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 
@carmen
Thanks, I’ll read Greta’s blog post later when I have a minute and let you know my impression.
LikeLike
@Ruth
You’re right, Hitchens said something like, “Even if you proved a First Mover, you’d have all your work ahead of you.”
I mean assuming a First Mover, you’d have to take on beliefs about revelation. But, I’m guessing nothing short of a miracle would convince you of revelation, right? I think that would be a rational response. Rational but not necessarily true.
LikeLike
@ Brandon,
I mean assuming a First Mover, you’d have to take on beliefs about revelation.
Why would you have to take on beliefs about revelation? Why would there necessarily be revelation?
LikeLike
Your are right, there wouldn’t have to be revelation. Given the state of the universe, I do think the only way to get from deism to Christian theism is by believing in revelation. Can you think of another way? Even if you witnessed a miracle, you would have to believe it was from God rather than an hallucination, illusion, advanced technology, or a natural anomaly.
LikeLike
“Here is the problem, I think, arch. There are some militant atheists who insist that they know there is no God, though there are not many of them.”
You’re probably aiming in the wrong direction Ruth, if you’re addressing that to me, because other than the fact that I’m not particularly militant, I’m one of them! I think I make that clear every time I say, as I often do, there ain’t no such thing as magic!
LikeLike
Dave — watched the NOVA doc. It was really well done. I haven’t seen a NOVA program that wasn’t. Much of the info in the doc has only recently been discovered. Great stuff about the brain, too.
It also compliments the video I posted to Kathy “Dust that Sings”, right at the end — Edgar Mitchell was overcome by a realization while in space.
In the NOVA doc, it mentions that we are all connected. After I deconverted, I had a similar experience — an epiphany of sorts, a mindgasm, and felt that sense of connectedness that I had never felt in all the 40 years as a Christian.
A question was posed to Neil deGrasse Tyson. He was asked:
“What is the most astounding fact you can share with us about the universe?”
Tyson: “The most astounding fact is the knowledge that the atoms that comprise life on earth; the atoms that make up the human body, are traceable to the crucibles that cooked light elements into heavy elements in their core under extreme temperatures and pressures. These stars, the high mass ones among them went unstable in their later years, They collapsed and then exploded, scattering their enriched guts across the galaxy. Guts made of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen; and all the fundamental ingredients of life itself. These ingredients become part of gas clouds that condense, collapse — form the next generation of solar systems — stars with orbiting planets — and those planets now have the ingredients for life itself.
So that when I look up at the night sky, and I know that we are part of the universe — we are in this universe. But perhaps more important than both of those facts is that the universe is in us. When I reflect on that fact — I look up. Many people feel small because they’re small and the universe is big. But I feel big because my atoms came from those stars. There’s a level of connectivity. That’s really what you want in life, you want to feel connected. You want to feel relevant. You want to feel like you are a participant in the goings on and activities around you. That’s precisely what we are just by being alive.”
I find it interesting that so many of us have had similar experiences that did not involve religious beliefs. Have you seen this? Powerful. Phil Hellenes had a similar, life-changing mindgasm.
LikeLike
@Brandon
Regarding ID and guided evolution – I’m sure you have heard this before, but if a creator does use evolution to create humans then it is a very cruel way to do it. Furthermore this would actually mean that death has entered the world long before Adam and Eve were “human” which conflicts with bible that says that death came thru sin.
This is why I believe that creationist are at least more consistent with christian evolutionist.
Furthermore, if I’m going to be pedantic abt it, then I’ll say that even if evolution doesn’t disprove a creator, we are still one huge jump from being deist to theist. In fact, knowing that there is so much death involved, a nonchalant creator who has created the world accidentally (can’t rem which folklore is this from) may sound more likely – which also explains why there are evil in this world because god doesn’t care. Killing 2 problems with one stone.
LikeLike
Victoria, at the Science Saved Me video, there was this:
“I’m not against the Creator(s), if they exist, if they ever existed. I’m not against the search for the Creator(s). What blows MY mind is that people think religion has anything to do with it at all.”
YES!!!!
LikeLike
YES!!! Indeed. 😀
LikeLike
Can you believe someone actually made this statement?
“If God sends a tornado to demolish a school, I’m sure He has a good reason. It is not our place to ask questions, nor to try and protect those children He has chosen to kill.”
It was in an article here.
LikeLike
That’s not exactly what I meant. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being confident in your position. I’m fairly confident in mine. But I think it’s assumed that we are categorically stating there is no God. And that’s not the position that most atheists hold. There could be a God even though I don’t find that very likely.
LikeLike
Nan, that article is despicable.
“…creating shelters specifically to protect children is an attempt to thwart God’s will.
The truth is if God wanted those children to live, then he wouldn’t kill them. I think that’s pretty obvious.”
“I would say just by suggesting we take measures to save the lives of those God has damned is pretty darned presumptuous,” said Governor Fallin. “He has a plan for us all, and you better be damned sure it does not involve raising the corporate tax rate.”
UFB
LikeLike
@powellpowers
I lean towards the Theistic Evolution position, which rejects ID, but yes these are huge problems. And, the doctrine of the fall to which literalists hold has ethical problems that are just as big if not bigger. How can the primal couple’s sin justify cursing the entire creation with suffering and death including the animals? That seems like injustice. So, I’ve come to the conclusion that the doctrine of the fall is true, but not in the way the myth spells it out. It’s not the primal couple’s sin but rather humanity’s collective sinning that determined how God would design the the first cosmos. So, the Hebrew’s insight is true, just not exactly how they thought. Of course, this is not a perfect theodicy.
I agree with this. As far as killing two birds with one stone, some deists might argue with you! But, I see your point, it’s certainly easier to not worry about a First Mover if you’ve ruled out any sort of divine interaction with the world.
