Reactions to yesterday’s Supreme Court Decision run the gamut.
I’ve seen celebration, surprise, relief, anger, fear, animosity, apathy,
ignorant bliss, worry, and sorrow. I join the camp of those who disagree with
the decision. I understand it is a serious matter, and yet I also am not
provoked to anger or fear over the outcome. Neither reaction would change
anything. It is almost like we think we are accomplishing our civic responsibility
by sounding off on our social mediums such as Facebook or Twitter our
particular view on the matter.
I must admit, I turned first to Facebook after hearing the
news to see what was being said. But I realized, that it didn’t really matter
what I or anyone else was saying, because most of us were not in places of
influence to where it made any difference what we said.
It would seem that our perilous times would drive us into
our history. We would begin to dig into our heritage and rediscover our civic responsibly
to this Republic. I have always admired the Founding Fathers and enjoyed the
colonial era of history, but I now have an even greater appreciation of their
sacrifice and the people of this nation that lived in those formative years.
Regardless of your political persuasion, I think we can
agree that we need men and women with the character and resolve of our founding
generation. We all recognize the economic crisis. We all should know that what
we have been doing isn’t working.
Some are focused on social security and Medicare needs.
Others are concerned about job security. Others are concerned about their
investments. Still others are worried about their health insurance premiums.
Then you have the matters of liberty, the national debt, the failing
businesses, the unsustainability of the government programs, or the state of
education in this nation. No matter our particular concern, we all have to
unite together, just as they did in the early days when the states had to put
aside their fears and unite under one Constitution so that they could secure a more
stable future.
They lived for us, and yet we live for ourselves. We don’t
live to preserve their sacrifice, or to ensure the freedom of our future
generations. Most of us are concerned first and foremost for ourselves and our
own generation. We have to think beyond our own needs and the needs of our own
generation. It may be necessary to give up temporary comforts, for the future
security of a now fledgling nation. It may be necessary to provide for
ourselves, regardless of the entitlements available to us, just so that the
nation doesn’t incur more debt.
There is a poignant scene in The Pursuit of Happiness with
Will Smith. Will’s character approaches a government agency service window with
cash and coins in hand to pay back every cent that was given to him while he
was in need. What if we thought like this? What if, we the people, took responsibility
for our local and national debt?
We have to start thinking about the problems differently.
The solutions are simple, but we get too impressed by the complexity of the
problem to see them clearly. The same principles that create a happy healthy
family, creates a happy health business, and a happy healthy school, and a
happy healthy government. It’s all very simple. We have just lost our way so
severely that we apply elaborate and expensive band aides to cover the symptoms
without ever touching the root issue.
We also have the tendency to declare the whole nation a
sinking ship, forgetting we are on board. We then look for ways to provide a
life jacket for ourselves, having given up on the ship itself. Or we believe,
for spiritual or financial reasons, we will be immune to the sinking of the
ship so we figure we might as well sit back and let it sink, because it won’t
ultimately affect us.
Sadly, few see themselves as having any role to play that
could make any difference. As long as we think like that, we won’t make a bit
of difference. But we will be just as responsible as those who are sacrificing
and working to right the ship.
The reality is that every American has a role to play. Not
everyone will be in a prominent role directly affecting their city, state, or
national officials, but a vital role just the same. It comes in the form of being
educated and educating others about our foundational history. It comes from
voting. It comes from getting or staying out of debt. It comes from loving our
neighbor, our spouse, and our children. It comes from serving our city. It
comes from not taking what we don’t need. It comes from giving more than we
take. It comes from not wasting what we have. It comes from honest business
practices, both as an employer and employee, as a consumer, and as a producer. It
comes from keeping our word and honoring our elders.
We cannot take these things too seriously. This is what
makes a nation great. Not doing these things is what fills our jails, bogs down
our courts, and increases regulations. This is why the Founders lamented that
children must receive a good moral education in order to secure this Republic.
They, for the most part, did not mandate this by law, but they did promote it
in their speeches and writings meticulously preserved for posterity.
America, it is time to wake up. It is time to preserve the
sacrifice of our ancestors and secure the stability of our future generations. We
can keep or lose this Republic. We will either be the source of the blame or
the source of the victory. The choice is ours. I choose victory, for I will not
give up on this great Republic.
132 comments:
"Founders lamented that children must receive a good moral education"
And teaching children that they cannot be good without "God" is to lie to them. Even as recently as the past few hundred years, morals and ethics have evolved for the better. IOW, there is demonstrable evidence that ethics are situational and they are based on the avoidance of unnecessary harm and treating others as we wish to be treated.
Hello again. I tried to respond a couple days ago, via my phone app, but it didn't go through.
I'm not seeing a nation operating under "better" ethics. I see a nation that is struggling to stay afloat. I see people loosing trust in one another as businesses go under. I see employers making decisions for the bottom line instead of thinking of where they have given their word for quality and where they ought to take care of their employees rather than letting them go to add to the unemployment while they struggle to keep their business. Things don't seem to be working to me.
"Hello again. I tried to respond a couple days ago, via my phone app, but it didn't go through" ~ Karla
Hi. I don't use phone apps to blog, so I won't speculate on why you might be experiencing problems.
"I'm not seeing a nation operating under 'better' ethics. [.....] Things don't seem to be working to me" ~ Karla
"Better" compared to what, exactly? Do you mean, "better", as in compared to 20 years ago when you could smoke cigarettes on airplanes? Or do you mean, "better", compared to 200 years ago when African Americans were prohibited from drinking out of public water fountains? Or do you mean, "better", compared to 2000 years ago, back when people burned witches, kept "n*ggers" as slaves, and stoned to death women who were found not to be virgins on their wedding night(all biblically supported, BTW)? IMO, today's ethical standards are better on all the way around.
And note, whether or not all people follow the ethical standards that our society currently has in place does not disprove that ethics/morals are situational.
Very good questions.
Each generation does have its deep dark blemishes. But you also have people in each generation that did not participate in such things.
I don't think morality evolved to make slavery wrong, I think society began to align with the truth that it was wrong where it had previously aligned with the lie that it was permissible or even defendable.
It was just as wrong 200 years ago as it is today. That is why today we look back with contempt at the practice, not because they were doing what was right in their day, but because we know they were doing what was wrong.
Just as people in their own day knew that. Some did something about it, and some did not. Some knew it was wrong and did it anyway.
"And note, whether or not all people follow the ethical standards that our society currently has in place does not disprove that ethics/morals are situational."
True, but do you think it was right for people to own slaves in prior to the Civil War?
Or how about the Nazi's that believed they were doing the world a favor to rid the world of the Jewish people? Were they justified? Were the trials after the war unjust to hold them accountable for their actions?
"Each generation does have its deep dark blemishes."
But by and large, less dark than the generation before them.
"But you also have people in each generation that did not participate in such things"
This may be true, but again, that, in itself, does not disprove situational ethics or cultural relativity. You brought up the importance of giving children a "good moral education" in your article. Again, to teach them that they cannot be good with out "God" is not only a lie, but it is a disservice, as well.
"It was just as wrong 200 years ago as it is today."
That's looking back on it from today. At the time..i.e..back then, some of those practices were seen as "right", underscoring my point. And BTW, at least part of the reason that some of those practices were seen as "right", was because they were biblically supported.
"[...]do you think it was right for people to own slaves in prior to the Civil War?"
No.
"Or how about the Nazi's that believed they were doing the world a favor to rid the world of the Jewish people? Were they justified?"
No.
"Were the trials after the war unjust to hold them accountable for their actions?"
No, not unjust, and I'm curious about something----would justice have been served if another group aside from the accused had stepped up and taken the penalty?
Boom “This may be true, but again, that, in itself, does not disprove situational ethics or cultural relativity.”
Agreed. My statement doesn’t refute situational ethics. It wasn’t designed to.
Boom “You brought up the importance of giving children a "good moral education" in your article. Again, to teach them that they cannot be good without "God" is not only a lie, but it is a disservice, as well.”
First, I didn’t say in my article that “good moral education” required God.
Secondly, a society is capable of following a set of rules or principles designed to enhance the well-being of the individuals and society without God’s help. There is plenty of evidence of that.
Even lots of the “rules” or principles in the Bible can be followed without knowing God.
My article was only addressing that a society needs moral instruction to maintain freedom and civility.
The Founding Fathers, right or wrong, believed the Bible provided a good source for those morals.
"It was just as wrong 200 years ago as it is today."
Boom “That's looking back on it from today. At the time..i.e..back then, some of those practices were seen as "right", underscoring my point. And BTW, at least part of the reason that some of those practices were seen as "right", was because they were biblically supported.”
Some tried to extrapolate the Bible supporting it, but that’s another matter. Just because people saw it as right doesn’t make it so. You even agree below that it was not right for people to do so in the time period prior to the Civil War when it was legal and largely practiced. And you agreed that that Nazi’s were not justified.
"[...]do you think it was right for people to own slaves in prior to the Civil War?"
No.
"Or how about the Nazi's that believed they were doing the world a favor to rid the world of the Jewish people? Were they justified?"
No.
"Were the trials after the war unjust to hold them accountable for their actions?"
Boom “No, not unjust, and I'm curious about something----would justice have been served if another group aside from the accused had stepped up and taken the penalty?”
I am willing to have that discussion another day. You seem to be bringing up a lot of things that my article never addressed.
Okay, let's try this another way, then:
"This is why the Founders lamented that children must receive a good moral education in order to secure this Republic" ~ Karla(from the article)
So, what, IYO, is the way to give our children a "good moral education" bearing in mind that if I have understood correctly, you now concede that ethics are situational, and in which case, not absolute? For the record...
Ethics: noun 1. the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.
(Ref: Merriam-Webster)
Previously, me: “No, not unjust, and I'm curious about something----would justice have been served if another group aside from the accused had stepped up and taken the penalty?”
You respond: I am willing to have that discussion another day. You seem to be bringing up a lot of things that my article never addressed.
I wasn't necessarily looking for a "discussion". A one-word answer would have sufficed. In any case, okay, no biggie.
Boom "So, what, IYO, is the way to give our children a "good moral education" bearing in mind that if I have understood correctly, you now concede that ethics are situational, and in which case, not absolute? For the record..."
Not be difficult but I did not agree or disagree on ethics being situational. I did say that slavery was wrong in colonial America just as it is wrong today.
I also said that I didn't profess the requirement of knowing God to follow moral precepts. One can accomplish following rules either proscribed to them or agreed upon by them without knowing God.
But let's say you and I were to come up with some good principles that would help society become a better society-- what would that look like?
I will throw out a few:
1) Keeping your word -- ie: doing what you say your going to do and not doing what you say your not going to do--
2) Treating others they way you would like them to treat you -- if you want them to be kind to you -- be kind to them --
3) Be honest.
How do those sound for good moral instruction to teach children in school?
Lastly, the justice question.
Yes, sometimes a third party can take the "punishment" or "consequence" and that's mercy. If a person stole something from me and a friend of that person said -- hey let me make it right -- I will pay back what they owe you -- just forgive them as if they never did this too you. That would be justice and mercy at work.
Hope that helps clarify some things.
"Not be difficult but I did not agree or disagree on ethics being situational."
Fair enough. Okay, well, do you believe that *ethics are situational? Yes or no?
*See previously-provided definition of "ethics" from Merriam-Webster, above.
"I did say that slavery was wrong in colonial America just as it is wrong today."
Okay, then what about a few thousand yrs ago in biblical times? Was slavery wrong then? If not, why was it humane to keep and beat human beings as slaves back then, but it's considered inhumane now? Something has changed and/or evolved, evidently. What?
"I also said that I didn't profess the requirement of knowing God to follow moral precepts."
If one follows "moral precepts", is one being moral? Isn't being moral the bottom line here, not what one believes?
"One can accomplish following rules either proscribed to them or agreed upon by them without knowing God."
If I didn't know any better, I'd say you are trying to make a distinction between following rules, and "knowing God". Assuming I'm right on that, I would argue that in order for a "God"(or some other being) to be a standard of "right"/"wrong", that this directly implies that there are actions that being "X" wants you to avoid(i.e..wrong actions). Call those actions "sin", or "bloopers", "marshmallows", or whatever, I really don't care, but I'm at a loss to know how that's not following rules. If you want to explain, I'll have a listen.
"1) Keeping your word -- ie: doing what you say your going to do and not doing what you say your not going to do--
2) Treating others they way you would like them to treat you -- if you want them to be kind to you -- be kind to them --
3) Be honest.
How do those sound for good moral instruction to teach children in school?"
Those instructions sound reasonable to me. But I hope we can agree that those principles aren't unique to any one religious philosophy or Holy Writ.
"Yes, sometimes a third party can take the 'punishment' or 'consequence' and that's mercy. If a person stole something from me and a friend of that person said -- hey let me make it right -- I will pay back what they owe you -- just forgive them as if they never did this too you. That would be justice and mercy at work."
I'm afraid I can't get on board with your reasoning here. If the person who stole from you..i.e..the person who actually committed the punishable crime walks away scot-free, then I'm sorry, but "justice" has not been served. You can swear up and down that you've forgiven him or her all you'd like, but that, alone, doesn't exact "justice". To be sure, we can look at your analogy another way:
One day you noticed something missing from your house. You call the police and they come and get finger prints. Turns out, the finger prints are traced to a burglary ring that had been through your neighborhood recently. A friend of yours tells the police, "Oh, no problem officer, I'll buy Karla a new [missing item]!".
Now, will that fly? Is that "justice" in your eyes? Should the police stop looking for the burglars at that point? IMO, your answer should be an unequivocal "no" across the board.
Boom “Fair enough. Okay, well, do you believe that *ethics are situational? Yes or no?”
Sometimes it does depend on the situation, but not always. I don’t think a situation makes something wrong become right, but that in that situation it isn’t a wrong. Like killing, when killing is murder it is always wrong, but when it is self-defense it isn’t wrong. In both situations, a death by the hand of another has occurred, but one is unjust and the other just.
Boom “*See previously-provided definition of "ethics" from Merriam-Webster, above. “
Ok, the definition is accepted.
Boom “Okay, then what about a few thousand yrs ago in biblical times? Was slavery wrong then? If not, why was it humane to keep and beat human beings as slaves back then, but it's considered inhumane now? Something has changed and/or evolved, evidently. What?”
I’m not very proficient in the history of this period, but I think that in Bible times, two Kingdoms would be at war and the victors would take the defeated people as their slaves for a time. Also, a person would become an indentured servant of another person for payment of debt or other financial reasons. The Jewish people had a system in place that God gave them to where they set these people free from working for them after a determined period of time even if they had not paid off their debt. One can compare how the Nation of Israel treated their slaves with how Israel was treated when they were in captivity by foreign nations such as the Babylonian captivity. I, could be wrong, but I believe any slaves the Hebrew people had at least during the time the people were obeying the Lord were not treated like scum like American and English slavery. It wasn’t a matter of ethnicity, but of the penalty of war. The nation was trying to kill them, now they are entering peaceful coexistence.
Boom “If one follows "moral precepts", is one being moral? Isn't being moral the bottom line here, not what one believes?”
So to speak. Morality is great, it aides in peaceful happy living. But having a tangible real relationship with God does far more than help you be moral. Granted, many Christians will tell you it’s all about believing Jesus died on the cross and following the moral life of Jesus as best we can. That’s not what I believe.
Boom “If I didn't know any better, I'd say you are trying to make a distinction between following rules, and "knowing God". “
Correct.
Boom “Assuming I'm right on that, I would argue that in order for a "God"(or some other being) to be a standard of "right"/"wrong", that this directly implies that there are actions that being "X" wants you to avoid(i.e..wrong actions). “
Yes in part, but actions are external reflections of who you are. God makes the inside good/righteous and then helps you learn to live from that place of being on the outside. You know the famous scene in Macbeth where Lady Macbeth washes her hands to rid herself of her murderous deed? She thought that by washing her hands she could get clean inside of murder. Not possible. Pontius Pilot did the same thing when he sentenced Jesus; he went and washed his hands to cleanse himself of the action. God cleans the inside of a person.
Response (2 of 2)
Boom “Call those actions "sin", or "bloopers", "marshmallows", or whatever, I really don't care, but I'm at a loss to know how that's not following rules. If you want to explain, I'll have a listen.”
You know in the OT how there are a ton of laws, but in the NT Jesus says only two laws sum all the others up? In short, Love God and Love People. By loving God and in turn experiencing His love for us – a switch goes on in the inside that enables the real essence of love to flow through us to where we don’t think about killing people because we actually love them, or we forgive, not because we have to, but because we love the person and why would we do anything besides forgive them? That doesn’t mean we never have those thoughts or struggle to forgive, but before doing this was relying only on our natural self to preform correctly. After we come to know Jesus we can tap into His strength, power, love, peace, and joy, and live that out.
So I don’t need a handbook of do’s and don’ts I can actually connect to the heart of God and do good because He is doing good. Sometimes when we aren’t listening too well, the teachings of Jesus help guide us, but ultimately He is the source of becoming good on the inside.
Boom “Those instructions sound reasonable to me. But I hope we can agree that those principles aren't unique to any one religious philosophy or Holy Writ.”
True.
Boom “I'm afraid I can't get on board with your reasoning here. If the person who stole from you..i.e..the person who actually committed the punishable crimewalks away scot-free, then I'm sorry, but "justice" has not been served. You can swear up and down that you've forgiven him or her all you'd like, but that, alone, doesn't exact "justice". To be sure, we can look at your analogy another way:”
A nation’s justice system may not accept such third party redemption of the matter. Sometimes the person committing the injustice needs to be held legally accountable and needs to experience the consequences for their own good. Sometimes that is the best love course of action. But sometimes the most impacting response is mercy and that mercy of not getting what they deserved creates a greater justice and the person is forever changed because of the generosity they experienced.
Boom “Now, will that fly? Is that "justice" in your eyes? Should the police stop looking for the burglars at that point? IMO, your answer should be an unequivocal "no" across the board. “
Police are sworn to uphold the law of the land. The police may charge a person even if I don’t press charges, that is up to them. But I could certainly be in a situation where I would pursue radical mercy as much as it is in my power to give it.
"Sometimes it does depend on the situation, but not always."
And if that's the case, isn't it true that this, too, depends on the situation?
"Like killing, when killing is murder it is always wrong, but when it is self-defense it isn’t wrong. In both situations, a death by the hand of another has occurred, but one is unjust and the other just."
The fact that today we have a separate word for unjust killing..e.g..."murder" is a very good clue that morals and ethics are situational, not absolute. While on the subject, would you agree that we can determine for ourselves when it is appropriate to take a life? IOW, if a lunatic gunman barges into your house threatening to shoot everyone, do you need to consult with any person or mandates to determine if shooting the gunman is ethical?
"I, could be wrong, but I believe any slaves the Hebrew people had at least during the time the people were obeying the Lord were not treated like scum like American and English slavery."
A slave is a slave, regardless of how they're treated. If they were treated equally and humanely, they wouldn't be considered slaves or servants in the first place.
"Morality is great, it aides in peaceful happy living."
Isn't "peaceful happy living" a good goal in life, if not one of the best, most sought out goals?
"But having a tangible real relationship with God does far more than help you be moral."
The word "tangible" probably isn't the best word here, since it implies interaction on a physical/empirical level, and in which case, there'd be physical/empirical evidence available. To my knowledge, there is no such evidence available.
But in any event, I said nothing about needing help to be "moral". That fact that nonbelievers can, and do, lead moral, peaceful, happy lives is good evidence that not all people need "help" being moral.
"Granted, many Christians will tell you it’s all about believing Jesus died on the cross and following the moral life of Jesus as best we can. That’s not what I believe."
Okay, so you believe something more than believing X, Y, Z is required, then. Fair enough.
"God makes the inside good/righteous and then helps you learn to live from that place of being on the outside."
Every Christian I've ever encountered makes this claim..i.e..that they are "made new", "reborn", "transformed", etc., and yet, there is no evidence that believers behave any better than non-believers. 'Coincidence?
"You know in the OT how there are a ton of laws, but in the NT Jesus says only two laws sum all the others up? In short, Love God and Love People"
Okay, aside from throwing out the Ten Commandments, the very laws by which we presumably know that killing is wrong, you say that it's not about following laws/rules, but now you categorically state that "two LAWS"[caps, mine] sum up all the previous laws. I'm sorry, but that is still a requirement to follow rules/abide by laws. You've explained nothing, really. But I appreciate your trying.
"A nation’s justice system may not accept such third party redemption of the matter."
Yes, and there's a good reason for that.
"Sometimes the person committing the injustice needs to be held legally accountable and needs to experience the consequences for their own good."
Yes. And can we agree that it depends on the crime? Assuming so, we should then be able to see the punishment should be proportional to the crime.
"But sometimes the most impacting response is mercy and that mercy of not getting what they deserved creates a greater justice and the person is forever changed because of the generosity they experienced."
Without redefining "justice", how would letting a child molester or serial rapist go scot-free be a "greater justice"?
In regards to my previous burglar analogy, I asked:
"Now, will that fly? Is that 'justice' in your eyes? Should the police stop looking for the burglars at that point? IMO, your answer should be an unequivocal 'no' across the board."
You answer: "Police are sworn to uphold the law of the land. The police may charge a person even if I don’t press charges, that is up to them. But I could certainly be in a situation where I would pursue radical mercy as much as it is in my power to give it."
You didn't answer any of my three questions. And since I wasn't speaking of some other "situation", but a specific one, your response comes across as equivocation.
Boom “And if that's the case, isn't it true that this, too, depends on the situation?”
What specifically?
Boom “The fact that today we have a separate word for unjust killing..e.g..."murder" is a very good clue that morals and ethics are situational, not absolute. “
“Murder” was a term for unjust killing back in Bible times too. Cain murdered his brother Able. One of the 10 Commandments says “you shall not murder.”
So, killing is not always wrong, but murder is always wrong. So the matter, with reference to taking a life, is not about the action, but the intent or reason for the action.
Boom “While on the subject, would you agree that we can determine for ourselves when it is appropriate to take a life?”
This question by itself, I’d have to say it isn’t only up to me to determine if a killing was just. I could justify something with all kinds of reasons and it still be murder. But in the context of your next question that’s a specific matter.
IOW, if a lunatic gunman barges into your house threatening to shoot everyone, do you need to consult with any person or mandates to determine if shooting the gunman is ethical?”
We already have an established law of the land that legally permits me to shoot a home invader. I doubt in the heat of the moment, if I chose to do that I would even stop to think of the legalities. However, if it were a wrong action, it being legal wouldn’t make it right in my eyes. I think the law has to follow what is truly right or wrong.
I wouldn’t consult anyone per se, probably wouldn’t have time. I think we have an internal or social understanding that self-defense killing is acceptable and I don’t think God takes issue with it.
Boom “A slave is a slave, regardless of how they're treated. If they were treated equally and humanely, they wouldn't be considered slaves or servants in the first place.”
You know what, Boom, I really don’t know the answer regarding slavery. I don’t know why it was part of life in the Israel of the Old Testament.
Boom “Isn't "peaceful happy living" a good goal in life, if not one of the best, most sought out goals?”
Yes it is. We just have different understanding of the extent that peace and happiness or joy is available to us and how to really acquire it.
Me "But having a tangible real relationship with God does far more than help you be moral."
Boom “The word "tangible" probably isn't the best word here, since it implies interaction on a physical/empirical level, and in which case, there'd be physical/empirical evidence available. To my knowledge, there is no such evidence available.”
I have experienced God in a number of ways. I know this isn’t a testimony you accept.
Boom “But in any event, I said nothing about needing help to be "moral". That fact that nonbelievers can, and do, lead moral, peaceful, happy lives is good evidence that not all people need "help" being moral.”
So you have found peace and happiness?
Boom “Every Christian I've ever encountered makes this claim..i.e..that they are "made new", "reborn", "transformed", etc., and yet, there is no evidence that believers behave any better than non-believers. 'Coincidence?”
If you look at Christians as a whole, or maybe take inventory of those you have directly encountered, this may be so. But I have met Christians that make me want what they have in the Lord because I have never seen such love and peace as exudes from their lives. I don’t even know how to describe it.
Honestly, I think many of us don’t know what we mean when we say we are born again. We are repeating doctrine like robots and trying real hard to make life changes that make us follow biblical morality, but we haven’t been exposed to knowing Jesus in the way that is possible – in the way that He really does transform us. It’s not that we haven’t “believed” and been “saved” –accepted into His fold, but we haven’t experienced what the Bible speaks of as the transformed life. We hope no one will notice. We don’t want to voice what everyone else isn’t voicing that we don’t know why it feels like just believing and nothing supernatural is happening to us at all.
I would say a large portion of Christianity is in the boat I just described. I was there once. I found out I was in the Christian boat, but not in the boat with Jesus. Not that I wasn’t saved or didn’t believe, I was and I did. But there was more. And I haven’t even scratched the surface of what’s possible, but with the little more I have experienced I know now there is a vast ocean available in Christ and I daily want to experience more.
Boom “Okay, aside from throwing out the Ten Commandments, the very laws by which we presumably know that killing is wrong, you say that it's not about following laws/rules, but now you categorically state that "two LAWS"[caps, mine] sum up all the previous laws. I'm sorry, but that is still a requirement to follow rules/abide by laws. You've explained nothing, really. But I appreciate your trying.”
I can see how that seems contradictory. The two “laws” are only achieved with Jesus. We love God by having relationship with Jesus, and loving people through the love that we experience by loving God. So all of the ‘laws” of the OT which are far more than the 10 famous ones – are fulfilled are made so we don’t have to look them up, memorize them, and make sure we follow them, by walking in the supernatural love of God. God’s love makes the difference between following laws and actually loving people. Like a kid who pleases his parents because he loves them not because they gave him a rule book of what pleases them. Or a Husband who is faithful to his Wife not because it’s a rule of marriage, but because he loves her and only her.
Me "A nation’s justice system may not accept such third party redemption of the matter."
Boom “Yes, and there's a good reason for that.”
I did read of a story where a local judge, a Christian man, would be known to rule according to the law fining the defendant the appropriate fine for this crime, and then paying the fine for the Defendant in an act of mercy out of his own pocket. This is the sort of thing that I am saying is still justice and yet mercy.
Boom “Yes. And can we agree that it depends on the crime? Assuming so, we should then be able to see the punishment should be proportional to the crime.”
Yes, on the crime, on the situation, and in my case, what God is saying about the particular situation.
Me "But sometimes the most impacting response is mercy and that mercy of not getting what they deserved creates a greater justice and the person is forever changed because of the generosity they experienced."
Boom “Without redefining "justice", how would letting a child molester or serial rapist go scot-free be a "greater justice"?”
In a society, I don’t think they should go free. That puts others in danger and it does not help the perpetrator. Now my job, is to forgive regardless of the legal consequences they should justly receive.
In regards to my previous burglar analogy, I asked:
"Now, will that fly? Is that 'justice' in your eyes? Should the police stop looking for the burglars at that point? IMO, your answer should be an unequivocal 'no' across the board."
No police should seek a burglar for the good of the community and for the good the consequences will do the burglar. But there are exceptions. Someone stole something valuable from my husband and I and we forgave the person the debt to us and did not seek legal prosecution. We felt that’s what God wanted us to do in that situation. It doesn’t mean we will do the same thing next time in another situation. This wasn’t a normal burglar situation though.
Boom “You didn't answer any of my three questions. And since I wasn't speaking of some other "situation", but a specific one, your response comes across as equivocation.”
I’m sorry. Did I answer sufficiently this time?
Karla, in regards to my question of whether or not you believe ethics are situational, you previously stated...
"Sometimes it does depend on the situation, but not always.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't you more or less saying that in some situations ethics depend on the situation, but other times, not?
In any case, when you ask for a specific example of a situation that falls under "not always", it seems to me that it would be better if you would provide such an example, since it is you, not me, who is saying "not always".
"So, killing is not always wrong, but murder is always wrong."
The end result of both "killing" and "murder" is the same...i.e.. the taking of life. As you just expressed, there is lawful(ethical) taking of life, and then there is unlawful(unethical) taking of life. The common denominator is the taking of life, and that is ethical/unethical *depending* on the situation. Saying that "murder is always wrong" is redundant, and using that as an example to say that ethics are "not always" situational seems, idk, a bit disingenuous to me.
"You know what, Boom, I really don’t know the answer regarding slavery. I don’t know why it was part of life in the Israel of the Old Testament."
Not just "part of life", but condoned in the very document that you believe to be "God-breathed". I appreciate your honesty in saying "I don't know", though, which I'm guessing you chalk up to God's "mysterious ways", yes?
Previously, I asked: “Isn't 'peaceful happy living' a good goal in life, if not one of the best, most sought out goals?”
You respond: "Yes it is. We just have different understanding of the extent that peace and happiness or joy is available to us and how to really acquire it.
Yes, a different understanding. Unless I've missed something, you cannot demonstrate the implication that you and other believers have a better quality of happiness, peace, and joy than nonbelievers, which, BTW, seems just a tad arrogant to me if you really believe that. But perhaps more importantly, the notion that believers are "happier" than nonbelievers is no more to the point than heroin users are happier than non-heroin users.
"I have experienced God in a number of ways. I know this isn’t a testimony you accept."
Right, and you know why I don't accept it. At least, I hope by now that you do.
"So you have found peace and happiness?"
Neither peace nor happiness - nor any other state of mind, for that matter - are static. If state of mind and all accompanying emotions were static, I'd be the equivalent of a vegetable. Needless to say, I have no desire to be a vegetable.
"But I have met Christians that make me want what they have in the Lord because I have never seen such love and peace as exudes from their lives. I don’t even know how to describe it."
It makes perfect sense to me that you don't know how to describe it.
"[....] I haven’t even scratched the surface of what’s possible, but with the little more I have experienced I know now there is a vast ocean available in Christ and I daily want to experience more."
But of course, this so-called "knowledge" is not something that you can demonstrate in any objective way, so at the end of the day, those who are best behaved in group A are indistinguishable from those who are best behaved in group B, where group A = believers, and group B = nonbelievers. If what you are asserting were actually true, we'd at least be able to see group A behaving better than group B, statistically. We don't see that.
"I can see how that seems contradictory. The two 'laws' are only.[edited for the economy of space] a Husband who is faithful to his Wife not because it’s a rule of marriage, but because he loves her and only her"
Except that none of that lengthy paragraph overcomes the fact that there are "laws" - evidentally, at least 2 of them - that must be followed. IOW, if one "knows God", one is still following rules/laws. You own words confirm it, so, I guess we can put this part to rest finally.
"Someone stole something valuable from my husband and I and we forgave the person the debt to us and did not seek legal prosecution. We felt that’s what God wanted us to do in that situation."
How is it that I'm able to forgive people who wrong me without being told to do so by a "God", or anyone else? Moreover, what would you think if I required that someone die before I can forgive? Would that not raise an eyebrow?
In any case, it seems that justice wasn't done in your example. Yes, you forgave him or her. I "get" that part. But the actual crime, itself, went unpunished, underscoring my entire point: Clemency(aka mercy) and justice are mutually exclusive.
Have a good weekend.
Boom “Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't you more or less saying that in some situations ethics depend on the situation, but other times, not?”
Correct.
Boom “In any case, when you ask for a specific example of a situation that falls under "not always", it seems to me that it would be better if you would provide such an example, since it is you, not me, who is saying "not always".”
Fair enough. However, you stated “And if that’s the case, isn’t it true that this, too depends of the situation.” I thought you were referring to a particular thing. My question was for clarification.
I’m not sure I can give a particular “action” that is always wrong. I can say murder is always wrong, and yet I agree to your points below. It’s like there is nothing wrong with eating an apple, a stolen apple is another matter. I think every action has it’s parameters of just and unjust uses.
Boom “The end result of both "killing" and "murder" is the same...i.e.. the taking of life. As you just expressed, there is lawful(ethical) taking of life, and then there is unlawful(unethical) taking of life. The common denominator is the taking of life, and that is ethical/unethical *depending* on the situation. Saying that "murder is always wrong" is redundant, and using that as an example to say that ethics are "not always" situational seems, idk, a bit disingenuous to me.”
