elika s. kohen: philosophy

------------------- Anonymous said... -----------...

2010-03-16T01:58:05.750+02:00

-------------------
Anonymous said...
-------------------
dude you got all your facts wrong... i don't know what bible youre reading but i'm really sorry this is what you believe!

-------------------
e.s Response...
-------------------
Sorry for my former response, it was a bit long, and I totally didn't understand until someone explained it to me.

It seems that you arguing that I am quoting from a poor translation, (I was using NASB for this article).

If you could help point me to some references that you know of that could help shed light on this, I would appreciate it.

Thanks agian, and sorry for the confusion on my part. :(

HEDYA- you ask the wrong question. You're looking ...

2010-03-13T06:49:21.305+02:00

HEDYA- you ask the wrong question. You're looking for affirmation you're right and your community is wrong, and that's a judgment I'm not sure anyone can make.

If I were to take your question at face value, i would answer it is difficult not to appear the fool if you are a true Christian. it says the wisdom of God is foolishness to men. So, yes, outsiders will view our philosophy(and our lives) as incomprehensible and inane.

But your issue is with other believers, not the world.

With that in mind, Scripture warns us against being foolish...
Prov 18:1 Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire; he breaks out against all sound judgment.
Prov 12:14 The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advise.

Don't be so quick to dismiss their criticism. Examine yourself. It could be they see what you cannot. Also keep in mind God exalts the humble and humbles the proud, so while you're tempted to say they're the complacent ones, consider them better than yourself. Assume you have much to learn. Set out to find their strengths (not weaknesses) and aim to imitate them in those ways.

It can't hurt to consider their advice. It may turn out that if you aren't mindful of their warning, you may lose footing and your face is going to get friendly with the pavement.

Excuse my brashness. I don't mean to offend, but I'd rather sound like a mean witch than fail to say you may be in danger.

KOHEN- you've been busy. I had a question for you…ethics related. I didn't write it down and reading/responding to this as shoved it out of my periphery. I'll return when I think of it.
Thena.

dude you got all your facts wrong... i don't know ...

2010-03-10T23:34:37.673+02:00

dude you got all your facts wrong... i don't know what bible youre reading but i'm really sorry this is what you believe! you shouldn't be spreading these lies! Jesus himself was JEWISH and followed JEWISH CUSTOMS OF HIS DAY. And yes the last supper was a PASSOVER SEDER. And Jesus wasn't "HEBREW." Hebrew is the LANGUAGE of the JEWISH PEOPLE. And Jesus spoke against the pharisees! the hypocrites abusing the jewish religion, he didnt speak against the religion itself because he came to FULFILL the religion as the awaited Messiah.

wow this is very interesting! thanks for sharing,...

2010-03-10T08:15:20.353+02:00

wow this is very interesting!
thanks for sharing, first time i hear of this "lie" from someone other than my parents..

I'm curious of your thoughts on this subject (no r...

2010-03-08T02:47:03.047+02:00

I'm curious of your thoughts on this subject (no rush):)

Extreme vs. Balance

I continuously hear from other believers that I need to have balance.
I also hear “extreme/intense” mentioned with a negative tone.
This has been brought up a couple times after expressing my passion for Jesus. (In other words, am I too extreme by giving my all to God regardless of the suffering that may come??) Is this true? What is considered balanced spiritually?

John the Baptist comes to mind. Was he balanced? He seemed anything but... What if God wants to bring a nation back to Himself? Wouldn’t extreme measures be required?

If you make the choice to give your entire life to God wouldn’t this be considered extreme?

Balance can be a good thing of course, but when a person truly gives their entire life to Christ and in turn feels suffering for the lost to an extreme…why should one suggest balance? This makes me wonder. When people want an excuse to be complacent, safe, or to not give their all to God, is this why they say, “you need balance…?”

This just baffles my mind and when I gave it some thought, I’ve never really felt balanced.

