Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Remembering 9/11


It doesn’t feel like it’s been 11 years since the tragic day known as 9/11. I see the images on television and on Facebook and the emotions of that day come rushing back. I cannot even imagine the emotions of those who experienced loss or who were in closer proximity to the events that unfolded that day. 

For me, the day began like any other. I was on the campus of my community college. I had already attended one or two classes that day and had time to kill before my next and last class of the day. I decided to visit the computer lab in the library. Sitting down in the computer chair, I tossed my book bag at my feet and began to check my e-mail. All of the sudden, I heard a man exclaim rather loudly that we ought to attack them. The exact words are now lost to me. I was surprised and annoyed to hear someone speaking so loudly in a library. He sounded so angry.

I didn’t have much time left before class, so I logged off the computer and hoisted my back pack on one shoulder to exit the library. I stepped into the foyer and drew to a fast stop as I saw a gathering of students to the television mounted to the ceiling in the corner of the lobby. My eyes traveled up and took in the horrific scene of a building consumed in fire crumbling upon itself.

I stood transfixed, alarmed, and confused. I didn’t yet know this was on American soil. I didn’t recognize the structure. Then camera panned and I saw Lady Liberty and I felt the immensity of this --- whatever this was – happening in my home land. I remained there until I learned about the plane crashes and that it was evidently an act of terror.

I realized my class was starting any minute and decided to leave the building and head for class. As I walked I pulled out my cell phone to call my mom. I felt compelled to contact my family even though we were nowhere near the danger. The call didn’t go through. I tried again to no avail. I looked about me and saw students everywhere along the walk ways on campus talking on their cell phones. I realized everyone was trying to get through to somebody. I tried once more and she picked up. She and my grandparents were already aware of the events.

I hung up and continued to class to find a note scrawled on the chalk board that due to the present events the class was cancelled. Somewhat out of sorts and lost amid the unfolding events, I headed for my car as I was to work that afternoon. Arriving at work I found my co-worker concerned about her husband who was in the military as he may not be able to leave the base that day. She had the radio on and hadn’t seen the footage yet.

We ordered lunch from the cafĂ© down the street where she first viewed the footage on their television. The day passed in this surreal fog of unbelief. I arrived home, ate my dinner, did my homework and then sat before the television. There was nothing to do but continue to watch the news. The local news began to ask people to come to the Red Cross to donate blood. They showed the packed waiting room of local citizens awaiting their opportunity to give. Then the people broke out into song, “God Bless America, land of the free, stand beside her and guide her . . .” The voices rose together poignantly. The emotions of the day finally found relief and I cried. My nation had been brutally attacked, but Americans were rallying together to serve and to humble themselves before God. I heard the hope in those voices of strangers joining together in song while waiting to give their blood for others.

I could take this post further and use it to discuss the current state of America or the need for a return to God in this nation, but to honor 9/11 for 9/11 and not to use it for any purpose of my own I will close this article without any such commentary.

I will never forget 9/11. 

34 comments:

boomSLANG said...

A need for a "return to God", when, ironically, the very people who flew those planes into the WTCs believed in "God". Quite the quagmire for theists, I think.

As for choosing to not expound on the matter for your own purpose(s), I can respect that. But on the other hand, I thought for sure everything you do is an attempt to fulfill "God's Purpose". At least, that's the impression I got after months of reading around here.

All the best.

Karla said...

Hello Boom.

As you know I only profess to know one God and that isn't the one professed by Islam.

Secondly, my post was only a memory with no agenda other than honoring the fallen and those who lost someone on that day.

As for God's purposes, I believe honoring without a secondary agenda is in keeping with those.

Moreover, I am honored you realize that everything I do is an attempt to do what God wants of me. Not out of piety, but out of love of God and people.

boomSLANG said...

Hi, again

You say...."As you know I only profess to know one God and that isn't the one professed by Islam."

Correct, I do know that. Of course, that is immaterial to the point I was making, which, as you know, is that the people who attacked us *also* "profess to know one God", and that isn't the one professed by Christianity.

Case-in-point: As long as theists profess unfalsifiable/unverifiable beliefs in invisible, conscious, creator-deities; as long as they believe that they are doing their respective deity's "Divine Will", this world will be more dangerous than it needs to be.

Karla said...

How about if those people are doing good as a result and not evil?

ie) loving people by being kind, self-less, patient, virtuous, forgiving, and honest. Also, healing the sick, truly loving our neighbors, co-workers, and strangers. Helping people even when it is a sacrifice for us and especially when we get nothing in return. What if that is what following God looks like . . . wouldn't that make the world a better place rather than a more dangerous place?

boomSLANG said...

"How about if those people are doing good as a result and not evil?"

The problem with this is that "those people" actually believe that they were pleasing their "God" by doing his "Will". You see, in their ideology, killing the infidel IS an instance of "doing good". Not conforming to Islam IS "evil", and neither you, me, nor anyone else, can disprove them. Again, we're dealing with unfalsifiable beliefs, which can be dangerous.

"ie) loving people by being kind, self-less, patient, virtuous, forgiving, and honest."

One can be all of those things and more without a belief in "God", and without, what you call, "a return to God". Better yet, we can actually forgive those who wrong us without a by-proxy human sacrifice.

"Also, healing the sick, truly loving our neighbors, co-workers, and strangers. All of which Helping people even when it is a sacrifice for us and especially when we get nothing in return. What if that is what following God looks like . . .wouldn't that make the world a better place rather than a more dangerous place?"

What if, you ask? A hypothetical? Well, yes, if all people actually *did* those things, it could be a safer world.

But again, here is the reality of things: The entire world of theists claim to be "following God", and yet, the world does NOT look like what you describe. This is why I and countless others cannot get on board with your "get back to God" panacea.

Until you folks can prove yourselves right and "those people" on the other side of the world, wrong, we can probably expect 911, the sequel, sometime in our lifetime.

Karla said...

You said "As long as theists profess unfalsifiable/unverifiable beliefs in invisible, conscious, creator-deities; as long as they believe that they are doing their respective deity's "Divine Will", this world will be more dangerous than it needs to be."

Looking at last part I see you saying people who are claiming to do divine will of God will make world more dangerous?

Is that what you are saying?

boomSLANG said...

"Looking at last part I see you saying people who are claiming to do divine will of God will make world more dangerous?"