Ok, I can accept that. We are agreed.
Boom “Not just "part of life", but condoned in the very document that you believe to be "God-breathed". I appreciate your honesty in saying "I don't know", though, which I'm guessing you chalk up to God's "mysterious ways", yes?”
I enjoy thinking things through more than that. I just haven’t spent a lot of time on that subject. I’m just being honest that I don’t know.
Boom “Yes, a different understanding. Unless I've missed something, you cannot demonstrate the implication that you and other believers have a better quality of happiness, peace, and joy than nonbelievers, which, BTW, seems just a tad arrogant to me if you really believe that. But perhaps more importantly, the notion that believers are "happier" than nonbelievers is no more to the point than heroin users are happier than non-heroin users.”
We were speaking earlier of morality only. Not peace, joy, and the like. Speaking for myself I definitely have a joy and a peace that I don’t see in the lives of non-believers that I personally know. I go through something difficult and I watch someone that does not know Jesus go through the same sort of thing and I see a big difference. I can’t speak for every believer or every non-believer, but what I witness is a difference. But, I know my saying it isn’t proof, it is merely my testimony.
Boom “Right, and you know why I don't accept it. At least, I hope by now that you do.”
I get it.
Boom “Neither peace nor happiness - nor any other state of mind, for that matter - are static.”
True emotions and mental states change. But is that all peace and happiness are?
I believe in a peace and a joy that transcends emotions and mental states.
Boom “But of course, this so-called "knowledge" is not something that you can demonstrate in any objective way, so at the end of the day, those who are best behaved in group A are indistinguishable from those who are best behaved in group B, where group A = believers, . . .”
I’m seeing believers emerge who are demonstrating remarkable love, peace, and joy. I am seeing them demonstrate power to where the blind see, the deaf hear, and the lame walk. Darren Wilson, a documentary producer, has put together three documentaries that show this in action. Finger of God, Furious Love, and the most recent one Father of Lights. I’ve personally met and experienced ministry from many of the people in these films. This is nothing like normal church. This is something amazing. This is something akin to the days of the book of Acts.
Boom “Except that none of that lengthy paragraph overcomes the fact that there are "laws" - evidentally, at least 2 of them - that must be followed. ”
But these two are impossible. They can only be “followed” if we have been transformed by Jesus and then we aren’t following them we are living them simply because we know His love and we want to love the people around us. So we don’t lie, cheat, steal, covet, commit adultery, murder, gossip because love doesn’t do these things. This is what is possible with Jesus. We are talking about what we have seen humans accomplish, but what if there is something beyond what you may have experienced from Christian humans, and you are letting their “failure” determine your destiny? What if there is something to all of this? What if there is peace that transcends emotion that can be yours? Are you going to let the actions of those who live immorally dictate what’s available for you?
Boom “How is it that I'm able to forgive people who wrong me without being told to do so by a "God", or anyone else?”
You can forgive without God telling you to. We would forgive the guy in our hearts regardless of whether we would seek the repayment of the debt. But in this situation we felt God wanted us not to not only forgive him – thereby not holding a grudge against him – but also not hold him to his debt to us. We could have chosen to do that on our own, but this is how it happened with us.
Boom “Moreover, what would you think if I required that someone die before I can forgive? Would that not raise an eyebrow?”
That’s different. Jesus death was an eternal scale supernatural and natural act of redemption. Sin leads to death, it kills and destroys body, soul, and spirit. Righteousness is the way of life, health, vitality, and it gives life to body, soul, and spirit. Jesus cancelled the debt of sin and made righteousness possible for any who would come to the Father by Him.
Boom “In any case, it seems that justice wasn't done in your example. Yes, you forgave him or her. I "get" that part. But the actual crime, itself, went unpunished, underscoring my entire point: Clemency(aka mercy) and justice are mutually exclusive.”
I don’t see justice and mercy as mutually exclusive. I think they should always be working together. And I think forgiveness and redemption can be a greater aid to repentance than punishment sometimes. God is fully just and fully merciful at the same time. These two attributes aren’t at war.
Boom “Have a good weekend.”
Thank you. I did. I hope you did too.
Previously, me: “Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't you more or less saying that in some situations ethics depend on the situation, but other times, not?”
You answer: "Correct."
Okay, but if what is ethical is right 100% of the time, I would hope that you can see how your statement is just another way of saying - a redundant way of saying - that "ethics" depend on the situation.
"I think every action has it’s parameters of just and unjust uses."
Then my point seems to be underscored, as well as your previous distinction that ethics do "not always" depend on the situation, erroneous. IOW, no "Commandment" for moral and/or righteous living is absolute. It is up to *us* to determine how to apply ethics. That makes "right and wrong" subject.
"We were speaking earlier of morality only. Not peace, joy, and the like."
I was speaking of the behavior of believers vs non', which is, yes, the subject of "morality". It was you who introduced "peace" and "love", etc., into the mix, with the following....
[...]I have met Christians that make me want what they have in the Lord because I have never seen such love and peace as exudes from their lives. ~ Karla
"Speaking for myself I definitely have a joy and a peace that I don’t see in the lives of non-believers that I personally know. I go through something difficult and I watch someone that does not know Jesus go through the same sort of thing and I see a big difference."
And again, that you believe that you deal with the trials and hardships of life easier than nonbelievers is no more to the point than a person who is under the influence of alcohol deals with life better than a non-drinker. But of course, that has nothing to do with the behavior of believers vs non', although, I would think that the happier one is on the inside, the less likely he or she would feel the need to behave badly, and yet, there is no evidence that believers behave better than non-believers, as a whole. 'Very telling, IMO.
"True emotions and mental states change."
So, you seemingly agree that a state of mind isn't static.
"But is that all peace and happiness are?"
IMO, that's like asking, "Is there anything North of the North Pole?" IOW, it's nonsensical.
"I believe in a peace and a joy that transcends emotions and mental states"
This transcended "peace and joy" that you believe in, is it by chance unchanging(static)? If so, I'm afraid we're back to square-one..i.e..a static state of mind. Being in transfixed, permanent state of peace or joy is no different than a computer that is programmed to be "happy".
"I’m seeing believers emerge who are demonstrating remarkable love, peace, and joy."
Which is nothing that we can't see nonbelievers and people of other religious faith demonstrate.
"I am seeing them demonstrate power to where the blind see, the deaf hear, and the lame walk."
Yes, yes, Benny Hinn, et al. Well, as you probably know, I believe you are deceived. In any case, would you care to tell me why the "faith-healers" whom you believe aren't frauds, but legit', aren't employed at the hospital healing the terminally ill or those with amputated limbs? If they had the powers that they claim to have, wouldn't it be the moral, responsible thing to do, rather than to go around making video testimonials, none of which, BTW, prove anything?
"Darren Wilson, a documentary producer, has put together three documentaries that show this in action."
Is Darren by chance a Xian?
"Finger of God, Furious Love, and the most recent one Father of Lights. I’ve personally met and experienced ministry from many of the people in these films.
And yet, I'll wager that none of these productions have been subject to scientific, peer review or testing. If not, I wonder why not?
In any case, if any one of the so-called faith-healers you've met became exposed as a fraud, I'm guessing that this wouldn't change your mind, as it is made up.
"But these two are impossible. They can only be 'followed' if we have been transformed by Jesus and then we aren’t following them we are living them simply because we know His love and we want to love the people around us"
It seems to me that one of two things must be happening, here. Either, 1) you are following the two rules of your own free will, or 2) you have been "transformed" in such a way that you are abiding by the rules automatically. IOW, you've been made to want to love the people around you. If there's a 3rd option, feel free.
"So [people who know God] don’t lie, cheat, steal, covet, commit adultery, murder, gossip because love doesn’t do these things. This is what is possible with Jesus"
So, "with Jesus", are the above-mentioned acts impossible? If so, surely you see the problem, yes? If those acts are possible, there's also a problem.
Previously, me: “Moreover, what would you think if I required that someone die before I can forgive? Would that not raise an eyebrow?”
"That’s different.[.......]Jesus cancelled the debt of sin and made righteousness possible for any who would come to the Father by Him."
What if I promised to cancel the debt I'm owed, so long as someone dies? 'Better?
In any case, my "debt" is cancelled, provided I'm a Christian. Otherwise, my sentence is "hell". So, when we hear Christians speak of God's awesome "Grace" and "mercy", this is favoritism, since only Christians are eligible for those things. Will you concede this point so we can move on?
"I don’t see justice and mercy as mutually exclusive."
Then perhaps you'd like to try again to explain how justice has been served if a person doesn't have to pay for his or her OWN crime, IOW, if he or she has been granted clemency(aka "mercy"). Where is the "justice" if a judge decides to let a serial killer go scot-free?
"I think they should always be working together."
I know you think that. Unfortunately, you haven't been able to effective illustrate what you think. I don't think it's because you're a poor writer; I think it's because you believe ideas that don't make sense(and you know it).
"And I think forgiveness and redemption can be a greater aid to repentance than punishment sometimes."
Except when it comes to non-Christians, of course.
"God is fully just and fully merciful at the same time. These two attributes aren’t at war."
Again, to just assert it with no accompanying logic isn't very useful.
"Thank you. I did. I hope you did too."
Thanks.
Boom “Okay, but if what is ethical is right 100% of the time, I would hope that you can see how your statement is just another way of saying - a redundant way of saying - that "ethics" depend on the situation.”
Actions, ie: behaviors can be good or bad depending on the context or situation of their use. We do have agreement here. But as I read below there is also disagreement.
Boom “Then my point seems to be underscored, as well as your previous distinction that ethics do "not always" depend on the situation, erroneous. IOW, no "Commandment" for moral and/or righteous living is absolute. It is up to *us* to determine how to apply ethics. That makes "right and wrong" subject.”
Behaviors being right or wrong dependent on the context of their situation ie: killing in self-defense or killing an innocent person for personal reasons. One may be just and the other unjust. This does not mean that there is no absolute for moral living.
There are situations that make killing absolutely wrong every time that situation is in effect – we call this murder.
To say it is up to us to decide right and wrong or that there are no commandments is to say that I can decide what constitutes murder on any given day. Today it might be that people wearing blue shirts ought to be rounded up and executed. Tomorrow let’s say that would be wrong.
This isn’t the way it works.
Right and wrong aren’t subjective just because a behavior in one context is right and in another it is wrong.
Boom “So, you seemingly agree that a state of mind isn't static.”
State of mind isn’t, it fluctuates.
Boom “IMO, that's like asking, "Is there anything North of the North Pole?" IOW, it's nonsensical.”
Not the way I see it.
Boom “This transcended "peace and joy" that you believe in, is it by chance unchanging(static)?”
The peace and joy are unchanging, our experience of it effecting mind, body, emotions, and spirit do change.
Boom “If so, I'm afraid we're back to square-one..i.e..a static state of mind. Being in transfixed, permanent state of peace or joy is no different than a computer that is programmed to be "happy".”
You see the end all of experience as mental, physical, or emotional. I include the spirit as just as relevant and real as the other three ways of experiencing something. We can have a constant peace in our spirit that can be developed to be experienced mentally and emotionally as well. We can learn how to access it and live it out consistently.
Boom “Which is nothing that we can't see nonbelievers and people of other religious faith demonstrate.”
Oh no, this is something that is altogether different and unique to life with Jesus. This is something that if you spent time with a person who lives this way and is transformed like this you could see for yourself the difference.
Boom “Yes, yes, Benny Hinn, et al.”
Kinda. Also people with much lower profiles. Just everyday people who are walking in supernatural power and love.
Boom “Well, as you probably know, I believe you are deceived. “
Ok.
Boom “In any case, would you care to tell me why the "faith-healers" whom you believe aren't frauds, but legit', aren't employed at the hospital healing the terminally ill or those with amputated limbs? If they had the powers that they claim to have, wouldn't it be the moral, responsible thing to do, rather than to go around making video testimonials, none of which, BTW, prove anything? “
Some do hang out at hospitals. Some outside emergency rooms. Students of supernatural schools do this. They also go to malls and Walmarts and such looking for people who need healing. Heidi Baker lives in Africa and she goes deep into villages and heals the deaf, blind, and lame she finds. Some villages she enters have tribal people with weapons who will use them if she doesn’t deliver what she promises as she is a stranger unwelcome in their village until she proves herself.
Boom “Is Darren by chance a Xian?”
Yep.
Boom “And yet, I'll wager that none of these productions have been subject to scientific, peer review or testing. If not, I wonder why not?”
Some people with large healing ministries do travel with a medical staff and doctor. However do you really need a doctor to confirm that a person who can’t see now sees? Can’t a novice figure that out?
I didn’t need a doctor to tell me my congestion was gone – I knew it and everyone around me could hear the difference.
Boom “In any case, if any one of the so-called faith-healers you've met became exposed as a fraud, I'm guessing that this wouldn't change your mind, as it is made up.”
I’ve seen miracles. 10 frauds can’t change that.
Boom “It seems to me that one of two things must be happening, here. Either, 1) you are following the two rules of your own free will, or 2) you have been "transformed" in such a way that you are abiding by the rules automatically. IOW, you've been made to want to love the people around you. If there's a 3rd option, feel free.”
Have you ever seen the difference between a mother who loves her children and so she takes care of them by feeding them, keeping them clean, playing with them, helping them to learn, helping them to stay safe, etc. And a mother who does these things because if she doesn’t social services is going to take her kids?
Both are making choices to do the same actions. But one is empowered to do them by love and the other by an outside enforcer. When you have relationship with God where you truly love Him and you experience His love for you – your actions reflect a love for people like the first mother rather than the second.
"So [people who know God] don’t lie, cheat, steal, covet, commit adultery, murder, gossip because love doesn’t do these things. This is what is possible with Jesus"
Boom “So, "with Jesus", are the above-mentioned acts impossible? If so, surely you see the problem, yes? If those acts are possible, there's also a problem. “
If I was in perfect relationship with Jesus they would not happen at all in my life. I have not found such perfection of my relationship with Jesus. Jesus lived in perfect relationship with the Father and so you saw none of this in His life. He is my perfect example as to what is possible. I am unaware of anyone who has attained such a life outside of Jesus, himself.
Previously, me: “Moreover, what would you think if I required that someone die before I can forgive? Would that not raise an eyebrow?”
"That’s different.[.......]Jesus cancelled the debt of sin and made righteousness possible for any who would come to the Father by Him."
Boom “What if I promised to cancel the debt I'm owed, so long as someone dies? 'Better?”
You are still arguing from a different place altogether.
Boom “In any case, my "debt" is cancelled, provided I'm a Christian. Otherwise, my sentence is "hell".”
Everybody was on the same path to destruction. Jesus cancelled that debt to sin, yes. Provided you accept Him. For He is the redemption. It isn’t something He gives, it is something He became for us through His death and resurrection. So the only way you can get Redemption /Salvation is to get Him. It doesn’t exist outside of Him. He can’t give it away like a verdict.
Boom “So, when we hear Christians speak of God's awesome "Grace" and "mercy", this is favoritism, since only Christians are eligible for those things. Will you concede this point so we can move on?”
See above answer.
"I don’t see justice and mercy as mutually exclusive."
Boom “Then perhaps you'd like to try again to explain how justice has been served if a person doesn't have to pay for his or her OWN crime, IOW, if he or she has been granted clemency(aka "mercy"). Where is the "justice" if a judge decides to let a serial killer go scot-free?”
How did we get to serial killer when we were talking about someone being in debt to someone due to something stolen? In a society a serial killer cannot be free. You keep changing the scenario. We are still talking about earthly consequences correct?
Boom “I know you think that. Unfortunately, you haven't been able to effective illustrate what you think. I don't think it's because you're a poor writer; I think it's because you believe ideas that don't make sense(and you know it).”
I realize we speak a different language in a manner of speaking. We see things very differently and I am trying to rise to the challenge to bridge the gap of our worldviews.
On a purely human basis, since that is the end all for your worldview, what does justice and mercy look like and how ought they to work in your thinking?
"And I think forgiveness and redemption can be a greater aid to repentance than punishment sometimes."
Boom “Except when it comes to non-Christians, of course.”
Especially when it comes to non-Christians. Christians have redemption already because of Jesus. Jesus came not to condemn sinners but to save them, not to bring punishment, but forgiveness.
"Actions, ie: behaviors can be good or bad depending on the context or situation of their use."
Yes, Karla, I "get it". You are reaffirming what's already been affirmed and agreed upon. What you just described is situational ethics, something I've been supporting since the beginning, whereas, while you've been agreeing, you've been making an irrelevant, redundant distinction along the way, as seen here....
"There are situations that make killing absolutely wrong every time that situation is in effect – we call this murder"
Karla? If you murder someone, you are STILL *killing* them. IOW, if I ask you if killing is wrong, absolutely, the correct answer must be "no", since you agree that killing in self-defense is acceptable, and killing for reasons other than self-defense(murder) is not acceptable. To say that "murder is always wrong" is redundant, and comes across as disingenuous. It's like saying, "What's wrong is always wrong!" I seriously hope that we can move past this, but by the looks of what you say next, we cannot....
"To say it is up to us to decide right and wrong or that there are no commandments is to say that I can decide what constitutes murder on any given day."
No! It means that you decide when it's self-defense, or not, and if killing in self-defense is "right" and you kill in self-defense, then guess what... *you* have decided what's right. Karla, in no document, bible included, is every single conceivable situation under the sun that one might take a life laid out with the respective "right" instructions for each scenario. Hence, why it is clearly up to us to evaluate every situation on its own circumstances, and then decide the ethical action to take ourselves.
"Today it might be that people wearing blue shirts ought to be rounded up and executed."
You are free to decide such a ridiculous thing - albeit, you would never do so - but even if you did, you'd be locked up because the majority of us know you'd be dangerous to society, and we wouldn't need a bible to determine that. You seem to be grasping as straws now.
"Right and wrong aren’t subjective just because a behavior in one context is right and in another it is wrong"
You are misconstruing what's being said to you, and I hope not deliberately. I'm NOT saying "right" is subjective; "wrong" is subjective. Right is always right; wrong is always wrong. I'm saying what makes *an action* right(or wrong) is subjective. Whether taking a life is right or not doesn't affect the meaning of "right". The taking of life is right(or not) based on whether that taking of life was in self-defense(or not). Can we please-oh-please moved past this?
"The peace and joy are unchanging, our experience of it effecting mind, body, emotions, and spirit do change"
You are either experiencing "peace and joy", or you aren't. That there might be varying degrees of it doesn't make the experiences something other than peaceful or joyful, for instance, discontented and saddened.
"We can have a constant peace in our spirit that can be developed to be experienced mentally and emotionally as well"
Karla, one is either experiencing peace, or they aren't. If you expect me to believe that your experiences are somehow better than mine, that's one thing, but if your experience is admittedly "constant", you are only underscoring my point.
"Oh no, this is something that is altogether different and unique to life with Jesus. This is something that if you spent time with a person who lives this way and is transformed like this you could see for yourself the difference."
It's simply amazing to me how your religious convictions have you assuming things about people whom you don't even know. FYI, I was raised by dyed-in-the-wool, bible-believing, fundamentalist grandparents, both of whom believed just as fervently and faithfully as you do, and even used the same (convincing at the time) arguments that you use. Better!...I spent 2/3rds of my life believing that "Jesus" was my "Savior". I believed the whole "Walking with Jesus" rigmarole just like you.
"Kinda. Also people with much lower profiles. Just everyday people who are walking in supernatural power and love."
Karla, "everyday people" aren't claiming to work medical miracles. You are exaggerating to make your point.
"If I was in perfect relationship with Jesus they would not happen at all in my life."
So, is this an admission that being in a "perfect relationship with Jesus" removes all temptation? Yes or no?
"I have not found such perfection of my relationship with Jesus."
In which case, your life is indistinguishable from that of the life of any other nearly perfect, but ultimately fallible, person.
"Everybody was on the same path to destruction."
On a "path"? Or already there..i.e..guilty and sentenced?
"Jesus cancelled that debt to sin, yes. Provided you accept Him."
So, Jesus' "inifinite love" has limits, his offer has strings attached, and his "mercy" is only extended to believers. It's good to get this sort of thing cleared up, finally.
"How did we get to serial killer when we were talking about someone being in debt to someone due to something stolen? In a society a serial killer cannot be free. You keep changing the scenario. We are still talking about earthly consequences correct?"
Your example of something being stolen from your home is an earthly crime, and yet, that's evidently okay to make a point about "mercy" and "forgiveness". So? What is different about my making a point about injustice by using an earthly example as well? Good grief, if we were limited to everything being in a "spiritual" context, all discussion would be pointless.
"On a purely human basis, since that is the end all for your worldview, what does justice and mercy look like and how ought they to work in your thinking?"
Before I answer - and I will - I want to know if you agree that "justice" on a "Spiritual basis" should be better(as in MORE just, not less) than on a "purely human basis". Yes or no?
Boom “Karla? If you murder someone, you are STILL *killing* them. IOW, if I ask you if killing is wrong, absolutely, the correct answer must be "no", since you agree that killing in self-defense is acceptable, and killing for reasons other than self-defense(murder) is not acceptable. “
Agreed.
Boom “To say that "murder is always wrong" is redundant, and comes across as disingenuous. It's like saying, "What's wrong is always wrong!" I seriously hope that we can move past this, but by the looks of what you say next, we cannot....”
Ok.
Boom “No! It means that you decide when it's self-defense, or not, and if killing in self-defense is "right" and you kill in self-defense, then guess what... *you* have decided what's right. Karla, in no document, bible included, is every single conceivable situation under the sun that one might take a life laid out with the respective "right" instructions for each scenario. Hence, why it is clearly up to us to evaluate every situation on its own circumstances, and then decide the ethical action to take ourselves. “
True, there is no document, even the Bible, where every right or wrong behavior is spelled out. Agreed.
Boom “You are free to decide such a ridiculous thing - albeit, you would never do so - but even if you did, you'd be locked up because the majority of us know you'd be dangerous to society, and we wouldn't need a bible to determine that. You seem to be grasping as straws now.”
Sorry. Wasn’t trying to be ridiculous, but I’m trying to make a distinction between situational and relativistic morality.
Boom “You are misconstruing what's being said to you, and I hope not deliberately. I'm NOT saying "right" is subjective; "wrong" is subjective. Right is always right; wrong is always wrong.”
Ok, We agree here, but I don’t know how you arrive at that conclusion.
Boom “I'm saying what makes *an action* right(or wrong) is subjective. Whether taking a life is right or not doesn't affect the meaning of "right". The taking of life is right(or not) based on whether that taking of life was in self-defense(or not). Can we please-oh-please moved past this?”
I agree once again.
Boom “You are either experiencing "peace and joy", or you aren't. That there might be varying degrees of it doesn't make the experiences something other than peaceful or joyful, for instance, discontented and saddened. “
One is either experiencing it to some degree or not, agreed.
But I’m talking about the substance of peace and of joy as being constant. Let me not beat around the bush, peace and joy are in Christ so when we have Christ we have the constant unchanging source of peace and joy. I’m sure you’ve heard, the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. So these things are found in the Presence of God. So I have a full measure of Him at all times, I learn in the course of my relationship with Jesus to access this reality to the extent that it does begin to affect my mind and emotions. It’s an incredible thing when I tap into that reality especially when I do it for an extended period of time.
Boom “Karla, one is either experiencing peace, or they aren't. If you expect me to believe that your experiences are somehow better than mine, that's one thing, but if your experience is admittedly "constant", you are only underscoring my point.”
It’s availability to me is constant; my level of experience is not. I can’t know if I experience more peace than you. Based on some of your comments in your next post, you may very well have Jesus even if you have stopped believing.
Boom “It's simply amazing to me how your religious convictions have you assuming things about people whom you don't even know. FYI, I was raised by dyed-in-the-wool, bible-believing, fundamentalist grandparents, both of whom believed just as fervently and faithfully as you do, and even used the same (convincing at the time) arguments that you use. Better!...I spent 2/3rds of my life believing that "Jesus" was my "Savior". I believed the whole "Walking with Jesus" rigmarole just like you.”
I’m sorry, Boom. I wasn’t trying to imply you haven’t met real Christians, etc.. I was thinking of people, unlike myself, that I have encountered that seemed to walk out a transformed life in a way I have yet to experience. I’m looking at these people and seeing that there is more in Jesus than I’ve experienced. I want that kind of love, peace, power.
Boom “Karla, "everyday people" aren't claiming to work medical miracles. You are exaggerating to make your point.”
Yeah they are. I’m talking about college students and coffee baristas, and young children, and at home moms, etc. who stop and heal a person in pain in the mall or in Walmart. I’m not merely talking about the people who fill a stadium to hear them preach or for a healing revival meeting. I’m talking about everyday people.
Boom “So, is this an admission that being in a "perfect relationship with Jesus" removes all temptation? Yes or no?”
Jesus had temptation, but didn’t fall to it. So I guess temptation would still be there.
Boom “In which case, your life is indistinguishable from that of the life of any other nearly perfect, but ultimately fallible, person.”
I haven’t met any nearly perfect people.
Boom “On a "path"? Or already there..i.e..guilty and sentenced?”
We were all guilty of sin and some experience destruction from that sin (ie consequences) in this life. We see the effects of addictions, and other harmful behavior. This continues into eternity when we leave this earthly life. Jesus takes away that guilt, takes away that eternal path and brings life where there had only been death. You know this is the claim of Christ whether you believe it or not.
Boom “So, Jesus' "inifinite love" has limits, his offer has strings attached, and his "mercy" is only extended to believers. It's good to get this sort of thing cleared up, finally.”
How can His mercy only be extended to believers? Every believer was once an unbeliever who God gave His mercy while they were yet sinners, yet unbelievers, etc. You don’t have to even be saved to experience His mercy. He is giving it to you all the time. If only we could see all that He keeps from us and all the good He brings our way.
Boom “Your example of something being stolen from your home is an earthly crime, and yet, that's evidently okay to make a point about "mercy" and "forgiveness". So? What is different about my making a point about injustice by using an earthly example as well? Good grief, if we were limited to everything being in a "spiritual" context, all discussion would be pointless.”
I have no problem with earthly examples, but it seems to keep bouncing between earthly matters and heavenly matters. I was just seeking clarification. I would say something regarding society and justice and suddenly we were talking about Jesus and his crucifixion.
I was never arguing serial killers should be set free or absolved of the legal consequences.
"On a purely human basis, since that is the end all for your worldview, what does justice and mercy look like and how ought they to work in your thinking?"
Boom “Before I answer - and I will - I want to know if you agree that "justice" on a "Spiritual basis" should be better(as in MORE just, not less) than on a "purely human basis". Yes or no?”
Yes, the justice of heaven, or of God will be more righteous than what we can come up with on earth even when we are trying to copy the justice of God. God is perfect, we are not.
Lastly, why did you stop believing? Does the real heart of the matter have to do with the questions you ask about justice, and God's goodness, or is it something else entirely?(I ask, but please know I place no pressure on you to answer)
This is a continuation of my responses to your previous batch of comments. I may get to the newest ones today, I may not.
"Christians have redemption already because of Jesus. Jesus came not to condemn sinners but to save them, not to bring punishment, but forgiveness." ~ Karla
Saying that "Jesus came not to condemn sinners" is of no practical value if we "sinners" - that is, all of us - were born condemned.
IOW, if we all came out of the womb "guilty" as charged, then saying that "Jesus came not to condemn us", yadda, yadda, is moot. It seems Jesus' was a day late and a dollar short.
"Have you ever seen the difference between a mother who loves her children and so she takes care of them by feeding them, keeping them clean, playing with them, helping them to learn, helping them to stay safe, etc. And a mother who does these things because if she doesn’t social services is going to take her kids?
Yes, I have. And in fact, now that you mention it, I've seen mothers who are nonreligious, humanists do all of the aforementioned. IOW, no "God" is required to love and care for those we love. That you assert that you and your fellow Christians need to be "made righteous" in order to love and care for those close to you says more about you than it does the "God" you worship.
"I’ve seen miracles. 10 frauds can’t change that."
And yet, surely you acknowledge that there are frauds out there. If so, IMO, it is much, much more likely that they are all frauds, than some of them legit', and some frauds. In any case, perhaps you can tell your readership by what means you determine the frauds from the legit' "faith-healers".
"But one is empowered to do them by love and the other by an outside enforcer."
The irony is so thick that you can cut it with a knife.
Boom “This is a continuation of my responses to your previous batch of comments. I may get to the newest ones today, I may not.”
Ok. I will answer this set, but might not get more time today for more. We’ll see how the day goes.
Boom “Saying that "Jesus came not to condemn sinners" is of no practical value if we "sinners" - that is, all of us - were born condemned. “
We were born condemned because our sin condemns us. He came to rescue us from that reality. He didn’t cause it, the problem was caused by humans, not by God.
Boom “Yes, I have. And in fact, now that you mention it, I've seen mothers who are nonreligious, humanists do all of the aforementioned. IOW, no "God" is required to love and care for those we love. That you assert that you and your fellow Christians need to be "made righteous" in order to love and care for those close to you says more about you than it does the "God" you worship.”
I’m saying there is a difference between doing “good deeds” because you have to and doing it because you love regardless of whether the person is a Christian or not.
Boom “And yet, surely you acknowledge that there are frauds out there. If so, IMO, it is much, much more likely that they are all frauds, than some of them legit', and some frauds. In any case, perhaps you can tell your readership by what means you determine the frauds from the legit' "faith-healers".”
Sure there are frauds. Every true thing has a counterfeit imitation. Some businesses are fraudulent, should I distrust all businesses because of it?
In my case, I’ve seen miracles. I’ve had people I’ve prayed for get healed. And I’ve been on the other side and gotten healed. So I know it’s real.
"But one is empowered to do them by love and the other by an outside enforcer."
Boom “The irony is so thick that you can cut it with a knife. “
Lol. We see God very differently.
Previously, me: "Saying that 'Jesus came not to condemn sinners' is of no practical value if we 'sinners' - that is, all of us - were born condemned."
You respond: "We were born condemned because our[EDIT]
Not to be callous, but I couldn't care less about the "because", Karla. You are doing the usual.
Jesus came >>>AFTER<<< Adam & Co. put "Original Sin" into motion, yes? Yes. So, it is the Garden duo's actions that "condemn" all of us. Now, aside from that utter spitting in the face of "justice", to sit there and say that "Jesus came not to condemn us[yadda, yadda]" is a chronology error, as, read.....WE ARE ALREADY ALL CONDEMNED!..and thus, condemned BEFORE Jesus' (supposed) arrival. 'Follow?
"He came to rescue us from that reality. He didn’t cause it, the problem was caused by humans, not by God.
a) I didn't SAY Jesus' caused it, and b) only TWO humans made the one-time, incorrect decision. The suggestion that one person and a possible accomplice can commit a "crime" on your and my behalf is an utter joke, not to mention an abortion of "justice" and "free will". I'm essentially "guilty" for being born. Nonsense, Karla. Nonsense.
"Jesus had temptation, but didn’t fall to it. So I guess temptation would still be there."
You "guess", do you? In any case, even if you could be sure that temptation is there when in "a relationship with Jesus", then we can conclude that the potential to fall into that temptation is there. If your position is that one would never, ever, EVER, under any circumstances, fall into temptation when "in Christ"(speaking your own language), then maybe you care to explain how that is different from a robot programmed to never, ever fall into temptation.
"We were all guilty of sin and some experience destruction from that sin (ie consequences) in this life."
I'm curious---is this your way of justifying children who starve to death while your all-loving, all-powerful "God" does nothing? IOW, good Christian Karla gets her "sin" swept under the carpet and her prayers answered, but starving children do not, and this is because of the consequences of their "sin"? Please set me straight on this.
"How can His mercy only be extended to believers?"
