successfully execute their nefarious plans. Etc. So, what? You think if you just come here and spout enough contrarian "gotchas" long enough, that you'll eventually "save" Karla? Um, newsflash: that's exactly what many fundamentalists do. But nah, you can't possibly be one of them, so I must be wrong there, too.

Evidently there is something alluring about the oldness of these conversations.

No; there's something annoying about them, which is why I've stayed out of them for 8+ months. It's annoying to deal with the protestations of a smart-alecky, overconfident know-it-all who's too full of his own opinions to make room for anything else. So annoying that even after 8 months, a single instance was enough to prompt my response.

Tell that one to the world's three leading monotheistic religions.

As if that has any bearing on the three of us. IOW, another non-sequitur.

Just as you are badly mistaken if you think that your opinion of how I "do" skepticism matters to me or that it somehow precludes me from being right.

Trust me, no mistake there. I know my opinion of your skepticism means nothing to you. I've never, even for a second, been given evidence that would suggest otherwise. Pseudo-skepticism doesn't mean you aren't correct, either. Hell, even a lucky guess can be correct.

Thoughtful, as in...? What?.. something I agree with?

No. Thoughtful, as in considering both sides of the arguments, or, at the very least, considering the central thesis of Karla's post. Also, it would be nice to see some common ground. I'm not asking you to agree with Karla for the sake of fairness or anything like that. I'm asking for you to take an approach that's more like, "Well Karla, I can see why you think that, because I think this, so in that regard we have some common ground to work off, but what about this?" Or, alternatively, anything that doesn't come across as, "Gee Karla, here you are lying for Jesus again, how many more times do I have to enlighten you with my oh-so-superior rationalism and intellect?"

I'm not disagreeing with what Karla says for combativeness' sake.

I didn't say you were. I said that you combat everything she says, and that's true. You do it to me, too. Watch. You'll do it to this comment. Prove me wrong.

boomSLANG said...

"I said that you combat everything she says, and that's true. You do it to me, too. Watch. You'll do it to this comment. Prove me wrong." ~ cl

I'm sorry.

(anything to prove cl wrong)

; )