Okay, you guys, I hate to sound like a grumpy old den mother, but if you don’t cut out the silliness and get back to the topic of the post I’ll have to start deleting your comments. Personal attacks are unacceptable; refer to the “rules of the road” if you’re unclear.

Hello Ms. Dolan,

Duly noted. Thanks for the reminder.

To the subject truly at hand: STP: I do not think firearms belong in a church, for any reason, period. It’s not about lack of faith, or about preventing the inevitable, or any of those high-minded concepts.

Firearms don’t belong in a place of worship for any number of reasons that can run whole gamut of ideas and emotional responses.

A house of worship is supposed to be a place of peace, safety, and tranquility, regardless of the religious affiliation. SOME attendees will recoil with a fear response if they know that someone else is armed, hence those who are armed are creating problems for those with those gut responses.

This particular situation that triggered this discussion, to me, crosses the line between God and Country. It’s certainly appropriate to celebrate freedom and rights. I’m uncomfortable for a number of reasons when those celebrations take place in a house of worship, because of the risk of placing country above God. (Idolatry)

Last but not least, it strikes me as fundamentally unnecessary. The odds of a specific worshiping congregation in the US being attacked during worship is ridiculously low. Particularly in a place like rural Kentucky. My attitude is, if you’re afraid of armed violence in the church, the better choice is to hire guards and install metal detectors and so on. In other words, establish a secure perimeter so that those on the inside are safe. Now, that will also have the effect of violating the basic premise of a house of worship: a place where everyone is welcome, but hey….

Joe L.

I see two causes to “non-believers” invoking debate over faith.

One, righteousness. To be “right” is a almost irresistable urge among humans, and it is most often attained by making other’s “wrong.” Taunting believers into defending faith is an almost fool proof method. It appeals both to righteousness and genuine sharing of the message.

The irony is that the righteousness of non believers which they do not see in themselves, is the same righteousness in believers that annoys non-believers as hypocritical and/or irrational. Which, of course, it is. Faith accepts this, reason can not.

The second cause is they want to believe, and can not reconcile the rational with the being. They seek to invoke a defense that makes sense for themselves. This, of course, is not possible, and leads to an endless circle.

The connection between language and thought is direct. If it does not exist in laguage, it does not exist for us. Faith and reason are distinct.

The common way to dismiss (make them wrong) believers is that they believe because they lack the reasoning to make sense of the world, and articulate and understanding of it.

Ie reality, faith is the setting aside of reason in the face of imperfect or incomplet knowledge, and allowing one’s self to be inspired by that which has led us through the eons.

We trust that which is within us from the beginning. Knowledge and reason as truth and fact is of the present is complete and perfect only in the present and past.

Faith is what calls us into the future and what is possible. What can not be known. Some fear this, some embrace it. In that nothingness is the possiblity of creation, and what is the esseence of being.

The language to attain this peace is what some are searching for, and for others it is just being smart. For most of us, it is a foot in each.

Thanks for pouring oil on troubled waters, another. I’ve taken the liberty of printing your last post and keeping it as a reminder. I’ve resolved to no longer respond in kind to comments written in a demeaning, bellicose spirit because doing resolves nothing. Not that I haven’t been known to swing from the heels myself, from time to time. But I’ve never been an instigator, only a defender. The irony here is early in this blog - before we got off topic - my first statement decried the idea of guns in church as bizarre.

Hello “hs”, (two post refs needed)

Thanks for the favor of your reply in post#3, page#8 at 5:47am July 10.

However, I am somewhat disappointed that it contains nothing new, merely a repeat of points you already made and areas where we already agree. In fact, you replay the same song despite have indicated “’nuff said” on the topic all the way back in post#4, page#4 at 10:12pm July 27. It almost sounds like you are avoiding a sticky philosophical contradiction.

I figured it was time to explore something else, but that’s just me. Since you’re a rational person, I thought you might like to apply some of your reasoning ability toward resolving a simple mystery. Perhaps, and I earnestly hope it is the case, you are still at work developing a well-reasoned address. I look forward to reading your thoughts on how one can change the hour of one’s own death, whether by free-will, weapons, wits, or any other means. Since “God” “knows” the hour, how can anyone change it?

