Uncategorized

Open Conversation Part 1

Nate

So I’ve decided to bring the “Kathy” series to an end. However, we’ve had some fun in those threads when the conversation has gone off into interesting tangents, so I’d like to keep that part of it going for anyone who’s interested. These new threads will no longer focus on Kathy or the things we were discussing with her. So thanks for your time, Kathy! Take care.

There are no real rules for these threads. But to kick off the conversation, I’ll go back to the discussion on Paul that a few of us were having. Laurie views Deut 13 as a prophecy about Paul, so why don’t we take a quick look at it?

“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, 8 you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. 9 But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.

12 “If you hear in one of your cities, which the Lord your God is giving you to dwell there, 13 that certain worthless fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, 14 then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently. And behold, if it be true and certain that such an abomination has been done among you, 15 you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. 16 You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square and burn the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It shall be a heap forever. It shall not be built again. 17 None of the devoted things shall stick to your hand, that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of his anger and show you mercy and have compassion on you and multiply you, as he swore to your fathers, 18 if you obey the voice of the Lord your God, keeping all his commandments that I am commanding you today, and doing what is right in the sight of the Lord your God.

I can see how one could apply this to Paul. However, I can also see how Jews could have applied it to Jesus as well, especially if he was claiming divinity for himself. And I’m sure this could have applied to lots of people during Israel’s history. Why should we think it’s pointing to Paul specifically, and why wouldn’t it also apply to Jesus?

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

1,090 thoughts on “Open Conversation Part 1”

  1. who knows, arch, since we’re discussing make believe it’s easy for anyone make anything up to fill in the gaps.

    I could tell you, “sure,” but someone else would see a different shape in the same cloud and say, “no.”

    but i know you know that. I assume your question was rhetorical, but sometimes I like answering anyways.

    I like your name, by the way. I am fascinated with intermediary species. what knowledge do you have on intermediaries between reptile and mammal? i read a lot about them, but have seen any photos of the actual intermediaries that have supposedly been found.

    Like

  2. “I like your name, by the way.” – I chose it deliberately, as a way of saying, “in your face” to those theists why deny evolution on the grounds that there are no intermediate species. Everywhere else (thinkatheist.com, etc.), it simply “archaeopteryx,” and years ago, before I began my own blog, it was on WP as well. I was considering a WP account, and signed up for one as archaeopteryx, but found a format I liked better and went with it. Then, in the past year or so, having had friends on TA who also had their own blogs, WP blogs, I found it necessary to log back in to WP in order to comment on their blogs. Well, with all that time having passed, I must have forgotten the password I used, as WP wouldn’t allow me to log on. I tried applying again, using the same name, but was told that that username was already taken – yeah! by me! So I had to open a new account, under “archaeopteryx1.” You’d think that after the passage of a certain amount of time, without the name ever having been used ANYwhere, it would go back into the public domain, but noooo —

    From “actionbioscience“:

    Jaws to ears: An example of tracking missing links
    Mammals can be traced back to reptilian origins.

    The evolutionary route from reptile to mammal is known in detail. Between the Permian and Triassic periods, mammal-like reptiles evolved from basal forms that were fully reptilian. Through dozens of intermediate steps they evolved into mammals by the Late Triassic, some 225 million years ago. All the steps are evident in fossils: Jaws tell the story of reptile to mammal transition.

    * Step-by-step, palaeontologists can see the switch from peg-like reptilian teeth to the differentiated teeth of mammals (incisors, canines, molars).

    * Step-by-step the complex reptilian jaw, with five separate bones, changes to the mammalian jaw, with only one bone, the dentary.

    * In reptiles, both today and in the past, the jaw joint lies between the articular bone at the back of the lower jaw, and the quadrate bone in the skull.

    * In mammals, on the other hand, the jaw joint is between the dentary and the squamosal element of the skull.

    Most amazing of all is the evolutionary transition to the mammalian middle ear.