So I looked it up:

Balance/Balanced by definition-
1. The power or means to decide.
2. A stable mental or psychological state; emotional stability.
3. To compare by or as if by turning over in the mind: balanced the pros and cons before making a choice.
4. To bring into or keep in equal or satisfying proportion or harmony.

It seems to me that I’m little more balanced than I thought despite how I feel. But why am I told I need more balance?

Extreme by defintion-
1. Very intense: extreme pleasure; extreme pain. (something I tend to experience together regularly)
2. Extending far beyond the norm
3. Very dangerous or difficult (pertaining to my walk with God)
4. Of the greatest possible degree, quality, or intensity

It seems to me that I’m also extreme more often than not.

So can a person be extreme and balanced or is it extremely balanced?

I found this in scripture:
Ecclesiastes 7:18 (New International Version)
18- It is good to grasp the one
and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes.

So here's my real question...
Can you fear God, be extreme for Him, and not be considered a fool?

Sorry for the length...
Hedya

e.s. said: 4. Not Experiencing the Voice of God A...

2010-03-08T01:10:07.081+02:00

e.s. said:
4. Not Experiencing the Voice of God

Also, the knowledge and actions of EVERYONE you speak to, ARE constrained...
Response:(when you say, constrained, do you mean forced or held back?)
...by space, time, and matter.
Response: Can you give another example of this?

e.s. said:
Being able to distinguish character, as well as transcendence, we have set up a way to distinguish the voice of God from everything else.
Response:
Based on a persons character, (Just, Faithful, or True)
can a person truly have any of these characteristics if they do not have the Holy Spirit?

Response: Since you say that:

The intimate voice of God is not an internal voice, nor an external voice. It is not an imagination, or a feeling. It is Truth. Raw abstract, universal "full of awe", Truth.
Response: Are you only referring to the truth of scripture or the truth of what the soul experiences?
Isn't it possible/expressed in scripture that the intimate voice of God is expressed in multiple ways like an internal/external (burning bush)voice/physical (feeling)presence of God(Holy Spirit), visions/dreams,etc.? Are you stating the only way to experience the intimate voice of God is through "His Word?" :)

Are you saying that you've set up a way to distinguish the voice of God from everything else based on scripture/experience/both or something else?

e.s. said:
1. IF what we experience IS constrained by time, space, and matter, then this experience is NOT "God".
Response: Is this always the case? Because you also said: …the knowledge and actions of everyone you speak to, ARE constrained by space, time, and matter. I'm thinking of how God works through people so often in scripture and today...since you said that people’s actions ARE constrained by time, space, and matter. (this made me dizzy) :)

e.s. said:
2. If what we experience is NOT constrained to Truth, Trust, and Justice, then we also know that what we are experiencing is NOT God.
Response:(this makes sense but I want to get a handle on it so...) If we apply this to how God uses people, (people who make mistakes), could you say that these mistakes are experiencing God?
Mistakes that are necessary to grow closer to God...(Basically, the hand of God acting as father who disciplines His children) And if so, would that be considered a work of God? Maybe I picked this one apart too much but I'm thinking of people's mistakes not being constrained to Truth, Trust, and Justice.
These are just some of my thoughts. I appreciate any response you can give.

Hedya

Hey there! No, I definitely intend to answer ever...

2010-03-04T19:02:31.026+02:00

Hey there!

No, I definitely intend to answer everything. You just asked me something really, really hard to answer. :)

I just revised it a little. Pretty much the same thing. But I added the stuff about the "Voice of the Shepherd" and the "Voice of the Friend".

Please feel free to object to things. It will help me fix it. :)

Thanks for answering, I actually wasn't sure I'd g...

2010-03-04T09:30:29.301+02:00

Thanks for answering, I actually wasn't sure I'd get a response. Now I know how to get one. I will respond on your post after I've processed it.
Thanks again.
Hedya

-------------------- keLston said ... ------------...

2010-03-04T02:32:55.593+02:00

--------------------
keLston said ...
--------------------
I don't believe Hitchens's argument is a strawman. In his debate with Frank Turek, it is Turek that counters the morality argument by asking something along the lines of: "How do you know right or wrong without God or an external being to compare it to?"