I'm speaking of the practice of discerning "God's Will" as a whole. Theists can claim all day long that *their* actions are reflecting "God's Will", while they claim others are not. I'm merely saying that these sorts of claims cannot be proven/falsified, and as long as they cannot, people will continue to insist that they are doing "God's Will", whether it be give to the poor, or whether it be bomb abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings. The latter is a byproduct of religious certainty, and yes, this type of thinking contributes to making the world more dangerous. That most believers(for instance, you) don't believe that bombing clinics and flying planes into buildings are "God's Will", is a moot point.

Karla said...

Sounds like you are placing the blame on the "belief" in God's will rather than in the people.

Now people can use "divine will" as an excuse. And they can be motivated by their "belief" as well -- actually thinking they are preforming a high religious act.

But I think every belief in doing God's will has the same potential as others.

In my circle doing God's will is loving people by serving people in all the examples I listed and then some. If the action doesn't have love at the core of the belief, action, thought, motive, or words it ought to be be seriously questioned.

Karla said...

that was supposed to read NOT every belief in God's will has the same potential.

boomSLANG said...

"Sounds like you are placing the blame on the 'belief' in God's will rather than in the people"

Incorrect. I don't care at all if people believe their "God" has a "Will". If that's the extent of it? Fine. Where I start caring very much is when people who believe their god of choice has a "Will", but then they take it a step further and try to fulfill said "Will" with actions. Why do I care? Because if we have to allow some people, for instance, you, to believe that they know such things, then we have to allow everyone else to believe the same. IOW, moderate and liberal Christians indirectly give way to the wack-job extremists.

"Now people can use 'divine will' as an excuse. And they can be motivated by their 'belief' as well -- actually thinking they are preforming a high religious act."

Right, and again, you cannot prove them wrong, and this underscores my point.

"In my circle doing God's will is loving people by serving people in all the examples I listed and then some."

And in other theist's circles, bombing abortion clinics and picketing dead soldier's funerals is doing "God's Will".

"If the action doesn't have love at the core of the belief, action, thought, motive, or words it ought to be be seriously questioned."

Except that you don't need to be commanded to put "love" into actions; you only believe that you do. And if you simply applied the Golden Rule and a little common sense, the wack-job extremists wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But as long you profess to need "God" to be motivated to put "love" into action, people will use "God" for a motivator for their actions, as well.

Karla said...

Boom “Incorrect. I don't care at all if people believe their "God" has a "Will". If that's the extent of it? Fine. “

Understood.


Boom “Where I start caring very much is when people who believe their god of choice has a "Will", but then they take it a step further and try to fulfill said "Will" with actions. Why do I care? Because if we have to allow some people, for instance, you, to believe that they know such things, then we have to allow everyone else to believe the same. IOW, moderate and liberal Christians indirectly give way to the wack-job extremists.”


I really do see where you are coming from. I just don’t see the benefit of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I get it, if we just stop all belief you are thinking lots of the wars and acts of terror will stop. If only society evolved past religion. The thing is I think religion is dangerous too. I just distinguish between being a child of God and being religious. I also get that won’t be an accepted distinction because they next person can just make their own and we are back to the same dilemma.

However, I think with anything there is a true and a false. We could say no nation should have a government because governments hurt people – history and current events demonstrate the dangerous nature of governments. But we know anarchy isn’t better – though some will argue for it. But could it be, instead, there are healthy and unhealthy forms of government?



Boom “Right, and again, you cannot prove them wrong, and this underscores my point.”

You can’t prove they were not motivated by some unseen force, but if you know God yourself you can know that it wasn’t Him that moved them to act this way.


"In my circle doing God's will is loving people by serving people in all the examples I listed and then some."

Boom “And in other theist's circles, bombing abortion clinics and picketing dead soldier's funerals is doing "God's Will". “

Yes, that happens. That isn’t so much a circle, but a one wacko or one church led by one wacko. 1 person doing something stupid can cause worldwide issues and can make many think that an entire nation supports the actions of one guy.


Boom “Except that you don't need to be commanded to put "love" into actions; you only believe that you do. And if you simply applied the Golden Rule and a little common sense, the wack-job extremists wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But as long you profess to need "God" to be motivated to put "love" into action, people will use "God" for a motivator for their actions, as well.”

No I don’t need God to command me to love for that isn’t love at all. I need God because He is how I love. I need His love working in me because I need a good heart so that I can give out of that good heart. All people can love because we were made to love by God, but not all people do love. Nor do we all love well. It isn’t that He says go love that person and I do, it is that He puts love in me so I can love everybody. Good actions aren’t love unless love is the motivator. If we are doing lots of good things out of religious devotion, but don’t have love it doesn’t matter at all. I’m sure you’ve seen people in church who are doing all kinds of acts of service, but if you do something they don’t approve of you will not be spoken to in love. You may get looks, or be the source of gossip. You may even get a cold shoulder. That shows love is not there for love keeps no records of wrongs and it is always kind.

Again for me, doing God’s will is first and foremost truly walking in love: turning the other cheek, giving away your cloak, lending without expecting anything in return, giving to those in need, blessing people and not cursing them, putting others first, serving people, etc. Not out of religious devotion, but out of genuine love that comes from God.

boomSLANG said...

"[....] I just don’t see the benefit of throwing out the baby with the bathwater."

A few things....

- theists can't prove "the baby" is actually there. I mean, if theists were saying, "Hey, there's a baby in the tub and he says that I should do [X, Y, and Z]!", that would be different, because we could hear and see for ourselves what "the baby" is actually saying, or at a minimum, that it's actually trying to speak.

- why we'd benefit from ceasing to believe that we know what "God's Will" is, is that we'd then have to be responsible, right this minute, for our actions. We could no longer use "God wants me to [yadda, yadda]" as an excuse any longer. IOW, extremists, on both sides, would be out of work.

"I get it, if we just stop all belief you are thinking lots of the wars and acts of terror will stop."

Yes, but specifically, belief in gods.

"If only society evolved past religion."

To accomplish that, theists would have to stop getting their politics from their respective "Holy" writs. Now, would you be willing to do away with your bible when it comes to guidance on morals and the big social issues of the day?..e.g..abortion, war, etc? Something tells me, "no", and *if I'm right, you'd be showing me that you aren't quite able to completely divorce "religion" from your "Christ".

"The thing is I think religion is dangerous too. I just distinguish between being a child of God and being religious."

See here*, above.

"I also get that won’t be an accepted distinction because they next person can just make their own and we are back to the same dilemma"

True. You'd still be pointing to an unverifiable "baby".

