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?
Finding Truth 
kathy, with all due respect, you must not have been reading carefully. she not only cited her verses, but cut and paste entire sections of text.
she really has posted many times more verses than you have.
LikeLike
and if you’re wanting something makes perfect sense, then i’d suggest you’re in the wrong religion.
LikeLike
William, I’ve never denied that Laurie has posted more scripture than me. This is irrelevant to my point.
I know what she’s posted in regards to our debate. For a GREAT example, just see her last comment to me. Where are the specific verses?? “The beginning of the Bible” is not very specific.
“if you’re saying that the complexity of the universe means there was designer and a creator, ten you what i’ll say since we;ve been through this before. I’ll say that if complexity and order means there is a creator, then what created god since he is complex and has order? If you say he is an exception and doesnt need a creator, then i’ll just say. “why cant the universe be that exception?”
William, I believe I AGREED with your point.. the same would apply.. but you continue to ignore that I’ve pointed out that the evidence and simple reasoning FAVORS a Creator.
I only asked the initial question because of what you asked Laurie. You’re implying that if she cant explain her position to your liking, then it fails. I’m pointing out that there are things about your position that you cant adequately explain. does that make sense?”
Where has she answered my question William? Post the answer.
LikeLike
Maybe I’m wrong, but I think Kathy might mean passages that specifically link the idea that the feasts are supposed to stand in for much bigger, future events. Is this understanding of the symbolism spelled out anywhere?
LikeLike
Nate, the link I provided to Kathy has considerable information about the feasts and how they relate to the scriptures. She said she was going to read it … ??
In fact, that entire website has a lot of information that might explain Laurie’s outlook. I don’t know if it totally represents her viewpoint, but I do see a lot of similarities based on her postings here.
LikeLike
Cool. I haven’t had a chance to look at it yet, so thanks!
LikeLike
“She said she was going to read it … ??” – and you believed that?! Nan, If you’ve got any cash socked away, I need to talk to you about a wonderful deal I can make you on a bridge I own in Brooklyn —
LikeLike
And who did you buy that bridge from, hmmmm?
LikeLike
@Nate
That makes sense. Sorry for your unpleasant experience of deconversion. I hope I’m not diminishing your or anyone’s personal experience with deconversion. It’s an unpleasant process and with features that are unique to our lives. I do, however, think that maybe some of the problems that arise (problem of hell, lack of evidence, church hypocrisy, etc.) are multiplicative. Like, each step makes it more difficult to turn around. For me I guess it started with evolution and me becoming frustrated at the anti-intellectualism at my church. I was hanging on to what looked most like deism. Then, a friend introduced me to the problem of hell and next came the four horsemen of atheism and the rest is history. So, I don’t want to overgeneralize, but it makes sense that each new problem would raise the barrier higher to going back to a robust faith. I mean that was the thrust of what I was saying. I usually refer to problem of evil in general which can be anything that questions God’s moral character. Such as the problem of hell and even the question: if the church has the Holy Spirit, then why is there so much hypocrisy? I see these as derivatives of the problem of evil.
There are several proposed solutions to this problem, although none of them are 100% satisfying. Here are the ones I can think of off the top of my head:
1. God never gave the command. It was falsely added to scripture. The problem is there is no good reason to cut this out that wouldn’t threaten other scriptures just because “we don’t like it”. It turns scripture into a buffet.
2. The genocide was allegorical and represented a spiritual battle. The problem is it sure does read like history. It reads much more differently than Noah, Adam and Eve, and apocalyptic prophecy, all of which have an allegorical flavor.
3. The command was divine judgment using Israel as an instrument. The problem is that it was “utter destruction” including all life such as children. Can children be morally culpable? What about the concept of “age of accountability”?
4. The command was divine judgment but was hyperbolic and meant only to attack Canaanite military forces (i.e., not women and children). The problem is there were separate rules of engagement for other nations thereby distinguishing the genocide command as unique. Additionally, there are passages in Numbers and Joshua in which it explicitly states that children were killed.
5. The command was divine judgment and the children went to heaven. Whoa!!! Whoa! If children just automatically go to heaven without their souls being tested by God, then doesn’t this justify infanticide? Don’t diminish the lives of those innocent children who did not choose to be born there.
6. The command was divine judgment and as for the innocent people that died such as children, their souls were treated fairly by an omnipotent and omniscience God. We are unsure the exact mechanism, but they were treated fairly in the end. This is a possible solution, but the problem is that it appeals to faith and does not give a specific theodicy. It’s not as intellectually satisfying as having a detailed explanation.
I’ll be back later to discuss yours and Dave’s remaining thoughts. That will be an interesting conversation I think!
LikeLike
Buy? Ahem, er, uh – next question –?
LikeLike
Laurie – don’t you have Rosh Hashanah coming up soon?
LikeLike
@Nate and Dave
Forgive me for the length of this and it’s scatterbrainedness.