--------------------
e.s. Response
--------------------
Turek repeatedly states, several times, that you don't need God or religion to know what is moral or not. He says it again in his closing comments on the first debate.

However, what Turek does challenge Hitchens on is how Hitchens can "know" for certain what is moral or not, without some standard for morality. In essence, "how can materialism provide a viable moral standard?"

P.S. I did send an email request to Frank Turek as...

2010-03-03T21:25:30.698+02:00

P.S. I did send an email request to Frank Turek asking for his thoughts. I haven't heard back from him yet, but I really hope he will. It would be awesome to know his thoughts.

Part 3 of 3 --------------- keLston said... -----...

2010-03-03T19:45:41.252+02:00

Part 3 of 3

---------------
keLston said...
---------------
So the question is: Is the inner witness not enough? Are there universal truths? After all, in the views of modern morality, many would argue homosexuality is immoral. However, in Ancient Greece, homosexuality could be considered the most ethical, the most moral form of love. So if there are universal truths, how does the "knowledge" of morality address the shifting values of society in terms of what is moral?

---------------
e.s. Response...
---------------
Just like someone else, you are provoking me into giving a quantifiable measuring stick of what is moral or not. Further, you are specifically asking whether or not morality shifts over time, or if it is concrete but that it is our perception of morality that shifts. But, I am not sure if it is relavent in proving that Hitchens' argument is not a strawman.

---------------
keLston said...
---------------
From what we, as a whole, would view as moral, a pack animal which shares the trophy of the hunt with his/her pack is performing a moral act. Does one have to be aware of morality to perform a moral act?

---------------
e.s. Response...
---------------
In short, it is impossible to claim from Scripture, or from ancient Judaism and Christiantiy, and modern non-elitist theology, that one has to be aware of morality to perform a moral act.

I cannot argue, from Scripture or ancient historical precedent, that Judaism or Christianity incorporate the idea that moral acts are limited to those that "are aware" or to those that are religious. I am fairly certain noone can make that argument with integrity.

So, to say that believers believe that awareness of religion, or awareness of God, are required to act morally is a massive misrepresentation, and truly an invalid argument.

Part 2 of 3 --------------- keLston said... -----...

2010-03-03T19:45:28.278+02:00

Part 2 of 3

---------------
keLston said...
---------------
I don't believe Hitchens's argument is a strawman. In his debate with Frank Turek, it is Turek that counters the morality argument by asking something along the lines of: "How do you know right or wrong without God or an external being to compare it to?"

---------------
e.s. Response...
---------------
Frank Turek is a man, a single man. And does not represent the entirety of "believerdom". In my opinion, Hitchens is probably debating with Turek probably because Turek is "good sport". In other words, I believe Hitchens is "cherry picking" a liberal theist to prove his point. There wouldn't be any "fame" or "interest" if he debated with me, or another conservative theist. It is certainly true that I am probably a lot less entertaining. :)

That being said, I cannot represent the entirety of "believerdom" either. However, what I can do is try to represent history and Scripture with integrity. I can say, "See look! Both Judaism and Christianity have *historically argued that the existence of God is quantifiable and evident, and that faith should be established on the evidentual power of God, and not warm fuzzy feelings. And look! Historically, both have always argued that morality is readily apparent to all people."

So, by misrepresenting actual history, Scripture, and the majority of believers that actually try to immitate God ... yes, it is a strawman, by definition.

Splitting up response into three replies: Part 1...

2010-03-03T19:45:14.103+02:00

Splitting up response into three replies:

Part 1 of 3

---------------
keLston said...
---------------
The problem I have with "faithful testimony" defined as it is is likely the same reason that "eyewitness testimony", while considered the highest form of evidence in the court of law is the lowest form of evidence in the court of science.

---------------
e.s. Response...
---------------
I really love comments like yours. :) I was up pretty late last night, and trying to figure out what I wrote, (in several different blogs. So far, your comment has been way more intelligent than all mine put together. *sigh).