"1 person doing something stupid can cause worldwide issues and can make many think that an entire nation supports the actions of one guy."

True, and this underscores my point, since, while a nation can disapprove of the action, they cannot disprove that the 1 person's actions were "Divinely Inspired".

"No I don’t need God to command me to love for that isn’t love at all. I need God because He is how I love."

I'm afraid you've made a distinction with very little difference. I see being told to "love" by a "God" every bit as bizarre as needing a "God" in order to "love".

"Again for me, doing God’s will is first and foremost truly walking in love:"

That is merely your subjective spin on it. Theist "A" from religion "2" might see things way differently, and there is nothing that you or I can do to prove them wrong. Hence, the problem.

Karla said...

Boom “- theists can't prove "the baby" is actually there. I mean, if theists were saying, "Hey, there's a baby in the tub and he says that I should do [X, Y, and Z]!", that would be different, because we could hear and see for ourselves what "the baby" is actually saying, or at a minimum, that it's actually trying to speak.”

But what if there was a real “baby” that was the answer to the world’s problems. Would throwing Him out because there are fictitious babies make sense?

Boom “- why we'd benefit from ceasing to believe that we know what "God's Will" is, is that we'd then have to be responsible, right this minute, for our actions. We could no longer use "God wants me to [yadda, yadda]" as an excuse any longer. IOW, extremists, on both sides, would be out of work.”

I think because God is – we are all responsible for our actions whether we are following Him or not. Blowing off our evil actions with a “God told me to” isn’t what I’m vying for. Everything has a counterfeit and everything has a false use. We’d lose a lot if we took out all things that could be also used for bad.


Boom “Yes, but specifically, belief in gods. “

While religion does indeed breed war – I don’t see that in Jesus. It’s possible to have Christian religion without Jesus – but it is also possible to know Jesus without being wrapped up in religion.


Boom “To accomplish that, theists would have to stop getting their politics from their respective "Holy" writs. Now, would you be willing to do away with your bible when it comes to guidance on morals and the big social issues of the day?..e.g..abortion, war, etc?”

I could continue with Jesus without the Bible. He is capable of teaching me His ways without use of the Bible. However, the Bible isn’t religion – it’s what some people do with the Bible that is religion.

Boom “Something tells me, "no", and *if I'm right, you'd be showing me that you aren't quite able to completely divorce "religion" from your "Christ". “

See above answer.


Boom “True. You'd still be pointing to an unverifiable "baby".”

He’s not unverifiable to me. I’m in relationship with Him.

Boom “True, and this underscores my point, since, while a nation can disapprove of the action, they cannot disprove that the 1 person's actions were "Divinely Inspired".”

There is a difference between being religiously motivated and God telling you to do something. Someone can do something because they feel like that have a religious right to hate another group of people, but that doesn’t mean they claim God told them to do it. The same with 9/11 – I don’t think the claim is that God gave them the idea of this plot, but that Allah would reward them for killing the infidel.

Regardless, yes the U.S. with our freedom of religion and freedom of speech allows a citizen to do something without judgment upon whether divinely inspired or not.





Boom “I'm afraid you've made a distinction with very little difference. I see being told to "love" by a "God" every bit as bizarre as needing a "God" in order to "love".”

It may seem bizarre to you now, but one day I hope you will experience what I’m talking about.


Boom “That is merely your subjective spin on it. Theist "A" from religion "2" might see things way differently, and there is nothing that you or I can do to prove them wrong. Hence, the problem. “

I can only live what I know to be true and hope it makes a difference to those who think they are justified by religion to hurt people.

boomSLANG said...

"But what if there was a real 'baby' that was the answer to the world’s problems. Would throwing Him out because there are fictitious babies make sense?"

Your hypothetical is of no practical value, because, again, a "real baby" in the tub can be demonstrated to be there, and thus, he/she can be proven to exist. The "thing" that your baby/bath water analogy attempts to prove is an invisible, non-corporeal, creator-being, and this is something that *cannot* be demonstrated/proven.

"I think because God is[...]"

Another point of no practical value, and you're veering away from the subject I raised. You, a Christian, might think "God is", but a Muslim thinks a *different* "God is". Neither of you can prove the other wrong. This is at the heart of the issue I raised. Can we please stay on topic?

"While religion does indeed breed war – I don’t see that in Jesus."

Not to be callous, but what you (claim to) see "in Jesus" is immaterial to me. Christianity is every bit a religious philosophy as Islam because of its exclusivity and its claims of being "the Truth". If you agree with me that religion breeds war, then I see that as an implicit admission that the religious philosophy that you profess..e.g..Christianity, is part of the problem.

It’s possible to have Christian religion without Jesus – but it is also possible to know Jesus without being wrapped up in religion."

I reiterate---if you get your morals and/or any (or all) of your political views from your bible, you are showing me that you are at least partially "wrapped up" in a religion.

"I could continue with Jesus without the Bible. He is capable of teaching me His ways without use of the Bible."

Unverifiable claim, and thus, of no practical use in this conversation.

"However, the Bible isn’t religion – it’s what some people do with the Bible that is religion."

Yes, for example, they actually follow the face-value language that's IN the bible. For example, they carry "GOD HATES FAGS" signs because the bible says homosexuals are an "abomination". Or they carry, "Heaven or Hell? It's your choice!" signs, because Jesus spoke of no other subject more.

"There is a difference between being religiously motivated and God telling you to do something"

Consider that "God" supposedly told Bush Jr. to go to war. I needn't say more.

"[...]but that doesn’t mean they claim God told them to do it."

For those who believe their "Holy book" is the "Inspired Word of God", yes, it's every bit like "God" telling them to do [X, Y, and Z] as it is YOU telling me that "Jesus" told you to do [X, Y, and Z].

With practically every response, you underscore (and subvert) the central issue: Theists cannot prove that they know "God's Will".

"He’s not unverifiable to me. I’m in relationship with Him."

Go ahead, keep glossing over the point if you wish. You see, you can claim all sorts of things. Until you can prove (or verify) your claims to those self-deceived "other people", we're all still in the same boat of peril. Don't be shocked if there's another "911".

"It may seem bizarre to you now, but one day I hope you will experience what I’m talking about"

I already experienced what you (believe that you) are experiencing.

"I can only live what I know to be true and hope it makes a difference to those who think they are justified by religion to hurt people."

It hasn't worked (or at least, it hasn't made a big enough difference) for the last 2000 years, so I don't know what makes you think it will be any different now. And remember, asserting what you believe or telling me what you believe about the future is of zero value to me, as well as to this discussion.

boomSLANG said...