How? Very simply---because according to your own words, to BELIEVE is a requirement, and thus, the "mercy" is only extended to those who meet the requirement..i.e..believers. Nonbelievers aren't eligible. If non-believers were eligible, theoretically, your "God" could go into "hell" and release some of the occupants, and THAT would be mercy, and thus, then you would have a case. Until/unless that happens, you don't have a case. As it stands, the "mercy" is only extended to believers(aka, favoritism)
"Lol. We see God very differently.
I don't believe in "God", Karla. I "see" people's concept of a "God", yes, and yours doesn't make a lick of sense. If you would only just say that "faith" takes over where reason leaves off(or something similar), I could respect that much more than your incessant defending of bad beliefs and the accompanying , demonstrably false apologetics.
"In my case, I’ve seen miracles."
Every believers says that.
"I’ve had people I’ve prayed for get healed."
Again, every believer says that.
And I’ve been on the other side and gotten healed. So I know it’s real."
Once more, every believer says that. And did you know that not every disease or aliment is terminal? Wow! Right? IOW, some ailments would go away on their own, with, and without medication. Speaking of, you've been to doctor or hospital before and been prescribed medicine, yes? Okay, why? If you have soooo much confidence in "faith-healing", why do you bother with doctors and medicine?
"Sure there are frauds. Every true thing has a counterfeit imitation. Some businesses are fraudulent, should I distrust all businesses because of it?"
You shouldn't distrust all businesses, no, but since you *know* that there are frauds out there, isn't that a good reason to not assume that just because a business appears on the surface to be doing a good, honest job, that it is??
Previously, me: “Before I answer - and I will - I want to know if you agree that 'justice' on a 'Spiritual basis' should be better(as in MORE just, not less) than on a 'purely human basis'. Yes or no?”
You respond: "Yes, the justice of heaven, or of God will be more righteous than what we can come up with on earth even when we are trying to copy the justice of God. God is perfect, we are not."
Okay, but I didn't say anything about "more righteous"; I said "MORE just". The word "righteous" has religious overtones. But since you talk about, "trying to copy the justice of God", I'll take that to mean that you accept that we are talking about "justice".
justice:
The quality of being just, impartial, or fair(ref: Merriam-Webster)
The administering of deserved punishment or reward(ref: Dictionary.com)
For analogy, imagine 2 groups of 10 men. In group 1, each of the men are tried, convicted, confessed serial-killers, all of whom have been sentenced to death by lethal injection.
In group 2, each of the men are just ordinary men, none of whom have ever had any trouble with the law more serious than a traffic ticket.
According to our society and its judicial-system(system of JUSTICE), each of the men in group 1 deserve death. In contrast, according to your theology and its judicial-system(system of JUSTICE), each of the men in group 1 *and* each of the men in group 2 deserve death.
According to our judicial-system, there is not one thing under the sun that the men in group 1 can say or do to avoid the consequences of their crimes. For justice to be served, their punishment must be carried out. IOW, there is no clemency(mercy) available to them.
According to your theology's judicial-system and its "judge", any man from either group can avoid their punishment by *doing X.
(*Note, I'm not going to argue with you about what "X" is because it's irrelevant to the point, below)
According to our society's judicial-system, clemency(mercy) is not available to the men in group 1. Each man must pay for their respective crimes.
Conversely, according to your theology's judicial-system, clemency(mercy) is available to any man who does X. According to your theology, it is actually feasible that all of the men(killers) in group 1 could be granted clemency(mercy) and escape their punishment, while it be feasible that all of the men in group 2 receive their punishment, which, BTW, is to be tortured with fire for all of eternity(vs simply ceasing to exist)
Now, please explain how your theology's judicial-system is MORE "just"(fair) than our own. Please explain how, in a case where "mercy" is given, how "justice" is served. 'Listening.
"Lastly, why did you stop believing?"
In 2 words, cognitive dissonance.
Boom “Jesus came >>>AFTER<<< Adam & Co. put "Original Sin" into motion, yes? Yes. So, it is the Garden duo's actions that "condemn" all of us. Now, aside from that utter spitting in the face of "justice", . . . ”
They set the ball in motion per se, but we have our own guilt for none of us are without sin.
Boom “a) I didn't SAY Jesus' caused it, and b) only TWO humans made the one-time, incorrect decision.”
Nope. All of us have sinned.
Boom “The suggestion that one person and a possible accomplice can commit a "crime" on your and my behalf is an utter joke, not to mention an abortion of "justice" and "free will". I'm essentially "guilty" for being born. Nonsense, Karla. Nonsense.”
So you’ve never sinned? You don’t do things you believe to be wrong?
Boom “You "guess", do you? In any case, even if you could be sure that temptation is there when in "a relationship with Jesus", then we can conclude that the potential to fall into that temptation is there. If your position is that one would never, ever, EVER, under any circumstances, fall into temptation when "in Christ" . . . ”
I am not saying a Christian never sins. I’m saying at the moment a person is fully aligned with Christ they are not sinning. Does that happen in all areas of our life for even a short period of time? I haven’t experienced that. I’m still a work in progress. I don’t know how to stay fully aligned at all times. But I know that it is possible, because Jesus gave up His God power to come and live as a human and yet tapped into God as a human to show us what is possible. If He can do it, it is possible. Has it been done, outside of Jesus time on earth? I don’t know.
Boom “I'm curious---is this your way of justifying children who starve to death while your all-loving, all-powerful "God" does nothing?”
Goodness no. Actually I believe He has given us, the Church, the power and authority to fix such problems. The Church lost sight of this for a long time and now is gaining sight of it again and mobilizing.
Boom “IOW, good Christian Karla gets her "sin" swept under the carpet and her prayers answered, but starving children do not, and this is because of the consequences of their "sin"? ”
Children aren’t starving because they have sinned. They are starving because the national system is not healthy and its corrupt and not based on the ways of God that would enable a people to care for themselves and provide for their young. It’s our job as a Church to demonstrate God’s ways and to help people become able to experience a better life. Many ministries are working on this. Many more are needed.
Boom “How? Very simply---because according to your own words, to BELIEVE is a requirement, and thus, the "mercy" is only extended to those who meet the requirement..i.e..believers.”
No, God is having mercy on people all the time who don’t believe. You don’t have to believe in Jesus to get healed, or protected, or given financial blessing, or lots of things. He is having all kinds of mercy on people all the time.
Boom “Nonbelievers aren't eligible. If non-believers were eligible, theoretically, your "God" could go into "hell" and release some of the occupants, and THAT would be mercy, and thus, then you would have a case. Until/unless that happens, you don't have a case. As it stands, the "mercy" is only extended to believers(aka, favoritism)”
There is something special reserved for those that choose Christ. But that doesn’t mean He isn’t still showing mercy and kindness and love to those who do not believe.
Boom “I don't believe in "God", Karla. I "see" people's concept of a "God", yes, and yours doesn't make a lick of sense. If you would only just say that "faith" takes over where reason leaves off(or something similar), I could respect that much more than your incessant defending of bad beliefs and the accompanying , demonstrably false apologetics.”
We have a different view of faith as well.
Boom “Every believers says that.”
Not like I’m saying it. Every believer doesn’t believe God can heal through people today on the spot.
Boom “Again, every believer says that.”
That doesn’t refute anything, nor is it true. I know believers who don’t believe in healing like that.
Boom “Once more, every believer says that.”
Once again, no they don’t all say that. Nor does it refute anything.
Boom “And did you know that not every disease or aliment is terminal? Wow! Right? IOW, some ailments would go away on their own, with, and without medication”
Does an arm grow out on its own after the wrist has been surgically removed?
Does a serious upper respitory infection, compounded with asthma go away in an instant?
Does a foot that hurt so bad it required surgery – scheduled a week later – suddenly heal itself, the surgery cancelled and the pain never return?
Does a loss of hearing suddenly return to a person who hasn’t heard well out of that ear for years?
Does a numb foot -- nerve endings damaged as a child – suddenly gain feeling after 20 years and work perfectly causing the grown man’s eyes to fill with tears because he can feel his sock on his foot for the first time since he was a child.
I’ve seen all this and more.
Boom “Speaking of, you've been to doctor or hospital before and been prescribed medicine, yes? Okay, why? If you have soooo much confidence in "faith-healing", why do you bother with doctors and medicine?”
Yep. God uses science and doctors to heal as well.
Boom “You shouldn't distrust all businesses, no, but since you *know* that there are frauds out there, isn't that a good reason to not assume that just because a business appears on the surface to be doing a good, honest job, that it is?? “
Caution is warranted if you have had lots of fraudulent experiences. But I haven’t had such experiences with healing, I’ve been healed, have healed, and believe it is something not only the specially anointed can do, but everyday Christians.
I will have to respond to the last one when I get more time.
Boom “Now, please explain how your theology's judicial-system is MORE "just"(fair) than our own. Please explain how, in a case where "mercy" is given, how "justice" is served. 'Listening.”
In our earthly society, we see group 1 as worse offenders than group 2, but even if group 2 didn’t break societies laws worse than a traffic ticket it doesn’t mean that they haven’t lied, hated, manipulated, gossiped, belittled, slandered, withheld forgiveness, or had any other evil in their thoughts, minds, will, heart (whatever you want to call the inside of us). The same root issue is at stake whether the person kills multiple people, or hates their brother, or has contempt for their wife, or doesn’t love their children, or isn’t kind to their employees or coworkers, etc. It all leads to death and destruction. That is the end result of wickedness regardless of whether a person dies a natural death or a state imposed one.
Now for mercy: Mercy is beneficial to the giver of mercy as it is to the receiver. Even a punishment can be merciful. We see this when we don’t let a child have his or her own way – they take that as unjust that they can’t have 10 cookies, but we see it as merciful that we prevent the stomach ache. Sometimes the stomach ache can be more merciful to the child to keep them from repeating the action than a life style of excess.
Mercy is not always removing the consequences or punishment. But sometimes it is. And yes it is given at different measures for different people. One who is forgiven much is much more appreciative than one who is forgiven little. I can forgive a person for stealing a $1 from me and a person who stole $10,000 the person who stole $10,000 is going to be forgiven more. God forgives the killer as well as the liar or the gossiper by the work of Jesus.
If a serial killer locked up in jail comes to Jesus, Jesus forgives Him and forgets His sin. He still has to serve His time on earth or face his execution.
Boom “In 2 words, cognitive dissonance.”
I know the definition for this, but Isn’t that like saying you stopped believing because you stopped believing? Was it doctrine or practice, or an experience? Is there something that stands out as the thing that was no longer believable? Or did you just one day realize that you had lost belief in most of it over time? I’m not trying to get you to divulge something I can pick on. I’m just asking because I care.
"Even a punishment can be merciful." ~ Karla
There are 2 or 3 statements that you've made, that, alone, have me questioning whether it isn't a complete and utter waste of time to try to find common ground with you. But I've got to say, the above statement takes the proverbial cake. 'Utterly preposterous, Karla.
So, let me see, as your fellow human beings are sitting in "Hell" being burned with FIRE, 24/7, for all of eternity, you see this as an act of "mercy", and you actually have the audacity to compare it to withholding cookies to avoid a tummy ache!?!?!? LMAO!!!!!!!! Oh, goodness! How you can tell me this stuff with a straight face is beyond me. It really, really is. Sheesh!
It seems to me that you link everything to "hell". I'm not thinking that way when I give an analogy. I'm only thinking of explaining mercy. I wasn't discussing whether hell was merciful, but whether justice and mercy could be simultaneously issued.
Previously, me(twice now):
“Jesus came >>>AFTER<<< Adam & Co. put 'Original Sin' into motion, yes? Yes. So, it is the Garden duo's actions that 'condemn' all of us. Now, aside from that utter spitting in the face of 'justice'”
You respond: "They set the ball in motion per se, but we have our own guilt for none of us are without sin."
It simply amazes me that you are still harping on the "why" we're born condemned when I've told you two times now that the point I'm trying to make has absolutely nothing to do with the "why", but the when. I'll try one last time, and then I'm throwing my hands up on this topic.
Karla, you agree that we ALL come into the world condemned. Therefore, it is a moot point for you to turn around and tell me that "Jesus came not to condemn us[yadda, yadda]. Why is it moot? Because we were ALREADY CONDEMNED when "Jesus" arrived on the scene. What I'm saying is, well OF COURSE "Jesus" didn't come to condemn us!!! Sheesh!
Previously, me(trying to make the same point over and over):
“a) I didn't SAY Jesus' caused it, and b) only TWO humans made the one-time, incorrect decision.”
You respond: "Nope. All of us have sinned."
More tangential equivocation. But okay, yes, we all have "sinned", because, as the story goes, the first two human prototypes ate a piece of fruit that they were forbidden to eat. That set "Original Sin" into motion. So, had those two prototypes not eaten the bad, magic fruit, I have to wonder if you would still be proclaiming, "All of us have sinned". Well? Yes or no? IOW, what would have happened had they *not* eaten the fruit? Would the human race have inherited "perfection", as opposed to a "flaw"? Well?
"So you’ve never sinned?"
The concept of "sin" is a Christian construct. Christianity has never, ever been objectively confirmed. If I'm wrong, you can provide that confirmation and I'll have a look at it. In the mean time, as you well know I'm willing to pretend like Christianity is true to make a rhetorical point here and there.
Okay, so, yes, I've "sinned" according to your theology, Karla. According to your theology, I am a born "sinner", condemned, fresh out of the womb.(stop me where I'm wrong) I was born this way because two characters in a book ate a piece of fruit that a "God" told them not to eat.(again, stop me where I'm wrong) One consequence of those two individuals eating the fruit is that all of their descendants(the entire human race) inherited a flaw called "sin", which leaves them unable to do anything good or righteous on their own(without "God").
Case-in-point: I am being held accountable for a flaw that I have no control over, and this flaw arose because of two other people's one-time wrongful decision. I reiterate: That, Karla, is an abortion of reason and a mockery of justice.
"You don’t do things you believe to be wrong?"
Yes, I'm human. Humans, by nature, make mistakes. But making mistakes doesn't preclude me from doing "right" things, too. This is where the bible's redactors flubbed it. We are to believe that the human race is "inherently evil", that we can do no good without "God". This is demonstrably false. You believe demonstrably false ideals.
Previously, me: “I'm curious---is this your way of justifying children who starve to death while your all-loving, all-powerful 'God' does nothing?”
You respond" "Goodness no. Actually I believe He has given us, the Church, the power and authority to fix such problems."
Ah, so "God" has given us the means to fix our own problems, while he stands there doing nothing, and then gets all the credit. Oh, and that world, of course, is indistinguishable from a world in which there is no "God", a world in which we obviously would have to take care of our own problems. 'Coincidence, right?
"Children aren’t starving because they have sinned. They are starving bec [long apologetic edited for the economy of space] istries are working on this. Many more are needed."
Karla, YOU said that some people suffer the consequences of "sin" in this "earthly life". Remember? Please stop changing the subject. If starving children isn't an example of "the consequences of sin" in this life, then FINE. Provide an example, and I'll reapply my question to that.
Previously, me: “How? Very simply---because according to your own words, to BELIEVE is a requirement, and thus, the 'mercy' is only extended to those who meet the requirement..i.e..believers.”
You respond: No, God is having mercy on people all the time who don’t believe."
More of the same..i.e...equivocation. I am talking about how "mercy" applies to a *specific* instance, and you know it. I am talking about how nonbelievers are NOT eligible for your all-loving biblegod's "mercy" when it comes to their final destination. I, of course, refer to the despicable doctrine of "Hell".
Please, so we can move past this, stop equivocating and just concede that only Christians are eligible for clemency from "Hell", and non-Christians are not eligible.
"There is something special reserved for those that choose Christ."
Yes!! And as I've been saying all along, that "something" is clemency from "Hell", which, BTW, we supposedly ALL deserve. IOW, in Xianity, some people get what they deserve; others do not. That's some "justice".
"Every believer doesn’t believe God can heal through people today on the spot"
This is true, and I'm conceding this frivolous point. I thought it would be understood that I merely meant that you're not claiming anything special or unique. But never mind, I misspoke and I'm not going to sit here and defend errors(hint)
"Does an arm grow out on its own after the wrist has been surgically removed?"
No! Case in point.
"God uses science and doctors to heal as well."
Here we are again. A world in which "God" helps doctors be successful at times, and other times, not, is indistinguishable from a world with no "God", where doctors are successful sometimes, and other times not. Another coincidence, right? ..::sigh::
Previously, me: “Now, please explain how your theology's judicial-system is MORE 'just'(fair) than our own. Please explain how, in a case where 'mercy' is given, how "justice" is served. 'Listening.”
You respond: "In our earthly society, we see group 1 as worse offenders than group 2, but eve[EDIT]..."
Do you see a serial-killer as a bigger offender than a person who double-parks? If "yes", then guess what?...you are only underscoring my point. That is, if Xian "justice" is so much BETTER than the justice of our "earthly society", then why don't we give double-parkers the death penalty? Please show some consistency.
"[....]it doesn’t mean that they haven’t lied, hated, manipulated, gossiped, belittled, slandered, withheld forgiveness, or had any other evil in their thoughts, minds, will, heart (whatever you want to call the inside of us)."
Again, if you believe that those things warrant being tortured with FIRE, then isn't curious that we don't do that to people who "gossip", "slander", etc? Hmmm....
"The same root issue is at stake whether the person kills multiple people, or hates their brother, or has contempt for their wife, or doesn’t love their children, or isn’t kind to their employees or coworkers, etc. It all leads to death and destruction."
My point underscored yet once more. See, Karla, in your twisted world, a man who kills multiple people is on equal (immoral) grounds as someone who isn't kind to a coworker. But yet, if that system of "justice"..::gags::..is so much better, so much fairer, so much more "just" than our own, it seems to me that you and your Christian brethren would legislating to adopt that "system". Yes, 'can't wait for the days when we put a person on death row for disrespecting a coworker.
"That is the end result of wickedness regardless of whether a person dies a natural death or a state imposed one."
Yes, yes...best of luck with that.
"It seems to me that you link everything to 'hell'."
I'm not linking "everything to hell"; I'm using it to illustrate how "mercy" and "justice" are mutually exclusive in THAT instance. And they are.
"I'm not thinking that way when I give an analogy."
If I'm speaking of a specific instance..e.g..."Hell", then maybe your "analogy" ought to actually be analogous to that? If it's not, is that my fault, or yours?
"I'm only thinking of explaining mercy."
Right, I know. I would posit that the reason that you only want to concentrate on "mercy" outside of "Hell" is because you know d@mned-well that said "mercy" is, a) not available to non-Christians(as in, for the expressed purpose of escaping "Hell"), and b) incompatible with "justice".
Again, if we ALL deserve "Hell", but yet, Christians can be granted clemency(aka mercy), then justice is subverted in their cases.
"God forgives the killer as well as the liar or the gossiper by the work of Jesus."
This apologetic is just a round-about way of saying that there is no relevant "sin" except being a non-Christian. The so-called "work of Jesus" is a blood sacrifice for which only Christians benefit. There is no way around this. Yet, you continually defend this.
"If a serial killer locked up in jail comes to Jesus, Jesus forgives Him and forgets His sin. He still has to serve His time on earth or face his execution."
The serial-killer dies in jail. Big deal. According to your theology, he then ends up rewarded with a life of never-ending bliss.
BTW, that means that you could be singing hymns next to child molesters, serial-killers, and rapists. The irony...it stings!
A few other things:
First....
In my initial comment if I have erroneously assumed that you believe that a child needs Christianity exclusively in order to "receive a good moral education"(from the article), then I owe you an apology. Let me know.
Secondly, this quote from your blog....
"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything." ~ GK Chesterton
The word "Evolutionist". Why do you suppose that we don't ever hear the word "Gravitationalist", too? 'Just curious, because both evolution and gravitation are scientific theories. IOW, I wonder why creationists would take issue with one theory and not the other.
Also, the study of the origins of the Universe isn't the field of "Evolution". "Evolution" deals with how life evolved over time, and BTW, millions of bible-believing Xians accept the theory of Evolution.
Lastly, nontheists don't believe that "nothing should turn itself into everything". 'Classic strawman.
And I forgot to address the following in regards to when you asked me why I stopped believing...
Me: “In 2 words, cognitive dissonance.”
You respond: "I know the definition for this, but Isn’t that like saying you stopped believing because you stopped believing?"
No, it isn't like that. Years and years of nagging doubt, starting as early as 9 yrs old. Christianity doesn't make sense to me now, and it never really has. I finally could no longer ignore those doubts, so I actually started to investigate the origins of Xianity and writings that were critical of it. My eyes were opened.
"Was it doctrine or practice, or an experience?"
All of the above.
"Is there something that stands out as the thing that was no longer believable?"
Not "thing", but things..e.g.. Christianity's doctrine, its followers, and the accompanying claims were no longer believable.
"I’m just asking because I care"
At face-value I can appreciate that. On the other hand, I think that you are probably concerned for religious reasons, as I can see no other reason why anyone would be concerned.
Boom “It simply amazes me that you are still harping on the "why" we're born condemned when I've told you two times now that the point I'm trying to make has absolutely nothing to do with the "why", but the when. I'll try one last time, and then I'm throwing my hands up on this topic.”
The “when” is continual, not a onetime event.
Boom “Karla, you agree that we ALL come into the world condemned. Therefore, it is a moot point for you to turn around and tell me that "Jesus came not to condemn us[yadda, yadda]. Why is it moot? Because we were ALREADY CONDEMNED when "Jesus" arrived on the scene. What I'm saying is, well OF COURSE "Jesus" didn't come to condemn us!!! Sheesh!”
That makes a big difference. It’s not that Jesus had condemned us already and so at this point when He comes to earth He doesn’t need to. But our sin had us in condemnation already – already set apart from God because we cannot cross the gulf of our sin on our own. Jesus comes into the scene literally and changes everything so that we no longer have to live in that condemnation. When I say “our sin” I mean the sin we are personally responsible for – regardless of how that sin started in humanity.
Boom “More tangential equivocation. But okay, yes, we all have "sinned", because, as the story goes, the first two human prototypes ate a piece of fruit that they were forbidden to eat. That set "Original Sin" into motion. So, had those two prototypes not eaten the bad, magic fruit, I have to wonder if you would still be proclaiming, "All of us have sinned". Well? Yes or no? IOW, what would have happened had they *not* eaten the fruit? Would the human race have inherited "perfection", as opposed to a "flaw"? Well?”
The “what if” makes no difference, because we are living in a world that did fall to sin – not one that didn’t. I’m sure I could make some kind of conjecture, but I fail to see the relevance, nor would I know if my conjecture was accurate.
Boom “Okay, so, yes, I've "sinned" according to your theology, Karla.”
I’m not really asking according to my theology, but your worldview. Do you do things you believe you ought not do. Things that break your own code of ethics? (You answer below so you need not answer this again).
Boom “Case-in-point: I am being held accountable for a flaw that I have no control over, and this flaw arose because of two other people's one-time wrongful decision. I reiterate: That, Karla, is an abortion of reason and a mockery of justice.”
Nope, you are accountable for yourself.
Boom “Yes, I'm human. Humans, by nature, make mistakes. But making mistakes doesn't preclude me from doing "right" things, too. This is where the bible's redactors flubbed it. We are to believe that the human race is "inherently evil", that we can do no good without "God". This is demonstrably false. You believe demonstrably false ideals. “
We can certainly do good and bad things. I agree we can do things that are morally good without God. That doesn’t mean we are going to redeem ourselves by having our good works out weigh our bad, or by being mostly good all the time. We are still designed for life with God – we are designed for more than moral living and not harming anybody. We will always be missing a major part of who we are to be when we live without God even if we are the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen.
Boom “Ah, so "God" has given us the means to fix our own problems, while he stands there doing nothing, and then gets all the credit.”
You said the key point – God has given us. Without God we do not have this ability. We do not have the power, wisdom, and supernatural ability to bring restoration to the earth. He doesn’t do nothing – we partner with Him and are the instruments of His restoration of the earth – by putting His power and authority to work in the earth as He has made us stewards of this place.
Boom “Oh, and that world, of course, is indistinguishable from a world in which there is no "God", a world in which we obviously would have to take care of our own problems. 'Coincidence, right?”
Very much distinguishable.
Boom “Karla, YOU said that some people suffer the consequences of "sin" in this "earthly life". Remember? Please stop changing the subject. If starving children isn't an example of "the consequences of sin" in this life, then FINE. Provide an example, and I'll reapply my question to that.”
Ok, I see what you are saying as long as you are saying the kids are starving because God is punishing them for their sin or something like that. Yes, in the sense I now see you may mean all such problems like starvation are linked to the adverse effects of sin corrupting everything in the earth.
Boom “More of the same..i.e...equivocation. I am talking about how "mercy" applies to a *specific* instance, and you know it. I am talking about how nonbelievers are NOT eligible for your all-loving biblegod's "mercy" when it comes to their final destination. I, of course, refer to the despicable doctrine of "Hell". “
I’m realizing most of our conversation is you steering us to the point of discussing hell. We started out talking about society being in need of moral instruction – how we got all the way to the justness of hell is beyond me.
In this thread I was talking about mercy not in the context of hell. We started talking about me forgiving someone and the effects of mercy in justice on a personal level, then a societal level, than a divine level and somewhere you made it all about hell.
Boom “Please, so we can move past this, stop equivocating and just concede that only Christians are eligible for clemency from "Hell", and non-Christians are not eligible.”
I’m actually not going to have another conversation with you about hell because we have been there more times than I can count and it has never gone anywhere useful to either of us.
Boom “Yes!! And as I've been saying all along, that "something" is clemency from "Hell", which, BTW, we supposedly ALL deserve. IOW, in Xianity, some people get what they deserve; others do not. That's some "justice".”
From this point forward, because of past conversations already addressing this topic ad nauseam I’m not going to respond to any more talk about hell. I have nothing we haven’t said before. You can review old conversations if you want my response.
"Does an arm grow out on its own after the wrist has been surgically removed?"
Boom “No! Case in point.”
Right and yet I saw this happen
Boom “Do you see a serial-killer as a bigger offender than a person who double-parks? If "yes", then guess what?...you are only underscoring my point. That is, if "spiritual justice" is so much BETTER than the "justice" of our "earthly society", then why don't we give double-parkers the death penalty? Please show some consistency.”
We only need the kind of justice system we have on earth because we have no other earthly way of dealing with the actions of man. God doesn’t have to deal with the actions – he deals with the heart. If the person has come to God the one who changes the heart and heals the person and transforms them – they are now a different person than the one who did previous actions. A jail cannot make that person a different person – only God can. So the made-new person is now not the same person who did those deeds and so justice is served. Because to cause the new person to serve the sentence of the old person would be unjust—thus mercy and justice are served. But in the earthly system there isn’t such an option.
Boom “This apologetic is just a round-about way of saying that there is no relevant "sin" except being a non-Christian. The so-called, " work of Jesus", being, a blood sacrifice for whom only Christians benefit. There is no way around this, and you know it. Yet, you continually defend this.”
That’s the way you are going to see it no matter what I say. So I don’t see the point in trying again. Would anything I say really make a difference?
Boom “In my initial comment if I have erroneously assumed that you don't necessarily believe that a child needs Christianity in order to "receive a good moral education"(from the article), then I owe you an apology. Let me know.”
I think that is the best system of instruction. I don’t believe I specified in the article, as it wasn’t the point of the article. I appreciate your willingness to apologize if you had made a bad assumption.
Boom “The word "Evolutionist". Why do you suppose that we don't ever hear the word "Gravitationalist", too? 'Just curious, because both evolution and gravitation are scientific theories. I wonder why creationists would take issue with one theory and not the other.”
The former often has a broad worldview attached to it – it is the philosophical worldview more than the scientific theories that sets creationist on edge.
Boom “Also, the study of the origins of the Universe isn't the field of "Evolution". "Evolution" deals with how life evolved over time, and BTW, millions of bible-believing Xians accept the theory of Evolution.”
I’m aware that the evolutionary theory does not give answer to origin questions – however the philosophy is often extended to presume origin answers and most Christians are not well versed enough in what they are disagreeing with to know the difference.
Boom “Lastly, nontheists don't believe that "nothing should turn itself into everything". 'Classic strawman. “
Good to know.
Boom “No, it isn't like that. Years and years of nagging doubt, starting as early as 9 yrs old. Christianity doesn't make sense to me now, and it never really has. I finally could no longer ignore those doubts, so I actually started to investigate the origins of Xianity and writings that were critical of it. My eyes were opened. “
Ok, thank you for the expanded answer.
Boom “Not "thing", but things..e.g.. Christianity's doctrine, its followers, and the accompanying claims were no longer believable.”
Ok.
Boom “At face-value I can appreciate that. On the other hand, I think that you are probably concerned for religious reasons, as I can see no other reason why anyone would be concerned. “
I’ve come to consider you a friend. We talk theories and doctrine a lot, I wanted to see more of the person rather than just the intellectual dialog.
If I don’t respond to any further posts today, I mostly likely will get more time on Monday. I hope you enjoy your weekend.
"The 'when' is continual, not a onetime event."
Irrelevant and tangential to my point. And I previously said that if you either cannot or will not grasp said point(sadly, I suspect the latter), that I was going to throw my hands up in the air and be done with this topic. The frustrating part is that I was actually willing to concede for sake of discussion that we're all "condemned" and that we got this way because of the infamous garden duo's wrongful decision to "sin". The issue I had wasn't with that part at all. No. It's when believers minister, "Jesus came not to condemn us!!!!" Yup, it should be crystal clear to any thinking person that Jesus didn't come for that reason, since we were all already condemned when he (supposedly) arrived. But, whatever. I tried.
"It’s not that Jesus had condemned us already and so at this point when He comes to earth He doesn’t need to."
I never said nor even suggested that "Jesus" came but didn't "need to". You are defending non-existent arguments.
"When I say 'our sin' I mean the sin we are personally responsible for – regardless of how that sin started in humanity"
Only nonbelievers are "personally responsible" for their "sin". Once believers do "X", their "sin" is swept under the carpet and they are granted clemency(aka mercy) from the punishment that you and your bible say that we ALL deserve. In fact, "Jesus" taking the punishment for believers is the antithesis of personal responsibility; substitutionary atonement is the antithesis of justice. Moreover, if a Christian-based judicial system were better than or own, we'd allow substituionary atonement in our own courtrooms. Well, we don't allow it. In our courts, the guilty are actually responsible for their own crimes...::gAsP:: What a radical concept, right?
Previously, me: "IOW, what would have happened had they *not* eaten the fruit? Would the human race have inherited 'perfection', as opposed to a 'flaw'? Well?”
You attempt: The 'what if' makes no difference, because we are living in a world that did fall to sin – not one that didn’t"
So, now you're not discussing your beliefs, but you are simply asserting them true, which begs the question, why were you willing to discuss your beliefs all these months? What a huge waste of time it has been, since, from the onset, you could have simply said, "Christianity is true, Boomslang, so whatever you have to say doesn't matter". I have been willing to entertain your position true in a hypothetical sense all these months, and now you're telling me that you can't(won't) entertain one measly hypothetical? Really?
Now, Karla, do you really think you're fooling me, here? The reason that you "can't" entertain the hypothetical is because "inherent sinfulness" would crumble if Adam & Co. had used their free will in accordance with your biblegod's wishes. Yup, if eating the flippin' fruit made Adam and everyone else "flawed" and in need of "God"(red flag), then it would only make sense that if they had not eaten the fruit they would have been unflawed, and thus, not in need of "God".
Case-in-point: Christianity creates the very problem..i.e.. Adam and his lover eating the "forbidden fruit", that it claims to solve. "God" is dependent upon "Evil". Oh, the irony.
Previously, me: “Okay, so, yes, I've 'sinned' according to your theology, Karla.”
You: "I’m not really asking according to my theology, but your worldview. Do you do things you believe you ought not do. Things that break your own code of ethics?."
Why, yes, I do. And I've explained in great detail why this happens. I think it's worth noting that the fact that human beings sometimes do unethical things isn't evidence of "sin", but evidence that human beings sometimes do unethical things.
