Uncategorized

Kathy Part 5

Nate

After breaking 1000 comments on the previous thread, I felt it was a good time to start another.

As a reminder, here are some of the most recent outstanding questions for Kathy:

From Laurie:

You said you answered my questions, and wish more questions were asked. Here are some questions that were not addressed.

Matt 23:8 read first

Philemon 1:10
1 Corinthians 4:14-17
1 Corinthians 12:27
2 Timothy 1:11
1 Timothy 2:7
Ephesians 4:11,12

Why is it that messiah says not to be called rabbi or father, but Paul it’s not obedient to this command?

Matt 10:7,8

1 Timothy 5:17,18
1 Corinthians 9:11,12

Messiah says here that he had given freely, go and freely give. Again, Paul is disobedient.

Matt 18:15

Galatians 2:11-14

Messiah said that if you have a problem with your brother, you should deal with it privately. Here Paul lashes out at Peter “before them all”.

Matt 9:10-12

2 Thessalonians 3:6,7

Yahusha said in the passage above that he came to call the sinner to repentance, not the righteous. Why would Paul want to separate from those that actually need him?

From William:

the “evidences” you listed arent real evidences. And since you refuse to look at things that are counter to your current beliefs, how can you honestly speak to me about evidences?

here’s all I’ve seen you provide:

1) martyrs, even though every religion and many non-religions have them.

2) our very existence – which no one knows how that started, but even if you must land on god(s), you must go back to that book of claims to get to jesus.

3) there were miracles, but as it turns out, those dont happen today, and end up being more claims by the same men who claim they speak for god.

4) the fulfilled prophecies we’ve discussed weren’t really prophecies at all, or had to be viewed so figuratively that it’s difficult to show anything precise about them other than location (maybe) in order to claim they’re actually fulfilled.

5) 40 authors taking 1500 years to write the bible. But there’s nothing miraculous about men writing books, editing books, and being inspired to write a book or letter after reading an older book.

In addition to these, I’d like to ask something of both Kathy and Laurie (Matt or Hayden or portal001 (Ryan) can chime in as well):

The Bible defines God as being all-loving, all-merciful, fair, just, etc. It can also be read as promising an eternity in Hell for those who don’t serve him correctly. As a believer, how do you square those two statements?

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

954 thoughts on “Kathy Part 5”

  1. “you don’t see them calling each other names (except perhaps, Arch, but he’s a different breed).” – Who have I called names??

    Like

  2. @powellpowers

    Hi Powell:
    You said: “. . . you did not understand Laurie and Nan and therefore insist that they did not provide their opinions/logic. . .”
    There was no rational dialogue, and I tried to push for it. For example, one claim was “Paul was a false apostle” and I gave multiple counterarguments and none of these were addressed. The response was simply a restatement of opinion without any backing reasoning. It was like I had said nothing at all. Or, I exposited 1 Cor 8 and got no comment on it. The problem is simply responding with an opinion lacking any reason behind it and a failure to deal with the arguments I presented.

    You said: “. . . you had mentioned that if Laurie is right then you would need to take out the majority of the New Testament and therefore that’s a problem?”
    I guess it doesn’t matter whether she is right or wrong. It’s that her perspective of Paul introduces a gigantic theological problem. How could a tri-omni deity let such evil enter the scriptural canon? And, why didn’t God try to correct Christianity’s view of the law if Paul had led it astray? Does God just not care?

    You said: “It does come off as you have already been told the bible (in its current format) is right, and since Paul is in the bible therefore he is right we will definitely need to go and find some way to make the teachings of Paul and Jesus coherent.”
    That’s not what I meant by saying that. That would be starting with a goal in mind (coherency) and trying to interpret everything else to fit the goal. We are all naturally subject to confirmation bias, but this is unconscious. The real goal is to try to minimize confirmation bias.The way to do this, we’ve known since the Enlightenment, is through reason. And, that’s why I was pushing for reason, because it’s the common ground on which dialogue progresses and ideas are sorted.

    You said: “. . . why would [someone during Jesus’ time] be convinced that what Paul said is true? Especially regarding Paul’s claim that he is an apostle?”
    To give a good answer we should ask why would an ancient be convinced that any apostle was telling the truth? Claiming that God raised a man from death and he sent you to preach was no more plausible in the first century than it is today. They were not stupid. And, buying the claim that this man who died on a cross is the prophesied Anointed One was very difficult for a first century Jew (as you mentioned in your second comment). The Jewish messianic expectation was a political leader like David who would liberate them from the Rome. Anyway, this is what Paul thought was happening: “My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.” (1 Cor 2:4-5). This is hugely important and illuminating! Paul says basically says that it’s the Holy Spirit that persuaded them so that they can’t say it was their effort or ability, rather a gift from God (Basically the doctrine of grace). The ancient converts probably simply found themselves persuaded and unable to explain exactly why. They found themselves drawn to the message by something from within themselves, mysterious in origin, but there nonetheless.