(Joe L.: It’s not like I need your approval, but is that last question “hostile” by your standards? To be honest, I never actually knew which question I asked in an earlier post that you did feel was “hostile”. You never made it plain. Doing so now might, possibly, help me to become a more civil participant in these discussions. Please help, but, if it’s not too hostile to ask, can you do it without the judgmental tone and finger-wagging?

Also, I’m sure the Catholics and Lutherans, among others, have firm beliefs on this philosophical question: “do we have free-will in a universe where ‘God’ is real, omniscient, and infallible?” Did you learn anything about this from them? Care to share?)

Stirring, this is absolutely my last try on this one.

There are a couple of issues that you are raising, allow me to state what I think you’re saying or asking to clarify the questions..

First, the question is, (my words): “If God knows the hour of our death, then why would we take any sort of action that might affect that fact?”

Second, another question is, (my words again): “How does Free Will fit into this question of life and death?”

Then: Some difficulties with language: Speaking of God “Knowing” things that are time based creates significant problems. Because, as I stated earlier, God sees all things in a snapshot as it were (best metaphor I can come up with), and concepts like “before” and “after” really don’t have meaning here. We have to wrestle with the limitations of language as we wrestle with these concepts.

Finally, there is the distinction between God “Knowing” and God “Determining” various things about our lives. I suggest there is a distinct difference between these terms and the underlying concepts that we understand using those terms.

Example: Because of family history, there is a strong possibility I will develop Prostate Cancer at some point in the future. The “Knowing” God already knows whether I will develop this disease, even though I do not. Further, the “Knowing” God knows what treatments I will utilize, and whether they prolong my life, or not. Ultimately, God knows whether I will die of this condition, or of some other condition or accident in the future, and when that will take place. HOWEVER, God does NOT DETERMINE this. I do not accept the idea that God sits back and figuratively fills out a file card with my name on it, and picks out various important events in my life before the fact, writes them down, and then sets events in motion to make those things happen.

So, to answer the first question: God grants us free will, and an intellect, and expects us to use them. God will not protect me from my own stupidity, nor will God protect me from the stupidity or fecklessness of others. The strongest instinct of all living things is the instinct to preserve one’s own life, followed closely by the instinct to preserve the life of the next generation. To answer the scenario you posed directly, I would suggest that if a crazy showed up in a church to randomly shoot off an automatic weapon at the crowd, then God would “Know” that this event was getting ready to happen, and would “Know” how it would all turn out. The specific acts of individuals would not change the ultimate outcome. Ah HAH, he says, I gotcha now! Not at all: If a specific act of heroism (or stupidity) either saved the life of one individual….or led to the death of another one…in that scenario, God would “know” that would be happening, without forcing the outcome in that way.

This also sort of answers the second question: Free will in the theological sense is a bit different from free will as is understood in the popular imagination. Theologically, Free Will states that individuals are free to choose (or not choose) to enter into a relationship with God. This differs from the popular definition which is more likely to talk about our free choice to (example) eat supper tonight at McDonalds vs Mike Shannon’s. God grants us freedom to act throughout our lives, in ways large and small. There is a kicker, though. We ARE ultimately accountable for our choices and actions, even if we feel as if we didn’t really choose those actions. The classic example of the alcoholic who blacked out and caused a terrible wreck fits here: He is STILL responsible for the consumption of alcohol, even if, as a true alcoholic, he can truly only control the choice to take the first drink.

Hello “hs”,

Thanks again for the favor of your reply in post#7, page#8 at 3:08pm July 11.

From your remarks in parg#9, regarding the meaning of “free will”, it sounds like you think there are two kinds: theological and popular. I accept that and understand that the appropriate meaning depends on the context. To be clear, I have had in mind the popular meaning when I refer to “free will”, but the result of my reasoning applies equally to the theological sense as well.

You have pointed it out already: there are consequences to choices. Thus, if you choose a “Jewish” relationship with “God” vs. a “Muslim” vs. a “Presbyterian” vs. a “skeptical” relationship, then there are certain to be different consequences, including, in all likelihood, different “hours” of one’s death. Assuming “God” is omnipresent (and real and infallible), then “God” already knows all the consequences of this critical and singular “choice”. The simple result, then, is that you could not possibly choose any different kind of relationship with “God” because to do so would produce consequences different from those already known to “God”.