Previously, me: “Case-in-point: I am being held accountable for a flaw that I have no control over, and this flaw arose because of two other people's one-time wrongful decision. I reiterate: That, Karla, is an abortion of reason and a mockery of justice.”
You: "Nope, you are accountable for yourself."
You leave me not much choice but to conclude that you are a horrible reader. What don't you understand when I say, "I AM BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE"..?!?![bold and caps added] Yes, Karla, I get it....I am accountable for myself. The issue I take isn't there, though, it's WHY I'm accountable. According to your lovely theology, I came out of my mother's birth canal a wretched, condemned "sinner". Now, I did not choose to be born this way, Karla. Thus, I, myself, am being held accountable for something not of my *own* choosing. Adam and his lover made a wrongful choice on your and my behalf, and you accept this. "Original Sin" is bankrupt, Karla.
Previously, me: "Yes, I'm human. Humans, by nature, make mistakes. But making mistakes doesn't preclude me from doing 'right' things, too. This is where the bible's redactors flubbed it. We are to believe that the human race is 'inherently evil', that we can do no good without 'God'. This is demonstrably false. You believe demonstrably false ideals."
"We can certainly do good and bad things. I agree we can do things that are morally good without God. That doesn’t mean we are going to redeem ourselves by having our good works out weigh our bad, or by being mostly good all the time."
What on earth does "mostly good all the time" mean? Do you hear yourself? In any case, interjecting that we need to "redeem ourselves" is begging the question(fallacy)
Previously, me: “Oh, and that world, of course, is indistinguishable from a world in which there is no 'God', a world in which we obviously would have to take care of our own problems.”
You respond: "Very much distinguishable."
Okay, fine. Feel free to elaborate by stating in what ways we can very much distinguish a world with a "God" from a world without "God". Let me guess---in a world with no "God" there'd be MORE cancer, MORE hurricanes, MORE suffering, MORE murder, MORE world hunger than there is right now? If you have the nerve to answer "yes", please give a percentage as to how much more, and please explain how you arrive at these percentages.
"Ok, I see what you are saying as long as you are saying the kids are starving because God is punishing them for their sin or something like that. Yes, in the sense I now see you may mean all such problems like starvation are linked to the adverse effects of sin corrupting everything in the earth"
Karla, I'm asking YOU if YOU think that! YOU are the one saying that there are "consequences for sin" in this "earthly life" for some people. Shall I find the exact quote? Why do you make things so dad-burned difficult? Is "God" punishing children for their "sin" by the hundreds of thousands by starving them, or not? Yes or no? If no, please do NOT explain why you don't believe this, but instead, simply provide an example of how people are being punished in this "earthly life".
"I’m realizing most of our conversation is you steering us to the point of discussing hell. We started out talking about society being in need of moral instruction – how we got all the way to the justness of hell is beyond me"
It needn't be beyond you any longer. If I'm not mistaken, you said the bible is what our morals should be based on when we were talking about ethics earlier. And if I didn't say it then, I'm saying it now: Any philosophy - IOW, not just Xianity - that says that human beings deserve to be punished with fire for a period of indefinitely, is IMMORAL and not worthy of anyone's respect or belief. And I couldn't care less what the reason is that said philosophy offers for why it's necessary to torture people. Do I have a problem with "Hell"? No. Thank goodness, it's a bunch of man-made nonsense. Notwithstanding, I have a huge problem with people who believe in it, support it, and worst of all, say we get our morality from the same book in which "hell" appears. And BTW, one of your Xian readers once pointed out to you that "Jesus" spoke of no other subject more. 'Just sayin'.
"I’m actually not going to have another conversation with you about hell because we have been there more times than I can count and it has never gone anywhere useful to either of us."
Per usual, your view is myopic. Just because it's not "useful" to Karla doesn't mean it's not useful period. You see, each time you try to defend "hell" and fail(which is every time), it could be that a silent lurker is seeing his or her doubts confirmed, if in fact "hell" is something that he or she has always thought of as problematic to their belief(just like I once did).
IOW, your inability to put "Hell" into terms that make sense is a powerful deconversion tool.
Previously, you: Does an arm grow out on its own after the wrist has been surgically removed?
I answer: “No! Case in point.”
You respond: "Right and yet I saw this happen"
Yes, just like David Copperfield made a jumbo-jet disappear and thousands "saw this happen". And of course, because people "saw this happen", that, alone, is confirmation enough to believe it, right? It's just not possible that those people's eyes could be deceiving them, right?(rhetorical)
"We only need the kind of justice system we have on earth because we have no other earthly way of dealing with the actions of man."
Wrong. We most certainly do have the wherewithal to take a gossipy coworker, charge them with the crime of "gossip", and put them in a gurney and inject them with the same chemicals that we would a serial-killer. But alas, we don't do that. Why? Because most of us are reasonable enough, fair enough, and compassionate enough to know that "gossiping" is NOT on equal immoral grounds with killing. Remember, you have on gone on record and said that, according to your bible's judicial-system, gossiping and killing are equally immoral and offensive to your biblegod, so I obviously count you as an exception to "most people", above. If you think I'm being too hard on you, for the love of reason, look at your beliefs and the things those beliefs have you saying!
"God doesn’t have to deal with the actions – he deals with the heart"
This is Christianese godspeak for saying that "God" deals with a person's intentions and character vs their actions. If your "God" knows an atheist's heart, FINE, then he knows that the atheist's character might very well be good, and that he or she would believe, if only they found the evidence convincing. But yet, none of the above matters on "Judgement Day". On that day, intentions and personal character go out the window.
"A jail cannot make that person a different person – only God can. So the made-new person is now not the same person who did those deeds and so justice is served"
A "made-new person", are they? As in, made incapable of doing things that could land them in jail again? So much for that "free will" stuff.
Previously, me: “This apologetic is just a round-about way of saying that there is no relevant 'sin' except being a non-Christian. The so-called, 'work of Jesus', being, a blood sacrifice for whom only Christians benefit. There is no way around this, and you know it. Yet, you continually defend this.”
"That’s the way you are going to see it no matter what I say."
Why shouldn't I see it that way? Your own doctrine, and your own words in defense of that doctrine, make it clear that when it's all said and done, the only "sin" that is not excusable is the "sin" of non-belief. Go ahead, make a list of a one hundred "sins". Make a list of a bazillion "sins". At the end of the day, everything on the list is excused by your biblegod, provide one follows the two rules/laws you laid out earlier(which require belief, BTW).
"I think that is the best system of instruction."
You think wrong. Then again, you've been indoctrinated, and no ones asks for that. Children certainly don't.
"I don’t believe I specified in the article, as it wasn’t the point of the article. I appreciate your willingness to apologize if you had made a bad assumption"
It need not have been "specified" for any reader to deduce that you believe a "good moral education" comes from the bible, the same book, BTW, that condones slavery(and you "don't know" why). If you are a Christian apologist and you bring up "morals" in an article, it should be no shock if someone brings the subject to the forefront.
"Ok, thank you for the expanded answer."
Sure, no prob'. I'm curious, though, if you read the "Ark" story to a 9 yr-old child and he or she didn't buy it, what would your reaction and/or solution be?
"I’ve come to consider you a friend."
Okay, thanks. Admittedly, I feel uneasy being friends with people who believe that, under certain conditions, I would deserve to be punished with fire, which, BTW, if the punishment never ends, it ceases to be a punishment and starts being torture. Can you seriously not see how your beliefs could be an obstacle to starting a close "friendship"?
"We talk theories and doctrine a lot, I wanted to see more of the person rather than just the intellectual dialog."
Well, "the person" doesn't accept your beliefs. So this seems to be a round-about way of saying that you don't want to discuss Christianity. If that's the case, feel free to tell me what, specifically, you'd like to discuss and we'll go from there.
Boom “The issue I had wasn't with that part at all. No. It's when believers minister, "Jesus came not to condemn us!!!!" Yup, it should be crystal clear to any thinking person that Jesus didn't come for that reason, since we were all already condemned when he (supposedly) arrived. But, whatever. I tried.”
I thought this is what I was addressing, but if you want to leave it alone at this point I will respect that.
Boom “I never said nor even suggested that "Jesus" came but didn't "need to". You are defending non-existent arguments.”
My point was only Jesus was never condemning us. But again I can leave it alone.
Boom “Only nonbelievers are "personally responsible" for their "sin". Once believers do "X", their "sin" is swept under the carpet and they are granted clemency(aka mercy) from the punishment that you and your bible say that we ALL deserve.’”
Believers are responsible too. Just because we are in Christ doesn’t mean that when we sin we no longer have consequences. But it is different.
Boom “In fact, "Jesus" taking the punishment for believers is the antithesis of personal responsibility; substitutionary atonement is the antithesis of justice.”
Love can fulfill the requirements of justice. I say that knowing it’s not an answer you will think means anything.
Boom “Moreover, if a Christian-based judicial system were better than or own, we'd allow substitutionary atonement in our own courtrooms. Well, we don't allow it. In our courts, the guilty are actually responsible for their own crimes...::gAsP:: What a radical concept, right? “
You are still using our justice system as a standard for heaven. I get it – it is the only one you know and see as relevant and good. Earth cannot handle matters the same way as heaven. Our justice system can only handle things naturally – it cannot deal with eternity.
Boom “So, now you're not discussing your beliefs, but you are simply asserting them true, which begs the question, why were you willing to discuss your beliefs all these months? What a huge waste of time it has been, since, from the onset, you could have simply said, "Christianity is true, Boomslang, so whatever you have to say doesn't matter". I have been willing to entertain your position true in a hypothetical sense all these months, and now you're telling me that you can't(won't) entertain one measly hypothetical? Really?”
I was merely saying I don’t know what would have happened had no one ever sinned. My best conjecture would be that the whole world would be an Eden where men, women, and children enjoy the earth without any separation from God or any corruption of the land. The animals would not be at odds with one another nor with humanity. A paradise, if you will, on earth.
Boom “Now, Karla, do you really think you're fooling me, here? The reason that you "can't" entertain the hypothetical is because "inherent sinfulness" would crumble if Adam & Co. had used their free will in accordance with your biblegod's wishes. Yup, if eating the flippin' fruit made Adam and everyone else "flawed" and in need of "God"(red flag), then it would only make sense that if they had not eaten the fruit they would have been unflawed, and thus, not in need of "God".”
Huh? The whole reason we are “flawed” is trying to live without God. If Adam and Eve had never sinned – then they would be in perfect relationship with God and so would all their descendants provided sinless living continued. Sin is falling short of the goodness of God. So this would be a world very much with God, not very much without.
Boom “Case-in-point: Christianity creates the very problem..i.e.. Adam and his lover eating the "forbidden fruit", that it claims to solve. "God" is dependent upon "Evil". Oh, the irony.”
God isn’t only necessary to save us from sin. Sin is the condition of not living in harmony with God. The good life – the good earth – is a place where all of creation comes into its intended glory and goodness.
To be clear – a perfect human can only be thus if they are united with God.
Adam and Eve were in relationship with God until they broke that relationship by bringing into themselves that which was not unholy – that which was forbidden. It’s not that the fruit was poison, but the action of taking what was not given to them was poisonous to their union with God.
Boom “I think it's worth noting that the fact that human beings sometimes do unethical things isn't evidence of "sin", but evidence that human beings sometimes do unethical things. “
You may be satisfied with that reasoning, but I would need a better explanation for why we have ethics and why we fail to live up to them. But we need not get into all that as we have covered it before.
Boom “, "I AM BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE"..?!?![bold and caps added] Yes, Karla, I get it....I am accountable for myself. The issue I take isn't there, though, it's WHY I'm accountable. “
I am saying something I think we can agree with regardless of our different worldview: You are accountable for your own actions just as I am accountable for me. I’m was not being held liable for Adam and Eve’s sin, but my own.
Boom “According to your lovely theology, I came out of my mother's birth canal a wretched, condemned "sinner". Now, I did not choose to be born this way, Karla. Thus, I, myself, am being held accountable for something not of my *own* choosing. Adam and his lover made a wrongful choice on your and my behalf, and you accept this. "Original Sin" is bankrupt, Karla.”
Original Sin doctrine explains how sin started in this world – It’s not a doctrine of each person being responsible for sins they didn’t commit. God doesn’t hold you accountable for your great great great great grandfathers sins all the way back to Adam– only for your own.
Boom “What on earth does "mostly good all the time" mean? Do you hear yourself? In any case, interjecting that we need to "redeem ourselves" is begging the question(fallacy)”
I was just trying to say that no matter how “good” our actions are we still need God. Our need for God is also not only a matter of morality. If we were behaving just fine – not hurting anyone – doing good for people – we would still need relationship with the God who made us to live united with Him.
Boom “Okay, fine. Feel free to elaborate by stating in what ways we can very much distinguish a world with a "God" from a world without "God". Let me guess---in a world with no "God" there'd be MORE cancer, MORE hurricanes, MORE suffering, MORE murder, MORE world hunger than there is right now? If you have the nerve to answer "yes", please give a percentage as to how much more, and please explain how you arrive at these percentages.”
First I will give the answer in the context of the previous question where I had answered “distinguishable” as to how God giving us the power and authority to take care of the earth’s problems being different from the world you envision where it’s just us taking care of us –
The difference is that we are empowered by God to change the world by first being changed ourselves and second living life with God empowering us to do things impossible in the natural – like heal the sick – or bring transformation to a city of people which causes the businesses to flourish and the land to grow healthy crops – etc. This is what believers are to be equipped by God and empowered to do. This is what I am saying that the Church abandoned for many many years and is just now starting to get mobilized for after ignoring our job for a very long time.
Now to the way you word this question above I answer: I don’t think the world would exist at all if there was no God. Have you seen the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” with Jimmy Stewart? When Stewart’s character had never been born – he got to see what life would be like if his life never effected anything – his brother drowned because he wasn’t there to save him—business went under because he wasn’t there to run his father’s bank—his wife is a spinster, his children were never born, etc. But in a world where there is no God – would be no world at all. Things don’t exist otherwise. No people, animals, land, earth, universe, sun, moon, stars. All that He did would not be there anymore. The sentence “we’d be left with nothing” is nonsensical because there would be no “we”.
Boom “Karla, I'm asking YOU if YOU think that! YOU are the one saying that there are "consequences for sin" in this "earthly life" for some people. “
When I said that I was thinking of direct consequence both those imposed by society such as jail or community service or the kind of consequences like driving drunk resulting in a car accident or a hangover from a night of drunkenness. Those sorts of things.
Boom “Shall I find the exact quote? Why do you make things so dad-burned difficult?”
I apologize for my part in the miscommunication.
Boom “Is "God" punishing children for their "sin" by the hundreds of thousands by starving them, or not?”
No.
Boom “ Yes or no? If no, please do NOT explain why you don't believe this, but instead, simply provide an example of how people are being punished in this "earthly life". “
No see above where I explained what I meant.
Boom “A "made-new person", are they? As in, made incapable of doing things that could land them in jail again? So much for that "free will" stuff.”
Why does “new person” have to equate with a loss of free will? And I didn’t say anything about being made incapable of sin.
Boom “ your own words . . . make it clear that when it's all said and done, the only "sin" that is not excusable is the "sin" of non-belief.”
I think you ascribe doctrine to me sometimes that is not my own. It isn’t that non-belief is an unpardonable sin. It is that Jesus is the ONLY way to God. I’ve explained that Jesus doesn’t bestow a gift of salvation -- He is that salvation so the ONLY way to have salvation is to have Him. Believing Him isn’t putting all doubts aside and saying ok I will put my mind to the task of believing He really did die for my sins and that I need Him and that I want Him to make me all better. Believing Him is entering into Him – it is seeking Him and finding Him. It’s like waking up from a dream and stepping into reality. You don’t have to believe Him to seek Him—it’s when you find Him that you become a believer. You are looking to see if He is there you are looking for Him to respond you are seeking and then you Find Him. You make contact or you realize He is making contact whichever way you want to look at it.
Boom “It need not have been "specified" for any reader to deduce that you believe a "good moral education" comes from the bible, the same book, BTW, that condones slavery(and you "don't know" why)”
What I am talking about teaching is: love your neighbor, don’t steal, don’t do bad things to people who do bad things to you; keep your word; treat others the way you want them to treat you; love your enemies; do good for those who persecute you; take care of the widow and the orphan; be good to the foreigners in your land; forgive people; be kind; patient, self-controlled; take care of what you own and give to others who have need as much as it is in your power to do so; consider others more important than yourself; etc.
Boom” If you are a Christian apologist and you bring up "morals" in an article, it should be no shock if someone brings the subject to the forefront.”
I’m not an apologist. I’ve studied it and pursued becoming such a person, and then God took me on a different path. I don’t consider myself to be an apologist in any formal or amateurish way. Albeit I have no problem with you questioning the validity of the morals.
Boom “Sure, no prob'. I'm curious, though, if you read the "Ark" story to a 9 yr-old child and he or she didn't buy it, what would your reaction and/or solution be?”
I don’t force anyone to believe anything. I haven’t taught kids from non-Christian homes about Bible stuff they don’t believe before. When they don’t believe, I leave that up to them just as I do an adult.
Boom “Okay, thanks. Admittedly, I feel uneasy being friends with people who believe that, under certain conditions, I would deserve to be punished with fire, which, BTW, if the punishment never ends, it ceases to be a punishment and starts being torture. Can you seriously not see how your beliefs could be an obstacle to starting a close "friendship"? “
There are no requirements upon you for me to consider you a friend. You are free to not consider me one. I’m ok with that.
Boom “Well, "the person" doesn't accept your beliefs. So this seems to be a round-about way of saying that you don't want to discuss Christianity. If that's the case, feel free to tell me what, specifically, you'd like to discuss and we'll go from there. “
Nope. I wasn’t beating around the bush. I just value you and didn’t want to only see you through our intellectual discussion because your story is bigger than that. I had no intention of prying further.
"My point was only Jesus was never condemning us. But again I can leave it alone."
For possibly the 5th or 6th time, your "point" is redundant and it is moot. If one agrees, even for sake of discussion(as I do), that two THOUSAND years prior to Jesus' arrival that the human race was *aleady* condemned, then surely I would agree that "Jesus" didn't come to "condemn" us. Arrrg...::head-desk, head-desk::
Previously, me: “Only nonbelievers are 'personally responsible' for their 'sin'. Once believers do 'X', their 'sin' is swept under the carpet and they are granted clemency(aka mercy) from the punishment that you and your bible say that we ALL deserve.”
"Believers are responsible too. Just because we are in Christ doesn’t mean that when we sin we no longer have consequences. But it is different".
You seem to be talking about "sin" as it applies in this lifetime(earthly crimes), whereas, I am talking specifically about the (supposed) next lifetime. IOW, I agree that both believers and non' have consequences and responsibility for crimes in this lifetime. What I'm saying is that when it's all said and done(at death), the "sin"(earthly crimes) of believers is swept under the carpet because they have met certain "spiritual" requirements.
"Love can fulfill the requirements of justice. I say that knowing it’s not an answer you will think means anything."
And yet, you are someone whose blog was previously titled "Answer Bearer", and someone who presumably specializes in defending the Christian philosophy. So, I'm just wondering how providing "answers" that you know won't mean anything, is effective, aside from keeping the already-convinced convinced.
In any case, you're right, it doesn't mean anything...."Love can fulfill the requirements of justice". If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were making this stuff up as you go---whatever it takes to avoid admitting that you are wrong, I guess.
"You are still using our justice system as a standard for heaven."
If we can agree on what the word "BETTER" means(and we did, and do); if we can agree that the "standard for heaven" should be BETTER than here on earth(and we did, and do), then, case-in-point, whatever the "heavenly standard" is should be good and applicable for here. IOW, we'd be USING the same standard here if were actually BETTER. If, according to your "God", an unruly, gossipy coworker is on equal grounds with a child-molester, and if God's ways are BETTER than our own, we'd lock up gossipy coworkers. But alas, we don't(thank goodness)
"I get it – it is the only one you know and see as relevant and good."
NO! You "get" no such thing. If you could use the human language to illustrate how there is another "justice system" that is BETTER than our own, I would see that as "relevant and good". But you haven't done that. Instead, you say things like this....
"Earth cannot handle matters the same way as heaven. Our justice system can only handle things naturally – it cannot deal with eternity"
..i.e..Christianese godspeak that amounts to begging the question.
"I was merely saying I don’t know what would have happened had no one ever sinned."
Surely you see the difference between the statements, "I don't know", and, "It doesn't matter", yes?
"My best conjecture would be that the whole world would be an Eden where men, women, and children enjoy the earth without any separation from God or any corruption of the land. The animals would not be at odds with one another nor with humanity. A paradise, if you will, on earth"
Thanks for that honest answer. I think that that's the most reasonable thing to conclude, too.
So, an "Eden"/"paradise", of sorts. So, it kind of begs the question---if there would be no "corruption", would we then be incapable of displeasing "God"? Or would we capable, but never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER want to? If the latter, please explain how that is different from a robot.
"If Adam and Eve had never sinned – then they would be in perfect relationship with God and so would all their descendants provided sinless living continued."
And the question still remains---would the duo's being in a "perfect relationship with God" preclude them from "sin", or wouldn't it?
"To be clear – a perfect human can only be thus if they are united with God."
Thx for being clear. To be even clearer, let us know if a "perfect human" retains the ability to displease "God".
"You may be satisfied with that reasoning, but I would need a better explanation for why we have ethics[...]
We've been over this dozens of times, Karla. We have "ethics" because we understand that living in a group requires that we treat others as we wish to be treated *if* we wish to survive. Most people wish to survive, ergo most people are ethical.
"and why we fail to live up to them."
Because we are imperfect by nature, and some people are even mentally ill(as opposed to "demon-possessed"). If a lion swats a smaller animal that it has no intention of eating, is it "sinning"? No, of course not. By nature, animals are curious and sometimes abuse their power. We are the same, by nature. 'That simple.
"I’m was not being held liable for Adam and Eve’s sin, but my own."
That would be well and fine, *except* that the reason that you provide for WHY you "sin" you attribute directly to "Adam and Eve's sin". Please STOP equivocating, which you do again, here...
"God doesn’t hold you accountable for your great great great great grandfathers sins all the way back to Adam– only for your own."
Yes, and the reason that you and I have our OWN "sin" is what? Isn't it because our "great great great great grandfathers sins" - who, BTW, would BE "Adam", according to your theology - were set into motion *BECAUSE* of said grandfather's choice?
"I was just trying to say that no matter how 'good' our actions are we still need God"
So, does being in a "perfect relationship with God" make a Christian's actions "perfect", as opposed to just "good", then?
"The difference is that we are empowered by God to change the world by first being changed ourselves and second living life with God empowering us to do things impossible in the natural – like heal the sick"
You accomplished nothing at all because you haven't demonstrated how we distinguish a world in which people are empowered by "God" to heal people, from a world in which we train people to heal people. You are just asserting that there's a distinction.
"or bring transformation to a city of people which causes the businesses to flourish and the land to grow healthy crops"
::sigh::
Karla? HOW. DO. WE. DISTINGUISH between a world in which people grow some crops for other people, and a world in which people are "empowered" by a "God" to grow some crops? You hopefully wouldn't suggest that without "God", people would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever help each other, would you? If you would suggest that, you have some explaining to do.
"Now to the way you word this question above I answer: I don’t think the world would exist at all if there was no God."
It doesn't matter that you "think" that, because you can imagine things that you don't think or believe, just like everyone else can. IOW, you are dodging the question. Nevertheless, I will rephrase the question to make it harder to dodge:
"God" creates two worlds. He hangs around the first world(hidden, of course) and does all of the supernatural things that you insist he does. The second world he completely abandons. Now, please tell me how you would distinguish between the two worlds. 'Better?
Previously, me: "Yes or no? If no, please do NOT explain why you don't believe this, but instead, simply provide an example of how people are being punished in this 'earthly life'."
You: "No see above where I explained what I meant."
So, drunk driving, then? That is an earthly consequence of our "sin"? So, a 6 year old is playing in the front lawn and a drunk driver swerves and runs over the child and the parents witness this, and this is a result of the child's and/or the parent's "sin", is it?
"Why does 'new person' have to equate with a loss of free will? And I didn’t say anything about being made incapable of sin."
So, if a person is "made new" by "God", then in what way is he or she improved upon from before, if he or she has not been made in such a way as to avoid things like jail, etc?
"I think you ascribe doctrine to me sometimes that is not my own. It isn’t that non-belief is an unpardonable sin. It is that Jesus is the ONLY way to God."
I don't see how the juxtaposed statements tie together. Even if "Jesus is the ONLY way to God", that doesn't make atheism pardonable on Judgement Day. Your self-ascribed doctrine doesn't make sense, which is no shock, because the actual doctrine doesn't make sense, either.
At the end of the day when it is all said and done, being a non-Christian is the one and only unpardonable "sin". Certainly you wouldn't say that every single "sin" in this earthly life is caught and punished.
"You are looking to see if He is there you are looking for Him to respond you are seeking and then you Find Him."
This is just a round about way of calling me a liar, or at best, insincere. Karla, I spent 2/3rds of my life "seeking" and praying and asking god to reveal himself, and because I didn't "find Him", that makes me deficient in some way. You want to be a "friend", but you essentially tell me I haven't been sincere. Again, it's those beliefs of yours.
Previously, me: "Okay, thanks. Admittedly, I feel uneasy being friends with people who believe that, under certain conditions, I would deserve to be punished with fire, which, BTW, if the punishment never ends, it ceases to be a punishment and starts being torture. Can you seriously not see how your beliefs could be an obstacle to starting a close 'friendship'?"
You respond: "There are no requirements upon you for me to consider you a friend. You are free to not consider me one. I’m ok with that"
Can you blame a person for not wanting to become close with someone who believes that they are insincere, or worse, believes that they deserve to be tortured if certain conditions aren't met, and on top of that, they actually support the person who implements the torture?
"Nope. I wasn’t beating around the bush. I just value you and didn’t want to only see you through our intellectual discussion because your story is bigger than that."
And just how do you know the size of my "story" if I've presumably yet to tell you the entire story? I've answered every single question you've ever asked to the best of my ability. If there's more that you desire to know, it's not because I've withheld answers.
And lastly, if you valued me(and other nonbelievers), you'd be denouncing your biblegod's policy of seeing to it that nonbelievers suffer eternal damnation. That you don't denounce it says more about you than it does your "God". Again, I believe that the person minus the indoctrination is a kind and caring person. Unfortunately, the indoctrination gets in the way of that.
Peace
Previously, me: “It need not have been 'specified' for any reader to deduce that you believe a 'good moral education' comes from the bible, the same book, BTW, that condones slavery.”
You respond: "What I am talking about teaching is[.....]"
Please note that simply delineating which teachings you are "talking about" doesn't change the fact that you advocate the bible as the best source for "morals". You've dodged the issue again.
"love your neighbor, don’t steal, don’t do bad things to people who do bad things to you; keep your word; treat others the way you want them to treat you; love your enemies; do good for those who persecute you; take care of the widow and the orphan; be good to the foreigners in your land; forgive people; be kind; patient, self-controlled; take care of what you own and give to others who have need as much as it is in your power to do so; consider others more important than yourself; etc"
That's good and admirable if you teach these things to children. However, none of these principles are exclusive to Christianity, and each one of them can be taught without reference to a "God".
Karla, we don't need "God" to lead a productive, meaningful, moral life.
Boom “You seem to be talking about "sin" as it applies in this lifetime(earthly crimes), whereas, I am talking specifically about the (supposed) next lifetime.”
Not just, believers are still disciplined by God due to sin. We can’t just do whatever we like because we have a get out of jail free card so to speak. It’s not like that. The Bible says that believers will face the Lord first on Judgment Day. I don’t know what that will be like or look like, I just know that there is some sort of answering for our choices in life.
Boom “ IOW, I agree that both believers and non' have consequences and responsibility for crimes in this lifetime.”
Ok. Just to clarify I am also saying that God is sometimes Involved in those consequences in this life (believers and unbelievers).
Boom “What I'm saying is that when it's all said and done(at death), the "sin"(earthly crimes) of believers is swept under the carpet because they have met certain "spiritual" requirements. “
Swept under the carpet suggest it was not dealt with – but it was dealt with – which is why it doesn’t have eternal consequences. But yes, to concede your point, at the end it is forgiven and forgotten.
Boom “And yet, you are someone whose blog was previously titled "Answer Bearer", and someone who presumably specializes in defending the Christian philosophy. So, I'm just wondering how providing "answers" that you know won't mean anything, is effective, aside from keeping the already-convinced convinced. “
Have you read my post on why I used that title? It had nothing to do with specializing in Christian philosophy. But being one who has Jesus who I know as The Ultimate Answer inside me – thus I am a bearer of Christ. So I am not professing some grand ability to defend philosophy, but that my life is lived to show Him as the way, not any words of mine as the way.
Boom “NO! You "get" no such thing. If you could use the human language to illustrate how there is another "justice system" that is BETTER than our own, I would see that as "relevant and good". But you haven't done that. Instead, you say things like this.... “
Boom “..i.e..Christianese godspeak that amounts to begging the question. “
Maybe it is something I haven’t better language for. Or maybe it is something that cannot make sense in your worldview because your basic foundation is vastly different from mine. Words like “spiritual, heart, eternity, supernatural, and heavenly” are all null and void in your construct of reality. But they are very key in mine.
Boom “Surely you see the difference between the statements, "I don't know", and, "It doesn't matter", yes?”
Yes, I apologize for utilizing the wrong word for what I wished to convey.
Boom “Thanks for that honest answer. I think that that's the most reasonable thing to conclude, too.”
Really?
Boom “So, an "Eden"/"paradise", of sorts. So, it kind of begs the question---if there would be no "corruption", would we then be incapable of displeasing "God"? Or would we capable, but never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER want to? If the latter, please explain how that is different from a robot.”
We would be capable because we would have the freedom to not please God, but we would choose to keep covenant with God rather than go our own way which would lead to destruction. The latter is different from a robot, because we would always be capable of walking away from the relationship whereas being incapable would make us the robot. Freedom isn’t robotic.
Boom “And the question still remains---would the duo's being in a "perfect relationship with God" preclude them from "sin", or wouldn't it?”
At any point in time they could have chosen sin and ended the perfect relationship. If they didn’t do it, it wouldn’t mean they couldn’t’ do it.
Boom “Thx for being clear. To be even clearer, let us know if a "perfect human" retains the ability to displease "God".”
Yes.
Boom “We've been over this dozens of times, Karla. We have "ethics" because we understand that living in a group requires that we treat others as we wish to be treated *if* we wish to survive. Most people wish to survive, ergo most people are ethical. “
That explains why people would behave for the good of society to keep their own self safe—but how about those who are willing to die for a stranger? Or willing to get hurt for another to not get hurt? Wouldn’t our instinct be self-preservation?
Boom “Because we are imperfect by nature, and some people are even mentally ill(as opposed to "demon-possessed"). If a lion swats a smaller animal that it has no intention of eating, is it "sinning"? No, of course not. By nature, animals are curious and sometimes abuse their power. We are the same, by nature. 'That simple. “
That reason works to an extent, but I don’t think covers the gamut of moral problems.
Boom “That would be well and fine, *except* that the reason that you provide for WHY you "sin" you attribute directly to "Adam and Eve's sin". Please STOP equivocating, which you do again, here...”
The reason a sin nature was brought about, I attribute to Adam and Eve, yes. But it isn’t the excuse for my own choice to sin.
Boom “Yes, and the reason that you and I have our OWN "sin" is what? Isn't it because our "great great great great grandfathers sins" - who, BTW, would BE "Adam", according to your theology - were set into motion *BECAUSE* of said grandfather's choice? “
I don’t see it that way. That’s like my niece saying she had to hit her brother because her brother hit her and he says he had to hit her because he was angry at his mom and he got angry at his mom because his mom was mean to him and his mom was mean to him because she was having a bad day – the way I see it all that doesn’t absolve the last one in the chain for their own actions.