I understand the notion of quantifiable, scientific, evidence, etc. I love it a lot. In fact, I believe that any argument to prove the existence of God should be done in a quantifiable way, as there is no other precedent historically in Scripture or ancient believers to do otherwise.

However, that being said ... Hitchens argument seems to go ahead and concede the existence of God, and pursues the topic in a very personal, social manner, rather than arguing from lab science.

So, for this reason, my response to Hitchens does not rest on science, but rather simple reason.

---------------
keLston said...
---------------
If you gave faithful testimony regarding the actions of God, are you giving actual faithful testimony or are you demonstrating your propensity to believe in a god? A child, for instance, could give faithful testimony when asked about Santa or the Tooth Fairy. Is this a moral action? If you are convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt of what could be a lie, does faithful testimony only accept what you view as truth or what is actually provably true?

---------------
e.s. Response...
---------------
Again, my argument is from the point of view that someone is actually a true witness. They have actually seen, heard, tasted, smelled. Not someone full of wishful thinking. For example, what Moses claimed to have happened is a lot different than the warm fuzzy "spiritual experience" that both Jews and Christians claim today. What the disciples claim to have experienced is a lot different too.

Many people, The prophets, the early Church writers, regular people, were literally put on the stand because of what they claimed to have seen and heard. If a credible witness is recounting an actual truth, then yes, this action certainly seems to be moral. But Hitchens question is also hypothetical. He didn't ask, "What moral action do believers do, that unbelievers cannot." That would be a really good question, but also and ad-hominem. But ironically, ad-hominem is perfectly legitimate in this particular argument.

Splitting up response into two replies:

The problem I have with "faithful testimony" defin...

2010-03-03T11:17:25.823+02:00

The problem I have with "faithful testimony" defined as it is is likely the same reason that "eyewitness testimony", while considered the highest form of evidence in the court of law is the lowest form of evidence in the court of science. If you gave faithful testimony regarding the actions of God, are you giving actual faithful testimony or are you demonstrating your propensity to believe in a god? A child, for instance, could give faithful testimony when asked about Santa or the Tooth Fairy. Is this a moral action? If you are convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt of what could be a lie, does faithful testimony only accept what you view as truth or what is actually provably true?

I don't believe Hitchens's argument is a strawman. In his debate with Frank Turek, it is Turek that counters the morality argument by asking something along the lines of: "How do you know right or wrong without God or an external being to compare it to?"

So the question is: Is the inner witness not enough? Are there universal truths? After all, in the views of modern morality, many would argue homosexuality is immoral. However, in Ancient Greece, homosexuality could be considered the most ethical, the most moral form of love. So if there are universal truths, how does the "knowledge" of morality address the shifting values of society in terms of what is moral?

From what we, as a whole, would view as moral, a pack animal which shares the trophy of the hunt with his/her pack is performing a moral act. Does one have to be aware of morality to perform a moral act?

Hey Anonymous, I am sorry it has taken a while, b...

2010-03-03T08:40:07.889+02:00

Hey Anonymous,

I am sorry it has taken a while, but I have been noodling on this for a while, trying to figure out how to answer your question about how we can really know the voice of God.

I was babbling ... a lot... when I wrote an answer, here:
http://www.kohen.com/2010/03/voice-of-god.html

I will definitely edit it more, but I just wanted to let you know that I didn't forget, and actually tried. I would love to know your thoughts. :) I will make it shorter. :)

e

----------------- keLston said... ---------------...

2010-03-03T06:46:31.180+02:00

-----------------
keLston said...
-----------------
How is "faithful testimony" in the religious context a moral action in the general context?

-----------------
e.s. Response...
-----------------
Thanks for your comment! The word "Faithful" implies trustworthy. And obviously, testimony is connotes a witness before a judge.

So, in a very general sense, any witness who faithfully provides true testimony, is generally considered a moral person.

Any person could perform the general action of providing faithful testimony, (if they truly are a witness). However, only a believer who has truly witnessed the actions of God could provide faithful testimony concerning God.