Addendum:

I'd like to clarify my position on the following.....

"I can only live what I know to be true and hope it makes a difference to those who think they are justified by religion to hurt people." ~ Karla

When I say, "It hasn't worked (or at least, it hasn't made a big enough difference) for the last 2000 years", etc., I obviously don't mean that you, personally, haven't made a difference for the past 2000 yrs. No, what I mean is that EVERY believer before you has believed that they possessed "Truth", and I venture to say that these people believed that they lived in accordance with that "Truth". Add to that younger philosophies such as Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology - all of which have followers who believe just fervently and passionately as any Christian that *they* know "Truth", and it becomes clear that none of the above have made the kind of "difference" that you seem to hope for.

And once more, this is central to my original point, and that is that if we take religious certainty and add the practice of knowing what "God" wants us to do, the end result will produce a more dangerous world, *especially* when at least two "Holy Books" contain passages condoning the killing of those who don't conform. Again, NONE of the above-mentioned philosophies can be falsified, nor can the practice of discerning the (supposed) desires of invisible, non-corporeal creator-beings be disproven. Although, it sure doesn't look very good when the adherents of the same "faith" come up with seriously conflicting instructions from the same (supposed) "God" they all profess to worship. 'Very revealing, in deed.

Karla said...

Boom “Your hypothetical is of no practical value, because, again, a "real baby" in the tub can be demonstrated to be there, and thus, he/she can be proven to exist."

His reality can be demonstrated with physical proof anyone can see. We don’t have to rely solely on biblical testimony of events having happened. God is still doing extraordinary things in our day. Just the same, you not having seen the proof doesn’t mean it is nonexistent nor does it mean He is.

Boom “Another point of no practical value, and you're veering away from the subject I raised. You, a Christian, might think "God is", but a Muslim thinks a *different* "God is". Neither of you can prove the other wrong. This is at the heart of the issue I raised. Can we please stay on topic?”

I have no need to prove “the other” wrong.


Boom “Not to be callous, but what you (claim to) see "in Jesus" is immaterial to me. Christianity is every bit a religious philosophy as Islam because of its exclusivity and its claims of being "the Truth".”

It most certainly can be just as religious. But I’m not speaking of Christianity as an institution or a religion when I speak of Jesus. Only individual people knowing Jesus and following Him.

As for something being religious because of being exclusively “the Truth” I think is an untenable position, because truth by its very nature is exclusive of non-truth. If there is a real God and He is the Father of Jesus then there isn’t also another God who only had a prophet named Jesus and is not a Father. Both cannot be true at the same time. Moreover, if the truth is that there is no God whatsoever than that is an exclusive truth. It excludes all claims of religion and all spiritual claims of another world beyond ours. It is very exclusive.


Boom “If you agree with me that religion breeds war, then I see that as an implicit admission that the religious philosophy that you profess..e.g..Christianity, is part of the problem. “

It certainly has been at times and still can be when it is removed from Jesus.



Boom “I reiterate---if you get your morals and/or any (or all) of your political views from your bible, you are showing me that you are at least partially "wrapped up" in a religion.”

I see the Bible as being able to be taken as religion and in contrast as a tool to know Jesus better and not as a religious weapon.

Boom “Unverifiable claim, and thus, of no practical use in this conversation.”

It’s a very important claim, but we don’t have to go there.

Karla said...

Boom “, for example, they actually follow the face-value language that's IN the bible. For example, they carry "GOD HATES FAGS" signs because the bible says homosexuals are an "abomination". Or they carry, "Heaven or Hell? It's your choice!" signs, because Jesus spoke of no other subject more.”

That is an example of religion not Jesus. And I am very disturbed when I see that kind of behavior.


Boom “Consider that "God" supposedly told Bush Jr. to go to war. I needn't say more.”

I’ve never heard that before.

Boom “For those who believe their "Holy book" is the "Inspired Word of God", yes, it's every bit like "God" telling them to do [X, Y, and Z] as it is YOU telling me that "Jesus" told you to do [X, Y, and Z]. “

I do understand that.

Boom “With practically every response, you underscore (and subvert) the central issue: Theists cannot prove that they know "God's Will".”

They can’t always prove it. Noah looked like an idiot building an Ark for a Flood until the rain started.

Boom “Go ahead, keep glossing over the point if you wish. You see, you can claim all sorts of things. Until you can prove (or verify) your claims to those self-deceived "other people", we're all still in the same boat of peril. Don't be shocked if there's another "911".”

I wouldn’t be shocked. As I said, religion in its extreme does have such potential. No argument there.

Boom “I already experienced what you (believe that you) are experiencing.”

You have felt God? Heard Him? Had knowledge you couldn’t have known naturally? You’ve known the Presence of God descending upon you and moving through you? You’ve felt an overwhelming power of peace of an otherworldly nature? If so, that’s awesome. I’m really happy you are remembering what it was like to know God. I’m not being sarcastic, but sincere. I don’t for a minute want to assume you haven’t experienced what I’m talking about.


Boom “It hasn't worked (or at least, it hasn't made a big enough difference) for the last 2000 years, so I don't know what makes you think it will be any different now. And remember, asserting what you believe or telling me what you believe about the future is of zero value to me, as well as to this discussion. “

I will respond to your clarification next time I get some time.

Karla said...

Boom “When I say, "It hasn't worked (or at least, it hasn't made a big enough difference) for the last 2000 years", etc., I obviously don't mean that you, personally, haven't made a difference for the past 2000 yrs.”

I know, but thanks for expounding.

Boom “No, what I mean is that EVERY believer before you has believed that they possessed "Truth", and I venture to say that these people believed that they lived in accordance with that "Truth". Add to that younger philosophies such as Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology - all of which have followers who believe just fervently and passionately as any Christian that *they* know "Truth", and it becomes clear that none of the above have made the kind of "difference" that you seem to hope for. “

Well that isn’t entirely accurate. While there are plenty of examples of abuses, Christians have made great advances. India has a Hindi language because of Christian missionaries who realized the common people had no unified tongue. They also saw that all governmental documents were published in a language none of the common people knew. The Missionaries with the help of William Wilberforce worked to do three things. One establish a language they could all learn (Hindi) then establish schools to teach people the language and about their government and world through the schools. Then Wilberforce helped to change the language of the government to this Hindi so that the people could know what their rulers were doing and be able to be involved. That is just one example. There are so many more that helped entire nations.