Boom “So, does being in a "perfect relationship with God" make a Christian's actions "perfect", as opposed to just "good", then?”
Huh? I didn’t say anything about perfect actions.
Boom “You accomplished nothing at all because you haven't demonstrated how we distinguish a world in which people are empowered by "God" to heal people, from a world in which we train people to heal people. You are just asserting that there's a distinction.”
I think I gave more examples after this. Ultimately we can create a new Eden on earth – any reality of heaven can be delivered and established on the earth by the work of people rightly related to God. That encompasses everything . We can make things whole – the way they would look and be if there was no corruption found in it.
Boom “Karla? HOW. DO. WE. DISTINGUISH between a world in which people grow some crops for other people, and a world in which people are "empowered" by a "God" to grow some crops?”
I’m speaking of supernatural restoration of land to where crops grow better than people can naturally produce – without loss or effect from drought or bugs or anything else.
Boom “You hopefully wouldn't suggest that without "God", people would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever help each other, would you?”
People who don’t know God help each other. I wasn’t speaking of that.
Boom “It doesn't matter that you "think" that, because you can imagine things that you don't think or believe, just like everyone else can. IOW, you are dodging the question. Nevertheless, I will rephrase the question to make it harder to dodge:”
I didn’t dodge the question I answered the one I knew you were asking and I answered it the way it was worded. If there was no God, there would be no world. But for your sake I answered the question of what a world would look like where God was empowering people to one where people weren’t living empowered by God.
Boom “"God" creates two worlds. He hangs around the first world(hidden, of course) and does all of the supernatural things that you insist he does. The second world he completely abandons. Now, please tell me how you would distinguish between the two worlds. 'Better?”
In the world He is involved in you would see people doing things they couldn’t do in a natural world – healing the sick, raising the dead, telling the future, having knowledge of things they couldn’t know naturally or were not informed naturally, demonstrating miracles, signs, wonders, peace, joy. Giving it to others supernaturally. This is happening in the world --- lots of it is happening amongst Christians inside church meetings and lots is happening in third world nations – Christians are just starting to take it out to the streets, malls, Walmarts, hospitals, etc.
In a world where there was no supernatural – no God realm – no evil spirits either – you wouldn’t have religions, witchdoctors, physics, you wouldn’t have people utilizing supernatural power for good or bad.
Boom “So, drunk driving, then? That is an earthly consequence of our "sin"?”
No drunk driving is the sin – the consequence is what happens as a result of that sin when the consequence actually befalls the driver and he doesn’t make it safely to his destination. That’s a natural consequence of sin – when drunkenness leads to someone getting hurt.
Boom “ So, a 6 year old is playing in the front lawn and a drunk driver swerves and runs over the child and the parents witness this, and this is a result of the child's and/or the parent's "sin", is it?”
The accident would be due to the sin of driving drunk – the drunkenness lent itself to a poor choice to drive which resulted in a horrific consequence. This is not due to the sin of the 6 year old or of his parents. I don’t see how you can get that from what I said.
Boom “So, if a person is "made new" by "God", then in what way is he or she improved upon from before, if he or she has not been made in such a way as to avoid things like jail, etc?”
Jesus cleans up the inside problems of a person, awakens their spirit, and teaches them how to live following Him by their spirit rather than following their own way. He removes the sinful nature and teaches us to live according to a new nature – we still have free will and can choose to sin – but the internal change enables us to be prone to righteousness instead of prone to sin. It’s like a God switch is turned on inside to where we are aware of Him and the ways of righteousness and desire to live that way instead of our own way.
Boom “I don't see how the juxtaposed statements tie together. Even if "Jesus is the ONLY way to God", that doesn't make atheism pardonable on Judgement Day. Your self-ascribed doctrine doesn't make sense, which is no shock, because the actual doctrine doesn't make sense, either.”
I don’t know what you are trying to get at.
Boom “At the end of the day when it is all said and done, being a non-Christian is the one and only unpardonable "sin". Certainly you wouldn't say that every single "sin" in this earthly life is caught and punished.”
I guess this is what you are getting at. This line of reasoning doesn’t make sense to me.
Boom “This is just a round about way of calling me a liar, or at best, insincere. Karla, I spent 2/3rds of my life "seeking" and praying and asking god to reveal himself, and because I didn't "find Him", that makes me deficient in some way. You want to be a "friend", but you essentially tell me I haven't been sincere. Again, it's those beliefs of yours.”
I was doing no such thing. I wasn’t even talking about sincerity or lack of sincerity. In fact, I believe by continuing these conversations some part of you is seeking God whether you admit it or not. I am not seeking you out for these conversations. I’m making no evangelistic attempts. I am merely participating in the conversation you initiated.
Boom “Can you blame a person for not wanting to become close with someone who believes that they are insincere, or worse, believes that they deserve to be tortured if certain conditions aren't met, and on top of that, they actually support the person who implements the torture?”
I’m not blaming you. Nor will I take offense if you blame me for what you think it means for me to love God and trust Him .
Boom “And just how do you know the size of my "story" if I've presumably yet to tell you the entire story?”
Because intellectual discussion isn’t a story. It’s really amazing how you can take the kind things I say and make it sound like I’m being presumptuous and arrogant.
Boom “ I've answered every single question you've ever asked to the best of my ability. If there's more that you desire to know, it's not because I've withheld answers. “
Yes you have been diligent to answer. I was not alluding to any lack.
Boom “And lastly, if you valued me(and other nonbelievers), you'd be denouncing your biblegod's policy of seeing to it that nonbelievers suffer eternal damnation. That you don't denounce it says more about you than it does your "God".”
I know that my God loves you and that He has never ever desired anything ill towards you. I know you contest this, but it doesn’t change His love for you. I know if you were the only person on earth, He would still give up His life for yours.
Boom “Again, I believe that the person minus the indoctrination is a kind and caring person. Unfortunately, the indoctrination gets in the way of that.”
I am who I am because of Jesus, not in spite of.
I'm going to attempt to trim the fat, so-to-speak, off of this discussion, since we're both guilty of straying off the pertinent points. Within nearly everything you type, there is something that raises an eyebrow, so, when/if your defense of a point opens up a new avenue, I tend to want to go down that avenue. I will do my best to refrain from that.
You said...
"believers are still disciplined by God due to sin. We can’t just do whatever we like because we have a get out of jail free card so to speak."
No, not a "get out of jail" card, but a get out of going to hell card. According to your theology, we all deserve eternal damnation regardless of what "sin"(wrong-doings) we may do in our earthly lives. Yes, we can actually witness both believers and non-believers being disciplined in this life. That, however, is not evidence that a "God" is implementing any discipline, and what you say next isn't evidence that "God" will discipline people for their earthly crimes in some "afterlife".....
"The Bible says that believers will face the Lord first on Judgment Day."
The bible also says that believer's sins will be forgiven, all they need do is accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior(yadda, yadda). Moreover, your *own* words confirm that, according to this (supposed) higher, "Heavenly Standard", a gossipy coworker is just as offensive to your "God" as a serial killer. So, I have zero reason to believe that on this (supposed) "Judgement Day", that this "God" is going single out and discipline a believer who killed people, differently than a believer who gossiped at the office. Both things are EQUALLY offensive to your "God". Remember? Either show some consistency, or I ask that you stop responding to this particular subject.
"but it was dealt with – which is why it doesn’t have eternal consequences."
Karla, you are conflating "sin", the curse, with each person's individual "sin". Again, your own words confirm(I'll find the quotes if I must) that we are EACH personally accountable for our OWN "sin". Thus, for you to sit there and suggest that each believer's "sin" has been "dealt with" because some *other* individual died for a few days, is completely lacking. That is NOT "justice" anymore than it is "justice" to set 1 thru 9 out of 10 death row inmates free because the 10th one was executed.
Again--PERSONAL accountability. Your words.
Previously, me: "..i.e..Christianese godspeak that amounts to begging the question."
You: "Maybe it is something I haven’t better language for. Or maybe it is something that cannot make sense in your worldview because your basic foundation is vastly different from mine. Words like 'spiritual, heart, eternity, supernatural, and heavenly' are all null and void in your construct of reality. But they are very key in mine
And herein lies the crux of the entire matter, and IMO, the deal-breaker:
You, Karla, seek to have me and others believe that there are some "other" rules of logic and some "other" codes for "morality" that are superior to our own, and at the end of the day, the confirmation you offer amounts to this: "Just trust me, Boomslang".
That's what you've got, and not one thing more... zip; zero; nadda. And knowing this mentality that you hold, I can guess that you will say something akin to, "No, not me, boom', trust God", which I beg you to NOT do, because it is circular logic, which I reject.
Previously, me: “Thanks for that honest answer. I think that that's the most reasonable thing to conclude, too.”
You: "Really?"
Yes, really, but don't get too excited, because I believe the Garden story is merely ancient man's seriously botched attempt to explain human nature. You see, it would only make sense that if we were created "perfect", aka, FLAWLESS and we consumed some fruit that made us "flawed", that NOT eating the fruit would've left us flawless.
Using my supposedly inferior and unreliable "earthly logic", I conclude that flawless beings don't need a baby sitter, which brings me to this: Why would flawless, perfectly created beings, still need supervision from a God? Again, if you cannot show some consistency, I ask that you not respond to this matter.
"We would be capable because we would have the freedom to not please God, but we would choose to keep covenant with God[EDIT]"
Here's the rub---people who claim to be "in Christ"(speaking your language, here) have the very freedom that you speak of, and yet, they sometimes use that freedom to choose not to "keep covenant with God". As I've said since the beginning, there is obviously something different about the locations..i.e..earth vs heaven, because the occupants of the latter mysteriously never, ever "break covenant with God", and you have yet to adequately explain what the distinguishing factor is. If the occupants of heaven will always, NO exceptions, choose to "keep covenant with God", I fail to see how that is any different from a smoker who's been hypnotized to always choose to turn down a cigarette. IOW, "heaven" contains a bunch of hypnotized zombies, by the looks of things.
"That reason works to an extent, but I don’t think covers the gamut of moral problems."
And what Christians and their bibles claim to be the be-all end-all moral solution has not been proven to be what they claim it is. I'm interested in what can be proven to work the best. I am not interested in what is merely asserted on no evidence.
"The reason a sin nature was brought about, I attribute to Adam and Eve, yes. But it isn’t the excuse for my own choice to sin."
Before, you conflated "sin nature" with personal "sin", aka, "choice to sin", and now you're trying to separate the two things. IOW, you are waffling.
Please do your best to follow my line of reasoning:
If we could simply choose to not have this supposed "sin nature"(your term) that was passed on to us, that's one thing. But since we can't simply choose to discard this "sin nature", you don't have an argument. The reason that we are prone to "sin" is a direct result of our "sin nature", and said nature is a direct result of Adam % Eve's decision to "sin"...i.e..the so-called, original sin.
IOW, Adam $ Co. are ultimately responsible for something for which we're being held personally accountable. THAT, Karla, is an abortion of "reason".
You said...
"That’s like my niece saying she had to hit her brother because her brother hit her and he says he had to hit her because he was angry at his mom and he got angry at his mom because his mom was mean to him and his mom was mean to him because she was having a bad day – the way I see it all that doesn’t absolve the last one in the chain for their own actions"
No shock to me, nothing about that lengthy analogy addressed my actual question. You said that we are personally accountable for our *own* "sin". Remember? I'm trying to get to the bottom of how we received the "sin nature" that made us prone to "sin" in the first place, a nature that NONE of us chose. For your "God" to hold us personally accountable for our actions, actions that are a direct result of our "sin nature", is as insane has holding a goldfish accountable for being "wet".
Previously, me: “So, does being in a 'perfect relationship with God' make a Christian's actions 'perfect', as opposed to just 'good', then?”
"Huh? I didn’t say anything about perfect actions."
You didn't need to say anything about it. You, over and over and over, ad nauseam, claim that being "in Christ", or in this case, being in a "perfect relationship with Christ" TRANSFORMS people, somehow. This spiritual makeover thingy either entirely removes a believer's "sin nature", or it doesn't. Yet, you unceasingly want things both ways, as seen here....
He removes the sinful nature and teaches us to live according to a new nature – we still have free will and can choose to sin
i.e..contradicts, and here's why: If a "made-new" person still has "free will and can choose to sin", then the potential to "sin" is still there, which means, if they happen to choose to "sin", then obviously the "sin nature" was never removed in the first place. The only other option is that the removal of "sin nature" changes them in such a way that they will never, ever, ever, under ANY circumstances, choose to "sin", which is no different from a robot programmed to never do X, Y, or Z.
"I think I gave more examples after this. Ultimately we can create a[EDIT]"
Karla? I. could. not. care. less. how many examples you give. Whatever your example---for instance, healing people---tell me how we'd make a clear distinction between a world in which doctors heal people(sometimes), and a world in which a "God" is helping doctors heal people(sometimes). Hint: Notice that the common denominator is sometimes.
"[...]drunk driving is the sin – the consequence is what happens as a result of that sin when the consequence actually befalls the driver and he doesn’t make it safely to his destination. That’s a natural consequence of sin – when drunkenness leads to someone getting hurt."
So, choosing to drive drunk is the "sin", but yet, the fatally mangled child and his parents who witnessed the whole thing and who have to go the rest of their lives reliving the event over and over, are the ones who suffer the most.
So, the "consequences" of the "earthly sin" aren't due to the child or parent's choices, but they are due to the person who chose to drive drunk, confirmed here...
"This is not due to the sin of the 6 year old or of his parents. I don’t see how you can get that from what I said."
How do I "get that", you ask? Because you are back to conflating "sin", the curse, with each person's individual "sin". To say that there are "earthly consequences for sin" implies that the actual persons doing the sinning are the people who pay.(Example, when Katrina hit, you heard certain Xian leaders saying it was because of *THEIR* sinful lifestyles). Yet, in the drunk driving example, you seem to be suggesting that the consequences for "sin" are completely arbitrary. Both theories are equally revolting to me, and that people believe this stuff turns my stomach. But admittedly, the former is easier to believe, nonetheless, because I just don't believe that an all-powerful, all-loving, perfectly just "God" would make a child pay for a drunk's bad decisions. But from your POV, this stumbling block is probably because I don't have the "Spiritual understanding" that you do, and frankly, I'm glad I don't have it.
"I wasn’t even talking about sincerity or lack of sincerity. In fact, I believe by continuing these conversations some part of you is seeking God whether you admit it or not."
You couldn't be more wrong. If you trust me on nothing else, trust me when I say that if the God of bible exists as it is described in the bible, I want nothing to do with it. Let's see, an innocent man murdered in a human sacrifice so that I can feel "blessed" because he got what >I< deserve? No, thanks. A "God" who sees to it that people who don't bow down and worship him are burned alive? Disgusting. It's all yours.
"I am not seeking you out for these conversations. I’m making no evangelistic attempts. I am merely participating in the conversation you initiated"
If your blog isn't register only, then I think posting articles is actually initiating conversation. This could be a perspective thing, though.
Previously, me: “Can you blame a person for not wanting to become close with someone who believes that they are insincere, or worse, believes that they deserve to be tortured if certain conditions aren't met, and on top of that, they actually support the person who implements the torture?”
You: "I’m not blaming you."
Okay, good. But I guess I'll take this as you then understand why a person might not want to become close to you, because, while you might actually believe I'm sincere, unless I've misunderstood, you still most certainly believe that if I die a nonbeliever, sincere, or not, that I deserve to be tortured with hellfire. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Previously, me: "if you valued me(and other nonbelievers), you'd be denouncing your biblegod's policy of seeing to it that nonbelievers suffer eternal damnation. That you don't denounce it says more about you than it does your 'God'."
"I know that my God loves you and that He has never ever desired anything ill towards you."
Just as you assert that there's a higher and better sphere of logic and a higher and better moral standard that I cannot understand with my limited, "earthly mind", the same must be true when you tell me that your God "loves" me. Yes, Karla, the day that "I love you" means "I love you, but if you don't love me back I'll burn you alive", is the day I no longer need anyone's "love".
Previously, me: “Again, I believe that the person minus the indoctrination is a kind and caring person. Unfortunately, the indoctrination gets in the way of that.”
You: "I am who I am because of Jesus, not in spite of."
Right, and if being who you are "because of Jesus" prevents close friendships with some people, and if being who you are sends the very people whom you seek to adopt your special beliefs running the other direction, you're evidently good with that. Fair enough.
Peace.
It appears the crux of this “debate” is:
1) on the justness or lack thereof of “original sin” causing a “sin nature” effecting all of humanity
2) the justness of hell due to #1
3) how does “transformation” by Jesus work in relation to continued sin and free will
Is this accurate? If you want me to go point by point in response I can, but it would seem beneficial to the conversation to narrow the focus . . . I will pull out key things to respond to that hopefully won’t create a repeat answer that wastes your time . . .
Boom “i.e..contradicts, and here's why: If a "made-new" person still has "free will and can choose to sin", then the potential to "sin" is still there, which means, if they happen to choose to "sin", then obviously the "sin nature" was never removed in the first place.”
Adam and Eve had no sin nature when they sinned. They had free will and because of this they were able to choose to believe Satan over God.
After this point, as the story goes, a propensity to sin became an innate condition of mankind. It’s like a virus with only one cure – Jesus.
The Christian, having received this cure – received Jesus – is no longer prone to sin—meaning the virus is gone. They are reset to our nature prior to Adam and Eve sinning. So still having free will – still able to choose to not obey God – but not in a condition that leaves them powerless over sin and learning to live according to righteousness—according to God’s nature.
Boom “The only other option is that the removal of "sin nature" changes them in such a way that they will never, ever, ever, under ANY circumstances, choose to "sin", which is no different from a robot programmed to never do X, Y, or Z.”
That is not what I mean by transformation. We don’t lose our freedom. We can still choose to disobey God, but it’s a choice. If anything we have less freedom in the state of our sin nature because we don’t follow God by our natural inclination – we become free to do so after the transformation.
Question: Does this conversation really matter to you? If your only reason is for onlookers, I really don’t need to give so much of my time each day to this – but if you value this conversation for your own interests I don’t mind giving you my time.
Boom “So, choosing to drive drunk is the "sin", but yet, the fatally mangled child and his parents who witnessed the whole thing and who have to go the rest of their lives reliving the event over and over, are the ones who suffer the most.”
Just to be clear, I wasn’t saying God causes the accident or the consequences, but that sin naturally has consequences in this earth. So yes, if a drunk driver kills a child and robs the parents of her life then this is a direct consequence (ie) result of the driver’s foolish behavior.
Boom “So, the "consequences" of the "earthly sin" aren't due to the child or parent's choices, but they are due to the person who chose to drive drunk, confirmed here...”
Right.
Boom “Because you are back to conflating "sin", the curse, with each person's individual "sin".”
There is a difference between the “curse” affecting the whole world – and an individual’s sin affecting their immediate world – i.e. the drunk driving example. I have been addressing the latter.
Boom :(Example, when Katrina hit, you heard certain Xian leaders saying it was because of *THEIR* sinful lifestyles).”
I wasn’t one of those leaders. It’s not a claim I’m making.
Boom “Yet, in the drunk driving example, you seem to be suggesting that the consequences for "sin" are completely arbitrary. Both theories are equally revolting to me, and that people believe this stuff turns my stomach.”
You do understand, I am not insinuating God causes a drunk driving accident to punish the drunk driver – but that the drunk driver causes the accident and the resulting accident is caused by said driver’s wrong, unlawful, or sinful behavior. (ie—example of natural consequences of doing bad things – it hurts people)
Boom “But admittedly, the former is easier to believe, nonetheless, because I just don't believe that an all-powerful, all-loving, perfectly just "God" would make a child pay for a drunk's bad decisions.”
Of course not. I think this thread started when we were talking about how sin leads to death or destruction and I was to give examples of how that happens in this earth how doing wrong hurts people around a person and oneself.
Boom “ But from your POV, this stumbling block is probably because I don't have the "Spiritual understanding" that you do, and frankly, I'm glad I don't have it.”
Nope see answers above.
Boom “Okay, good. But I guess I'll take this as you then understand why a person might not want to become close to you, because, while you might actually believe I'm sincere, unless I've misunderstood, you still most certainly believe that if I die a nonbeliever, sincere, or not, that I deserve to be tortured with hellfire. Correct me if I'm wrong. “
I believe that Jesus doesn’t want that to happen so much that He took your place so you never have to experience the eternal result of life without God. You can twist that around to what you wrote, but that isn’t the way of it. I don’t expect my words to convince you otherwise though.
"It appears the crux of this 'debate' is:
1) on the justness or lack thereof of 'original sin' causing a 'sin nature' effecting all of humanity
2) the justness of hell due to #1
3) how does 'transformation' by Jesus work in relation to continued sin and free will
Is this accurate?"
For the most part, yes.
"I will pull out key things to respond to that hopefully won’t create a repeat answer that wastes your time . . .
Adam and Eve had no sin nature when they sinned. They had free will and because of this they were able to choose to believe Satan over God."
I'll stop you right here. Two points:
1) At face value and using "logic" and "reason" as we know it on earth, in order to be expected to "obey", Adam and Eve would have needed to possess the knowledge of what it means to obey/disobey prior to the whole event. To know that obeying is "good"/disobeying is "evil", they'd have to have a frame of reference. However, at that point, they had not eaten from the proverbial "Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil"[caps and bold added]
So, at face-value, there's a chronology error. The bible's redactors botched it big time, and Christians are left doing damage control. I'm sure you have an apologetic for this, however, so, let's hear it.
2) If Adam & Eve were created "in the image of God"(who we are to believe is "perfect"), then someone's got some explaining to do, since, the "perfect" creator evidently created something imperfect. Now, if you expect me to believe that the "perfect Creator" has free will but is somehow totally incapable of "sin", fine. But then there is not one reason under the sun why Adam & Eve could not have been created the same way. On the other hand - and the only other alternative - if the "perfect Creator" is capable of "sin", but will never, ever, ever, under ANY circumstance, choose to do so, then the same still applies..i.e..there is no reason under the sun why Adam & Eve could not have been created the same way.
Unless I've miss something, it has become very clear to me that you want things both ways on this issue(and others).
"After this point, as the story goes, a propensity to sin became an innate condition of mankind. It’s like a virus with only one cure – Jesus."
I find your "virus" analogy inapt for following reason: There are preventative measures that one can take to avoid contracting a "virus". For instance, one can wear a condom or abstain from sex to avoid getting the AIDS virus. One can wash his or her hands frequently to avoid the flu' virus. One can stay out of public showers to avoid the plantar wart virus, etc., etc. In rares cases where a virus is passed from one generation to the next..e.g..AIDS, we don't hold an AIDS-positive baby accountable for being born with something it didn't choose to be born with. That would be utterly ridiculous in the very same way that I find "Original Sin" utterly ridiculous.
You continue...
"The Christian, having received this cure – received Jesus – is no longer prone to sin—meaning the virus is gone."
Question: Once "the virus" is gone from "the Christian", does that preclude him or her from "sin"? Yes, or no? If "no", and in the case that he or she should "sin", then here are two key questions:
a) why should anyone believe that their "virus" was ever gone in the first place? and b) to what do you attribute their "relapse"?
"They are reset to our nature prior to Adam and Eve sinning."
See previous questions, above.
"That is not what I mean by transformation. We don’t lose our freedom."
Then once and for all, what undesirable attribute does the "transformed" person lose, and once they lose it, is it a guarantee that the undesired attribute won't resurface?(two part question)
"We can still choose to disobey God, but it’s a choice."
I have no clue why you would say something so redundant.
"If anything we have less freedom in the state of our sin nature because we don’t follow God by our natural inclination"
All the more reason to contest why we're being held personally accountable for acquiring a "nature" that none. of. us. chose.
"Question: Does this conversation really matter to you?"
Do you honestly think I'd invest this much time if it didn't "matter" to me? If you do, then our respective spheres of thought are even further apart than I previously thought.
"If your only reason is for onlookers, I really don’t need to give so much of my time each day to this
At no time did I ever say that you couldn't stop responding whenever you feel like it.
"but if you value this conversation for your own interests I don’t mind giving you my time."
Surely we agree that holding bad and even demonstrably false beliefs is not good, yes? And isn't it true that you believe this about atheists? If so, than I can surmise that there is some value there when/if you convince an atheist to adopt your beliefs; to come to Christ, as you call it. I would think this is true, especially when you are commissioned to do so. Welp, I find value in the same way, but, obviously, for different reasons. That shouldn't be hard to understand.
Previously, me: “So, choosing to drive drunk is the 'sin', but yet, the fatally mangled child and his parents who witnessed the whole thing and who have to go the rest of their lives reliving the event over and over, are the ones who suffer the most.”
You: "Just to be clear, I wasn’t saying God causes the accident or the consequences[...]"
To likewise be clear, I never said that "God" caused anything. Notwithstanding, since you and other Christians believe that "God" interacts in the physical world, I am not being unreasonable to expect that an all-loving, all-powerful "God" who interacts in the physical world could cause the drunk to hit a wall or tree, killing himself, rather than allow him to mow over a child before his parent's eyes. But again, that's just me.
"You do understand, I am not insinuating God causes a drunk driving accident to punish the drunk driver[....]"
Yes, I understand that. You are defending a position I don't hold. But again, I *do* hold the position that this "God" could limit the consequence of "sin"(for instance, a drunk's decision to drive intoxicated) to those who are actually committing the "sin", and leave innocent children out of it. And please don't respond and say "no one is innocent; we all have sin"(or something similar), because I am talking specifically about this:
an individual’s sin affecting their immediate world
(your words).
Previously, me: "Okay, good. But I guess I'll take this as you then understand why a person might not want to become close to you, because, while you might actually believe I'm sincere, unless I've misunderstood, you still most certainly believe that if I die a nonbeliever, sincere, or not, that I deserve to be tortured with hellfire. Correct me if I'm wrong"
You respond: "I believe that Jesus doesn’t want that to happen so much[....]"
If he doesn't want it to happen soooo much, then FINE, he can scrap the whole flippin'idea of TORTURING PEOPLE WITH FIRE and implement something MORE HUMANE! For instance, he could just let non-Christians die and cease to exist.
"[...]that He took your place[...]"
I didn't ask anyone to take my place or pay my debts, nor would I. Substitutionary atonement is unfair and unjust. It is bankrupt.
And BTW, if "He", as you say, "took my place", then "He" would have gotten the same punishment I'm (allegedly) going to get. IOW, "He" died for 3 days and now lives in paradise(for sake of discussion). That's a bit different than being incinerated on a daily basis for all of eternity, don't you think?
"[...]so you never have to experience the eternal result of life without God."
Here's the rub---the only reason that I "have to experience the eternal result" is because YOUR "God" makes the rules. He who makes the rules can change the rules, if he or she wanted to.
"You can twist that around to what you wrote, but that isn’t the way of it."
I'm twisting nothing. I'm using your own words, descriptions, definitions, and bible to point out the obvious: The central tenets of Christianity are nonsense. That is, they are philosophies and concepts that don't make sense.
Boom “1) At face value and using "logic" and "reason" as we know it on earth, in order to be expected to "obey", Adam and Eve would have needed to possess the knowledge of what it means to obey/disobey prior to the whole event.”
They were informed by God that they were not to eat of that tree and that it would bring them death. So they did have this knowledge.
Boom “To know that obeying is "good"/disobeying is "evil", they'd have to have a frame of reference. However, at that point, they had not eaten from the proverbial "Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil"[caps and bold added] “
There are two kinds of knowledge (1) intellectual (2) experiential . I think we ought to be able to agree there are two kinds – the Spanish language even uses two words for these two types of knowledge. Adam and Eve had #1 (God gave them intellectual knowledge that they were not to do this. They did not have experiential knowledge until after they disobeyed God.
Boom “2) If Adam & Eve were created "in the image of God"(who we are to believe is "perfect"), then someone's got some explaining to do, since, the "perfect" creator evidently created something imperfect. Now, if you expect me to believe that the "perfect Creator" has free will but is somehow totally incapable of "sin", fine.”
They were not made identical to God. They were made as good humans – with freedom to choice to not choose God’s ways.
Boom “But then there is not one reason under the sun why Adam & Eve could not have been created the same way. On the other hand - and the onlyother alternative - if the "perfect Creator" is capable of "sin", but will never, ever, ever, under ANY circumstance, choose to do so, then the same still applies..i.e..there is no reason under the sun why Adam & Eve could not have been created the same way.”
Jesus is often referred to as the second Adam – He lived without sin – never falling. He gave up His God powers and lived as a man perfectly related to God – His life shows us what was possible for mankind if we were fully aligned with God – we could live, love, and walk in the power Jesus did. Jesus could still sin – but didn’t. Satan tempted Him – and unlike Adam He passed through the temptation without sinning. The same is possible for us when we are rightly connected to God.
Boom “Unless I've miss something, it has become very clear to me that you want things both ways on this issue(and others).”
I’m not making up the story. It’s God’s story – I’m just retelling it. So it’s not about me having anything both ways – it is His story – you can accept it as He tells it or not. I can’t change it for you.
Boom “There are preventative measures that one can take to avoid contracting a "virus".:”
Yes, and there is a preventative method for sin too – a cure actually – or an antibiotic – Jesus.
Boom “In rare cases where a virus is passed from one generation to the next..e.g..AIDS, we don't hold an AIDS-positive baby accountable for being born with something it didn't choose to be born with.”
Right, but the baby is still affected because the problem is in the blood of the baby. It’s not the baby’s fault, but the baby still needs the cure.
Boom “That would be utterly ridiculous in the very same way that I find "Original Sin" utterly ridiculous.”
Original Sin is like a generational virus – it changed humanity – whether you agree with it or not – if it’s true it’s true. The question isn’t whether you like it – it’s whether it is really what happened.
Boom “Question: Once "the virus" is gone from "the Christian", does that preclude him or her from "sin"? Yes, or no? If "no", and in the case that he or she should "sin", then here are two key questions:”
It makes it possible for the Christian to live without sin. Doing so, is something that usually takes time to learn how to live according to our new nature rather than our sin nature. When you are born naturally you learn to speak, walk, take care of yourself, etc. When you are reborn you learn how to live out the new life – in the church we call this discipleship.
Boom “a) why should anyone believe that their "virus" was ever gone in the first place?”
That is where true faith comes in – I’m not talking about a believing in Santa Clause kind of faith – but a God given strength – assurance that your sins are forgiven and you are made new – And, to be honest, sometimes you go through dark times where you just simply have to believe when you have no feeling, or sight of it being true – and all of us go through our doubts and God loves us through them.
Boom “and b) to what do you attribute their "relapse"? “
Sometimes we forget who we are – we start thinking like we used to think – like a recovering alcoholic begins to forget his recovered and entertains the thinking that leads him to drink – we believe things that are not true of who we are – we stop living like we are righteous because we believe it didn’t really happen – we didn’t really get set free – we really don’t have power over that desire and we succumb to it.
Jesus – while He is a one -step cure – learning to live life with Him is a process.
Boom “Then once and for all, what undesirable attribute does the "transformed" person lose, and once they lose it, is it a guarantee that the undesired attribute won't resurface?(two part question) “
The sin nature – the nature that makes us prone to sin – stuck in sin – unable to save ourselves out of it. Once removed we are free to live righteousness and we are still free not too – but when we don’t we are choosing sin over righteousness rather than being powerless not to sin.
The nature will not resurface, the actions can. The cage is gone. The behaviors and thoughts of a life time have to be relearned in the context of life without a sin nature.
Boom “All the more reason to contest why we're being held personally accountable for acquiring a "nature" that none. of. us. chose.”
I didn’t create the story.
Boom “Do you honestly think I'd invest this much time if it didn't "matter" to me? If you do, then our respective spheres of thought are even further apart than I previously thought.”
In the past you said you did this so that a possible quiet lurker may read the conversation and be swayed to affirm their doubts in the Christian God. So I wasn’t sure if you had personal interest still or not. I assumed you did – but I wanted to know.
Boom “At no time did I ever say that you couldn't stop responding whenever you feel like it.”
