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 
@arch
Have you ever seen one run? It’s the most bizarre thing imaginable…
LikeLike
1) Source.
2) Possibility/probability
3) Past experiences
So if a respectable guy I knew very well told me that he saw big foot, I’d think he was mistaken. I may not think he was lying, but big foot is such a tall tale that it would take more than his claim for me to believe it. It could be lying or he simply may be mistaken, both of which seem more plausible than there actually being a big foot..
But, if the same guy told me that he saw a really big deer in the woods, that had 8 points on one side but a broken nub on the other, I’d likely believe him, even if I’ve never seen that myself. Deer can get big. Deer can have a lot of points. I can imagine ways that deer might either have a birth defect or an injury that could cause the asymmetrical antlers.
If a guy I knew very well to be a big exaggerator, I may doubt the deer story, because the source is suspect.
If I guy I didn’t know at all claimed to have seen such a deer, I may take it as 50/50, whether exaggeration or accurate. But big foot, no way.
and I thinks nate’s point about miracles is right on. Was it Gideon that had the fleece? He wanted god to make dew land everywhere except on his fleece. and after that, he still wanted to god to make dew only land on his fleece but on nothing else the following morning… That story seems to show what lengths god is supposedly willing to go to ensure his people can believe him.
Is it fair to do that one guy and then penalize another for not believing when nothing was shown to him? Is it even fair to say Gideon’s faith was anything to marvel at when he was give sign after sign?
It just seems too convenient that all these impressive miracles used to happen, but just don’t today. Pretty convenient that in some instances, the miracle wouldn’t be provided because the people didn’t have enough faith… when of course they may have had faith, had they actually seen the miracle – it’s almost like a paramedic saying, “well, since you’re not breathing, i’m not going to help you.”
didnt jesus say that doctors werent needed for people that were well, implying that salvation was for the sinners – I’m just not gonna help them though…
LikeLike
giraffes are abominations and should be destroyed.
but seriously, if someone doesnt believe in them, it’s because of pride… and reverse ignorance.
LikeLike
“If a belief can do this to you, you will have almost no chance of being able to critically evaluate its truthfulness. Christianity alters your identity to ensure the survival of itself.”
Wow – that describes Kathy in a nutshell, and yes, I realize that term is redundant. It also describes a parasitic virus that takes over the mechanisms of certain bacteria and orders the bacteria to do that would most benefit the virus.
LikeLike
Why is everyone relying on bible examples to demonstrate their belief or unbelief in god? If a god exists, it doesn’t necessarily have to fit the parameters of the bible, right? Is it because this is the only god we are familiar with? Might there be another supernatural entity that could have “created” everything?
LikeLike
Oh yes, I’ve seen videos – balancing, with that neck, while running has to be a tough act to follow. When I first took my daughters to the San Diego Zoo, there was a giraffe enclosure very near the entrance, with a pair of giraffe inside. To the entertainment of the growing audience, the male had an unbelievable boner, and was trying to convince his lady friend that “Tonight’s the night!” I really wasn’t ready for the birds and the bees conversation that early in their young lives.
LikeLike
Great question, Nan. And yes, it’s really just because it’s the one I’m most familiar with.
However, I should add that while I’m open to the idea of there being a god, I’m 99.999999% sure it’s not the god of the Bible or Qur’an. I just find that god way too problematic.
LikeLike
Neuro said,
“The Troll study further states:
“Trolling can succeed if users are deceived into believing the troller’s pseudo-intention(s), and are provoked into responding sincerely.”
I choose to no longer participate in dialog with Kathy.”
This is hilarious Neuro.. it’s amazing the lengths liberals will go to to avoid debating the points.
I’ve asked you direct questions, I’ve made direct requests for proof of your accusations against me.. and this is what I get.. more of the same.
Now, I’ve just given you more to quote in your accusations against me.. and make sure not to include your words and actions that prompted and justified my comment. oh, I forgot.. you aren’t going to “dialog” with me anymore… and oh look, you no longer have to answer my questions and requests.
THIS IS WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT.. I make these accusations and you all continue to prove me right. And clearly you are clueless to this.. it’s the blinders of pride and ego. It is further proof of how destructive those things are.
LikeLike
It also describes a parasitic virus that takes over the mechanisms of certain bacteria and orders the bacteria to do that would most benefit the virus.
