Meanwhile, it can mean another thing too. They see Moslems being blown up by the Xtians and they don't see a place where they can create a "Middle ground".

As I've noted before, the participants in the debate assume an "A is not equal to B and therefore A equals 'NotB'" mentality that leaves people having to decide between the lesser of two evils.

"You're either with us or you're with the terrorists!" tends to decide for people that they're against you. This is why the story of Solomon and the baby is so important, because it is a shows the deleterious effects of the ultimatum.

Some quotes to get you started on your journey... good luck!

From Wikipedia: "In Jewish belief, God is defined as the Creator of the universe: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1); similarly, "I am God, I make all things" (Isaiah 44:24). God, as Creator, is by definition separate from the physical universe and thus exists outside of space and time."

From a book review about Eastern Orthodox Christianity on Amazon.com: " Since God exists outside of time, His grace is poured out at once to us past, present, and future. Declaring salvation an "event" in time is thus a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of grace."

From Wikipedia: "Catholic Christianity's emphasis on free will and grace is often contrasted with predestination in Protestant Christianity, especially after the Counter-Reformation, but in understanding differing conceptions of free will it is just as important to understand the differing conceptions of the nature of God, focusing on the idea that God can be all-powerful and all-knowing even while people continue to exercise free will, because God does not exist in time (see the link to Catholic Encyclopedia below for more)."

From Wikipedia, the " New Church " gives the general idea... " if God is love itself, then He must love things outside of Himself; and if people do not have the freedom to choose evil, they are simply extensions of God, and He cannot love them as something outside of Himself. In addition, Swedenborg argues that if a person does not have free will to choose goodness and faith, then all of the commandments in the Bible to love God and the neighbor are worthless, since no one can choose to do them - and it is impossible that a God who is love itself and wisdom itself would give impossible commandments."

I'm not really trying to prove much, except that many liberals believe in good, but few liberals believe that evil is real, and that tough choices have to be made - the American left mainly sugar coats these choices in terms of dealing with the rise of fundamentalist Islam, as it relates to our economic security, freedom to exist - it is because God - a true understanding of God - has been cut out of the debate. This is a relatively recent phoenomenon, it comes from ignorance, but the left is currently exploiting this ignorance at the expense of the nation.

Is time real?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Just for the fun of it, I'll ask you again:

Is time real?

You say God is before time (as if that's not a contradiction of terms itself). then you must understand what is time. So tell us, coolshoos, is time real?

[/quote]

So if God exists outside time, I guess time is interesting, but I find the concept of God existing outside time to be more interesting.

Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.

God just wants us to love God.

We get to choose love, or evil.

If you recognize that both love and evil are real, and you want to love God, you have a responsibility.

You have to decide what is love, and what is evil.

Since the American Left appears to be unwilling to draw a line, the burden is carried by the few.

This appears to be human nature. I'm just making an observation about where we stand with regard to handling the security problem of radical Islam.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Suggestion: " Liberals " might entertain the notion that some conservatives have already thought about some of the stuff they are spewing and have decided to draw a line against the " choices " that fundamentalist Islamists want to impose upon us.

Re read your posts to me, how you assumed things about me.

Show me how I assumed things about you, or called you names, or insulted your intelligence.

This is a process, it requires trust, there is a definite conclusion, it is resolvable.

"...al-Qaida now views "all the world as a battlefield open in front of us."

The Egyptian-born physician said that the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah and Palestinian militants would not be ended with "cease-fires or agreements."

"It is a jihad (holy war) for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq," al-Zawahri said. "We will attack everywhere."

http://haloscan.com/tb/drsanity/1447623682491303334

If we continue on the path of appeasement we will be defeated by the enemy's unrepentant ruthlessness and their endless love of death. Thomas Sowell once remarked that, "If the battle for civilization comes down to the wimps versus the barbarians, the barbarians are going to win", and he is most certainly correct

"Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be."

It's God! They've been working on this for 50,000+ years. Sweetheart, it's complicated!

I'm not asking you about how God relates to time. I'm asking you if time is real. That's all.

How about this...

Can you define these three concepts? "simple" words, use them everyday.... can you, in your own words, define them?

"Is"

"Time"

and "Real"

My sense is that the answer is no. You cannot define the meaning of any of those three words.

And you want to tell me about God! Puleese!

You keep trying to define the debate to go off topic.

Your comment typifies current Liberal political behaviour, which is an unwillingness to bear down on the problem - in this case, it might be for you to carefully consider my points, develop a conclusion, and analyze that conclusion.

