I loved this. If I had written a tribute to Kurt 10 years ago, it would have read almost exactly the same. Except my first book was "Cat's Cradle".
And I don't have a husband.
And Kurt was still alive.
So it goes.

Julie,
You continue to amaze me.

Truly, you are one of the most thoughtful spirits I have ever met.
Tweeted and shared...pehaps to be reblogged.

Julie,
As always, an entertaining post. John Shore has another post up on the hell doctrine, and I think there is a change coming in how Christians, and others, approach the doctrine of hell. I'm glad you were a part of that change for me.
Your book is fantastic, and will certainly help people to see the argument on the other side of the fence. I'm really looking forward to the conversation to come.

Hey Jules,
I'll look after the cats for you. If the rapture happens, there ain't a hope in an imaginary hotstove that I'll be going up. So no worries.
I hope you drive a hybrid though, I would hate to do any damage to the Earth once I inherit the Kingdom.....

John,
Let me clarify a point of contention here.
I don't think a Two-Way conversation is synonymous with agreeing with someone. I think that it is respecting the conversation of others.
For instance, when someone makes a blog post where they ask for a personal anecdote about a bad situation that turned out to be a positive opportunity- respecting the two-way nature of the conversation would be sharing your own anecdote- not chiming in on free will. Or the nature of evil.
Having a two-way conversation would be listening to Julie and acknowledging her points instead of ignoring them and rehashing the same argument you did before her comment.
That's all.
I don't expect us all to agree. I just expect us to listen.

John,Friend,
I appreciate your concern about tone, I do, but you have to remember that this blog of Julie's is not populated by a bunch of strangers. I am Julie's friend. We have a relationship that transcends this blog and these comments. I have nothing but the utmost respect for Steve, and for Deb, who are in a similar (or in Steve's case, much more substantial) relationship with the author of this blog. I am woefully unable to divorce my emotions from my words. Is it personal? You bet it is!
Steve and Julie need to appear to show decorum toward you, because they are trying to spread what they believe is an important message and because this is their "livingroom", so to speak.
Think of me as the drunk uncle in the corner who shouts the things that everyone else is thinking but everyone is too polite to say.

I am a reasonable person, at times, and I understand that you wrote this:Take a deep breath and bring it down a notch please. AnotherFriend already said he didn't mean to offend you.
You should understand, right or (almost certainly) wrong....I'm reading your comment like this:
Take a deep breath, dubleya, we just came here to argue that Julie is one step short of a heretic. We didn't come here to have a two directional conversation, where we acknowledge, analyze and debate Julie's evidence or argument; we came here to repeat the same things over and over without a hint of objective analysis. We came here to fire strawmen, like evidence=proof, and red herrings, like free will or evil God, around in order to distract from the greater conversation. Could you please, dubleya, bring it down a notch, we prefer to passive aggressively make shots across the bow. We want to turn invective dialogue into a Gentleman's Game, where we very politely tell people that their arguments are not even worth consideration. We don't appreciate your sarcasm or emotion.
Am I wrong for interpreting it that way? You betcha. Am I being unfair? Maybe. Am I going to stop? Not likely.
Julie wrote this post and then invited people to share a moment when something "bad" happened that resulted in a positive outcome. You came here to argue that God is not evil, man is, and that Julie is projecting her wishes onto her faith. How do you defend that as a two way conversation, where you respect people's opinions and arguments?
Mea Culpa, I suppose.....

I'm not asking you to believe that God willed the Holocaust. I'm trying to illustrate that even in the face of an unspeakable evil, we gained a little more than "enhancing your appreciation of life". That out of horrible circumstances comes some direct benefit, even if that benefit carried a price we would never have paid in retrospect, is both true and the subject of Julie's post.
Free Will is really beyond the point, and I don't believe in it in any substantive sense either. But I also do not believe in Predestination or any such nonsense. I think you are wrong to assume that the only choices are absolute sovereignty to God or absolute free will.

Oh sorry, Friend, I thought I said evidence and not conclusive evide...wait just a sec. I did say evidence. Quick English lesson......
ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.,

Compare that to proof
proof (prf)
n.
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
5. Law The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.
So, no, I don't have a different standard, I have a different definition.
You are asking me to turn evidence into proof. I said that her opinion is not a faith statement, it is based on evidence. Evidence that she gave you access to. That if you set aside your incredulity for a few minutes, you too can access.
It is still an opinion, but an informed one; one that your ignorance of the evidence cannot reprove. I'm not saying you have to accept her evidence, or affirm her position. I'm saying you might extend the courtesy of acknowledging it and admitting that by calling it a faith statement you betray your ignorance.