    You said: “What I am interested to know is how would non-Pauline disciples actually end up convinced giving the contradictions that Paul teaches against what they heard from Jesus.”
    No contradiction has been demonstrated yet. I mean one guy named Peter says Jesus sent him and another guy Paul says Jesus sent him, why would you ever believe one over the other? Neither one has any more hard evidence. If Jesus was just a rabbi, then Peter would be favored. But, the resurrection and messianic claim is on a different level. I guess I can’t think of any good way to answer this question. The truth is there were many unknowns and controversies in nascent Christianity. I could go on but I feel like I’m rambling a bit! Maybe you could sharpen what you want to get at.

    You said: “. . . my only solace was that if I were truly pious perhaps Holy Spirit will guide me. . . which would allow me to believe whatever they were teaching.”
    Yes! Then, you agree with Paul!

    Powell, your second comment was really insightful, and more than that impressive if you used an iPhone!

    Like

  4. “except perhaps, Arch”
    THAT was the most unkindest cut of all, for when great Caesar saw her stab, ingratitude, more strong than traitor’s arms, quite burst his mighty heart and vanquished him. There – great Caesar fell. Then you and I and all of us fell down whilst bloody treason flourished over us. THERE was a Caesar! When comes such another –?

    Thank ya, thank ya verra much –!

    Like

  6. Seriously Arch?

    I am grateful everyday that I have such a wonderful husband, but now I am extra, extra grateful! You know I would strangle you inside a week, and that is seriously against my religious beliefs! 😄

    Like

  7. “Kathy, you silly, socially-isolated idiot Need I say more?” – OK, so I finally cracked, but besides that –?

    Like

  9. “Seriously Arch?” – No, my heart belongs to another, but I do seem drawn to women who’d like to strangle me. I do, however, have a GREAT deal of respect for your mind and your sense of humor. And your tolerance of buffoons.

    Like

  10. Awe! I’m glad you have someone special, that is willing to put up with all your jackassery! I bet we would get along famously! My husband by the way, also finds you rather amusing! You do kind of remind us of Greg House!

    Like

  11. Arch?… is your better half religious? Just curious, because you said your daughter was, right? Or am I mixing you up with someone else? Bad memory!

    Like

  12. Accusing Bush of going to war and risking the lives of others just so he can get richer is beyond ignorant.. is just one more example of how the liberal is incapable of discernment, reason and logic.

    And Arch and Nan are two great examples of people who can’t handle being wrong.. 😦

    Like

  13. “Don’t make Nan go through all those comments arch, you know your guilty! – What? There are ONLY 6,000 or so —

    “My husband by the way, also finds you rather amusing! You do kind of remind us of Greg House!”
    Amazing, that’s just what I was going for!

    Image: 'If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people'

    Like

  14. Kathy,

    Your really not helping yourself out here. If your not familiar with operation Northwoods, or what happened at pearl harbor, you should really look into that.

    Our government is really not as innocent as you would like to think.

    Like

  15. Obviously, most of us have a love/hate relationship with these threads. Instead of ending them completely, I’m thinking about changing the focus. I think it’s been fun to have a “general discussion” thread that’s just ongoing. It does rack up a lot of comments, which can be brutal to one’s email from a subscription standpoint, but I’ve enjoyed much of the conversation.

    Instead of keeping these focused on Kathy, I’m thinking about extending them as just “General Conversation” posts. We can just let the discussion evolve on its own. If Kathy wants to hang around, that’s fine, but the threads will no longer be focused on her. Honestly, I think the tangents have been more interesting anyway.

    Thoughts?

    Like

  16. Laurie,

    What does Bush have to do with those examples? He wasn’t involved. For Arch’s claim to be even close to reasonable, there needs to be some evidence that Bush is capable of making such inhumane self serving decisions. I know of nothing.. he’s actually a Christian, which goes 100% against the leftist claims. It’s a ridiculous claim, I wouldn’t even accuse Obama of something like that. Obama risked /risks lives mostly because of his pride and ego, arrogance and ignorance.. which is no less atrocious actually.

    Like

  17. In reference to the discussion on Paul, I find myself torn a bit between the two sides.

    As an atheist, there’s a part of me that wants to side with the Laurie/Nan faction and say that Paul is obviously at odds with Jesus. That position shows some of the inherent issues in the Bible, which is useful to me. And there’s certainly some evidence to support it — as Nan has pointed out, most of today’s Christianity owes far more to Paul’s teachings than it does Jesus’.

    At the same time, I’m still a bit sympathetic to Brandon’s view as well. Paul was always my favorite individual from the NT (even more than Jesus, if I’m honest about it), because his writings dealt with meatier topics than the gospels did. And I think he does a good job of selling his point of view and sounding authentic.