I know. I’ll let you know if I need to due to time constraints. But I didn’t want to abandon the conversation haphazardly.
Boom “Surely we agree that holding bad and even demonstrably false beliefs is not good, yes?”
Speaking for myself, yes. I am always in a learning process – removing what doesn’t line up with truth and accepting what does.
Boom “And isn't it true that you believe this about atheists? If so, than I can surmise that there is some value there when/if you convince an atheist to adopt your beliefs; to come to Christ, as you call it. I would think this is true, especially when you are commissioned to do so. “
Sort of. I don’t adopt that idea like a Christian salesman – as some do – but I will share when asked or when I feel God prompting me to.
Boom “Welp, I find value in the same way, but, obviously, for different reasons. That shouldn't be hard to understand.”
Nope, it’s not. Just checking is all.
Boom “To likewise be clear, I never said that "God" caused anything. Notwithstanding, since you and other Christians believe that "God" interacts in the physical world, I am not being unreasonable to expect that an all-loving, all-powerful "God" who interacts in the physical world could cause the drunk to hit a wall or tree, killing himself, rather than allow him to mow over a child before his parent's eyes. But again, that's just me.”
The short answer is: when God created mankind he gave them/us dominion over the earth. He also gave us the power to change it into the Eden it was created to be.
Boom “If he doesn't want it to happen soooo much, then FINE, he can scrap the whole flippin'idea of TORTURING PEOPLE WITH FIRE and implement something MORE HUMANE! For instance, he could just let non-Christians die and cease to exist. “
He did – He gave Himself to us as the way out of the path of sin and death. You want it both ways. You want life without Him that leads to . . . non –existence . . . when He is offering life with Him that leads to you being full of righteousness, peace, and joy now and forever.
If you really knew He is real and truly understood the offer on the table – I don’t think you’d be complaining. You’d experience His goodness and understand that hell isn’t something He does to us – but something our life without Him necessarily results in because it is an eternal place where He is not for a people designed to live with Him. So life totally absent from Him – more absent than not knowing Him on earth – is hellish. He can’t change that. But He can give you Himself so you don’t have to have eternity without Him.
It’s not like there is this natural pit of fire where physical flesh covered humans burn without dying for eternity. Hell is a spiritual place where God is not present – where all that God is – is absent.
You – aren’t just a physical body that can cease to exist. Who you are remains when the body does not. Your spirit has no end – this is why what you ask is not practical because you are a spiritual and physical being. It’s like asking God to make a square circle. It simply doesn’t work that way.
Boom “I didn't ask anyone to take my place or pay my debts, nor would I. Substitutionary atonement is unfair and unjust. It is bankrupt.”
It’s love. Haven’t you ever done something for someone to protect them from the consequences of their action or mistake? Haven’t you ever accepted blame for something you didn’t do so the person who did it didn’t have to face the person they hurt?
I’ve picked up a mess my niece left on the table when she knows not to leave a mess and put it away without saying a word to her. Now if she did it every day, for her sake, I would help her remember to take care of her own mess, but that doesn’t mean there is no mercy.
That’s a very minor example – but surely we have all done that on larger scales because we love the person.
Jesus did it on the largest scale.
"They were informed by God that they were not to eat of that tree and that it would bring them death. So they did have this knowledge."
You appear to have blatantly ignored my point, which makes conversation more tedious than it needs to be.
In order for someone to know that they ought not do something, he or she would need to know that doing something they ought not do, is wrong, or in this case, "evil". No sane adult would expect a child to instinctively know the difference between right and wrong, which is why no sane, adult parent would reprimand a child for the first time and expect him or her to not ever commit another offense at a later time.
"There are two kinds of knowledge (1) intellectual (2) experiential . I think we ought to be able to agree there are two kinds – the Spanish language even uses two words for these two types of knowledge."
'Sound's like something straight off of a Christian apologist's website. In any case, I will concede the point, for sake of discussion. Do you concede that "God" would have known from the onset that Adam & Eve would choose to disobey him? Yes, or no?
You continue...
"Adam and Eve had #1 (God gave them intellectual knowledge that they were not to do this"
Please provide the exact, verbatim scripture in Genesis that confirms this assertion. If you will not/cannot provide this, then I have every reason to conclude that you are creating apologetics out of thin air to back your position(or getting said apologetics from a Christian website)
"They were not made identical to God. They were made as good humans – with freedom to choice to not choose God’s ways."
To my recollection, the bible doesn't say Adam & Eve "were made as good humans"; it says they were made "in the image of God". That said, here's what I want to know: What attribute does "God" have that is evidently NOT mutually inclusive with his "image". Be specific.
Previously, me: “But then there is not one reason under the sun why Adam & Eve could not have been created the same way. On the other hand - and the only other alternative - if the 'perfect Creator' is capable of 'sin', but will never, ever, ever, under ANY circumstance, choose to do so, then the same still applies..i.e..there is no reason under the sun why Adam & Eve could not have been created the same way.”
You respond: "Jesus is often refe[EDIT]"
"Jesus" (supposedly) came way after the Garden incident. I'm not interested in "Jesus" right now. I want to know which of the following applies to O.T. biblegod:
a) he has free will, but is incapable of choosing to "sin"
b) he has free will, is capable of choosing "sin", but will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER, under ANY circumstance, choose to sin"
Pick one, or provide a 3rd option.
"I’m not making up the story."
I know. *You're recounting a made up story.
"It’s God’s story – I’m just retelling it."
See here*, above
"So it’s not about me having anything both ways – it is His story – you can accept it as He tells it or not. I can’t change it for you"
The "story" doesn't make sense, regardless. So, yes, you need things both ways in order to make sense of it. And if you would just answer the questions herein, it will confirm this.
"Yes, and there is a preventative method for sin too – a cure actually – or an antibiotic – Jesus"
Look up the word, "preventative". Even if you don't look it up, you can see the word "PREVENT" in the word "preventative", can you not? IOW, one can PREVENT getting a flu' or AIDS virus. Conversely, one CANNOT prevent getting the "sin virus". No, a person is BORN WITH the "sin virus", according to your twisted theology. Thus, your "antibiotic" analogy fails.
"Right, but the baby is still affected because the problem is in the blood of the baby. It’s not the baby’s fault, but the baby still needs the cure."
One inapt, failed analogy after another. It's simply astonishing to me that you can avoid the obvious distinction. If a baby infected w/AIDS doesn't respond to the recommended treatment, we don't set fire to it or demonize it, calling it wretched, and unworthy of life.
"Original Sin is like a generational virus"
Karla, I don't give rat's hindquarters how you analogize or spin it---"Original Sin" is an abortion of reason, and it spits in the face of "justice".
FACT: Christianity holds people personally accountable for inheriting a flaw that is a direct result of two people's poor decision-making skills. There is no way around this, and yet, you keep defending it with flimsy, unconvincing apologetics.
"whether you agree with it or not – if it’s true it’s true"
I could just as easily say, "If it's false, it's false!". This is where evidence and logic come into play. And I reiterate---your "evidence" amounts to, "Just trust me, Boomslang!".
Previously, I asked: "Once 'the virus' is gone from 'the Christian', does that preclude him or her from 'sin'? Yes, or no?"
You respond: "It makes it possible for the Christian to live without sin."
Would you please-oh-please STOP equivocating!? You are wasting time and space, because, if I still want an answer, I now have to ask, "Okay, so is the person who is 'living without sin' precluded from COMMITTING sin?"
Do you see the pattern and how it wastes time?
Previously, me: “a) why should anyone believe that their 'virus' was ever gone in the first place?”
You: "That is where true faith comes in"
You've misunderstood. I don't want to know the answer from a Christian's perspective; I want to know it from a nonbeliever's perspective. So, now I will rephrase my question very carefully:
If the removal of the "sin virus" removes the propensity to "sin"(AS YOU ASSERT IT DOES), but yet, the person happens to "sin" down the road, why then should >>I<< believe that said "virus" was ever removed in the first place from said person?
Previously, me: "Then once and for all, what undesirable attribute does the 'transformed' person lose, and once they lose it, is it a guarantee that the undesired attribute won't resurface?"
You answer: "The sin nature – the nature that makes us prone to sin – stuck in sin – unable to save ourselves out of it. Once removed we are free to live righteousness and we are still free not too – but when we don’t we are choosing sin over righteousness rather than being powerless not to sin."
So, according to just above, the "sin nature" is removed, but this doesn't preclude the "transformed" person from committing personal "sin". So, the direct answer to my question is, "no", there is no guarantee that the "transformed" person will not "sin".
With that finally cleared up, is the "transformed" person, once in "heaven", precluded from "sin"(the personal act)? Yes, or no?
You continue...
The nature will not resurface, the actions can. The cage is gone."
Oh, really, Karla?? So, to commit a "sin" doesn't necessarily require a "sin nature"? I thought you made it clear that the whole reason we choose to "sin" is directly attributed to our "sin nature"?
Your inability to be consistent speaks volumes.
"I didn’t create the story"
I know you didn't. Ignorant, uneducated, Bronze-aged sheep herders did, which explains perfectly why it's got more holes than swiss cheese and why today's believers need apologetics to reconcile it.
Previously, me: “To likewise be clear, I never said that 'God' caused anything. Notwithstanding, since you and other Christians believe that 'God' interacts in the physical world, I am not being unreasonable to expect that an all-loving, all-powerful 'God' who interacts in the physical world could cause the drunk to hit a wall or tree, killing himself, rather than allow him to mow over a child before his parent's eyes. But again, that's just me.”
You respond: "The short answer is: when God created mankind he gave them/us dominion over the earth."
One of two things is true: Either, a) "God" intervenes here on earth, or b) he doesn't. Pick one. If you pick "a", then your apologetic, above, is an irrelevant response to the comment it was in response to. IOW, man might very well have "dominion over the earth", yadda, yadda, but that doesn't preclude "God" from getting involved, for instance, instead of healing someone's bunion at Walmart, your "God" could, instead, cause a drunk guy to crash into a tree or fence instead of plowing over a CHILD.
Previously, me: "If he doesn't want it to happen soooo much, then FINE, he can scrap the whole flippin'idea of TORTURING PEOPLE WITH FIRE and implement something MORE HUMANE! For instance, he could just let non-Christians die and cease to exist."
You: "He gave Himself to us as the way out of the path of sin and death."
Karla, you've categorically stated that when/if "He" does "transform" Christians, that they can, and *do*, "sin", "path" or no path.
I.e..a "transformed" Christian is no better off than anyone else, except for the sheer "fact" that he or she is given a "avoid Hell" card.
"You want it both ways. You want life without Him that leads to . . . non –existence"
You portray it dishonestly. Yes, IF those were my ONLY two choices, I would prefer to cease to exist OVER getting burned ALIVE everyday. Who wouldn't? And yes, one is much more humane than the other. That doesn't mean that I prefer to not exist over every other choice. I'm merely saying that since your "God" makes the rules, he can change them.
"when He is offering life with Him that leads to you being full of righteousness, peace, and joy now and forever."
What's being offered is from Christians and their bibles. I see no "God" offering anything. And since all I have to go on is, a) "Just trust me, Boomslang!", and b) the bible, I, unapologetically, I reject both.
Again, if a "God exists and he is anything close to the one portrayed in the bible, no thanks. I will not worship a sadistic jerk who BURNS, alive, sentient beings. That, Karla, is HEIGHT of cruelty, not to mention, immoral.
"If you really knew He is real and truly understood the offer on the table – I don’t think you’d be complaining."
This can be put to bed right here; right now:
Karla, are there people in "hell" right this second? And if I die a non-believer, will I join them?
If you answered "yes" to both, then your "God"(assuming he exists for sake of discussion) can KEEP his "offer".
"It’s not like there is this natural pit of fire where physical flesh covered humans burn without dying for eternity."
Oh? So, you're not a bible literalist anymore? What happened? The "second death", "lake of fire", "gnashing of teeth" are all figurative now?? When did this happen?
"Hell is a spiritual place where God is not present"
It's sounding better and better by the moment. Go on....?
"You – aren’t just a physical body that can cease to exist. Who you are remains when the body does not."
Who I am is my personality. And there is not one scrap of objective evidence that my personality can exist without my brain. In fact, all the available scientific evidence says that our personalities are *dependent* on a healthy brain.
Previously, me: “I didn't ask anyone to take my place or pay my debts, nor would I. Substitutionary atonement is unfair and unjust. It is bankrupt.”
You: "It’s love."
Nope, "love" doesn't have strings attached.
"Haven’t you ever done something for someone to protect them from the consequences of their action or mistake?"
Yes. And I've also tried the same thing for someone who didn't want my help. If someone wants to take responsibility for themselves, I think the appropriate response is "Okay, fair enough"(or something similiar). Since your "God" evidently doesn't respond similarly to those who reject his "offer", I think your analogy is severely lacking.
"Haven’t you ever accepted blame for something you didn’t do so the person who did it didn’t have to face the person they hurt?"
Taking blame to avoid hurt feelings is one thing. Taking blame to get a crook off the hook for he or she DESERVES, is quite another. In fact, we don't allow it in our court system. We don't allow it because it is SUBVERTING "justice"(and you know it).
"Jesus did it on the largest" scale."
The size of an immoral act doesn't change the fact that it's immoral.
Also, I wanted to address what follows, because I feel it is one of the more unconvincing apologetics in the Christian's repertoire....
"[...]hell isn’t something ('God') does to us – but something our life without Him necessarily results in[...]" ~ Karla
When you say, "necessarily results", do you by chance mean an enforced consequence, for instance, like murdering multiple people "necessarily results" in the death penalty if one is caught? If so, who, exactly, enforces this "result"? IOW, if a death row inmate won't voluntarily lie down on the gurney and have the lethal IVs inserted, he or she will be forced by prison guards against his or her will to lie down and be strapped in. So, what I want to know is, who is going to force me into "hell", because I can assure you that I am not going to willingly walk into a "lake of fire"(or any other place where I will be tortured forever). Looking forward to your explanation when/if feel up to it.
You appear to have blatantly ignored my point, which makes conversation more tedious than it needs to be.
Boom “In order for someone to know that they ought not do something, he or she would need to know that doing something they ought not do, is wrong, or in this case, "evil".”
I provide the Scriptures below to show that they were warned.
Boom “Do you concede that "God" would have known from the onset that Adam & Eve would choose to disobey him? Yes, or no?”
I think so.
Boom “Please provide the exact, verbatim scripture in Genesis that confirms this assertion.”‘
Genesis 2: 14-17 15 “The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
And Eve repeats that she does indeed know this: Genesis 3:2-3 “The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
To my recollection, the bible doesn't say Adam & Eve "were made as good humans"; it says they were made "in the image of God".
Genesis 2:31 “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good”
Boom “That said, here's what I want to know: What attribute does "God" have that is evidently NOT mutually inclusive with his "image". Be specific.”
I don’t understand your question. I am not sure if attributes and image are speaking of the same thing. It may be, I haven’t seen it that way before.
Boom “Previously, me: “But then there is not one reason under the sun why Adam & Eve could not have been created the same way. On the other hand - and the only other alternative - if the 'perfect Creator' is capable of 'sin', but will never, ever, ever, under ANY circumstance, choose to do so, then the same still applies..i.e..there is no reason under the sun why Adam & Eve could not have been created the same way.”
I don’t know. I’m not interested in what God might have possibly could have done – I’m interested in what He chose to do in His infinite wisdom. I cannot presume to judge my thoughts as higher and more capable than His. I am not saying that out of some religious rhetoric – but logically.
Boom "Jesus" (supposedly) came way after the Garden incident. I'm not interested in "Jesus" right now. I want to know which of the following applies to O.T. biblegod:
a) he has free will, but is incapable of choosing to "sin"
b) he has free will, is capable of choosing "sin", but will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER, under ANY circumstance, choose to sin"
I don’t know. I can only answer that in reference to Jesus – who was able to sin – but didn’t. Jesus was in human form at that point – so I don’t have a theology to give you on that regarding God – all I know is He is holy and good and He is always thus. How it works – I don’t know.
Boom “Look up the word, "preventative". Even if you don't look it up, you can see the word "PREVENT" in the word "preventative", can you not? IOW, one can PREVENT getting a flu' or AIDS virus. Conversely, one CANNOT prevent getting the "sin virus". No, a person is BORN WITH the "sin virus", according to your twisted theology. Thus, your "antibiotic" analogy fails. “
Ok, there is a cure for sin – Jesus.
Boom “One inapt, failed analogy after another. It's simply astonishing to me that you can avoid the obvious distinction. If a baby infected w/AIDS doesn't respond to the recommended treatment, we don't set fire to it or demonize it, calling it wretched, and unworthy of life.”
Nor is that the case with sin prone humans. But you have your own perception of heaven and hell that nothing I say can seem to dislodge them.
Boom “Karla, I don't give rat's hindquarters how you analogize or spin it---"Original Sin" is an abortion of reason, and it spits in the face of "justice". “
Ok, if that’s your final answer – why continue to debate it?
Boom “Would you please-oh-please STOP equivocating!? You are wasting time and space, because, if I still want an answer, I now have to ask, "Okay, so is the person who is 'living without sin' precluded from COMMITTING sin?"
I’ve told you multiple times that Jesus removes the “sin nature” but we still have the ability to sin – we just aren’t prone to it anymore. That’s the best answer I can give you and it’s not going to change.
Boom “You've misunderstood. I don't want to know the answer from a Christian's perspective; I want to know it from a nonbeliever's perspective. So, now I will rephrase my question very carefully:”
Then why don’t you discuss it with a non-believer? Or are you saying you want it from a Christian stripped of religious phrases and wording? I can understand the latter.
Boom “If the removal of the "sin virus" removes the propensity to "sin"(AS YOU ASSERT IT DOES), but yet, the person happens to "sin" down the road, why then should >>I<< believe that said "virus" was ever removed in the first place from said person?”
I get your reasoning on that – it’s a reasonable question – but I don’t know how to explain the difference without you experiencing how it is different. This could be because I’ve known Jesus from a very young age so I don’t have the experience in my memory of before knowing Jesus to after to give you a comparison.
Boom “So, according to just above, the "sin nature" is removed, but this doesn't preclude the "transformed" person from committing personal "sin". So, the direct answer to my question is, "no", there is no guarantee that the "transformed" person will not "sin".”
True.
Boom “With that finally cleared up, is the "transformed" person, once in "heaven", precluded from "sin"(the personal act)? Yes, or no?”
I don’t think so, but I don’t know.
Boom “Oh, really, Karla?? So, to commit a "sin" doesn't necessarily require a "sin nature"? I thought you made it clear that the whole reason we choose to "sin" is directly attributed to our "sin nature"?”
And we discussed that Adam and Eve had no sin nature prior to sinning. They simply had freedom and the ability to believe Satan’s lie. Sin nature happened after they sinned. . .
Boom “One of two things is true: Either, a) "God" intervenes here on earth, or b) he doesn't. Pick one.”
He does, at times, intervene Sovereignly – meaning without working through a believer – but His main objective is empowering us to take responsibility in His name and transform the world – restoring it to reflect heaven once again. To illustrate – enabling us to be Bruce Almighty’s (in a good way – minus all the trouble Bruce caused before He took his power seriously –assuming you are familiar with the movie).
Boom “I'm merely saying that since your "God" makes the rules, he can change them.”
He doesn’t make them arbitrarily.
Boom “What's being offered is from Christians and their bibles. I see no "God" offering anything. And since all I have to go on is, a) "Just trust me, Boomslang!", and b) the bible, I, unapologetically, I reject both.”
I’m not asking you to just trust me. I don’t expect anyone to believe anything without encountering Him for yourself – because that’s what it’s all about – not swallowing doctrine. You can believe everything the Bible says and it not do you any good if you don’t know Him.
I am only having this conversation with you because you want to have it – not to convert you – change you – get you to trust me – or any other evangelistic attempt. There was a day – even when we first began to converse some time ago – that I thought such dialog had such value – but today I have seen that there is no substitute for encountering God and I do an injustice to lead anyone to think that just believing what I say has any merit.
Boom “Again, if a "God exists and he is anything close to the one portrayed in the bible, no thanks. I will not worship a sadistic jerk who BURNS, alive, sentient beings. That, Karla, is HEIGHT of cruelty, not to mention, immoral.”
He doesn’t do that. But that’s okay – I don’t think you will believe otherwise until you come to experience the genuine love He has for you.
Boom “Karla, are there people in "hell" right this second? And if I die a non-believer, will I join them?”
Yes.
Boom “Oh? So, you're not a bible literalist anymore? What happened? The "second death", "lake of fire", "gnashing of teeth" are all figurative now?? When did this happen? “
There is a difference between literalism and the best words we have to explain a thing. I think fire is probably the best description that could be given. I believe there is a hell that is horrific, but I imagine it is different than any artist rendition of what we can grasp it to look like.
I said : "Hell is a spiritual place where God is not present"
Boom “It's sounding better and better by the moment. Go on....?”
You don’t know what you are talking about. You are designed to know God – to have eternity without Him – is in itself torture – which is what I’ve been trying to explain. It isn’t about “belief” in the way in which you can believe in Santa Clause -- it’s a knowing where you actually tangibly connect with God and He with you and when that happens nothing can separate you from Him.
Without that we are separated already and we cannot have life without Him because it is not there to be had outside of Him. Hell is a place outside of Him – which is why it is so very awful.
Boom “Who I am is my personality. And there is not one scrap of objective evidence that my personality can exist without my brain. In fact, all the availablescientific evidence says that our personalities are *dependent* on a healthy brain.”
If that’s true than there is no God anyway and this whole conversation really doesn’t matter at all. If that science is what you trust – should we stop here and leave it at that?
Boom “Nope, "love" doesn't have strings attached.”
If anything He cut the strings that keeps you from His love – rather than creating strings for you to gain His love.
Boom “Now, does your "God" except such an answer?”
He doesn’t make you accept His help.
Boom “Also, I wanted to address what follows, because I feel it is one of the more unconvincing apologetics in the Christian's repertoire.... “
Ok, last thing for today. I’ve got lots of work to get on.
"[...]hell isn’t something ('God') does to us – but something our life without Him necessarily results in[...]" ~ Karla
Boom “When you say, "necessarily results", do you by chance mean an enforced consequence, for instance, like murdering multiple people "necessarily results" in the death penalty if one is caught? “
No. It’s more like we need water to live so if a person doesn’t consume water they will die. No one makes them die – they don’t get what their body needs to live – and that results in death. We need God to have eternal life – an eternal life that changes life for us on earth – and gives us life after our physical body dies – so without Him – our eternal course is not life, but death – but since the real us – stripped of our physical mind and body – goes on to live for eternity as we are spiritual/physical beings that death is a continual dying – without God rather than a continual living with God. The only other path is God’s life.
Boom “So, what I want to know is, who is going to force me into "hell", because I can assure you that I am not going to willingly walk into a "lake of fire"(or any other place where I will be tortured forever). Looking forward to your explanation when/if feel up to it.”
So it’s not a matter of enforcement -- Paul isn’t sitting at the pearly gates, emissary of God, choosing who comes in and who goes to hell.
Please take your time. No rush.
I will read your post as soon as get free time to do so.
I read your post. My new post is in response to it.
Previously, me: “Do you concede that 'God' would have known from the onset that Adam & Eve would choose to disobey him? Yes, or no?”
You respond: "I think so."
And you would be right. And yet, look, here is yet one more blunder with which I and other people outside of the Christian bubble have a problem: God's foreknowledge that the Adam & Eve would disobey him.
It is makes much, much more sense, and hence, is much easier to believe, that an all-loving being who had prescience could have simply waited to create, choosing from a literal infinite set of individuals, two beings whom he knew would obey him. And please, I ask that you NOT respond saying anything about "free will". A foreknowledge of an obedient couple's actions doesn't harm or remove the illusion of free will anymore than the foreknowledge of a disobedient couple's actions removes it. IOW, "God" could have actually done the moral thing and created two people whom he knew would obey him. But biblegod didn't do that. No, instead, *he created two people whom he knew would disobey him, indirectly consigning untold millions to "Hell".
*BTW, if you offer, "Yeah, but Boomslang, God sent Jesus[or something similar]", know right this second that will I reject the apologetic, simply because your "God" took a chance, where he could have played it safe and saved EVERYONE, which is what we are to believe his goal was in the first place.
Regarding biblegod giving Adam & Eve "intellectual knowledge", I asked that you provide the scripture confirming this, and you offered:
Genesis 2: 14-17 15 “The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
Nothing so far.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
And I reiterate---to simply be "commanded" to do something/not do something only has meaning if the person being commanded has a frame of reference of right/wrong, or in this case, "good and evil". In the bible, this is completely assumed, just like it is assumed that they have a theory of mind. But for sake of discussion, I, like you, will assume this, because there are much bigger problems than this. For instance, biblegod's foreknowledge(see above).
Previously, me: “What attribute does 'God' have that is evidently NOT mutually inclusive with his 'image'. Be specific.”
You: "I don’t understand your question."
Man was created "in the image of God"(per Genesis). You want me to believe that said "God" can't or won't "sin", yes? Yes, I think so. But yet, the created being can, and DID "sin".
So, I am being reasonable to conclude that there must be an attribute missing from "God" that the creation evidently has, making "sin" not only possible, but likely. I want to know, specifically, what that attribute is and why it's part of their "image", but not "God's image"(bearing in mind that we're told that the former is made IN the latter's "image").
"I’m not interested in what God might have possibly could have done – I’m interested in what He chose to do in His infinite wisdom."
You obviously don't see the glaring contradiction in your statements. On the one hand, you admit that there could have been other options(and how could you not admit it, since, after all, we are talking an "omniscient" being who knows all options and their outcomes), yet, on the other hand, you say a being who chooses to implement a plan that consigns most of the human race to "hell", shows "infinite wisdom".
I think it shows, either, a) an infinitely cruel god, b) a god who isn't omniscient after all.
Then again, there's always "c"..i.e..that there isn't any god at all and the reason that people's concepts of "God" don't make sense is because each and every concept is man-made.
"I cannot presume to judge my thoughts as higher and more capable than His."
No one's asking you to do that. You're merely being asked to apply the same limited wisdom with which you know that "Poseidon", "Allah", and myriad other gods throughout history don't make sense, to "Yahweh". You are making excuses to believe what you want to believe.
Previously, me(a binary multiple choice):
"a) he has free will, but is incapable of choosing to 'sin'
b) he has free will, is capable of choosing 'sin', but will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER, under ANY circumstance, choose to sin"
You: "I don’t know. I can only answer that in reference to Jesus – who was able to sin – but didn’t. Jesus was in human form at that point – so I don’t have a theology to give you on that regarding God – all I know is He is holy and good and He is always thus. How it works – I don’t know."
So, on one of my more crucial points of contention, you say, "I don't know". Okay, fair enough, but unsatisfying, nonetheless. Hopefully it's becoming clear to you why some people reject your theology and the accompanying defenses of it.
Previously, me: "IOW, one can PREVENT getting a flu' or AIDS virus. Conversely, one CANNOT prevent getting the 'sin virus'. No, a person is BORN WITH the "sin virus", according to your twisted theology. Thus, your 'antibiotic' analogy fails."
You: "Ok, there is a cure for sin – Jesus."
I couldn't care less about a "cure". My point of contention was that we're being held personally accountable for having a flaw that can't be PREVENTED. We come out of the birth canal condemned. That spits in the face of reason and mocks "justice". You analogized, saying there's an "antibiotic", and I gave you numerous reasons why that analogy fails.
"Ok, if that’s your final answer – why continue to debate it?"
If this was a private email exchange, your question would be a good one. But it's not a private email exchange. Regardless, you can stop responding whenever you feel like it.
"I’ve told you multiple times that Jesus removes the 'sin nature' but we still have the ability to sin – we just aren’t prone to it anymore. That’s the best answer I can give you and it’s not going to change"
And I've told you multiple times that while this answer might be acceptable for location "A"(earth), it raises the obvious question of what is different about location "B"(heaven)?
Again, if "free will" necessitates being capable of "sin"(and according to you it does), then how is location "B" any different than location "A"? This, again, is the crux of my contention. If a former rapist or serial-killer who accepts "Jesus" gets "transformed", and said killer or rapist can still relapse and repeat their former "sin" here on earth, then what change occurs in them, or about them, once in "heaven"? If nothing changes, then why call it "heaven" or insinuate it's a place of perfect harmony? How could you ever feel truly at ease if you could feasibly be surrounded with former rapists and killers who could relapse at any moment? If your argument is, "That could never, ever happen, Boomslang!"(or something similar), then what I would like to know is, why couldn't it happen. What would make it impossible that still leaves room for "free will"? I don't know how to be any more specific.
Previously, me: “If the removal of the 'sin virus' removes the propensity to 'sin'(AS YOU ASSERT IT DOES), but yet, the person happens to 'sin' down the road, why then should >>I<< believe that said 'virus' was ever removed in the first place from said person?”
You: "I get your reasoning on that – it’s a reasonable question – but I don’t know how to explain the difference without you experiencing how it is different."
I hope you can see how, "I know the difference but I can't explain it", is as useful to me as, "I don't know the difference"
And BTW, even if I personally "experienced" having my "sin virus" removed my "Jesus", your own words confirm that this wouldn't preclude me from "sin"(the personal act), and in the case that I did, my "experience" would raise the exact same question to which you can't provide a satisfactory answer.
Previously, me: “With that finally cleared up, is the 'transformed' person, once in 'heaven', precluded from 'sin'(the personal act)? Yes, or no?”
You: "I don’t think so, but I don’t know."
And yet, one more instance where you don't know, which raises an eyebrow, considering it's coming from someone who claims to know "Truth"(uppercase "T")
Previously, me: “One of two things is true: Either, a) 'God' intervenes here on earth, or b) he doesn't. Pick one.”
You: He does, at times, intervene Sovereignly – meaning without working through a believer"
So, the answer is "yes". In which case, my point stands----instead of taking time to heal a bunion or headache at Walmart, this "God" could intervene in more productive ways, such as influencing the laws of nature in a way that results in a drunk driver hitting a wall or tree, vs plowing over a CHILD.
"but His main objective is empowering us to take responsibility in His name and transform the world – restoring it to reflect heaven once again."
Until/unless you once and for all clear up the heaven vs earth dilemma I posed - that is, until/unless you provide the distinguishing factor that effectively illustrates the advantage of a being a believer in location B("Heaven"), vs being a believer in location A(earth) - then talking about a goal to have earth "reflect heaven once again" is of no practical value. To recap, there is evidently something that happens to the occupants of "heaven" that precludes them from "sin"(both the act and the nature). You categorically state that people who have been "transformed" here on earth can, and do, relapse to "sin". So, either the occupants of "heaven" can relapse as well, or they can't. If they can't, I'd like to know why.
Previously, me: “I'm merely saying that since your 'God' makes the rules, he can change them.”
You: "He doesn’t make them arbitrarily."
This "God" either makes the rules according to someone else's standard, or he makes them according to his own standard. If the latter, my point remains..i.e..the rule-maker can change the rules if he/she wanted to. If something prevents this rule-maker from changing the rules, then that is highly indicative, if not conclusive evidence, that the rules are built around someone else's standard. You cannot have it both ways, as you so often try to do.
"I’m not asking you to just trust me. I don’t expect anyone to believe anything without encountering Him for yourself – because that’s what it’s all about – not swallowing doctrine"
At a minimum, that I should just take your word for it is implicit. While you might concede that you don't expect people to believe until/unless they encounter "Him", still, I should just trust you that there is actually a "Him" there. Further, you categorically state that there are dire consequences should I conclude that there is no "Him" to encounter.
In other words, you have a created a "God" who is "bulletproof", so-to-speak, so when it's all said and done, anyone - no matter how honest they are with you - who claims to have never encountered this "God", you believe they are lying, and worse, you actually support this twisted notion that they deserve to be tormented for eternity. You can water it down all you'd like, Karla. It doesn't change the tenets of your beliefs
Previously, me: “Again, if a 'God' exists and he is anything close to the one portrayed in the bible, no thanks. I will not worship a sadistic jerk who BURNS, alive, sentient beings. That, Karla, is HEIGHT of cruelty, not to mention, immoral.”