Again, the idea the Hitchens is asserting that believers claim that only believers are privy to the path of "morality" is quite the strawman.

-----------------
keLston said...
-----------------
It is, in general, an amoral act. It is neither right nor wrong.

-----------------
e.s. Response...
-----------------
My brain kind of locked up when I read this. On one hand I was thinking, "If faithfully testifying before a judge and jury cannot be considered 'moral', then what in the world could be considered truly moral?"

On the otherhand, I think it is an awesome question to state what is moral and immoral or amoral in a quantifiable way. I think I can actually do this. But, not here. :) Okay, I am working on a blog post called "Morality".

But, for a quick easy answer, I think most people everywhere would consider a person telling a truth, especially in the context of a judgement, particularly moral--especially if that testimony is given at their own detriment.

-----------------
keLston said...
-----------------
Furthermore, humanity is not alone in it's awareness of morality. Consider pack animals that share the kills from hunts.

-----------------
e.s. Response...
-----------------
I think you are arguing my point, that morality is readily apparent, by believer and unbeliever.

However, I think the pack animals analogy is going a little too far. This is an argument from silence for the most part: Is there some internal voice, sentience, within animals that helps them determine what is justified or not? What is Good? What is Evil? What is right? What is wrong?

I can't go there, because I don't know. But, I suspect most people can't really prove that one. :)

How is "faithful testimony" in the religious conte...

2010-03-02T19:23:26.788+02:00

How is "faithful testimony" in the religious context a moral action in the general context?

It is, in general, an amoral act. It is neither right nor wrong.

Furthermore, humanity is not alone in it's awareness of morality. Consider pack animals that share the kills from hunts.

The thoughts you're in the process of regurgitatin...

2010-02-18T22:18:49.601+02:00

The thoughts you're in the process of regurgitating are more appealing than mine. I'm a jack(ie) of all trades master on none. it was esp true whenI was doing this study. I didn't retain much at all.

Besides, it was nowhere near being philsophical. It was historical and rudimentary.

So, no, not what I was thinking, but am still interested in reading.

I'll keep your questions post in mind and will comment there when I think of something.

Athena

No, I mean something that the soul experiences, as...

2010-02-18T08:10:11.764+02:00

No, I mean something that the soul experiences, as if the soul could see, hear, touch, or taste. When intimacy with God is all that one desires, how can you be sure that these senses have not been deceits by the evil one?

Anonymous Said: ---------------------- For some, t...

2010-02-18T07:31:30.972+02:00

Anonymous Said:
----------------------
For some, the desire for the Spirit of God grows so immense on the journey to spiritual union, how does one know for sure an impression is not caused by the evil one?

e.s. Response:
----------------------
Thanks for the question! Though, I am not too certain what you are asking... You kinda said, "how do you know "an impression" has not originated from the evil one ..."

What do you mean by "An impression"? Do you mean the impression that there is a desire for the Spirit of God?

For some, the desire for the Spirit of God grows s...

2010-02-18T05:38:47.265+02:00

For some, the desire for the Spirit of God grows so immense on the journey to spiritual union, how does one know for sure an impression is not caused by the evil one?

Thena Said: -------------- Cause and effect. So, i...

2010-02-17T17:22:53.175+02:00

Thena Said:
--------------
Cause and effect. So, if there is nothing higher than God, then it appears he becomes his own cause and effect?

e.s. Response:
--------------
I am not really ready to go as far as to say that God is his own cause and effect yet. I am still of the opinion that God probably created the whole idea of "Cause and Effect". Then again, if God constrained himself, (cause), the the result, (effect), would be for him to act in a particular way.

Either way, this "Cause and Effect" was preceeded by his "Word".

Thena Said:
--------------
Sometime ago (years), I invested quite a lot studying covenants. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you ever write a post on it.

e.s. Response:
--------------
I am actually in the process of writing something. Actually, its more along the lines of what morality is, and isn't. The idea being that "covenant" is at the heart of anything we consider to be moral. A sense of duty, responsibility, or obligation inherent in all moral acts.