Once again, if you assume that “God” is real, omniscient, and infallible, then no creatures have an ability to choose anything… whether their lives are scripted by determination or not, any deviation whatsoever would be counter to “God’s” complete, certain, and infallible knowledge. Under these conditions, creatures have no “free will” either in the theological or popular sense.

Does “God” have an intellectual impairment regarding time sequence and cause and effect? Given your definitions, I find that hard to believe. And while I don’t always understand complex cause and effect relationships, time sequences don’t generally give me problems; thus there is no reason for me to suspect that an omniscient “God” would have any problems with them. It’s certainly plausible that creatures do not understand the way some “God” might experience time sequence and cause and effect, but it’s unclear to me how this either disables “God’s” infallible omniscience or enables us to chart the course in a way that departs from “God’s” infallible vision.

Does “God” know with infallible certainty the hour (including manner and place) of every creature’s death? (Earlier you said “yes”.) If so, then it appears impossible for it to be changed. If it is possible for a creature to change any circumstances of its death (or the circumstances of any other creature’s death, or any events or decisions or choices or even thoughts of its own or another’s), then I would certainly like to know how. You seem to think it is possible; please say how, or offer an example.

Actually, Stirring the Pot, I do think your question to hs was - if not outright hostile - then at least less than civil. Your tone reminds me of an adolescent come of age, who feels he/she must prove his/her independence and newfound knowledge at every turn. Or a kid who, come what may, is always going to say the last word, even when a subject has been exhausted and it gets down to “I know you are, but what am I?” I am not saying this to be insulting (PLEASE NOTE, PAMELA) I am trying to describe the insufferable tone you suggest you may want to address to be a more civil participant. “Replay the same song” is just a minor example, and “Not like I need your approval” is more to the point. I could cite more examples, but I am not fond of gathering paragraph numbers and other annotations. You clearly aren’t a stupid person, so I’m sure you know when you are being condescending. Your writing mannerisms make the topic of the blog secondary to the attention you (unintentionally, to grant the benefit of the doubt) draw to yourself. How many comments ago did this blog cease to be about the “wisdom” of bringing one’s gun to church and become a forum for our schoolyard posturing and the argument over the nature of God you are having with hs (who clearly has the patience of Job?)

Hello “Joe L.”,

Thanks for the favor of your reply in post#9, page#8 at 12:07pm July 13.

I appreciate your analysis and characterization of my style and tone even though it is clear that you do not like it. That’s OK; I’m not trying to please people; just ask some questions, seek some information, make some observations, draw some conclusions… stir the pot a little and see what comes to the top and what sticks to the bottom. That’s me, but I value your feedback, nonetheless.

While you observed that the most recent issues I raise with “hs” do not seem to be relevant to Ms. Dolan’s topic about “guns in church”, I will point out that our discussion springs directly from it. In my first post here (post#1, page#4 at 7:10pm June 27), I made an unequivocal observation of the relationship between “God’s” presumed reality, omniscience, and infallibility, and the pointlessness for guns in church as a defense. Since then, “hs” and I have discussed one or two of the finer points and implications of this observation, particularly regarding the contradiction between “God’s” ideal qualities and every creature’s “free-will”. Once the issue is settled (if ever, since “hs” seems to insist that there is either no contradiction, or an acceptable “mystery”), then possibly our discussion on “guns in church” can advance toward closure. (On the other hand, “hs” and I actually agree that church is no place for guns, though for different reasons and with mine be purely argumentative.)

I further observe that you manage a full two-word opinion of Pastor Ken’s idea about guns in church (”just odd”, you said), followed by a political quip likening “guns in a conservative Kentucky church” with “condoms in a liberal church”, then nothing but critical swipes at my contributions; four of them, so far. A-hem, your current criticism seems rather hypocritical in this light… a lot like “the pot calling the kettle black”, except I can explain how the discussion between “hs” and myself links to and subtends Ms. Dolan’s article. Can you do the same for your incessant criticism? Please?

And finally, despite invitations to contribute to the substance of the discussion, and despite a direct, yet civil request to point out the specific question I asked of “hs” that you found “hostile”, you have again done neither. Perhaps this is your way of “controlling the dialectic”? Of course, I’m not sure what discussion of philosophy or logic you engage in since all you appear to contribute is noise, interruption, and disruption. Oh, and an occasional knee-slappin’ quip!