Boom “And once more, this is central to my original point, and that is that if we take religious certainty and add the practice of knowing what "God" wants us to do, the end result will produce a more dangerous world, *especially* when at least two "Holy Books" contain passages condoning the killing of those who don't conform”

I do understand what you are saying and how people can come away with ideas that are dangerous. I can only speak for Christianity (see my one example above.) There are so many more. So many more examples of how the Bible has made great progress in the world. I would recommend Vishal Mangalwadi’s book The Book that Changed Your World for more on this.


Boom “Again, NONE of the above-mentioned philosophies can be falsified, nor can the practice of discerning the (supposed) desires of invisible, non-corporeal creator-beings be disproven. Although, it sure doesn't look very good when the adherents of the same "faith" come up with seriously conflicting instructions from the same (supposed) "God" they all profess to worship. 'Very revealing, in deed. “

True it doesn’t. And I know everyone makes there “my religion is the exception and the real deal claim” so why believe me over anyone else. I totally get that. And at this point, you have nothing from me but some typed responses that cannot be enough to believe me over anyone else.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “Your hypothetical is of no practical value, because, again, a 'real baby' in the tub can be demonstrated to be there, and thus, he/she can be proven to exist."

You respond: "His reality can be demonstrated with physical proof anyone can see."

Let's be clear, when you make assertions using pronouns such as "He" and "His", what you mean is a SPECIFIC individual, in your case, "Yahweh", aka, "Jesus", aka, "Christ".

IOW, you are a CHRISTIAN who professes the Christian god. Somewhere on the other side of the globe sits the Muslim equivalent of "Karla Perry", a fervent, faithful believer who can and will assert the same thing(s) about the Islamic god, "Allah".

You accomplish nothing at all by simply asserting your god of choice "real" in your argument. In fact, doing so(which you do often) is the fallacy of begging the question.

"I have no need to prove 'the other' wrong."

The point is that you can't, whether you feel the "need" to, or not. And the fact that you can't underscores my entire position. Again, since neither side can prove the other wrong, extremists on *both* sides will continue to pretend to know what their respective deity's "Will" is, and consequently, we will live in more dangerous world.

Now, can you please really, really try to grasp my position so that we can stop wasting time talking about what you believe? I already know what you believe.

Previous, me: "[...]for example, they actually follow the face-value language that's IN the bible. For example, they carry 'GOD HATES FAGS' signs because the bible says homosexuals are an 'abomination'. Or they carry, 'Heaven or Hell? It's your choice!' signs, because Jesus spoke of no other subject more."

You respond: "That is an example of religion not Jesus."

And I reiterate---people who take to the above-described actions believe that the bible is the "Word of God" and that they have discerned said document properly. They believe that they are "following Jesus", whether you agree, or not. Your next move will invariably be to say, "But boom', that's not following Jesus because that's not love!"[or something similar], and before you do, just know that saying so misses the point, and also underscores it.

"And I am very disturbed when I see that kind of behavior."

That may very well be true, but you still claim to perform the very same practice by which the wacko Christians and Muslims claim to know "God's Will". IOW, you implicitly give way to them.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “With practically every response, you underscore (and subvert) the central issue: Theists cannot prove that they know 'God's Will'.”

You respond: "They can’t always prove it."

They can't *EVER* prove it, at least, in any objective way. If I'm mistaken, fine, simply point me to any scientific, peer-reviewed journal that states that "God" has once and for all been proven using the scientific method.

"Noah looked like an idiot building an Ark for a Flood until the rain started."

And the Big Bad Wolf looked like an idiot when he slid down the chimney and landed in a boiling pot of water that the 3 little pigs put there.

"Well that isn’t entirely accurate. While there are plenty of examples of abuses, Christians have made great advances. India has a Hindi language because of Christian missionaries who realized the common people had no unified tongue."

And yet, they have't come any closer to confirming what they are selling, regardless of the "language". Just because a certain philosophy becomes more popular due to the people selling it on a mass scale, that doesn't mean the odds go up that it's actually "true".

"And at this point, you have nothing from me but some typed responses that cannot be enough to believe me over anyone else."

True, and if you concede this, it kind of has me wondering why you didn't just make the above your initial response, as opposed to typing a bunch of responses that simply assert your position true.

Karla said...

Boom “Let's be clear, when you make assertions using pronouns such as "He" and "His", what you mean is a SPECIFIC individual, in your case, "Yahweh", aka, "Jesus", aka, "Christ".”

Yes, that is correct.


Boom “IOW, you are a CHRISTIAN who professes the Christian god. Somewhere on the other side of the globe sits the Muslim equivalent of "Karla Perry", a fervent, faithful believer who can and will assert the same thing(s) about the Islamic god, "Allah".”

Not the same thing, unless you only mean the bare minimum of existing. But I get your point. Just because there are other claims doesn’t make them all false. I would think they could each be considered separately.


Boom “You accomplish nothing at all by simply asserting your god of choice "real" in your argument. In fact, doing so(which you do often) is the fallacy of begging the question.”

I know, we get back to that rather quickly these days.


Boom “The point is that you can't, whether you feel the "need" to, or not. And the fact that you can't underscores my entire position. Again, since neither side can prove the other wrong, extremists on *both* sides will continue to pretend to know what their respective deity's "Will" is, and consequently, we will live in more dangerous world. “

I’d rather show someone something real than prove to someone what they believe is false. It won’t do much good to tell them they believe incorrectly, but if I can show them Jesus first by my love for them and second by supernatural demonstration of His love for them then I’m only making introductions rather than trying to persuade a person.

Regrettably, I cannot offer much to you on that regard in the confines of this forum.

Boom “Now, can you please really, really try to grasp my position so that we can stop wasting time talking about what you believe? I already know what you believe. “

I know you know what I believe, at least the words of it. I do not wish to waste your time.


Boom “And I reiterate---people who take to the above-described actions believe that the bible is the "Word of God" and that they have discerned said document properly. They believe that they are "following Jesus", whether you agree, or not. Your next move will invariably be to say, "But boom', that's not following Jesus because that's not love!"[or something similar], and before you do, just know that saying so misses the point, and also underscores it.”

I do get your point, but that’s not the only way one can see it. Freedom will always include abuses (at least for as long as the freedom is in the context of a fallen people).


Boom “That may very well be true, but you still claim to perform the very same practice by which the wacko Christians and Muslims claim to know "God's Will". IOW, you implicitly give way to them.”