You have made brought up good points. One important question is, what does it even mean to be divinely inspired? Some people think that literally every single word was spoken in the author’s mind (verbal plenary inspiration). But, that wouldn’t explain how scientific errors made it in. I mean it could be that on occasions what we read is verbal plenary inspiration. At most other points it’s just different genres of ancient literature that have some common themes. I like to think of it as a signal that teaches divine truths in a background of culture which is comparable to surrounding cultures. The divine truths are what are innovative compared to the surrounding cultures. These include creational monotheism, doctrine of sin and judgment, unique views on suffering and death, etc. In this way not all of what is in the bible should look innovative. It should look like it was written within its cultural reference.
But, the bible is not unique in making religious innovations, that’s the norm of cultures. All cultures seem to have some kind of religious expression with their innovative features. I can’t say for sure, but it seems like you and Dave want to say, “It’s the fact that religious innovation is the norm and there is no agreement suggests we cannot trust any of them. It’s a failed method for determining truth.” This is a legitimate concern. How do we know that the ancient Hebrews did not just sit there and make this stuff up like L Ron Hubbard made up Scientology? Well, that’s the problem! We don’t know. And, what’s more interesting is that maybe that’s precisely what they did, but they were inspired by God through providential circumstances or maybe rarely by a miracle. From my own reconversion and from studying scripture it seems that people are simply compelled by ideas and they are uncertain about what exactly compels them. It cannot be clearly identified as an emotional drive, nor is it rational. It is just something compelling that cannot be explained in any other terms. That’s what is meant by “Spirit” and I think that’s why the author of John states that “God is Spirit” because that’s how we normally experience God. Daniel Dennett would criticize this as “believing in belief”, but he is asking me to reject a religious impulse that seems natural and that quite frankly I’ve chosen to trust. He’s asking me to reject it because he thinks it’s an abuse of my brain, but he can’t possibly make that judgment without knowing that atheism is true. Should I just assume atheism is true at his whim? Well. . . I digress!
So back to the problem: are the bible’s religious innovations made it out of thin air? This is not a scientific question, but the question you pose, Nate, is whether we can make a reasonable judgment about it using a rational framework. I think the answer is yes. I think you can generate arguments against it like:
I. Religious innovation is a singular method.
II. This method gives us contradictory results.
III. Methods that give us contradictory results cannot be trusted.
Therefore, religious innovation cannot be trusted.
The two premises that I would speak against would be I and II. Premise I is the most difficult to prove. And, the evidence against premise II is that there do appear to be common features among religions (belief in disembodied minds, afterlife, atonement, creator gods). Still, I’m admitting I think there are ways for you to make a reasonable judgment, if you accepted these premises. But, I think you will have to accept them on a subjective basis.
LikeLike
“…he is asking me to reject a religious impulse that seems natural and that quite frankly I’ve chosen to trust”
About that “religious impulse” — http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=114836
I might draw your attention to the section entitled, “Obsessive-compulsive disorder and hyper-religiosity,” p.6. Of course there’s also “Mania and hyper-religiosity” on p.16, if you find that more apropos.
LikeLike
No arch, I don’t celebrate Rosh Hashanah, but I do celebrate Yom Teruah!😉 And yes it is this week.
I also have linear appraisal for my dairy herd this week, so I won’t be around much.
LikeLike
“I also have linear appraisal for my dairy herd this week, so I won’t be around much.” – said the Goat Whisperer —
LikeLike
@Dave
I agree in as far as it’s not a one to one comparison! We do know more about culture and anthropology than we know about universes and nonexistence, so we should be able to make a more informed decision on the former. I suppose that it’s my own view that even the most informed judgments in the former subject fall short of the kind of certainty I would want to count as “knowledge”, but that’s my own view.
Sorry, I did kind of sidestep it. The way I understand burden of proof in science, law, and philosophy is that the one who makes a claim must shoulder the burden of proof. So, the only question is what is the default position? In US law we are “innocent until proven guilty” which means the burden is always assigned to the prosecution. In science there is the “null hypothesis” which means we assume there is no effect until it is proven. In philosophy, however, there is debate about what is the default position. Theists will argue that the burden of proof is bidirectional, that both positive and negative claims must carry a burden of proof. Atheists will argue that the burden of proof is unidirectional, that only the positive claim (i.e., that God exists) carries the burden of proof. It seems like posturing on both sides to me. Oh! And, in medicine the burden of proof is often on the negative claim which is called “defensive medicine”. For example, you may have minor chest pain and be admitted to the hospital to “rule out acute coronary syndrome” (heart attack). Ultimately, how the burden of proof is assigned is highly dependent on the philosophy of the situation. Anyway, all that to say, when we just casually dialogue, I don’t think it’s necessary to assign the burden of proof. But, if one of us came out the gate reaching for the stars, we might start demanding justification!
As for something being “more rational”. . . I think the question is, by what standard do we measure rationality? And, that’s really the problem of it especially when there are rational principles that give different answers when applied to the same question. And, it’s a problem even more when there are questions that seem to be inaccessible by rationality (like why anything exists).
I think so! I’m not that postmodern.