On and on you go with your conspiracy. Did Julie cry "conspiracy"? Did I cry "conspiracy"? Maybe it is just that I never addressed that issue for...wait a sec. I did address that issue. Please, since you obviously think we are conspiracy theorists, point me to where either of us has used even vaguely conspiratorial language.

As to Julies faith, when you say If you were a Finn then I might be more inclined to accept your contention, or if you have spent the last 20 years immersing yourself in Finnish, but as someone who isn't a Finn and doesn't speak Finnish
that sounds a lot like "If you were a Christian then I might be more inclined to accept your contention, or if you have spent the last 20 years immersing yourself in Christian Theology, but as someone who isn't a Christian and doesn't speak Hebrew"
Just sayin'. Maybe you meant it to mean "If you were Hebrew or Greek then I might be more inclined to accept your contention, or if you have spent the last 20 years immersing yourself in ancient languages, but as someone who isn't a Hebrew or Greek and doesn't speak ancient languages.."
If that's the case then I suppose you were just unclear.

I asked if you were Jesus for two reasons: a) because you seem to be an expert on Julie's Christianity b) because it served as a humorous juxtaposition against your assertion that the traditional Church hierarchy is better at interpreting scripture than laypeople.
You clearly did push a button. That button lays somewhere between the button labelled "The KJV is the truth, stop looking for it" and the one labelled "Everyone who disagrees with me is a conspiracy theorist, because I have a trademark on reality"

BD-C!

John,
How about the victims of the flood? Did they die to provide a lesson for us?
If 10,000 jews had been put to death, would we still talk about this today? I don't know. I don't know how many Jews had to die to wake so many of us to the consequences of antisemitism, or establish for these people a homeland. I guess God knows though.
I don't hear Julie arguing for pre-destination here. You are playing the free-will dichotomy card here. I'm getting a "soft theological determinism" vibe from Julie and your getting God preordained the holocaust.
I wish I could say let's agree to disagree, but I can't afford that much grace.

Friend,
:) I recognize that is your opinion but you surely can't expect folks to take your statement on faith, can you?
It is an opinion, yes, but one that can be reproved or affirmed based on evidence that Julie provided. Your personal incredulity does not an argument make.
Your shadowboxing here- claiming that it is a faith statement by refusing to inform yourself of the evidence....

To your Finnish analogy, I'll make a few distinctions for clarity:
1. By the nature of language, it evolves with the culture, common use and zeitgeist of it's native speakers. Friend, are you advocating that God's Truth be subject to the common use and zeitgeist of men? Should we assume that God gives greater weight to tradition and eisegesis than to the Scriptures?
I guess I'm asking you: Are you Catholic?
If someone can make a scriptural case that doctrine has been built on un-biblical logic and interpretation, do you believe we have a duty to investigate, evaluate, and adjudicate? if not, then you are the one clinging to potentially false and comfortable beliefs, not Julie.
2.If a modern dictionary disagrees with an older compendium, which work is more likely to use a word that is traditional or pure Finnish, and which is more likely to be influenced by newer traditions and international influence? What if the more modern and accepted book was a copy of a copy of a copy of a transcript that both books are based on?
3. Does their need to be a conspiracy here? Isn't it possible that the improperly translated word was mistranslated inadvertently in an earlier work and future works were inadvertently tainted as a result? You are using charged language to make Julies case seem unreasonable, when all you have really done is discount the more obvious possibility.
4.If you were a Finn then I might be more inclined to accept your contention, or if you have spent the last 20 years immersing yourself in Finnish, but as someone who isn't a Finn and doesn't speak Finnish it seems a stretch to say you have a better understanding of Finnish than people who have spent their lives studying Finnish, and to accuse those with a different reading of a conspiracy just seems weird and out there, and for me makes your entire foundation questionable.
Are you using this analogy to claim that Julie is not a Christian? That is how I am reading that comment. I asked earlier if you were Catholic, maybe I should have asked the more obvious question: Are you Jesus? I mean, the only person I think qualified to make a statement like that based on someones well reasoned interpretation of scripture would be Him.
If you are Jesus, well, I'm gushing!
You're my hero, Man!
How You smacked down those Pharisees, those men who had used Gods name to build a church out of elitism, privileged revelation, misinterpreted scripture.....That was awesome!
I take it all back, You obviously know better than Julie!