I haven’t lost the ground to say that that isn’t godly because I believe in God’s will. God also gave us reason, and the Bible, and other believers to help guide our steps. Most anything good can also have a bad counterpart we cannot jettison the good every time something can also be used for bad.

Karla said...


Boom “They can't *EVER* prove it, at least, in any objective way. If I'm mistaken, fine, simply point me to any scientific, peer-reviewed journal that states that "God" has once and for all been proven using the scientific method.”

Can you prove the scientific method? Can you prove the philosophy that science is built upon? I’m not sure “proof” in the sense you mean it – exists for anything. You cannot prove the physical world is real – only that it is experienced by us to be so. I’m not trying to challenge you, except maybe to challenge you to think about that.

Boom “And yet, they have't come any closer to confirming what they are selling, regardless of the "language". Just because a certain philosophy becomes more popular due to the people selling it on a mass scale, that doesn't mean the odds go up that it's actually "true".”

I’m not sure what you are getting at with that? I was talking about benefits to society brought on by Christians.

I said "And at this point, you have nothing from me but some typed responses that cannot be enough to believe me over anyone else."

Boom “True, and if you concede this, it kind of has me wondering why you didn't just make the above your initial response, as opposed to typing a bunch of responses that simply assert your position true.”

That’s a good question. Honestly I started this blog looking for an avenue to write and to interact with people who thought differently than me. I wanted to learn about what others thought about the world directly from people rather than from what books written by other people who don’t think that way. I thought , at that time, I could possibly give good enough answers to help lead people to Jesus.

My life has changed radically since then. I’ve met Jesus on a level I hadn’t previously and I’ve found I don’t want to give anyone anything inferior to personally meeting Him themselves. I don’t wish to persuade anymore, I wish only to be of service to answer what is asked of me knowing ultimately the only thing that really matters is people meeting Jesus, not being persuaded by anything I’ve got to say. So, I still respond because you seem to want to have the conversation. So I’m here and talking with you. And I value hearing your responses, because I care to know how you see things. That’s it, really. That’s why I respond more than just saying, my response won’t be adequate.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “Let's be clear, when you make assertions using pronouns such as 'He' and 'His', what you mean is a SPECIFIC individual, in your case, 'Yahweh', aka, 'Jesus', aka, 'Christ'.”

You respond: "Yes, that is correct."

Okay, great. So, then you understand that where the baby/bath water analogy is concerned, Muslims believe that a different "baby" can be demonstrated to be in the tub, and they would proffer one or all of the same types of "evidence" that you do: 1) personal experience 2) "faith" 3) Revelation(aka Holy texts).

If I left something out that doesn't fall under one of those three categories, let me know.

The point being, there is no consensus among theists which "baby" to not throw out, and this is part of the problem and why, when you use said "baby" analogy, it fails to be convincing.

IOW, when you sit there and simply assert that the other guy's "faith" is false, you miss(or circumvent) the point.

Previously, me: “IOW, you are a CHRISTIAN who professes the Christian god. Somewhere on the other side of the globe sits the Muslim equivalent of 'Karla Perry', a fervent, faithful believer who can and will assert the same thing(s) about the Islamic god, 'Allah'.”

You respond: "Not the same thing, unless you only mean the bare minimum of existing"

What I mean is this: Neither you, nor the Muslim equivalent of you, can prove the other wrong. You both believe on the same 3 types of evidence that I listed above; you both say the other harbors a false belief and is deceived. In that regard, yes, it most certainly is the same thing.

"Just because there are other claims doesn’t make them all false"

True, which is where *evidence* comes into play. And again, unless I've overlooked something, both your evidence and the Muslim's evidence fall under 3 categories, none of which convinces the other, and this is the rub.

"I’d rather show someone something real than prove to someone what they believe is false."

So quickly you revert right back to equivocation. If a Muslim wants to show you "something real", say, the miracles of the Almighty Allah, I hope we can agree that it would be implicit that they are wanting to show you that what you currently believe is false.

"[....]if I can show them Jesus first by my love for them[....]

I'm sorry, but "loving" someone isn't evidence of anything but the ability to love, which, BTW, NO group of people can do better than another. Please, don't even go there.

"and second by supernatural demonstration of His love for them then"

Yes, the same "supernatural demonstration" that they will claim to be able to show YOU.

"I’m only making introductions rather than trying to persuade a person"

And they'd like to introduce you to "Allah". Now, would you accept the miracles of "Allah" as evidence of "Allah"? Would you accept the Qu'ran as evidence of "Allah"? Would you accept their fervent and unwavering belief in "Allah" as evidence of "Allah"? I'm guessing no, no, and no.

"Regrettably, I cannot offer much to you on that regard in the confines of this forum."

I take it that you believe that you can offer me something in person that would change my mind, something that, a) I haven't heard or seen before, and b) is more concrete than any Muslim can offer. If a, b, or a and b, I'd be curious as to learn what that is.

boomSLANG said...

"Freedom will always include abuses (at least for as long as the freedom is in the context of a fallen people)."

Begging the question and tangential to my underlying point.

Bottom line: You cannot prove that theist "X" has discerned their Holy text improperly. It's your opinion Vs theirs.

Previously, me: “They can't *EVER* prove it, at least, in any objective way. If I'm mistaken, fine, simply point me to any scientific, peer-reviewed journal that states that 'God' has once and for all been proven using the scientific method.”

"Can you prove the scientific method?"

I'll take this as an admission that the type evidence I asked for doesn't exist(as I suspected it doesn't).

As for answering your question, "prove" the scientific method it in what way? Do you mean, prove that it's the most reliable method we have for testing our knowledge?

"I’m not sure 'proof' in the sense you mean it – exists for anything."

The "sense" I mean is the same "sense" that we know that the moon exists. Science doesn't deal with absolutes; it is provisional(for a good reason). Scientists aren't telling us the moon exists in an absolute sense, nor are they telling us with conditions attached. We are all perfectly free to deny the moon's existence without harmful repercussions.

"I’m not sure what you are getting at with that? I was talking about benefits to society brought on by Christians."

Actually, you were talking about missionaries teaching the occupants of India the "Hindi" language.

And BTW, are you suggesting that English-speaking Christian missionaries created the unified Eastern Indian language known has "Hindi", and then taught it to them? Or did I misunderstand you when you wrote..."India has a Hindi language because of Christian missionaries who realized the common people had no unified tongue." ???