LikeLike
Nate,
“Maybe I’m wrong, but I think Kathy might mean passages that specifically link the idea that the feasts are supposed to stand in for much bigger, future events. Is this understanding of the symbolism spelled out anywhere?”
That’s actually not the answer I’m searching for but it certainly would help I think.
I just don’t understand the meaning/ purpose behind these things beyond the symbolism.
I can’t see how symbolism is a sufficient answer for why Jesus had to suffer and die.
Laurie’s explanation doesn’t answer this. Paul DOES give a perfect explanation.. it makes sense.
The law was part of the larger plan.. that Jesus fulfilled with His sacrifice. Laurie’s explanation says the opposite.. Jesus’ death was part of a larger plan of the law.. obeying God through rituals, atoning for our sins through animal sacrifices.. and for those times when we fail to obey the law, Jesus’ sacrifice “covers” that part for us so we can get to Heaven. So, we don’t need His sacrifice all the time.. just some of the time. We’re not fully in debt to Him, just partly in debt. This kind of reasoning speaks for itself. It diminishes what Jesus did for us.
It makes no sense to continue to sacrifice animals to pay for sins that were already paid for with God’s own blood.
Paul explains all of this.. and again I still have no clue what Laurie’s explanation is.. except the “7 feasts”… pure symbolism.
LikeLike
Yom Teruah – a day of noise/blasts – so I guess that’s the day you drag out the boombox?
Interesting thing about Yom Teruah:
And:
Is it safe to assume that you (or someone) blow the shofar? And would that be just one straight blast, or do you follow the ritual “one held blast, called Tekiah; followed by three broken blasts, called Shevarim; followed by nine even faster broken blasts, called Teruah. The Tekiah, Shevarim, and Teruah each last the same length of time. These are repeated three times. Then the Baal Tekiah concludes by blowing and holding a final blast as long as he can (basically, until he runs out of breath). This final blast is called Tekiah Gedolah.”
You know, if there is a god up there – sorry, g-d – he HAS to be laughing his ass off at all of the wacky things humans do in an effort to please him/her/it!
This term Yom Teruah is most often used in Messianic Judaism, yet when Nate asked if that’s what you were, you indicated that you were not – you’re a hard lady to pigeon-hole – good for you, I hate pigeon-holes!
LikeLike
A sample of the “Shofar Wave” can be found here, about mid-page.
I’m not making fun of the Jewish people Laurie, I’m making fun of all of the ridiculous hoops that people world-wide jump through in an effort to play to an empty house.
LikeLike
Nate, could I trouble you to go in and put a damned / in that last bracket? I can’t believe I did that!
LikeLike
I do blow the shofar, as does everyone else in my family. We sound the shofar on Shabbat as well.
It is beautiful, and fun too!
I don’t fit into a box arch, but Karite Jews are the closest your going to find.
LikeLike
Goodnight!
LikeLike
“…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?”
re: Matthew 27:50
“50And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.”
What is the meaning of the curtain being torn in two? As explained up above.. it symbolizes a NEW covenant where we can now go “beyond the curtain” and be closer to God. We come closer to the Father through the Son.. no longer through the law. We obey the law NOT so we can be saved through it, but out of love for God because of His love for us demonstrated through His Son.
Paul wasn’t attempting to abolish the law, he was explaining the new covenant, that very much includes the law, only it now takes a “back seat” to our true Savior.
LikeLike
William,
““It’s about sin William. It has to be atoned for.” – kathy
well of course, but only because made it that way. It’s a painter saying he painted red because he had to. He “had to” becuase he did. ”
You need water.. one day you die because you didn’t get enough water.. and it’s all your fault because you “made it that way”.. you made yourself need water.
You are making assumptions about Who God is. You have no basis for these assumptions.
“And if god had to, what eternal laws are god subject to and who made those? maybe you should spend your time worshiping the really powerful god – the one who isnt subject to laws.”
Again, you are making baseless assumptions.
“What you aren’t understanding is the essence of Who God is. To understand, just start by looking at the universe and all of creation.. that should tell you that it’s far more complicated than you realize… that it might be beyond our full understanding.” – kathy
“do you understand the essence of god?
if yes, how? because you read what other guys said about god? the same guys who say that they speak for god?
it looks like you’re saying you understand the essence of god by looking at the universe…. can you explain further?”
By looking at existence, including the universe, I have a pretty good idea that God is beyond full human understanding. The universe is illogical, it’s truly beyond our understanding.. so it just follows that the Creator of that universe is going to be a very complex Being. I don’t understand how you can justify making these very simple and narrow assumptions about Him. How can you possibly know these things??
LikeLike
nan, of course Kathy did not read what you provided her, she never does.
never has, never will. it would mean she has to learn something.
laurie aka Luke Warm, thank you soooo much for not taking the bait.
I’m so proud of you.
that makes me so happy, I’m not going to blow a shofar, but I’m sure I will blow “something”.
arch, lol, you are damn funny.
Kathy your entire life is a baseless assumption. go be with jeezzzuuuuusss ASAP.
LikeLike