    * In reptiles, as in amphibians and fishes, there is a single hearing bone, the stapes, which is simply a straight rod that links the eardrum to the hearing structures of the inner ear and the brain.

    * Mammals, including humans, have three ear ossicles (small bones), the malleus, incus and stapes (or hammer, anvil, and stirrup).

    The evolutionary steps were worked out first in Victorian times by the study of mammal embryos and then the fossils confirmed it: You hear yourself chewing because parts of your hearing structure evolved from reptilian jawbones.

    *The mammalian stapes is the same as that of their ancestors. But the malleus and incus have moved into the middle ear from their former function as the reptilian jaw joint.

    *Life is stranger than fiction: the reptilian lower jaw has been subsumed into the mammalian middle ear to enhance the hearing function.

    *And the fossils show how some Triassic mammal-like reptiles had effectively two jaw joints: the reptilian joint was reduced, and the new dentary-squamosal joint came into play.

    *At a certain point, in the Late Triassic, the reptilian jaw joint had shifted function.

    *We can still detect the legacy of this astonishing transition: when you chew a hamburger, you can hear your jaw movements deep inside your ears.

    Evolutionary transitions are highly predictable.

    Every day, new fossil finds are reported — the first insect, the oldest hominid, the first sauropod dinosaur, an Eocene whale with legs — and so it goes on. The new fossil finds that hit the headlines are all concrete evidence of evolutionary transitions. The fossils are rarely bizarre or unexpected; they fit into the predictions of evolutionary trees. Dinosaurs with feathers and whales with legs are pretty startling discoveries, but biologists were convinced they existed from the predictions of their evolutionary trees.

    Hey – you asked —

    Like

  3. Do you agree with any of this, or do you think I’m way out in left field?

    Brandon, I don’t think you’re way out in left field. We’ve already agreed on some things and you’ve acknowledged that there is no way for us to know whether something is divinely inspired or not. To call the Bible divinely inspired is a subjective choice. Would you agree that many base this decision on a tradition that has been handed down generation to generation? It also appears to be something that a lot of believers just take for granted. “The Bible is a direct revelation from God.” – case closed. I’m not accusing you of this type of reasoning, just wondering if you see this for the majority of Christians.

    Like

  4. Dave, I don’t know about Brandon, but that is exactly the way I see it. Tradition and teaching play a HUGH role in the believer’s outlook on the bible and fosters the belief that it is a “direct revelation.”

    Thus, trying to “discuss’ god and the bible is like banging your head against the wall. For Christians, there just is no other way to look at the world except through the “sacrifice” made by Jesus on the cross. This becomes especially obvious when reading Kathy’s posts.

    I was so into that thinking for 15+ years. And when I read posts by Christians who are trying to defend their beliefs, it is so obvious where their heads are at.

    Like

  5. “Tradition and teaching play a HUGH role in the believer’s outlook on the bible and fosters the belief that it is a “direct revelation.”

    True that, Nan. “Religious experiences” also play a huge role. People who are nonbelievers and have had these experiences tend to attribute them to natural phenomena, which for the most part, can be explained by science. Those indoctrinated by their religion associate it with their god of choice.

    I’ve noticed a pattern among believers. When asked the question “how do you know your holy book is divinely inspired — how do you discern?”, they never seem to have an answer except that their holy book says so. Or they are basing it on “feelings” or their “experiences.”

    Speaking of feelings and experiences, have you seen this video yet?

    How To Convert An Atheist

    Like

  6. thanks, arch. yep, that’s in line with what i’ve read too. I just wasnt sure if anyone has seen pictures of these fossils. Seems like I’ve seen drawings once or twice, but i dont recall ever seeing photos.

    I don’t doubt they’re right, but photos go along way, or can, in convincing others.

    Like

  8. I am constantly amazed, Dave, that when theists say, “Well god said –” that I have to remind them that their god has never said anything, men have said that their god did.