"I wanted to learn about what others thought about the world directly from people rather than from what books written by other people who don’t think that way. I thought, at that time, I could possibly give good enough answers to help lead people to Jesus"

Leading non-believers to "Jesus" would first require evidence that there is actually a "Jesus" there. We've been over this a bazillion times, Karla. Unless I've overlooked something all these months, the type of evidence you have convinces one type of person, and one type of person, only: The already-convinced. I know that you insist that it's not all "about belief". Welp, maybe not for someone who's convinced. But for someone who's NOT convinced? Yes, that's precisely what it's all about.

But that's really all old news. Right now the topic and issue I raised is the problem with theists,namely, Muslims and Christians and their respective claims of having the ability to discern "God's Will". It's a real quagmire, and that's seriously understated.

Karla said...

Boom “, Muslims believe that a different "baby" can be demonstrated to be in the tub, and they would proffer one or all of the same types of "evidence" that you do: 1) personal experience 2) "faith" 3) Revelation(aka Holy texts).”

Maybe, I’m not sure they profess Allah can be demonstrated or experienced. I think they teach he is simply to be obeyed by following the Koran. I’m no expert on Islam, but I’m not aware of any two way communication or experiencing of Allah outside of Mohammed’s experience. I’m not saying I’m not aware of authentic experiences, but that I’m not aware experience is professed at all. I’m pretty sure their only evidence is the Koran in its original language only. Again, I believe this is what they claim. I’m not making a defense against them.


Boom “The point being, there is no consensus among theists which "baby" to not throw out, ”

I do see what you are saying. How can we justly keep one profession of who God is over another without any undeniable proof of any of them?

In contrast I’m not saying the world should do away with freedom of religion. I’m saying you and I can determine not to throw out all possibility of God being real because of the harmful things we see done in the name of religion. We can’t just say well these religions are doing bad things so everybody who claims to know God is in danger of doing bad things.



Boom “IOW, when you sit there and simply assert that the other guy's "faith" is false, you miss(or circumvent) the point.”

I agree. I do see your point.

Boom “What I mean is this: Neither you, nor the Muslim equivalent of you, can prove the other wrong. You both believe on the same 3 types of evidence that I listed above; you both say the other harbors a false belief and is deceived. In that regard, yes, it most certainly is the same thing.”

Regardless of what is considered evidence, I do understand what you are getting at.

Boom “True, which is where *evidence* comes into play. And again, unless I've overlooked something, both your evidence and the Muslim's evidence fall under 3 categories, none of which convinces the other, and this is the rub.”

Well, not exactly. Christian evidence is more than the Bible, or evidences supporting biblical history. We profess you can experience God here and now. I’m almost sure Muslims don’t profess that at all. I could be wrong on that, but it’s what I have heard from ex-Muslims. That may not make much difference to you . . .


Boom “So quickly you revert right back to equivocation. If a Muslim wants to show you "something real", say, the miracles of the Almighty Allah, I hope we can agree that it would be implicit that they are wanting to show you that what you currently believe is false. “

See above on that. Also no it is different. I don’t wish to attack someone’s belief system. I don’t need to weaken belief in a counterfeit, I only need to produce the real.



Boom “I'm sorry, but "loving" someone isn't evidence of anything but the ability to love, which, BTW, NO group of people can do better than another. Please, don't even go there.”

I’ve met some who love like I’ve never seen any others love. But that’s one of those things words cannot help you experience what I’m talking about.

Boom “Yes, the same "supernatural demonstration" that they will claim to be able to show YOU.”

Islam doesn’t teach God is love, so they won’t be trying to demonstrate that at all. You won’t find that in the Koran.

Karla said...

Boom “And they'd like to introduce you to "Allah". Now, would you accept the miracles of "Allah" as evidence of "Allah"? Would you accept the Qu'ran as evidence of "Allah"? Would you accept their fervent and unwavering belief in "Allah" as evidence of "Allah"? I'm guessing no, no, and no.”

I don’t expect anyone to accept the faith or sincerity of belief of another as evidence. The only evidence a person needs is God, Himself. Nothing else is worth anything.

Boom “I take it that you believe that you can offer me something in person that would change my mind, something that, a) I haven't heard or seen before, and b) is more concrete than any Muslim can offer. If a, b, or a and b, I'd be curious as to learn what that is.”

I’m not sure about your mind, but I might be able to demonstrate Jesus in a way that awakens your heart. I might be able to demonstrate the power of His Presence or a miracle or something of that nature. Or maybe God would have something else in mind. I try to partner with what Jesus wants to do. There is no substitute for Jesus, the way to Jesus is Jesus, not persuasive words or arguments.

Karla said...

Boom “Bottom line: You cannot prove that theist "X" has discerned their Holy text improperly. It's your opinion Vs theirs.”

You can sometimes adequately disprove, you can’t always completely prove.


Boom “I'll take this as an admission that the type evidence I asked for doesn't exist(as I suspected it doesn't).”

I am not convinced the proof you look for can be found for what you accept to be true such as the scientific method. My response to the first question is above.


Boom “As for answering your question, "prove" the scientific method it in what way? Do you mean, prove that it's the most reliable method we have for testing our knowledge?”

The scientific method has an assumed philosophy behind it. 1) that the physical world is real 2) that we are able to observe it correctly – but how is that proved? How do we prove nature is real and that we can have a realistic view of it?

Boom “The "sense" I mean is the same "sense" that we know that the moon exists. Science doesn't deal with absolutes; it is provisional(for a good reason). Scientists aren't telling us the moon exists in an absolute sense, nor are they telling us with conditions attached. We are all perfectly free to deny the moon's existence without harmful repercussions.”

Ok so basically you are looking for physical evidence. That which you can see or can be experienced with five senses. So if you were standing with the Israelites when Moses parted the red sea you would take that as proof that a miracle happened? Or if you were there when Jesus was killed, saw He was dead, and then saw Him alive. That would be adequate evidence?


Boom “And BTW, are you suggesting that English-speaking Christian missionaries created the unified Eastern Indian language known has "Hindi", and then taught it to them? Or did I misunderstand you when you wrote..."India has a Hindi language because of Christian missionaries who realized the common people had no unified tongue." ???”

I think the missionaries took one of their many languages and helped develop it into a written language and then taught it to the people through schools and then worked with Britain to change the language of India’s government to that language. I can probably find the link to the story if you want it. It was in a book, but I think it is also in an article. Another example is William Wilberforce’s many cultural changes based on biblical morality. . .