    Here are some of the issues as I see them:

    1. It’s true that Paul changes some of what Jesus and the other apostles said (the eating of meats offered to idols), but Jesus also changed things from what the OT laid out: Heaven and Hell, Holy Spirit, Himself as divine and equal with God (if you think the gospels are teaching that). So if God was okay with changing things when Jesus came around, why couldn’t it also have been the plan to have someone like Paul roll out the new rules once Jesus’s sacrifice and resurrection was complete?
    2. Paul does seem to misquote some passages at times (his mistaken reference to 430 years in Gal 3:17, for instance), but his mistakes pale in comparison to the gospel of Matthew. How could someone reject Paul on these grounds but accept gMatthew?
    3. Laurie has mentioned that Acts supports Paul ironically (my words, not hers), but this seems very far fetched to me. I would like to see more support for this idea… Otherwise, I agree with Brandon that it’s very hard to accept Acts (and therefore Luke) if you reject Paul. I also agree with his point that it seems very odd for God to allow such misleading (and completely inaccurate) writings to make up the bulk of the NT.

    I could probably bring up other issues, but I think this is enough for now. To be fair, this is a bit like arguing over the plot details of Final Fantasy 7 (never could wrap my head around what exactly was happening), since I don’t think any of this is real anyway. But I do find it rather interesting.

    Like

  19. Kathy, I just hope you’ll one day realize that there are at least 2 sides to everything. The democrats are never 100% right about anything, nor are the republicans. Occasionally, both sides make good points, but the best path is usually somewhere in the middle. I hope that you’ll eventually see that it’s possible to have a different opinion than someone else without one side or the other being evil or malicious. George Bush and Barack Obama can both want what’s best for their country while having very different ideals and policies. You’d likely be a happier person if you could see the humanity in everyone, even when you disagree with them.

    Take a page out of Ryan’s (portal’s) book, in other words. 🙂

    Like

  20. “Laurie has mentioned that Acts supports Paul ironically (my words, not hers), but this seems very far fetched to me.”

    I believe that Luke was against Paul, but knew if he wrote a book against him it would be cast out. So he used some of Philos rules of allegory, to bring the” Trojan horse” to the people’s attention. That’s why he records the different stories of conversion, and uses names like Judas, and Ananias. The blinding light (Lucifer) that covers his eyes with scales. Not something you see Yahusha doing. It is much deeper than that.

    Like

  21. How do you know it’s not something Jesus would do? And would God not be able to preserve his own word? Why such fear about it being cast out?

    Honestly, what of value does Acts really provide, anyway? When you take away the stuff about Paul, what are you left with that’s vital?

    Like

  22. Nate, why not start a new thread and call it “The Question of Paul” or something similar? He seems to be stirring considerable discussion.

    Like

  23. “Arch?… is your better half religious?” – Actually, I have no “better” half, and few peers, but there IS someone in whom I’m interested, and no, she isn’t.

    Actually, I ran across my first true love a few years ago, and in subsequent emails, she asked me to sign a petition to have a plaque of The Ten Commandments placed on a courthouse lawn – when we originally broke up, I was crushed – I had no idea then, of the bullet I’d dodged!

    “…you said your daughter was, right? Or am I mixing you up with someone else?” – No, that would be me – her maternal grandmother got hold of her during her most impressionable years. This is the grandmother who used to drive around with a bumper sticker that read, “Kill a Commie for Christ!” Her hate and vitriol finally turned her own cells against her and she died of cancer. Gotta love them Crispyuns!

    Like

  25. Nate,

    “Kathy, I just hope you’ll one day realize that there are at least 2 sides to everything. The democrats are never 100% right about anything, nor are the republicans. Occasionally, both sides make good points, but the best path is usually somewhere in the middle.”

    Nate, I’m not sure why you make the assumption that I don’t realize this?? Can you clarify? What am I doing that is any different than you or anyone else here? I have my own opinion. And I’m interested in finding out if it’s the correct one.. I believe it is and that’s why I have it.. but I welcome debate with those who hold a different opinion. And I prefer friendly debate.. but liberals never seem to allow that to happen. And that wasn’t a “derogatory” statement, it was just a statement of fact.. 99% of the time it’s been the truth in my experience.

    The differences between me and those who hold opinions from the opposite spectrum is that, here, I’ve found that no one wants to elaborate and provide evidence to support their claims… particularly when they are personal claims about me.. there hasn’t been ONE time where someone has made a claim about me, which WOULD be “derogatory” if not backed up btw, where they’ve backed up their claim with my own words.

    ” I hope that you’ll eventually see that it’s possible to have a different opinion than someone else without one side or the other being evil or malicious.”

    I do see it Nate, I’m waiting for you all to see it and better yet, actually desire the TRUTH.. not petty ego stroking.

    ” George Bush and Barack Obama can both want what’s best for their country while having very different ideals and policies. You’d likely be a happier person if you could see the humanity in everyone, even when you disagree with them.”

    I wanted to see the humanity in Obama.. I want him to care. But he’s shown that he only cares about advancing his ideological agenda that is warped and destructive.. and then the perks of being president.. he seems to care about that too.

    Like

Comments are closed.