    It’s simple really – in the 21st Century, nearly everyone has either a computer or a TV, or both – my advice to god, just have the Holy Spook infiltrate the airwaves and let us know you’re there – either that, or change your name from “I AM” to “I MAYBE MIGHT BE”!

    Like

  9. I maybe might be…

    that was fantastic

    I’ve said before, I’m sure, that when I was going through my deconversion, it was the realization that god never told me anything that ended up being the deciding factor for me.

    How can one’s faith be in god or any person that they’ve never met, never talked to and never read, but only through hearsay and claims? i suggest that such faith resides solely in the messenger. Faith that the messenger is correct in what they say.

    I think it;s impossible to have a faith in god that the bible requires. “I believe in you… because i believe the guy who told me about you was right…”

    It’s easier to have faith in anne frank because she at least penned her own book. Do you have a personal relationship with Anne Frank? Pray to her and then pray to god – is there any difference?

    I guess Anne Frank would fail Elijah’s test to baal, but then so would the god of the bible.

    Like

  11. OMG! I just finished watching the video. Oh so powerful!!! At the beginning, when he did the thing about “satan,” I actually felt a cold chill run through me. Brainwashing at its best. The only thing that concerned me was that even after he explained everything to Natalie, I wondered if the experience was so “real,” that she would be able to return to her former outlook on the “supernatural.” In any case, I could see his techniques at work throughout the entire experiment and it left little doubt in my mind of the so-called genuineness of the religious experience for most people.

    Thank you, Victoria, for sharing that link!

    Like

  13. Well, Dave, I dunno. That little red guy on my shoulder said it was, but the white one w/wings on my other shoulder said no. Hmmmm.

    Like

  14. Nan, I’m glad you got a chance to watch it. Thank you! It just goes to show you how easily we can be manipulated when certain conditions are present, and you are right, Natalie was so convinced that it probably took her some time to realize what went down. I had a very similar experience (an interhemispheric intrusion) and thank goodness I wasn’t a Christian at the time or I would have certainly associated it with the Christian god. My experience was not caused by the same methods she was subjected to. Nevertheless, we can have these experiences and depending on our cultural conditioning, assume it’s supernatural.

    Like

  24. Laurie,

    “I’m not cherry picking scripture here. For every verse you can provide that says YHWH’s law will be abolished, I will provide 10 verses that say it won’t.”

    You didn’t provide any verses Laurie. Context is key but you don’t provide the actual verses so we can address the actual context.. MOST of the time you don’t provide the actual verses.. you just post your *own* interpretation as “fact”.

    And you didn’t answer my question yet again.. it’s a simple question.. what is the ACTUAL reason that Jesus needed to suffer and die? Your answers imply it’s because of the “7 feasts” of the Torah.. that Jesus’ sacrifice is “symbolic”. That it is fulfillment of the prophecy? of the feasts? What is the meaning behind the 7 feasts? Why is this NECESSARY.. to the point where Jesus had to suffer and die?? That’s the question I’m trying to get an answer to.. what you’ve given me so far doesn’t make sense.

    Paul’s explanation DOES make sense. And his explanation is in line with Jesus’ own words. It’s about our hearts.. not rituals and rules and outward appearances. It’s about the 1st to commandments.. it’s about love. Your beliefs make it about the rules. You don’t seem to be looking beyond to the MEANING of the rules.

    Did you read the article I posted the link to?

    Particularly this section..

    “…In light of this distinction, we need to restrict the topic and ask the question as to whether we are bound to keep the terms of the covenant made with Israel at Sinai or whether there is indeed a *new covenant* that has been effected by means of which we may now draw near to God. In other words, is the life, sacrificial death, and resurrection of Jesus merely a means to a *renewed* Siniatic covenant relationship with God, or does it constitute a genuinely new way of being in relationship with Him?”

    Like

Comments are closed.