Boom “Leading non-believers to "Jesus" would first require evidence that there is actually a "Jesus" there. We've been over this a bazillion times, Karla. Unless I've overlooked something all these months, the type of evidence you have convinces one type of person, and one type of person, only: The already-convinced. I know that you insist that it's not all "about belief". Welp, maybe not for someone who's convinced. But for someone who's NOT convinced? Yes, that's precisely what it's all about.”

Yes, what I was trying to do was inadequate. The only evidence you really need is Jesus. Not evidence pointing to Jesus, but actually Jesus. What more could be left to give evidence after you’ve met the Son of God?


Karla said...

Boom “But that's really all old news. Right now the topic and issue I raised is the problem with theists,namely, Muslims and Christians and their respective claims of having the ability to discern "God's Will". It's a real quagmire, and that's seriously understated.”

If it is just two religions practicing a form of superstition and folly – then they are both unnecessary and society needs to grow out of our religious phase. But if there is a real God and He does have relationship with people and He does lead them in the way of love then the earth needs that now more than anything.

A great awakening is coming very soon. It won’t be something only known inside churches; it is going to make the news big time. People who love God are going to be healing people left and right and the world will hear of it. It’s coming very soon. You’ll see. I’m telling you now so you know God is already telling people about this before it happens. So when it does happen you will know what I am saying about it coming is real.

boomSLANG said...

"I’m not sure they profess Allah can be demonstrated or experienced."

Karla, maybe a comparative religion course would be helpful to you, since, well, you're the person who claims to want to know what other people believe, and why. FYI, Muslims make all of the same types of claims about their god as Christians make about theirs. In fact, the claims are eerily similar. See here, for starters:

http://www.islamic.org.uk/pereln.html

"I think they teach[....]"

But why guess or believe what you've heard from other Christians when you can know what Muslims believe straight from the source?

"I’m no expert on Islam[...]"

You don't need to be an "expert" to learn the basics, which you can do with a little digging around.

"but I’m not aware of any two way communication or experiencing of Allah outside of Mohammed’s experience."

Muslims claim to be in direct communication with the "Creator of the Universe", who, of course, they believe to be "Allah".

Previously, me: “True, which is where *evidence* comes into play. And again, unless I've overlooked something, both your evidence and the Muslim's evidence fall under 3 categories, none of which convinces the other, and this is the rub.”

"Well, not exactly."

It's only not exact in the sense that it's a different god. Otherwise, yes, it's the same.

"Christian evidence is more than the Bible, or evidences supporting biblical history."

And if you ask a Muslim, the evidence is more than the Qu'ran and its history.

"We profess you can experience [Yahweh] here and now."

As do Muslims profess that you can experience Allah "here and now".

I’m almost sure Muslims don’t profess that at all. I could be wrong on that, but it’s what I have heard from ex-Muslims."

Okay, perfect. So, instead of seeking out what a current Muslim believes, you're getting your information from former Muslims, and I'm willing to wager a lot of money that these former Muslims are now Christians. Par for the course, I suppose.

"I don’t need to weaken belief in a counterfeit, I only need to produce the real."

To "produce the real" will reveal a counterfeit, as the gods and faiths in question are mutually exclusive. You are making a distinction of no practical value.

"I’ve met some who love like I’ve never seen any others love."

I requested that you not do what you just did..i.e..suggest that one type of person or group of people can love better than another, and lo and behold, you went ahead and did it anyway. That claim, Karla, is one of the most pompous, asinine claims I've ever heard anyone make. I'll leave it at that.

"But that’s one of those things words cannot help you experience what I’m talking about"

'Sorry, but I don't buy into this notion that you can't put into words what you've experienced.

"I don’t expect anyone to accept the faith or sincerity of belief of another as evidence. The only evidence a person needs is God, Himself. Nothing else is worth anything."

You keep circumventing the point: Muslims are convinced that they, too, have experienced "God, Himself", and you cannot disprove them.

boomSLANG said...

"The scientific method has an assumed philosophy behind it. 1) that the physical world is real[...]"

We HAVE evidence, in a practical sense, that there is a physical world and that it is real. Again, science doesn't deal with absolutes, thus, it is not science's obligation to prove to people who doubt there is a physical world that there really is one.

As for assuming, it is presuppositionalists like you who ASSUME that there is a "super-natural", or "super-duper-natural", world.

"How do we prove nature is real and that we can have a realistic view of it?"

By experiencing it with our NATURAL, five senses. And again, you are perfectly free to disbelieve or distrust your own 5 senses. Best of luck with that.

"Ok so basically you are looking for physical evidence."

Yes, as if I haven't made that clear all along.

"So if you were standing with the Israelites when Moses parted the red sea you would take that as proof that a miracle happened? Or if you were there when Jesus was killed, saw He was dead, and then saw Him alive. That would be adequate evidence?"

I'd change my mind on much less than that. Consider that you, and people like you, insist that your god manifests in the physical world. If this were true, then the evidence becomes physical, and thus, it should be testable/falsifiable/repeatable. But yet, this is not the case. If it was the case - IOW, if Christians did a group-prayer to heal an entire children's hospital and 24 hours later the occupants showed no signs of tumors or cancer cells - that would convince me.

"I can probably find the link to the story if you want it. It was in a book, but I think it is also in an article."

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it was a Christian book or article.

"Another example is William Wilberforce’s many cultural changes based on biblical morality."

Ah, "biblical morality". A book where people are commanded not to kill, but its "God" then turns right around and orders the killing of children, pregnant women, and has children of war kept for "war booty". 'Not sure I can trust the person you mention above as a good source to learn about some other culture.

"The only evidence you really need is Jesus"

And yet, believers cannot proffer any objective evidence of this individual with whom they are supposedly in "a relationship", at a bare minimum, the type I asked for above. I don't believe this is just a coincidence.

"A great awakening is coming very soon."

Save it, Karla.

Case in point: 911 occurred because 19 Muslims believed that they each had a one on one relationship with the Creator of the Universe and that they knew this individual's desires(Will). Many more like them believe the same thing, and neither Christians, nor anyone else, can disprove them. Subsequently, the world is a more dangerous place.

Karla said...

Boom "Save it, Karla."

Ok.

boomSLANG said...

"Ok"

"Ok", as in fair enough? Sure. 'Not really "Ok" that you and other theists claim to possess special knowledge, especially the desires of the "Creator of the Universe". But then again, no one asks to be indoctrinated, do they?(rhetorical)

Karla said...

Ok, in that I will respect your request.

As to special knowledge, yes God does tell His children His desires and what He is going to do in the earth.

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