You: "He doesn’t do that."
If you are no longer of the position that any human being who dies a non-Christian will die their "second death"(Revelations) and deserves to tormented in a "lake of fire"(Revelations), then speak right up.
"But that’s okay – I don’t think you will believe otherwise until you come to experience the genuine love He has for you."
And I don't think you will believe otherwise until you actually absorb what I'm saying to you. Once more, I. DO. NOT. NEED. nor desire the "love" of any individual who punishes people for not loving them back. In great detail, I have given you the reasons why, if the Christian god exists AS delineated in the book that you so proudly carry under your arm, that I reject and denounce that "God". Karla, there is not a statute of limitation on being a vindictive, child-killing jerk. And I could not care less if this jerk had his offspring killed to exonerate me from a crime that happened before I was even born. That's his problem; not mine.
Previously, me: “It's sounding better and better by the moment. Go on....?”
You: "You don’t know what you are talking about."
And this is coming from who? Ah, it's coming from a person who believes in a book that contains a snake, shrubbery, and a domestic ass that speak the human language, 900 year old men, virgin births, unicorns, witches, demons, healing people with bird's blood, and walking cadavers. But >I< am the person who doesn't know what he's talking about.
"If that’s true than there is no God anyway and this whole conversation really doesn’t matter at all."
Again, your view is myopic. If it's true that there is no God, then how does the conversation not matter all of the sudden? Wouldn't it be good to actually learn that you believed a lie, and thus, correct false beliefs?
"He doesn’t make you accept His help."
Right, I am perfectly "free" to turn down "His help", so long as I understand what will happen to me if I *do* turn it down.
"It’s more like we need water to live so if a person doesn’t consume water they will die. No one makes them die – they don’t get what their body needs to live – and that results in death."
Poor analogy, as I've already made it clear that I have no problem dying(ceasing to exist). The whole "results in death" and "they will die" is smoke and mirrors. You water down your beliefs at every turn, and that speaks volumes.
Previously, me: “So, what I want to know is, who is going to force me into 'hell', because I can assure you that I am not going to willingly walk into a 'lake of fire'(or any other place where I will be tortured forever). Looking forward to your explanation when/if feel up to it.”
it’s not a matter of enforcement -- Paul isn’t sitting at the pearly gates, emissary of God, choosing who comes in and who goes to hell."
But yet, someone is doing the judging on "Judgement Day". Case in point: For those who are sentenced to eternal damnation who don't elect to go marching single file into "hell"(I, for one), someone must put them there. IOW, the whole "we put ourselves in hell" is a farse.
So, all-in-all, quite a change from the old days where I don't recall many "I don't know" answers, if any at all. On the other hand, I much appreciate that honesty over rewording demonstrably false apologetics. I see it as a bit of progress, actually.
Peace.
Boom “It is makes much, much more sense, and hence, is much easier to believe, that an all-loving being who had prescience could have simply waited to create, choosing from a literal infinite set of individuals, two beings whom he knew would obey him.”
I don’t know that it would have been any different with any human. Maybe, but I have no way of knowing that.
Boom “And please, I ask that you NOT respond saying anything about "free will". A foreknowledge of an obedient couple's actions doesn't harm or remove the illusion of free will anymore than the foreknowledge of a disobedient couple's actions removes it.”
True.
Boom “IOW, "God" could have actually done the moral thing and created two people whom he knew would obey him.”
That’s assuming your plan is good and His was not. That’s a lot to assume.
Boom “And I reiterate---to simply be "commanded" to do something/not do something only has meaning if the person being commanded has a frame of reference of right/wrong, or in this case, "good and evil". In the bible, this is completely assumed, just like it is assumed that they have a theory of mind.”
Now that sounds like equivocating. I provided where they were clearly told not to do it and what the consequences would be.
Boom “Man was created "in the image of God"(per Genesis). You want me to believe that said "God" can't or won't "sin", yes? Yes, I think so. But yet, the created being can, and DID "sin".”
Created in the image of God is not the same as being identical to God. There is a big difference between Creator and created. God didn’t clone himself. We aren’t omniscient, omnipresent, etc. We aren’t clones of God. The only way we can be like God is to be in God because all those necessary ingredients are in Him. Man was never meant to live without God. So we tap into His abilities when we are united with Him – but Adam and Eve separated themselves from Him first by believing a lie and then by acting upon that lie.
Boom “So, I am being reasonable to conclude that there must be an attribute missing from "God" that the creation evidently has, making "sin" not only possible, but likely. I want to know, specifically, what that attribute is and why it's part of their "image", but not "God's image"(bearing in mind that we're told that the former is made IN the latter's "image").”
See above answer.
Boom “ you admit that there could have been other options (and how could you not admit it, since, after all, we are talking an "omniscient" being who knows all options and their outcomes), yet, on the other hand, you say a being who chooses to implement a plan that consigns most of the human race to "hell", shows "infinite wisdom"”
You are assuming there were better plans – but you aren’t in a position to know the mind of God. Look, if God did create man – you are in His story – you can keep saying it’s not right or not fair or down right wrong – but were not there at the beginning. You weren’t there to know the thoughts of God or to see the outworking’s of other “options” if there was that kind of deliberation. In this regard, you are left with trusting Him, but trust doesn’t come by doctrine making sense to you – the doctrine we Christians confess could be in error – but real trust is developed by experiencing Him. When you have come in contact with Him, truly, you will know that you know that He is the most amazing loving being – so much so you could never dream up the level to which He is thus.
Boom “I think it shows, either, a) an infinitely cruel god, b) a god who isn't omniscient after all.”
I think trying to figure it out with your natural mind will not lend you to ever adopt another view on this. And that’s ok, because I know God is bigger than our ways of thinking and He can show you what I cannot by my weak attempt at explanations.
Boom “Then again, there's always "c"..i.e..that there isn't any god at all and the reason that people's concepts of "God" don't make sense is because each and every concept is man-made.”
Yep, you could accept that as the reality of it all.
Boom “No one's asking you to do that. You're merely being asked to apply the same limited wisdom with which you know that "Poseidon", "Allah", and myriad other gods throughout history don't make sense, to "Yahweh". ”
Ah, but any knowledge I can have about Poseidon, et al, I would have to read about – but I have firsthand knowledge of my God. My knowledge of who God is isn’t relegated solely to the Bible. I’ve met Him.
Boom “So, on one of my more crucial points of contention, you say, "I don't know". Okay, fair enough, but unsatisfying, nonetheless. Hopefully it's becoming clear to you why some people reject your theology and the accompanying defenses of it.”
I don’t expect my doctrinal beliefs or theories to be the basis of anyone coming to know the Lord. When I first started this blog I thought differently, but I’ve come to know the Lord in a new way since then and I can see that experiencing Him is what’s it’s about and far more effective than any argument I can make. In fact, if someone came to believe because they were persuaded by some argument, I would probably question that – because true belief in Jesus is much more than that – one who knows Jesus knows that they actually know Him – not just that they chose to believe what is said about Him is true.
Boom “I couldn't care less about a "cure". My point of contention was that we're being held personally accountable for having a flaw that can't be PREVENTED. We come out of the birth canal condemned. That spits in the face of reason and mocks "justice". ”
You want to decry something you can’t change – something that regardless of whether the story is correct – the evidence exist that mankind struggles with something akin to what I call “sin” – no matter how it came to be – the thing that ought to be a greater concern is what can we do about it – rather than how can we blame it on God. But if God doesn’t existence, then there is no blaming and also no cure.
Boom “And I've told you multiple times that while this answer might be acceptable for location "A"(earth), it raises the obvious question of what is different about location "B"(heaven)?”
Location B, heaven, is in Christ – there is no deception, lies, or temptation there, like there is on earth. The whole Christian walk and purpose of the Church is to bring that reality here onto the earth.
I’m not one who believes that heaven is just an after-life paradise – I believe that it is a place in Christ that I can experience now and I can access it and live it out on earth – but learning to do that while living on earth is a process. One day there will not be any dark spiritual forces causing temptation and deception upon the earth either – but that day has not yet come.
Boom “Again, if "free will" necessitates being capable of "sin"(and according to you it does), then how is location "B" any different than location "A"?”
I don’t know how to explain it better than I do above.
Boom “This, again, is the crux of my contention. If a former rapist or serial-killer who accepts "Jesus" gets "transformed", and said killer or rapist can still relapse and repeat their former "sin" here on earth, then what change occurs in them, or about them, once in "heaven"?”
Earth has deception and temptation and dark spiritual forces. Heaven is not just a different physical location – but it is actually in Jesus – it is in a perfect holy being.
Boom “If nothing changes, then why call it "heaven" or insinuate it's a place of perfect harmony? How could you ever feel truly at ease if you could feasibly be surrounded with former rapists and killers who could relapse at any moment?”
Any heart issue, defect, reason within us for doing such acts would be completely healed – restored, corrected. Any emotional trauma we suffered would no longer affect us. When a person is completely healed – whole – restored – being in Jesus – the actions of a person correspond to this new state. This can be walked out on earth -- but on earth we still have the external pressures of a fallen world around us – in heaven there are no such pressures, tensions, temptations etc.
Boom “If your argument is, "That could never, ever happen, Boomslang!"(or something similar), then what I would like to know is,why couldn't it happen. What would make it impossible that still leaves room for "free will"? I don't know how to be any more specific.”
I don’t know beyond what I’ve already said above.
Boom “I hope you can see how, "I know the difference but I can't explain it", is as useful to me as, "I don't know the difference"”
I do see that – I’m sorry I haven’t more to offer you on that.
Boom “And BTW, even if I personally "experienced" having my "sin virus" removed my "Jesus", your own words confirm that this wouldn't preclude me from "sin"(the personal act), and in the case that I did, my "experience" would raise the exact same question to which you can't provide a satisfactory answer.”
Good point, but you would know what is like to not have a sin nature – it’s something I cannot describe nor can I recount my difference of having one to not having one because I was a child when I first came to know Jesus.
Boom “And yet, one more instance where you don't know, which raises an eyebrow, considering it's coming from someone who claims to know "Truth"(uppercase "T") “
I know a Person who is Truth – I don’t have all the truth answers about theology, doctrine, and theorizing beyond what is expressly mentioned in Scripture. I would rather go with “I don’t know” then to try and offer you some guess I am coming up with on the spot.
Boom “Until/unless you once and for all clear up the heaven vs earth dilemma I posed - that is, until/unless you provide the distinguishing factor that effectively illustrates the advantage of a being a believer in location B("Heaven"), vs being a believer in location A(earth) - then talking about a goal to have earth "reflect heaven once again" is of no practical value.”
Fair enough.
Boom “To recap, there is evidently something that happens to the occupants of "heaven" that precludes them from "sin"(both the act and the nature).”
It essentially happens the moment the person enters relationship with Jesus. But the church hasn’t taught that so a lot of people who are free from sin don’t know that and still act like they aren’t because they believe something that isn’t true.
In heaven all is clear and there are no lies or deceptions or misconstrued truths – so in that environment – pulled away from all earthly corruption around us – we experience a freedom we can experience on earth—but often don’t know how to.
Boom “You categorically state that people who have been "transformed" here on earth can, and do, relapse to "sin". So, either the occupants of "heaven" can relapse as well, or they can't. If they can't, I'd like to know why.”
On earth we still experience the effects of the corruption around us and we have the ability to live according to what we see and experience naturally rather than what is unseen and really true. In heaven all we see is in line what is true – there is no deception – no lies – no external pressures – we aren’t inhibited by physical limitations or any other limitations.
Boom “This "God" either makes the rules according to someone else's standard, or he makes them according to his own standard. If the latter, my point remains..i.e..the rule-maker can change the rules if he/she wanted to.”
He is good. He doesn’t change. So good doesn’t change.
Boom “If something prevents this rule-maker from changing the rules, then that is highly indicative, if not conclusive evidence, that the rules are built around someone else's standard. You cannot have it both ways, as you so often try to do.”
He doesn’t change. He is the standard – and the standard doesn’t change because He doesn’t change. He is always Himself.
Boom “At a minimum, that I should just take your word for it is implicit. While you might concede that you don't expect people to believe until/unless they encounter "Him", still, I should just trust you that there is actually a "Him" there.”
Nope, no need to trust me on that either.
Boom “Further, you categorically state that there are dire consequences should I conclude that there is no "Him" to encounter.”
Your conclusion isn’t what causes your destination. It isn’t a punishment for unbelief.
Boom “In other words, you have a created a "God" who is "bulletproof", so-to-speak, so when it's all said and done, anyone - no matter how honest they are with you - who claims to have never encountered this "God", you believe they are lying, and worse, you actually support this twisted notion that they deserve to be tormented for eternity. You can water it down all you'd like, Karla. It doesn't change the tenets of your beliefs “
I didn’t create anything about God. I don’t disbelieve you haven’t encountered Him. I do believe that sin leads to death and that Jesus saves us from both our sin and the death bring us life. Jesus does far more than that – but the focus of this conversation has been sin.
Boom “And I don't think you will believe otherwise until you actually absorb what I'm saying to you. Once more, I. DO. NOT. NEED. nor desire the "love" of any individual who punishes people for not loving them back. In great detail, I have given you the reasons why, if the Christian god exists AS delineated in the book that you so proudly carry under your arm, that I reject and denounce that "God". Karla, there is not a statute of limitation on being a vindictive, child-killing jerk. And I could not care less if this jerk had his offspring killed to exonerate me from a crime that happened before I was even born. That's hisproblem; not mine.”
Ok.
Boom “Again, your view is myopic. If it's true that there is no God, then how does the conversation not matter all of the sudden? Wouldn't it be good to actually learn that you believed a lie, and thus, correct false beliefs?”
This conversation won’t convince me, because I have already encountered God more powerfully than any conversation or argument could ever convince me otherwise. So if you believe there is no God, and that reality is the real one then this conversation shouldn’t have value for you – unless you are holding out that there may be something to all this afterall.
Boom “Poor analogy, as I've already made it clear that I have no problem dying(ceasing to exist). The whole "results in death" and "they will die" is smoke and mirrors. You water down your beliefs at every turn, and that speaks volumes.”
Ceasing to exist isn’t the way we were made. We are more than our physical bodies.
Boom “But yet, someone is doing the judging on "Judgement Day". Case in point: For those who are sentenced to eternal damnation who don't elect to go marching single file into "hell"(I, for one), someone must put them there. IOW, the whole "we put ourselves in hell" is a farse. “
We might not effectuate the transfer, but we brought about the outcome on our own.
Boom “So, all-in-all, quite a change from the old days where I don't recall many "I don't know" answers, if any at all. On the other hand, I much appreciate that honesty over rewording demonstrably false apologetics. I see it as a bit of progress, actually.”
I’m getting comfortable with “I don’t know.”
Have you seen my last post that I made after reading your article?
Previously, me: “It is makes much, much more sense, and hence, is much easier to believe, that an all-loving being who had prescience could have simply waited to create, choosing from a literal infinite set of individuals, two beings whom he knew would obey him.”
You: "I don’t know that it would have been any different with any human."
Oh, really? Let's suppose that it would not have been any different. Okay, can you not see the glaring implication? If, out of a set of all humankind, not one specimen would ever choose "good" over "evil", that means that biblegod knew from the onset that his conception for his creation was flawed; it means that he knew his creation was inherently "evil". And yet, this "God" created and tested humankind anyway, despite that knowledge. To compound the absurdity, biblegod then turns around and blames them for being flawed.
That, Karla, does NOT show me "infinite intelligence", but quite the opposite..i.e..plain stupidity.
Previously, me: “IOW, 'God' could have actually done the moral thing and created two people whom he knew would obey him.”
You: "That’s assuming your plan is good and His was not. That’s a lot to assume"
Incorrect. We don't need to "assume" a darned thing. Under the current "plan"..i.e.. the one that biblegod chose to implement out of an infinite list of possible outcomes, millions will be consigned to "hell". Think of all the people who died before the advent of the modern printing press whom the Gospel had not ever reached. That, alone, makes biblegod's current plan suspect.
On the other hand, if, as I suggested, biblegod had simply chosen to create two prototypes whom he knew would obey him, not one single person would suffer damnation. "Eden", or "heaven on earth", as you call it, would be "sinless" just as biblegod (supposedly) intended it. So, again, we need not assume a thing.
Previously, me: “to simply be 'commanded' to do something/not do something only has meaning if the person being commanded has a frame of reference of right/wrong, or in this case, 'good and evil'. In the bible, this is completely assumed, just like it is assumed that they have a theory of mind.”
You: "Now that sounds like equivocating. I provided where they were clearly told not to do it and what the consequences would be."
Repeating errors doesn't correct them. If you CLEARLY TELL someone who has no theory of mind, which, FYI, is something that one must possess before they can ever begin to understand "right" from "wrong", then you are talking to a flippin' wall. IOW, it doesn't matter how "clear" you are being.
I reiterate--one must ASSUME that the first two human prototypes were already endowed with theory of mind and a knowledge of "right" from "wrong". And BTW, I conceded this point for sake of discussion because there are much, much more problematic things found in Christian doctrine, for instance, biblegod's foreknowledge of the way things would go down in the infamous "Garden".
"Created in the image of God is not the same as being identical to God. There is a big difference between Creator and created."
I've already conceded this, too. Hello? Karla? I grant you that there is a "difference". Now, I want to know WHAT THAT DIFFERENCE IS. I want to know which specific attribute is not mutually inclusive with "God" and "the image of God".
"You are assuming there were better plans"
Repeat: NO, I most certainly am NOT "assuming" any such thing. If you agree that, a) biblegod is omniscient, and b) biblegod's goal was to "save" every single specimen of humankind, then logic says that said "God" could have achieved "b" without consigning people to "hell", and people's "free will" would remain intact. You are simply back to defending your errors and your not-so-"infinitely wise" biblegod.
"but you aren’t in a position to know the mind of God."
And guess what, Karla? I DON'T NEED to know the "mind of God" to apply a healthy dose of skepticism to the actions of this "God". Do I need to know the mind of Charles Manson to be skeptical of his actions? NO. If Manson's defenders, for instance, his lawyer, told me... "Well, Boomslang, maybe Mr. Manson had good reasons for wanting a pregnant women stabbed 40 times", I am being reasonable to conclude that this lawyer has mental issues.
Well, I've got news for you---the same would hold true if you tell me, "Well, Boomslang, maybe Yahweh had good reasons for damning most of the human race to hell!".
THAT, Karla, it is an intellectual cop-out and it is special pleading.
"Look, if God did create man – you are in His story"
What does that even mean? Are you suggesting that we're just a bunch of puppets in your biblegod's "story", and thus, he can do precisely as he sees fit????
"you can keep saying it’s not right or not fair or down right wrong"
Yes, I can, and will, keep saying all of the above. If you, like millions more just like you, have been indoctrinated to believe that whatever "God" does is "good" by pure virtue of being "God", then your beliefs should be challenged.
"but were not there at the beginning."
Totally, 100% irrelevant. I wouldn't have needed to "be there" to spot poor reasoning. This is precisely why things like serial-killing don't have a statute of limitation. If it can proven that someone made crappy decisions that led to unnecessary suffering and death sometime in the past, ANYTIME in the past, then the person should be held accountable.
"You weren’t there to know the thoughts of God or to see the outworking’s of other 'options' if there was that kind of deliberation. In this regard, you are left with trusting Him[EDIT]"
YOU might be left with "trusting Him", and that is evidently the case. Me? I'm not going to "trust" someone whose supposed "infinite wisdom" leaves them no other option but to create a race of beings whom this someone knew from the onset was flawed, and who then turns around and blames them for it. THAT, Karla, is utter nonsense, and it is despicable that you defend it.
"but trust doesn’t come by doctrine making sense to you – the doctrine we Christians confess could be in error"
Whoaaaaaaa!!!!!! What's this!? The "doctrine", aka, the bible, "COULD BE IN ERROR"???[caps added] This is a real turn around from previous conversations.
"but real trust is developed by experiencing Him."
I challenge you to tell me with a straight face that you'd set out to develop a trust with a nanny who had a past track-record of drowning children under her care.
I will tell you this one last time and I beg of you to let it sink in:
If the Christian deity decided to actually show himself, I would not excuse his atrocious behavior as laid out in the bible. No amount of excuse-making would change my mind. No "all-loving" person (or deity) would DROWN an entire planet. Ever. Thee end.
"I think trying to figure it out with your natural mind[EDIT]
The same unconvincing apologetics.
Karla, my "NATURAL MIND"[caps added] is how I know that Poseidon doesn't cause earthquakes and that the stork doesn't bring babies. IOW, your "natural mind" is just fine for weeding out error and distinguishing between sense and nonsense when it comes to everything else. You, however, make an exception for your religious beliefs. It's called compartmentalization.
"And that’s ok, because I know God is bigger than our ways of thinking and He can show you what I cannot by my weak attempt at explanations"
Does "bigger" by chance mean better? If so, then it should be fully in your grasp to explain things in ways that make sense, because we both understand the word "better". But alas, what's really happening here is that you are making excuses whenever your "God" doesn't make sense. It doesn't make a drop of sense to suggest that a gossipy coworker is on equal immoral grounds with a killer. But that's exactly what you suggested earlier in this thread when trying to explain how "heavenly justice" is BETTER than our own justice system.
"You want to decry something you can’t change"
FALSE. What I am decrying is unreasonable, outdated, barbaric beliefs. History shows that we *can*, and do, change such beliefs. We no longer keep slaves(biblically supported). We know longer burn "witches"(biblically supported), and on and on.
"something that regardless of whether the story is correct – the evidence exist that mankind struggles with something akin to what I call 'sin' – no matter how it came to be – the thing that ought to be a greater concern is what can we do about it – rather than how can we blame it on God."
Proving once again that you are a HORRIBLE reader! Look, I am NOT BLAMING your biblegod for one flippin' thing, Karla. I have told you over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and OVER that I do NOT believe that the Christian deity, including its "Son" and its ghost, have a referent in reality. Please let it sink in---I have these conversations with you under the *pretense* that your bible and your personal spiritual beliefs are "true" to attempt to illustrate to you that they are NOT true, and in fact, that you have not one good reason to belief any of it, except that you *want* to believe it.
"But if God doesn’t existence, then there is no blaming and also no cure"
Non-sequitur. You see, Karla, real life isn't black n' white, unlike your Christian beliefs, where everything is such. Just because there's "no cure" for our imperfect nature, that doesn't mean that we are inherently wretched, worthless, sinners, totally incapable of EVER doing anything good. This, in part, is why your beliefs - my previous beliefs - disgust me. I can't believe I went that long deluded and too scared to face the obvious.
"Location B, heaven, is in Christ – there is no deception, lies, or temptation there, like there is on earth."
And there we have it, readers.
*Thank you for once and for all confirming my position all along, and that is this: Personal freedom in location B(Heaven) is absent. In order to be able to choose between "right" and "wrong" requires the freedom to contemplate options and their respective outcomes..i.e.."right" options, and "wrong" options, the latter of which CANNOT exist if there's NO temptation. Consider yourself the loser on this point.
"When a person is completely healed – whole – restored – being in Jesus"
i.e...automatons devoid of the necessary personal freedom to choose between "good" and "evil"(reread here*, above)
"Good point, but you would know what is like to not have a sin nature"
Immaterial, of-no-practical-value point, because obviously, having my "sin nature" removed didn't make my actions or intentions any better than when I had this supposed "sin nature".
"I know a Person who is Truth"
Correction---you believe that you "know [yadda, yadda]"
Previously, me: “This 'God' either makes the rules according to someone else's standard, or he makes them according to his own standard. If the latter, my point remains..i.e..the rule-maker can change the rules if he/she wanted to.”
You attempt: "He is good. He doesn’t change. So good doesn’t change"
Your incessant equivocation is astounding. It truly is. My point once more: If your biblegod makes the rules, he can then change those rules if he wanted to, because said rules are in accordance with nothing but himself, who, as you insist to your detriment, DEFINES "good". Thus, any rule he makes is "good" by mere definition. This is yet one more point that you've lost over and over and over, yet, you erroneously defend it over and over. 'Truly amazing.
Previously, me: “Further, you categorically state that there are dire consequences should I conclude that there is no 'Him' to encounter.”
You: "Your conclusion isn’t what causes your destination. It isn’t a punishment for unbelief."
You are weasel-wording. My "destination" depends on one thing: Whether I am Christian, or not. If, at the end of my life, I conclude that the Christian god doesn't exist, then I obviously qualify as a non-Christian, and as we know, your lovely beliefs say that non-Christians DESERVE "hell". Please-oh-please stop equivocating.
"I have already encountered God more powerfully than any conversation or argument could ever convince me otherwise"
You are deceived in the very same way that you would likely believe that the person who claims to have already encountered all of the Hindu gods(yes, more than one) is deceived. IOW, harboring certainty over spiritual matters means nothing at all, because people harbor certainty on spiritual beliefs that directly oppose your own, and you'd say they are wrong.
"Ceasing to exist isn’t the way we were made. We are more than our physical bodies."
Fallacy of bare assertion.
"Have you seen my last post that I made after reading your article?"
Yes.
Boom “I reiterate--one must ASSUME that the first two human prototypes were already endowed with theory of mind and a knowledge of "right" from "wrong". “
We’ve discussed that there are two kinds of knowing. The knowing in my head and the knowing by experience. I can know who George Washington is, I can read every book by him and about him, but that will still not be the same as knowing him as John Adams knew him or as Martha Washington knew him. No historian can ever reach that kind of knowledge.
In the same way, there is a real knowledge that is received by being told – and quite another that is received by the experiencing. Adam and Eve had the former, but not the latter, until after they sinned. Afterwards sin entered their beings.
Sin is not just a behavior that afterwards is gone. It sticks with you until it is forgiven.
Boom “And BTW, I conceded this point for sake of discussion because there are much, much more problematic things found in Christian doctrine, for instance, biblegod's foreknowledge of the way things would go down in the infamous "Garden". “
Just the same, I responded to that point above.
Boom “Repeat: NO, I most certainly am NOT "assuming" any such thing. If you agree that, a) biblegod is omniscient, and b) biblegod's goal was to "save" every single specimen of humankind, then logic says that said "God" could have achieved "b" without consigning people to "hell", and people's "free will" would remain intact. You are simply back to defending your errors and your not-so-"infinitely wise" biblegod.”
See the thing is I don’t think you envision there is a sadistic God (ie) you being an atheist. So I understand this line of reasoning is not to prove there is a sadistic or unwise God – but that since such a God would be no God at all – that there then is no God.
But the way I see it is that I have met this God and I have experienced His goodness and I trust His wisdom – and we both know that a God would not be sadistic and cruel. I can’t ignore my relationship with God – all that we are discussing is merely theology.
I don’t see much point rehashing theology – especially theorized theology of “what if’s” . . .
Boom “What does that even mean? Are you suggesting that we're just a bunch of puppets in your biblegod's "story", and thus, he can do precisely as he sees fit????”
I’m saying that we can question the origins all we want of those first days on earth, but when it comes down to it that has already happened and theorizing what God could have done is pointless because He being God would know what was and He is the author of creation – we do write into that story – as we are not puppets – but He is still the ultimate Author.
Boom “Yes, I can, and will, keep saying all of the above. If you, like millions more just like you, have been indoctrinated to believe that whatever "God" does is "good" by pure virtue of being "God", then your beliefs should be challenged. “
I haven’t been indoctrinated – in fact; I see lots of things differently than the way I was first taught. My experience with God has taught me far more than any teacher, parent, or pastor.
Boom “Whoaaaaaaa!!!!!! What's this!? The "doctrine", aka, the bible, "COULD BE IN ERROR"???[caps added] This is a real turn around from previous conversations.”
Not really. I didn’t say the Bible was in error – I said our doctrine can be in error. I’m sure you know doctrines vary with people reading the same Bible. My interpretation, explanation, theology can be wrong or off in some areas – and I don’t ask anyone to put their trust in my interpretations – but in God himself.
Let’s just say I weave an incredible reasonable argument that answers all your questions and concerns about God – where would we be? I don’t think it would suddenly make God visible to you. I don’t think believing doctrine will suffice. It shouldn’t suffice. It cannot substitute for actually encountering God.
Boom “I challenge you to tell me with a straight face that you'd set out to develop a trust with a nanny who had a past track-record of drowning children under her care.”
That analogy doesn’t work.
Boom “If the Christian deity decided to actually show himself, I would not excuse his atrocious behavior as laid out in the bible. No amount of excuse-making would change my mind. No "all-loving" person (or deity) would DROWN an entire planet. Ever. Thee end. “
If you truly experienced Him showing up – that would be the last thing on your mind. The love you would encounter would be more important than what you think you know about who He is.
Boom “Proving once again that you are a HORRIBLE reader! Look, I am NOT BLAMING your biblegod for one flippin' thing, Karla. I have told you over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and OVER that I do NOT believe that the Christian deity,”
I know. But in my view He does exist so there is an accusation on the table against Him coming from you. In your view there is no one to accuse no one to blame for its all one terrible piece of fiction. I get that is where you are coming from.
Boom “Non-sequitur. You see, Karla, real life isn't black n' white, unlike your Christian beliefs, where everything is such. Just because there's "no cure" for our imperfect nature, that doesn't mean that we are inherently wretched, worthless, sinners, totally incapable of EVER doing anything good. This, in part, is why your beliefs - my previous beliefs - disgust me. I can't believe I went that long deluded and too scared to face the obvious.”
Oh He never sees us as worthless – a person doesn’t pay with his blood for worthless.
Boom “*Thank you for once and for all confirming my position all along, and that is this: Personal freedom in location B(Heaven) is absent. In order to be able to choose between "right" and "wrong" requires the freedom to contemplate options and their respective outcomes..i.e.."right" options, and "wrong" options, the latter of which CANNOT exist if there's NO temptation. Consider yourself the loser on this point.”
Weren’t you the one to just inform me things were not so black and white? You don’t seem to keep that standard. I didn’t say there was no freedom in heaven. I said there is no lies or deception in heaven – in Jesus—thus no temptation. We will have already gone through all that and come out on the other side.
Our “free will” doctrine I think is someone too simplistic – or maybe too rigid. I know I’ve argued on this blog that we free will means the ability to do something wrong – and maybe that’s right – but God was free before there was ever any sin – before even Lucifer fell. So how that all works in conjunction with free – will and sin on earth – I don’t know.
Boom “Immaterial, of-no-practical-value point, because obviously, having my "sin nature" removed didn't make my actions or intentions any better than when I had this supposed "sin nature".”
It does. We’ve been over that. We are no longer prone to sin – we are prone to righteousness. We still have the ability to sin but we are free from that which keeps us bound to it. It’s like before with our sin nature we have to choose not to sin – without the sin nature we have to choose too sin in order to sin
Previously me "I know a Person who is Truth"
Boom “Correction---you believe that you "know [yadda, yadda]"
You have no grounds to correct me on that.
Boom “Your incessant equivocation is astounding. It truly is. My point once more: If your biblegod makes the rules, he can then change those rules if he wanted to, because said rules are in accordance with nothing but himself, who, as you insist to your detriment, DEFINES "good". Thus, any rule he makes is "good" by mere definition. This is yet one more point that you've lost over and over and over, yet, you erroneously defend it over and over. 'Truly amazing.”
It’s not that He creates rules – He is good – any rules are a shadow version for humans on how to not get into too much trouble – but goodness is not following rules – it is having your nature have that goodness at its core. It’s not possible for Him to be less or more than He is. You are still asking for a square circle.
Boom “You are weasel-wording. My "destination" depends on one thing: Whether I am Christian, or not. If, at the end of my life, I conclude that the Christian god doesn't exist, then I obviously qualify as a non-Christian, and as we know, your lovely beliefs say that non-Christians DESERVE "hell". Please-oh-please stop equivocating.”