Exactly. Ever read “The God Virus” by Darrel Ray? I haven’t read the book yet, but watched it lecture. Dannel Dennet also uses this analogy in his book and lecture “Breaking the Spell”. Here’s a short clip from Dennet’s lecture. http://youtu.be/9H1td-_SKEQ If I recall, Howie brought Dennet’s excellent book/lecture to my attention a while back. When you gain a little understanding about how neural pathways get reinforced through repetition and then strengthen through networking, it all starts to make sense — how easily we can get indoctrinated and then put under a religious spell. It also doesn’t help that humans have the propensity to follow without questioning.
LikeLike
I agree, Nate (about the bible god). But I’m really curious as to why you’re open to the idea of there being a god at all.
LikeLike
kc,
““God gave His Son for us. He wouldn’t have done that if it weren’t necessary.”
As John Zande has said many times , “He sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself”
He did it to save you from righteous judgment.
LikeLike
““God gave His Son for us. He wouldn’t have done that if it weren’t necessary.”
As John Zande has said many times , “He sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself”
and it is only necessary, because god made it a necessity. if he has all the power, why set it that way unless you want it that way?
If god “had” to do it that way, then who made those rules that god must follow?”
See? You all clearly have it all figured out.. the Creator of all couldn’t possibly be beyond your understanding.. and that’s not arrogant.. and maybe.. ignorant?.. nah.. not at all..
LikeLike
Well, Nan, my earlier comment may have been a bit misleading. It’s true that I’m open to the idea of a god, but I find it extremely unlikely. I’m really open to it just because I acknowledge that I don’t know everything — maybe there’s some spiritual realm or creator-type deity out there, but I haven’t seen anything to make me believe in one.
LikeLike
“However, I should add that while I’m open to the idea of there being a god, I’m 99.999999% sure it’s not the god of the Bible or Qur’an. I just find that god way too problematic.”
Nate, I agree.
Nan, it would be awesome if there was a god who looked after us, really cared and hung out and made a world free from pain and suffering, rather than blame its creation on its poor blueprints. However, without actually making itself known to us, the only way we can believe in its existence is via faith. That ain’t gonna cut it for me anymore. Fool me twice….
LikeLike
Kathy, answer Portal’s question: What would convince you to not believe in God? He’s a believer so you can’t accuse him of his pride, ego, liberal-thinking, etc. So answer his question.
LikeLike
Thanks, Nate (and you too, Victoria). I was just curious.
LikeLike
Ruth,
“It’s a fruitless endeavor because the only items she accepts as evidence are those things which a) confirm her bias and b) agree with scripture. Anything else is deemed liberal propaganda. I’ve seen her, in this very dialogue, claim that absence of evidence is not very compelling evidence. Yet, at the same time, claim that absence of scientific evidence of the mechanism of evolution is very compelling evidence that…God. Science doesn’t get a raincheck but goddidit does?
Ruth, .. here’s another set of accusations against me that you didn’t back up with my own words. And I KNOW that if I ask for you to back it up with my own words.. I will not get an answer. And that’s because it’s not true.
“If I learned nothing else from my exchanges with Kathy and He-who-shall-remain-nameless it is an appreciation for civil dialogue with Christians like Brandon and Ryan. While we may not agree on everything we can discuss things rationally, without attacking each others’ character and integrity.”
Yes, I’ve made accusations about your character and integrity Ruth. And I’ve referenced your own words and actions when I’ve done so. What you see as “incivility”.. I see as an honest desire to identify the problems that are standing in the way of the truth. If you would honestly address my accusations and either prove me wrong or acknowledge it, there would be progress but instead you only see it as me being “mean”. You can’t fix a problem until you first identify it. And if I have problems, which I know I do, the same applies to me. I see things on a larger scale.. these are the very same things that go on with world leaders and in our own government.. and that’s why we don’t have progress and peace. Is there a nicer way that I’ve implemented to point out that I don’t feel you are being honest on certain things? Please tell me.. I’ll listen.
LikeLike
Kathy, you’re not as much of a troll as He-who-must-not-be-named was, and it would be unfair for us to characterize this conversation as though you’re the only one who’s engaged in name-calling.
BUT there is a noticeable difference in your style of dialog compared to everyone else here. If you notice, the rest of us are trying to have a conversation more than a “debate.” We may disagree with one another, but we typically do so respectfully, and we don’t throw around accusations of dishonesty, nor do we label each other (“liberal”, etc). We ask questions, we compare points of view, and we try to find areas where we can agree. At the very least, we try to see the other person’s point of view.