Probably not where you wanted to go with that. What were you thinking? I actually have a "Questions" post, (look on the left menu under topics), for people to post ideas and questions. Except, noone has. Its very sad. :(

Thank you again!

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questio...

2010-02-17T08:05:22.966+02:00

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. Wasn't expecting such a lengthy response. Wasn't expecting a response to begin with.

With these annotations, this stream of thought(s) is becoming clearer. It's more complex than I originally thought. Or maybe reality is, it is far simpler than we make it to be, but we've accustomed ourselves to making it needlessly complex.

I see the validity in what you're arguing though, and perhaps God isn't precisely the way we think he is. That's what you're saying, I believe, when you point out the logical implications of these labels.

Cause and effect. So, if there is nothing higher than God, then it appears he becomes his own cause and effect?

Sometime ago (years), I invested quite a lot studying covenants. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you ever write a post on it.

Thena.

Thena Said: ----------------- How do you define "f...

2010-02-16T16:49:15.545+02:00

Thena Said:
-----------------
How do you define "free will"? Is it having the liberty to choose without any restraint whatsoever?

e.s. Response:
-----------------
When I was little, people used to talk about free will. And I was like, "But isn't there always a consequence to any decision we make? Always some price?"

So, it took me a little while to come up with a more consistent definition. :) Kinda easy to get confused at that age. Anyhoo.

Perhaps "Free Will" is the ability to choose--but all choices imply possibility. If there is no possiblity to go two directions, then you cannot choose between one of two directions..

Then we get into that notion of "causality." How do we know that we aren't always predisposed to take certain paths like everything else in nature. Things /must/ react a certain way, (okay this gets a little confusing in quantum mechanics).

So, if we know for sure that we do have free will, then there must be something in us that transcends the universe, because everything in the universe is constrained by some sort of causality, (cause effect).

Thena Said:
-----------------
Looking at "God's Omnipotence vs. God's Free Will" ... isn't it possible to view it this way: God choosing to honor his covenant, not him being unable to break it?

e.s Response:
-----------------
If God is "Morally Perfect", this means that God is without "Moral Flaw".

If God can "choose" to honor a covenant, then there has to be the possibility that he can choose to not keep it. But if God is Morally Perfect, then it is not possible, because the moment it happened, God would no longer be God as we think of God.

So, in order for this train of thought to be consistent, God's excercise of free will has to come before there is even a possibility of God choosing to do something immoral.

Specifically, God choosing that his "Word" will be truth, and binding himself by his own word. Then, after the Word is spoken, God no longer has a choice, because he bound himself according to his own word.

Thena Said:
-----------------
Then "Contradiction: "God's Free Will vs. God's Moral Perfection" is it possible to say God is morally perfect, because he will never choose anything other than good? So he still makes a decision.

e.s. Response:
-----------------
What my article is saying in essence is that God is morally perfect, not because he refuses to be immoral, but because he completely took the possibility for him to be immoral out of the picture. In this way, God always "IS". There is no doubt with God, no double mindedness, no arbitrariness. There is no fear that one day God could "choose" to do something immoral, because God made it impossible.

But again, if God constraining himself by his own Word is true, this would imply that the origin of Morality is with God's Word ... This implies that the essence of any definition of "Morality" inherently consists of "explicit" and "implicit" covenants. The way to view if any action is moral, is to view it in terms of "covenant", (okay, that is a totally different topic. I need to write about this somewhere else! Sorry!).

"delayed" - couldn't think of a more appropriate w...

2010-02-16T08:12:49.786+02:00

"delayed" - couldn't think of a more appropriate word. But thank you for elaborating. I agree.

How do you define "free will"? Is it having the liberty to choose without any restraint whatsoever?

Looking at "God's Omnipotence vs. God's Free Will" ... isn't it possible to view it this way: God choosing to honor his covenant, not him being unable to break it?

Then "Contradiction: "God's Free Will vs. God's Moral Perfection" is it possible to say God is morally perfect, because he will never choose anything other than good? So he still makes a decision.

Thena