Making into Christian or Non-Christian makes it about belief or not belief and that’ focus is incorrect. Sin = Death, Sinners = eternal death – hell. The only salvation from being a sinner deserving eternal death – because that is what sin causes – eternal separation from God – is Jesus – let’s put aside the word “belief” it’s connotation is misleading in this discussion. Jesus is what makes the difference. Salvation is Him – not given by Him – not bestowed – it is Him. That is the only way we are no longer “sinners” but “righteous sons and daughters of God” we are born into the family when we come into Jesus -- (ie born again).
Satan believes God exist – He believes Jesus died and rose again – it’s not about that. It’s about actually coming into Jesus. This is why Jesus talks about how it is much easier for a child to enter the Kingdom of God because they don’t make it all about complex doctrine – they come to Jesus. They know the simplicity we fail to see.
Boom “You are deceived in the very same way that you would likely believe that the person who claims to have already encountered all of the Hindu gods(yes, more than one) is deceived. IOW, harboring certainty over spiritual matters means nothing at all, because people harbor certainty on spiritual beliefs that directly oppose your own, and you'd say they are wrong. “
I’d say they are tapped into the wrong source, but not that they aren’t experiencing a real spirituality or having real spiritual encounters.
I've already conceded the whole "two kind of knowing" argument that you're making, because, as I stated previously, there are much, much worse problems that need addressing. For instance, when you concluded on the subject of Adam & Eve and their "knowledge", you said....
Sin is not just a behavior that afterwards is gone. It sticks with you until it is forgiven.
For sake of discussion, I've conceded long ago that "sin", the behavior, is a direct result of "sin", the nature one possesses---what you call, a "sin nature".
Now, with that out of the way, you have gone on record numerous times(I'll dig back through the comments if I must) to say that having one's "sin nature" removed by "Jesus" does not preclude one from "sin", the behavior(or act).
So, as far as I'm concerned, there's still two glaring problems for which you've yet to provide satisfactory explanations:
1) this whole notion of needing to be "forgiven" for harboring a "nature" that we were born with. (IOW, being held accountable for something that we cannot prevent in the first place) And this is now doubly problematic since you admit biblegod would have known the outcome of the "Garden" incident, which boils down to a sting operation.
2) if there's no temptation in location "B"..e.g.."Heaven", then the removal of one's "sin nature" is a moot point. Removing temptation subverts personal freedom much in the same way that hypnosis attempts to rid the smoker of the temptation to pick up a cigarette.
IOW, you perpetually want to have things both ways, and as long as you choose to keep trying to do so, I suppose I'll keep pointing out the error in your thinking.
"See the thing is I don’t think you envision there is a sadistic God (ie) you being an atheist. So I understand this line of reasoning is not to prove there is a sadistic or unwise God – but that since such a God would be no God at all – that there then is no God."
Precisely. So, it doesn't then make a lick of sense to say things like, "You want to blame God for [yadda, yadda]". Yet, you do say this from time to time. 'Stop once and for all?
"But the way I see it is that I have met this God and I have experienced His goodness and I trust His wisdom"
The bible says [paraphrased] that "wisdom" starts with fearing the very "God" whom you "trust" and whom you say is "goodness".
So, evidently, "fear" is "goodness" in your language. To someone outside the Christian bubble, this is a giant red flag.
"and we both know that a God would not be sadistic and cruel."
Right, an omnibenevolent, all-loving god would obviously not be "sadistic and cruel"....ever. So, IYO, a god who would do things like drown sentient human beings, including woman, children, and even animals, is closer to which of the following descriptions....
a) loving and compassionate
b) sadistic and cruel
"I can’t ignore my relationship with God – all that we are discussing is merely theology"
I'm not asking you to ignore it. I'm asking you to see how the individual with whom you claim to be in a relationship, as you describe him, cannot be the individual described in your bible. There's just too many glaring contradictions.
"I’m saying that we can question the origins all we want of those first days on earth, but when it comes down to it that has already happened and theorizing what God could have done is pointless because He being God would know what was and He is the author of creation – we do write into that story – as we are not puppets – but He is still the ultimate Author."
This is yet one more fine example of you wanting things both ways. On the one hand, you want me to believe that your biblegod "authors" the story, but on the other hand, you want me to believe that we have a say in how the story plays out. 'Sorry, but both cannot be true.
But no matter how you slice it, any "author" knows how his or her story will play out. This is my underlying point. Your "God" wanted a certain outcome, knew that his creation would screw up, and yet, wrote the story anyways. In any other sphere of thought, that would be viewed as pure stupidity. Yet, you are evidently willing to overlook such stupidity because of who you believe the "author" of the book to be. This is special pleading. You can sit there and say that Christianity's author did things a certain way until kingdom come. I could not care less. That does not preclude me or any other person who values reason from finding the story-line utter poppycock, and ultimately, not buying the book that you've bought, hook, line, and sinker.
"I haven’t been indoctrinated – in fact; I see lots of things differently than the way I was first taught. My experience with God has taught me far more than any teacher, parent, or pastor."
Were you by chance first introduced to Christianity by blood relatives from an early age, and were you taught by said relatives that the "bible" is "God's written word"? If so, you qualify as indoctrinated. Just because you made adjustments down the road, that doesn't mean that you weren't indoctrinated with the philosophy, itself. IOW, your distinction, above, is irrelevant.
"I didn’t say the Bible was in error – I said our doctrine can be in error. I’m sure you know doctrines vary with people reading the same Bible. My interpretation, explanation, theology can be wrong or off in some areas – and I don’t ask anyone to put their trust in my interpretations – but in God himself."
Okay, so if doctrines can be wrong, plus, people's interpretations of doctrines can be wrong, you aren't making your case look better, you're making it look worse.
Previously, me: “I challenge you to tell me with a straight face that you'd set out to develop a trust with a nanny who had a past track-record of drowning children under her care.”
You: "That analogy doesn’t work"
Here's what doesn't work: Simply asserting something "doesn't work" without an explanation.
You insist up and down that my meeting "Jesus" would change my mind about the doctrinal parts of which I take issue, specifically, the past track-record of biblegod's atrocious behavior as laid out in the leading reference for knowing the past of said individual. I mean the Bible. I'm simply saying that meeting someone face-to-face isn't going automatically make me forget about any wrongs that he or she has done in the past. The "nanny" analogy works just fine, and what you say next is nonsensical equivocation...
"If you truly experienced Him showing up – that would be the last thing on your mind."
You are being highly presumptuous. In fact, the very FIRST thing on my mind would be wanting an explanation for why Jesus' daddy is so unlike the "Jesus" that Xians claim to know.
"The love you would encounter would be more important than what you think you know about who He is."
Sorta like "love is blind", is it?
"He never sees us as worthless"
How about wretched? Have you ever sang, "Amazing Grace"?
In any case, if we had "worth", it would seem that we'd all have *equal* worth, yes? I believe so. But yet, only certain people are evidently worthy enough to benefit from biblegod's supposed "mercy" on "Judgement Day"? Hmmmm.....
"Weren’t you the one to just inform me things were not so black and white? You don’t seem to keep that standard. I didn’t say there was no freedom in heaven. I said there is no lies or deception in heaven – in Jesus—thus no temptation."
And guess what? I DIDN'T SAY that you said, "there's no freedom in heaven". I'm saying that it's the logical conclusion, based on previous statements, such as when you repeat over and over that there's "no temptation in heaven". If there's "no temptation in heaven", then you will never be TEMPTED to "sin", thus, you are completely devoid of the desire to "sin", thus, you cannot "sin", thus, you are the equivalent of a robot programmed to NEVER do "X". I'm merely connecting the theological "dots" as you lay them out.
"I know I’ve argued on this blog that we free will means the ability to do something wrong – and maybe that’s right – but God was free before there was ever any sin – before even Lucifer fell. So how that all works in conjunction with free – will and sin on earth – I don’t know."
You only "don't know" when the contradiction applies to your chosen theology. Otherwise, you know perfectly well that being unable to choose "X" is a limitation of freedom, plain and simple. Saying that "God was free [yadda, yadda]" accomplishes nothing; it overcomes nothing at all.
Previously, me: “Correction---you believe that you 'know [yadda, yadda]"
You: "You have no grounds to correct me on that."
Oh, yes, I MOST CERTAINLY DO have grounds to correct you on that. You see, as long as you, and people like you, think that you have grounds to assert that something really, really horrible is going to happen to me should I not adopt your "spiritual beliefs", I have grounds to call you out on that assertion until/unless you can prove that what you are asserting is true. For instance, you might very well have grounds to say that you KNOW that I'll get hit by a car if I don't look both ways before crossing the road. You can PROVE this knowledge-claim, empirically, by providing footage of people who get hit because they didn't look before crossing. Conversely, you CANNOT prove, empirically, that the invisible daddy of the invisible person with whom you claim to be in "a relationship" is going to see to it that I will suffer in a place called "hell", should I die an Atheist. This is no small distinction.
It’s not that He creates rules – He is good – any rules are a shadow version[EDIT]"
Rejected. More weasle-wording..e.g. "shadow version". I swear, you must make this stuff up as you go.
"for humans on how to not get into too much trouble – but goodness is not following rules – it is having your nature have that goodness at its core. It’s not possible for Him to be less or more than He is. You are still asking for a square circle."
NO. You are still equivocating. In fact, you've went on record to say that all "rules" are essentially rolled into "two". Shall I find the quote? Or would you like to equivocate some more?
Bottom line: Your biblegod could find a better, more humane punishment than "hell" if he wanted to. Seriously, if you expect me to believe your "God" is being "less than He is" to merely be HUMANE, then you've got your work cut out for you.
Previously, me: "You are weasel-wording. My 'destination' depends on one thing: Whether I am Christian, or not"
You: "Making into Christian or Non-Christian makes it about belief or not belief and that’ focus is incorrect"
You just do not get it. You just will not let it penetrate that little closed-off-to-reason compartment of your brain that going on and on about the "focus" for 2 or 20 paragraphs is MEANINGLESS to me if I DO NOT FLIPPIN' >>BELIEVE<< WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING. Thus, from a nonbeliever's POV, it most certainly IS all about belief. If a Scientologist showed up at your door and lectured you on the "FOCUS" of Dianetics for nine hours, that will likely be meaningless to you because you don't BELIEVE it. At the end of the day, you REJECT Scientology because you DON'T BELIEVE IT, so a lecture on Engrams and Thetans isn't going to mean SQUAT to you.
Now, try really hard to apply the same reasoning to your beliefs: If I should die without the belief that your bible, its "God", and your proposed "focus", are true, then I get "hell". When it's all said and done, believers are in "heaven"; non-believers are in "Hell".
Will you please stop your incessant EQUIVOCATION and try to actually listen to what I'm saying to you?
"Satan believes God exist"
Who gives a rat's patooty about what "Satan" believes except people who ALREADY believe in "Satan"!?!?!?! ..::sigh::
"He believes Jesus died and rose again – it’s not about that"
Right, right..."Satan" BELIEVES that Jesus did those things, but he rejects those things, because, of course, "Satan" is "evil", which, BTW, that, too, your biblegod knew would happen.
In any case, you underscore my point, as you so often do: This "Satan" fellow BELIEVES in order to reject, "rebel", etc. 'Get it?
"I’d say they are tapped into the wrong source"
In which case, they aren't "tapped into" the right "source", because "Jesus", according to you, is the only "right" source. In which case, my point stands: You believe that they are mistaken, despite that they would insist that they are "right", and YOU are the one who is mistaken.
IOW, Karla, fervent, dogmatic, religious certainty means nothing to me, nor should it mean anything to me. I am not picking on you, because no person's belief means anything to me, no matter how fervent.
Boom “ say that having one's "sin nature" removed by "Jesus" does not preclude one from "sin", the behavior(or act).”
Right.
Boom “1) this whole notion of needing to be "forgiven" for harboring a "nature" that we were born with. (IOW, being held accountable for something that we cannot prevent in the first place) And this is now doubly problematic since you admit biblegod would have known the outcome of the "Garden" incident, which boils down to a sting operation.”
Is therer a question for me in this?
Boom “2) if there's no temptation in location "B"..e.g.."Heaven", then the removal of one's "sin nature" is a moot point. Removing temptation subverts personal freedom much in the same way that hypnosis attempts to rid the smoker of the temptation to pick up a cigarette. “
One of the things that happen when we come into Jesus is that our sin nature is gone. Life with Jesus isn’t just about dealing with sin. Heaven is not just about being in a holy abode without sin. I don’t know the theological answers as to all the logistics about heaven and sin and earth and sin, etc. All I know is heaven is a realm in God and there is no sin in God. That’s the best I can give you on that.
Boom “Precisely. So, it doesn't then make a lick of sense to say things like, "You want to blame God for [yadda, yadda]". Yet, you do say this from time to time. 'Stop once and for all?”
Ok. Please let me know if I forget and go there.
Boom “The bible says [paraphrased] that "wisdom" starts with fearing the very "God" whom you "trust" and whom you say is "goodness".”
I was just having a conversation about this last night. There is a certain healthy degree of fear – but one you want to experience not like the fear of an abusive father, but the reverence and fearful respect of a great Lion. The analogy is greatly lacking, but natural examples are limited.
Boom “So, evidently, "fear" is "goodness" in your language. To someone outside the Christian bubble, this is a giant red flag.”
Not fear in the negative emotion since – it’s different than that. Have you ever heard of Smith Wigglesworth? He would sit in the Presence of God with a team of friends or leaders in the room. One by one they would leave the room as the intensity of God filling the space was more than they could bear. Eventually only Wigglesworth would be left sitting with God because the intense nature of His Presence could no longer be endured by the others.
Boom “Right, an omnibenevolent, all-loving god would obviously not be "sadistic and cruel"....ever. So, IYO, a god who would do things like drown sentient human beings, including woman, children, and even animals, is closer to which of the following descriptions.... “
Those actions were not cruel. And just because those people naturally died, doesn’t mean that God was done with them and they had no redemption. They could be enjoying heaven right now. Or maybe some didn’t accept redemption, I don’t know.
When King David committed adultery and then had the husband of the woman killed – he came to the Lord to repent – David told the Lord he would rather receive any justice the Lord wanted to issue instead of being given over to the hands of his natural enemies upon the earth.
Boom “I'm not asking you to ignore it. I'm asking you to see how the individual with whom you claim to be in a relationship, as you describe him, cannot be the individual described in your bible. There's just too many glaring contradictions.”
What about instead of trying to make sense of the Bible – you separate the two ideas for a time and just consider God without any Bible stories attached to Him?
Boom “ On the one hand, you want me to believe that your biblegod "authors" the story, but on the other hand, you want me to believe that we have a say in how the story plays out. 'Sorry, but both cannot be true.”
Sure it can. Parents give birth to children – they wrote that part of the story – their genes determine a great deal about the kids – but the kids are making their own story inside the parents’ story.
Boom “But no matter how you slice it, any "author" knows how his or her story will play out. This is my underlying point. Your "God" wanted a certain outcome, knew that his creation would screw up, and yet, wrote the story anyways. In any other sphere of thought, that would be viewed as pure stupidity.”
He may have known – but then that means this was the best option – it really comes down to trusting Him. I can’t argue what other options He could have done – I have no idea. Just because I can put one together doesn’t mean it would have been good or better.
Boom “Yet, you are evidently willing to overlook such stupidity because of who you believe the "author" of the book to be. This is special pleading. You can sit there and say that Christianity's author did things a certain way until kingdom come. I could not care less. That does not preclude me or any other person who values reason from finding the story-line utter poppycock, and ultimately, not buying the book that you've bought, hook, line, and sinker. “
Well I guess that’s something you’ll have to reconcile because you are still in the story whether you believe it or not.
Boom “Were you by chance first introduced to Christianity by blood relatives from an early age, and were you taught by said relatives that the "bible" is "God's written word"?”
Yes.
Boom “If so, you qualify as indoctrinated. ”
Can someone be indoctrinated with truth?
Also by that reasoning, no one should teach children anything at all – politics, history, science, it’s all taught from the point of view of the teacher. So all schools are practicing indoctrination if that’s true. Or is it only true when it comes to religion?
Boom “Okay, so if doctrines can be wrong, plus, people's interpretations of doctrines can be wrong, you aren't making your case look better, you're making it lookworse.”
That’s fine. I’ve already told you I don’t expect this kind of conversation to amount to much. I’m not trying to persuade you – I’m participating because you want to have this conversation.
Boom “Here's what doesn't work: Simply asserting something "doesn't work" without an explanation. “
It doesn’t work because the Nanny isn’t God issuing justice in the context of true goodness. Nor is drowning children in the context of the whole story.
Boom “You insist up and down that my meeting "Jesus" would change my mind about the doctrinal parts of which I take issue, specifically, the past track-record of biblegod's atrocious behavior as laid out in the leading reference for knowing the past of said individual. I mean the Bible. I'm simply saying that meeting someone face-to-face isn't going automatically make me forget about any wrongs that he or she has done in the past.”
You are only saying that because you haven’t experienced what I’m talking about. It is possible you will not care if Jesus himself showed up in your bedroom and spent an hour with you. But then again it could change everything.
Boom “You are being highly presumptuous. In fact, the very FIRST thing on my mind would be wanting an explanation for why Jesus' daddy is so unlike the "Jesus" that Xians claim to know.”
He’d show you what is true. Then you would know that you know whether you chose life with Him or not.
Boom “Sorta like "love is blind", is it?”
Nope – I’m talking about a love that reveals the truth – not hides it.
Boom “In any case, if we had "worth", it would seem that we'd all have *equal* worth, yes? I believe so. But yet, only certain people are evidently worthy enough to benefit from biblegod's supposed "mercy" on "Judgement Day"? Hmmmm.....”
I’ve answered this many times. You can look back to see.
Boom “You only "don't know" when the contradiction applies to your chosen theology. Otherwise, you know perfectly well that being unable to choose "X" is a limitation of freedom, plain and simple. Saying that "God was free [yadda, yadda]" accomplishes nothing; it overcomes nothing at all.”
Not all realms operate under the same limitations. So I don’t know how that works in heaven. I’m merely being honest.
Previously, Boom: “Correction---you believe that you 'know [yadda, yadda]"
Previously Karla: "You have no grounds to correct me on that."
Boom “Oh, yes, I MOST CERTAINLY DO have grounds to correct you on that. You see, as long as you, and people like you, think that you have grounds to assert that something really, really horrible is going to happen to me should I not adopt your "spiritual beliefs", I have grounds to call you out on that assertion until/unless you can prove that what you are asserting is true.”
My statement was that I’ve met God. You have no way of knowing if I haven’t.
As to my “asserting something really really horrible is going to happen. . . “ I didn’t invent the story. Nor did I ever bring up any such assertions – it’s been you over and over that has been bringing up hell. I didn’t even cover that in my blog post until after you came along and brought up the subject over and over again.
Previously me: It’s not that He creates rules – He is good – any rules are a shadow version[EDIT]"
Boom “Rejected. More weasle-wording..e.g. "shadow version". I swear, you must make this stuff up as you go.”
lol. I did make up that phrasing, because I was trying to not use religious wording. Shadows are a reflection of the real, the substance is in the real being, not the shadow it casts. The rules are like shadows – but we can do away with deal with shadows and have God himself.
Boom “NO. You are still equivocating. In fact, you've went on record to say that all "rules" are essentially rolled into "two". Shall I find the quote? Or would you like to equivocate some more?”
But those two require relationship with God. They are in the form of rules – but they are unfullfillable as rules without God. Jesus said after giving those two that He fulfills all the rules – so we can even take those two and the answer is still Jesus for they are meaningless without Him.
Boom “Bottom line: Your biblegod could find a better, more humane punishment than "hell" if he wanted to. Seriously, if you expect me to believe your "God" is being "less than He is" to merely be HUMANE, then you've got your work cut out for you.”
Sin is always going to equal death – nothing changes that but Jesus. He gave you that which makes all the difference and you still want option 3 that doesn’t exist. I can’t help you with that.
Boom “Thus, from a nonbeliever's POV, it most certainly IS all about belief. If a Scientologist showed up at your door and lectured you on the "FOCUS" of Dianetics for nine hours, that will likely be meaningless to you because you don't BELIEVE it. At the end of the day, you REJECT Scientology because you DON'T BELIEVE IT, so a lecture on Engrams and Thetans isn't going to mean SQUAT to you.”
It may be that from your point of view, it doesn’t mean your point of view is accurate. I’m not going to respond to your shouting next time.
Boom “Now, try really hard to apply the same reasoning to your beliefs: If I should die without the belief that your bible, its "God", and your proposed "focus", are true, then I get "hell". When it's all said and done, believers are in "heaven"; non-believers are in "Hell". “
If you die without Jesus, yes.
Boom “Will you please stop your incessant EQUIVOCATION and try to actually listen to what I'm saying to you?”
It isn’t equivocation, it is a very important distinction.
Boom “In which case, they aren't "tapped into" the right "source", because "Jesus", according to you, is the only "right" source. In which case, my point stands: You believe that they are mistaken, despite that they would insist that they are "right", and YOU are the one who is mistaken.”
I believe they are having real experiences, but just not ones that are good for them. Jesus is the only right source, my belief has nothing to do with it.
Boom “IOW, Karla, fervent, dogmatic, religious certainty means nothing to me, nor should it mean anything to me. I am not picking on you, because no person's belief means anything to me, no matter how fervent.”
I know. And I know you don’t’ understand the difference between dogmatic belief and actually knowing Jesus.
Previously, me: “1) this whole notion of needing to be 'forgiven' for harboring a 'nature' that we were born with. (IOW, being held accountable for something that we cannot prevent in the first place) And this is now doubly problematic since you admit biblegod would have known the outcome of the 'Garden' incident, which boils down to a sting operation.”
You: "Is therer a question for me in this?"
In context, I prefaced the above with the following...
So, as far as I'm concerned, there's still two glaring problems for which you've yet to provide satisfactory explanations:
There are problems for which you've yet to provide satisfactory explanations. I listed two of the bigger ones. Again, it spits in the face of reason to hold people accountable for inheriting a "nature" that they were born with; a nature that, a) no one chose for themselves, and b) no one can prevent in the first place. And no, that's not technically a "question", but surely you understand that I'm asking for you to square it up, yes?
"One of the things that happen when we come into Jesus is that our sin nature is gone. Life with Jesus isn’t just about dealing with sin. Heaven is not just about being in a holy abode without sin."
Your incessant dodging of pointed questions with red herrings and equivocation is mind-boggling. Karla, I could not care less what X, Y, and Z are "just about". Do. not. care. The central issue, which I've taken the time to lay out, oh, probably a dozen times on this thread, alone, is, what happens in "Heaven" that precludes its occupants from "sin"(the behavior), but leaves personal freedom intact. You've failed to provide a meaningful answer to date, and you now say....
I don’t know the theological answers as to all the logistics about heaven and sin and earth and sin, etc. All I know is heaven is a realm in God and there is no sin in God. That’s the best I can give you on that
i.e..."I don't know". Imagine how much time we'd both save if you would just say that from the onset(?)
"There is a certain healthy degree of fear – but one you want to experience not like the fear of an abusive father, but the reverence and fearful respect of a great Lion. The analogy is greatly lacking, but natural examples are limited."
You're right, the analogy is severely lacking, because here, again, we can't take the face-value language, process it like we process anything else we read, and make reasonable conclusions. Nope, 'can't do that. *Instead*, we are asked to believe that there is some *other*, super-duper laws of logic that are better than our own, and conveniently, these laws only make sense once we experience the (alleged) individual who (allegedly) creates *both* sets of logic. Karla? That is utter, flippin' nonsense. The simpler and much, much more reasonable explanation is that man wrote the bible and he wanted people to believe HIS theology over competing theistic beliefs at the time, so what better way to accomplish this than to say that "wisdom" starts with being fearful of HIS "God". Of course, you must protect your religious beliefs at all costs, so I should come to expect that you'll ignore the obvious.
BTW, Occam's Razor. I suggest checking it out.
[....] only Wigglesworth would be left sitting with God because the intense nature of His Presence could no longer be endured by the others."
And this is because...? We're talking about "fear", right? Hopefully you aren't suggesting that "fear", in the positive sense, is something that drives people AWAY, since these very people will presumably "be left sitting with God" for all of eternity. That could pose a problem.
Previously, me: "So, IYO, a god who would do things like drown sentient human beings, including woman, children, and even animals, is closer to which of the following descriptions...."
You: "Those actions were not cruel."
So, drowning people isn't cruel. Uh-huh.
See, Karla, this is why your beliefs disgust me, and why they should be denounced at every level.
"And just because those people naturally died[CHOP]"
Bzzzzt! Wrong! If your theology is true, the "all-loving" biblegod you worship intervened by using the laws of nature to, read > KILL everything living thing on the planet, save one man and his incestuous family. This was premeditated KILLING. That you portray it dishonestly speaks volumes.
"What about instead of trying to make sense of the Bible – you separate the two ideas for a time and just consider God without any Bible stories attached to Him?"
Because I don't see any credible evidence for a "God", even if I put the bible aside.
"you separate the two ideas for a time and just consider God without any Bible stories attached to Him?"
WHAT "Him"? Hello?
I'll say it for quite possibly the 100th time: ALL I have to go on, is, a) the bible(the supposed "Word of God"), and b) Karla and her "word". Please let it penetrate that I reject both, because neither make sense.
"Sure it can. Parents give birth to children – they wrote that part of the story – their genes determine a great deal about the kids – but the kids are making their own story inside the parents’ story."
PARTENTS aren't "OMNISCIENT"! If a parent had prescience that their child would be born with only a brain stem, and yet, they had the child ANYWAY, and then to compound the stupidity and cruelty, BLAMED the child for being sick, that would be analogous with your beliefs. But since "parents" are NOT omniscient, your analogy fails.
"He may have known – but then that means this was the best option – it really comes down to trusting Him"
And I do NOT, and you've provided not one good reason why I should.
"I can’t argue what other options He could have done – I have no idea. Just because I can put one together doesn’t mean it would have been good or better'
Astonishing. One intellectual cop-out after another. Guess what?...if you can CONCEIVE of every human being getting "saved", in which case, no one would suffer "hell", then you can KNOW that there was a "better" option. It really IS that simple.
Previously, me: “Were you by chance first introduced to Christianity by blood relatives from an early age, and were you taught by said relatives that the "bible" is 'God's written word'?”
You: Yes
'Shocker.
Me: “If so, you qualify as indoctrinated.”
You: "Can someone be indoctrinated with truth?"
Someone can be taught the best way to discover truth, yes. But teaching someone HOW to think about "truth" is quite different than teaching someone what to think about "Truth". The former is teaching; the latter is indoctrinating. You've been indoctrinated, just like I was.
And BTW, you say "I don't know" waaay too much for me to believe that you know "Truth".
"It doesn’t work because the Nanny isn’t God issuing justice in the context of true goodness. Nor is drowning children in the context of the whole story."
i.e..the nanny isn't "God", and only "God" can slaughter sentient beings inhumanely for "justice" and "true goodness", AKA, special pleading(fallacy)
"I guess that’s something you’ll have to reconcile because you are still in the story whether you believe it or not."
Oh, brother. Okay, getting an audit and becoming "Clear" is something you'll have to reconcile, because you are still in the story whether you believe it, or not.
Now, are you convinced Scientology is "Truth" and that Tom Cruise knows better than you do? 'Didn't think so. That's how convincing you are to me...i.e...not at all.
"You are only saying that because you haven’t experienced what I’m talking about. It is possible you will not care if Jesus himself showed up in your bedroom and spent an hour with you. But then again it could change everything."
If I was ever caught sitting my bedroom talking out loud to no one, I should be given medication. But for sake of discussion, if "Jesus" showed up, nothing would change, unless he told me, a) that he would do away with "hell", and b) that he would disown the homicidal jerk in the OT as his "Daddy".
"I’m talking about a love that reveals the truth – not hides it"
No, what you're talking about is nonsense, because this supposed "love that reveals truth" is being deliberately hidden from me, and according to you, it's for my "benefit". If your "God" is "love", then he's intentionally hiding "himself"('love') from me. Yes, you can try to tell me with a straight face that withholding "love" IS "love", but you'll be wasting your time.
"My statement was that I’ve met God. You have no way of knowing if I haven’t."
True, because your assertions are unfalsifiable, just like the Muslim who claims to have met "Muhammad", hence, the danger of said beliefs. Nonetheless, I have grounds to correct either one of you should you make claims that you cannot prove. Notice, I never said that you cannot make outrageous, unverifiable claims that you cannot prove. I merely pointed out that this is the sort of claim you're making.
"As to my 'asserting something really really horrible is going to happen. . .' I didn’t invent the story."
I know you didn't invent it. Uneducated, Bronze-aged sheep herders invented it. You support it, nonetheless, and you should feel ashamed for that, where you feel "blessed".
"The rules are like shadows – but we can do away with deal with shadows and have God himself."
Like I said, I'll be happy to find where you categorically state the all god's rules are rolled into "two", shadows, or no shadows.
Previously, me: “Bottom line: Your biblegod could find a better, more humane punishment than 'hell' if he wanted to. Seriously, if you expect me to believe your "God" is being 'less than He is' to merely be HUMANE, then you've got your work cut out for you.”
You equivocate...."Sin is always going to equal death"
And of course, "death" in your book means TORMENTED.
Without fail, you water down your doctrine and it speaks volumes. In context of what you actually believe, your "God" would be "being less than himself" to not EXACT TORMENT onto sentient human beings. Best of luck with that.
Previously, me: “Thus, from a nonbeliever's POV, it most certainly IS all about belief. If a Scientologist showed up at your door and lectured you on the 'FOCUS' of Dianetics for nine hours, that will likely be meaningless to you because you don't BELIEVE it. At the end of the day, you REJECT Scientology because you DON'T BELIEVE IT, so a lecture on Engrams and Thetans isn't going to mean SQUAT to you.”
You: "It may be that from your point of view, it doesn’t mean your point of view is accurate. I’m not going to respond to your shouting next time"
Are you telling me that you could be convinced to adopt a belief in Scientology under the right conditions? If so, I apologize for assuming too much. On the other hand, if I'm right, then I've effectively illustrated, that from a nonbeliever's POV, it most certainly IS all about "belief".
As for "shouting", maybe if you'd actually concede your errors I wouldn't feel compelled to hit the CAP button from time to time. 'Ever look at it like that?
Previously, me: "When it's all said and done, believers are in 'heaven'; non-believers are in 'Hell'."
You: "If you die without Jesus, yes"
::sigh::
*Let me attempt to get you see my point another way.
Yes, or no, the following statement is meaningless to you:
"If you die without Quetzacoatl, yes, [X] will happen!!!!"
a) yes
b) no
If you picked "yes", and if you are consistent, then you should be able to see how, from my perspective..i.e..a NON-believer in "Jesus", the statement, if you die without Jesus[yadda, yadda] is also utterly meaningless.
Case-in-point: From a nonbeliever's perspective, the difference between "heaven" and "hell" is ONE thing: Belief.
"It isn’t equivocation, it is a very important distinction."
It's an irrelevant "distinction" if one doesn't already believe. Review here*, above. I do not believe. Can you get over it and stop pointing out things that are meaningless to me? I just do not care one iota what you believe the "focus" of "Jesus" is. I just don't care if you write nine million paragraphs telling me what "Christianity" is "all about".
"I believe they are having real experiences, but just not ones that are good for them. Jesus is the only right source, my belief has nothing to do with it."
The point here is that cocksure, dogmatic, religious certainty (such as yours) doesn't preclude people from being "wrong". Here's the evidence: If there are people of opposing "faith" who have a similar certainty(and there is), but yet, they are tapped into "wrong" things that aren't "good for them"(as you assert they are), then that tells me that you, too, could be tapped into something "wrong" and something that's "not good" for you. I believe this is the case, in fact.
You can respond if you'd like. I'm taking a break from this because it's once again reached the point where I want to pull my hair out.
I'm ready for a break too. Until later then . . .
Post a Comment