LikeLike
I hope that article is satire.
LikeLike
Definitely satire – click the button at the top “show facts”.
LikeLike
Thanks Howie, yeah, I checked further.
LikeLike
@carmen
OK, I read Greta Christina’s blog post. The biggest disappointment is that she failed to actually engage Theistic Evolution. Reason 1 and 2 stems from a failure to engage TE (some would call this strawmanning), and reason 3 and 4 are basically derivative of the problem of evil, which TE does not specifically address, but there are solutions. Please let me know if you want me to explain my thinking with any more depth!
-B
LikeLike
@Brandon
Interesting that you have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of the fall is true. How do you reach that conclusion?
I’m assuming that you are convinced that Hebrew God is true, and furthermore you will be able to point to other portion of OT that is verifiable to confirm that what the Hebrew God said is true, and hence by extension the doctrine of fall is true because all the other things God said has been proven true thus far. Am I right?
Because if we start from the bottom up perspective – e.g. all you have is the story of creation and fall and nothing else, and then you juxtaposition it with evolution and or deistic belief it seems that the theistic creation/fall story sounds more left-field when you approach this way.
Just wondering what your perspective is especially if it’s different from my assumption.
Thanks
LikeLike
Your are right, there wouldn’t have to be revelation. Given the state of the universe, I do think the only way to get from deism to Christian theism is by believing in revelation. Can you think of another way? Even if you witnessed a miracle, you would have to believe it was from God rather than an hallucination, illusion, advanced technology, or a natural anomaly.
Ah. Okay Brandon. I think I may have misunderstood the point you were trying to make earlier. I thought you were saying that if one believed there might be a creator it naturally follows that there be revelation. If I understand you correctly you are saying that to get from creator to Yahweh would necessitate a belief in revelation – not that creation, itself, necessitates revelation of any kind. I can agree with this.
Earlier you asked if belief in revelation also would require a miracle for me to believe it. I wouldn’t necessarily say so. The universe is guided by a set of natural laws. Assuming that a creator set up those laws he could interact with his creation in ways that would not require a miracle. He could communicate with us audibly. He could walk with us in the cool of the day and not break any natural law that we currently understand to do so. It is this belief that we’ve done something to cause Yahweh to hide his face from us, that we’re so repugnant that he can’t be in our presence that necessitates a miracle of some sort; a sign, if you will. I do not require a miracle.
LikeLike
@Nan
You know, I would have agreed with the article you linked when I was a christian.
One of my biggest bug bear is this – how do we know the difference between God stopping us vs Satan stopping us?
Allow me to explain
You know a lot of times when missionary go out to sow seeds, and say something happened – e.g. accidents (happened to my church 2 cars crashed and 3 people died while 1 became paralyzed) then christians are quick to say “oh this is the work of satan impeding God’s work, we must strive harder”. I’ve also heard people saying “if you find no resistance in what you are doing, it means that satan is not interested in your work and chances are it is not very important for God’s kingdom.
However, when it comes to less important things like failing a job interview, people would say – hey God is purposely closing the door as He has something better for you (happened to my brother-in-law). Same thing goes for spurned proposals when a girl rejects a guy and vice versa.
For things that are in-between – how can we tell? For example – my church tried to raise money for a bigger church building. Is it God stopping because it would be a waste of money? Or is it Because Satan wants to stop us from having a bigger church building and potentially larger congregation? (end of the story was that we failed to get enough money for the building, and it seems that it wasn’t needed anyway because our congregation size actually shrank instead of grew. But you noticed that above 2 explanations would still fit the conclusion. God was right, or Satan was successful)
I see no consistency in this type of thinking as Bible stories have always been filled with God intervening actively FOR and AGAINST. So what gives? I simply conclude that God moves mysteriously and I will actively seek guidance from Holy Spirit and the much vaulted “peace of heart” when I make decisions, or when things happen. But towards my latter christians days I began to realize that “peace” basically mean you are happy with what you are doing. Even murderous people have peace without repentance.
That being said, for the guy in the article, he is brave enough and consistent enough to simply accept that God does everything and we are not in a position to judge what has happened, but to only trust and obey. I do find him admirable instead of other christians who try to weasel their way out with rationalization. He is definitely not rationalizing in my opinion.
LikeLike
@powellpowers
Honestly, it’s not an evidential belief at all. I believe in God like you said, and I believe that God is good and holy. So this biases me towards having theodicies. Within this framework, I cannot think of any better reasoning than what the Hebrews thought. If God created everything and natural evil exists (decay and death), then it must be a curse or a punishment for something. Who else is eligible to be cursed for sinning besides humanity? S, combining the doctrine of the fall with evolution has been called “retroactive fall of man” theodicy.
I certainly don’t think I can back up beliefs like this with evidence that would be acceptable to anyone here! So, this is a top down perspective. But, not all my religious beliefs are top down. I think that would be intellectually irresponsible and is why I reject presuppositionalism.
LikeLike
Ruth, that makes good sense. Do you think testimony could ever be strong enough to convince you of revelation?
LikeLike
Gah! I typed a really long reply, Brandon, and WP ate it.
What do you mean by testimony?
LikeLike
@Brandon
You know, I have not fully come to the conclusion that Top Down (think there’s a better term but since I think we both understand each other we should continue to use this) approach is necessarily wrong.
It’s something that I struggle with (intellectually that is) – why do atheists accept the null hypothesis for God as default? What is the justification for it?
LikeLike
I hear you, Powell. Even tho the article was satire, I wouldn’t put it past some Christians (primarily fundies) to actually express similar thoughts.
And yes, the ongoing “battle” between god and satan is a real conundrum for some believers.
So glad I’m past all that!
LikeLike