If you’re interested in having such a conversation, we’d love for you to join in. But your comments tend to be more argumentative. You may no realize that, and I know it can be hard to convey tone sometimes. As an example of what I’m talking about, you often have problems accepting someone’s answer to one of your questions. You’ll insist that they’re dodging it, and you keep asking the same question over again, even when we’ve said that we’ve answered it. At some point, you just have to accept what someone says and move on. “Agree to disagree” in other words.
LikeLike
“See? You all clearly have it all figured out.. the Creator of all couldn’t possibly be beyond your understanding.. and that’s not arrogant.. and maybe.. ignorant?.. nah.. not at all..” – kathy
kathy, that’s kind of you to say, but I dont quite have it all figured out, i just dont believe everything somebody claims, merely because they claimed it – nor do i reject everything someone claims simply because it’s a claim.
I do try to weigh the claims out as best i can. And in the above referenced situation, we can see some serious disparities that at least make me question the reliability of such claims.
Sure there are some who believe it just because, or perhaps they haven’t thought though the natural eventuality of such positions, but I am sure you can see that if their best response to such is to accuse the person who pointed the problem out as being “prideful” or “arrogant,” then they’re only doing so because they lack a better and/or actual retort, and they fail to realize that the problem remains and was always there whether pointed out or not.
LikeLike
Not sure if K will read this, but if she does I wonder if she could point out any fallacies in what I’m about to say:
If we consider the possibility that all life on this planet came from nowhere we should instantly conclude that we have been designed. Furthermore, this designer is none other than Superman, an all-powerful man that can fly and comes from a distant galaxy. Superman can see through walls and watches everything we do and say and has even inspired us to create stories, comics, movies and toys about himself. Of course, you have never seen Superman, because he travels too quickly to be spotted by our inferior vision. Anyone who has not acknowledged that Superman is our Supreme Superior is guilty of being excessively PRIDEFUL and ARROGANT. Anyone who thinks that Superman does not exist is first and foremost a LIBERAL and needs to show PROOF of his non-existence. Absence of evidence does not count. Evidence for the Truth of Superman’s existence includes: (1) Everyone has a longing to fly which was instilled in us by the Supreme Superior. (2) There are millions of copies of inspired works about Superman. (3) There are some who have tried to jump off buildings in their attempts to fulfill our internal desire to be like Superman. (4) Our very EXISTENCE is proof of Superman’s existence. (5) The PRIDE within every living being that fails to acknowledge that Superman is the Supreme Superior is PROOF that he exists. Q.E.D.
FYI, any negative responses to this Truth will be countered with profound reasoning skills that will make all of you look like 5th graders in the presence of greatness and unshakable TRUTH. (not)
Believe today. Licensing and restrictions apply. Sorry folks, could not resist. Void where prohibited. All other claims and arguments are waived. Apply objectivity. Copyright 2014.
LikeLike
The point is, it’s not up to you to judge someone’s honesty. If they say they think a particular thing, you simply accept it. I may think that your beliefs are utterly idiotic, but I have the decency to not say that to you so harshly. What good would it do? It’s far better and more diplomatic to accept what someone says, point out the areas where you feel differently, and leave it up to them to decide how to use that information.
Much of what I’ve said to you in these last 2 comments is just about basic human interaction skills. It’s exactly why you’ve been blocked or kicked out of so many other discussion threads. Sadly, if you don’t realize these things at this point in your life, you probably never will.
LikeLike
” I just don’t know what to make of her — is she brainwashed by fundamentalism, hyper-religious, or a troll? Based on all 5 posts, plus this one, I’m leaning towards the later.”
You don’t know what to make of my words that have laid out my beliefs and why I believe them.. in my own words? That I’ve asked for responses to.. instead of insults and “troll” accusations.. which is a favorite of liberals I’ve noticed. If you put all your comments to me in two columns, the ones where you are addressing the actual points and one where you are attacking me personally, guess which column will be the longest.. just go back and read this thread alone.
I only want to debate the points.. and if you want to make personal accusations, that’s fine.. but back them up.. in the right context.. which you omitted earlier.
LikeLike
Kathy, William has continually posted the same 5 points to you over and over, but you’ve never addressed him. And they were your points! He keeps reposting them, along with some questions, which you never address.
LikeLike
It’s sad and somewhat disappointing that this “Open Conversation” has turned into Kathy 6. Up until a certain point, it had truly been enlightening … and definitely mentally stimulating. But now we’re back to the same-old, same-old. *frustrated sigh*
LikeLike
“It also doesn’t help that humans have the propensity to follow without questioning.” – and to assign agency where there is none, as well.
LikeLike