You're bright, but you are avoiding the issue.

"It depends on what your definition of is is."

Alright Whomit,

We can't define anything, and everything we say is based on assumptions. Nothing and everything is true. Let's all kill ourselves like Silvia Plath.

Is is.

If people lived more in the moment, things would be a lot less complicated.

If a lot of Americans took a week off, cut themselves off from the media, really thought about this whole problem ... thought for themselves ... who knows, we might survive as a nation.

Since language is imbued with emotion and conditioning and memory, we'll never get over the Clinton connotations of your remark.

What goes around comes around - Whomit's Liberal unwillness to take the issue head on is just the current vogue, who knows, in a couple of elections, maybe we'll come back politically with some resolve.

Or another terrorist incident in the U. S., God forbid. Like a billy club to the head. Nothing like fear to help define words like is.

[quote=farotech]

Alright Whomit,

We can't define anything, and everything we say is based on assumptions. Nothing and everything is true. Let's all kill ourselves like Silvia Plath.

[/quote]

We have a lot of people in the media and in Congress working on that for us. All very poetic, though.

Anyway, Whomit, for right now,  I'm just asking you to take some time off and consider the possibility that this debate, which you choose not to allow to run to a conclusion, is an example that some Liberals act like baby Gods, in that they choose to refuse to acknowledge the existence of evil, in the presence of God.

Some ninety percent of Americans "believe" in God, a much smaller percentage believes that good and bad are real, that we are continuously choosing, each moment.

The fundamentalist Islamist believe this, so do Jews and Christians, and Hindus and so on, but not the modern American Liberal.

You first, Faro.

Coolshoos,

Darling, You are the one who is insisting that "evil' is "real". I want to know if you have the capacity to know what the eff you're talking about.

Apparently, you don't. How can you say that "Evil is real" when you can't define "real"? I can define real, but I'm not sure that my definition of real is the same as yours. I'm simply asking you to define your terms. If I were the one to bring the issue to the table, then it would be up to me to define my terms, but I'm not, you are, so it is your job to lay the ground. Define the terms.

You have defined God by referring to "Him" in anthropomorphic terms. I don't need you to define any further, I know what you mean.

You've alluded to evil and you think you have given a clear definition of what it isn't. We'll deal with that later.

You've insisted on the word Real and you pivot your political distinctions based on the belief in evil's realness. But you refuse to define real.

I use Time as a qualifier in that it shares many of the properties of religious blather without the human, emotional element. But since you are not able to take that first step and intellectualize a single concept, how can you expect to be taken seriously on something as grand and ethereal as God ?

You're a low rank novice in the realm of religious thought Coolshoos, i assumed this at the beginning and then you have gone on to prove me right with every post. From not knowing the the term is Free Will (you thought it had to do with pro choice) to not knowing the 3 O's to not knowing the difference yourself between "before time" and "outside time" it is obvious that you are new to this exciting journey. I'm happy for you, but I'm sad too because I can see from your direction that you will go no further than the pew does (and its in church all the time!).

In another time in another place I'd be glad to take you for a stroll along the path, but this is neither the right time nor place. 

I'm going to ignore your personal attacks. Where do they come from?

Wikipedia:

" In Judaism and Christianity, evil is the result of dissociating from God's will.

As Plato observed, there are relatively few ways to do good, but there are countless ways to do evil...

It is not uncommon to find people in power who are indifferent to good or evil, taking actions based solely on practicality...

Evil is sometimes defined as the opposite of good, or anything that opposes the force of life... "

Anyway, you are right, I'm a lightweight when it comes to ontological debate.

You seem angry.

In another time in another place I'd be glad to take you for a stroll along the path, but this is neither the right time nor place. 

This feels like a patronizing, liberal dismissal. I think you are making my broader point about liberal behaviour in America today.

And you still managed to avoid engaging in the broader argument, which would be the implications of turning away from the reality of evil with regards to the behaviour of fundamental Islam.

Personal attacks? It’s not a personal attack to point out that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

If you don't understand evil, how am I supposed to engage you in "broader argument".

This is the trouble with people who replace faith with thought, they want to be able to discuss "the broader" while ignoring the facts that create the broader.

It's like the notion that one might miss the forest for the trees. In this case you refuse to recognize that the forest is made of trees. The only way to recognize a given forest as a pine forest is to know what pine trees are.

"You seem angry." CS

"...I'd be glad to take you for a stroll along the path...," WC

" ...I'm happy for you..."

".... I'm sad too ..."

Perhaps you don't know what "angry" means either.