278 thoughts on “Open Conversation Part 4”

  1. Wait..am I understanding this correctly? Kathy wanted us to “objectively” hypothetically come to a conclusion about a hypothetical God and now, because we all pretty much say we see her side of it even though we don’t agree, now she’s saying that we’re still not being objective? Ugh!

    Like

  2. I know, Ruth. My brain caved in upon itself a while ago, trying to make sense of it all. I’m much better now.

    Kathy, I surrender. I just had to watch a video of a Dean Martin roast of Lucille Ball just to get some kind of working perspective again. Sadly, I’m not even kidding. I would think it would be an empty victory for you, but I imagine I’m wrong. Congratulations! You’ve managed to alienate another human being on the planet.

    Like

  3. Brandon, have a nice vacation. No need to apologize, I thought you were very engaging.

    I have some ideas for a theodicy. It doesn’t exactly line up with Christian theology, but it does solve a lot of issues. I’ll wait till your back from vacation to lay it out. Have fun!

    Like

  4. Dave, I had asked you if you believed objectivity was important and if you would want to know if you weren’t being objective. Are you referring to my accusations of lack of objectivity? Because that’s the only accusations I’ve made and also lack of honesty which are the same thing.

    Yes, Kathy, those would be the ones. When you tell people that they are being dishonest it is a personal assault.

    You wrote: “I honestly don’t know what I’m doing wrong.”
    I’d like to believe you. I think if we are nice to people they will be more willing to discuss things with us. That’s been my experience anyway.

    Like

  7. …at least with Nate, he just leaves.. he is above the personal attacks when he doesn’t have a response.

    Hi guys. Had a busy weekend (work and kids’ soccer games). Sorry for the absence, but I can assure you, it’s not because I had nothing to say! 😉

    @Brandon —
    Enjoy the vacation! When you get back, I wouldn’t mind discussing a bit of what you said about the OT’s commands of genocide. I agree that such actions may have fit within that ancient culture better than they do ours, but whose fault is that? You’d think that if the Judeo-Christian god is real, then societies should have started off much better (morally-speaking) than where we are today. All he had to do was speak to all people the way he did Noah, Abraham, and Moses. Instead, he seems strangely concerned with one specific group of people at the expense of all others — just like all the other tribal gods were.

    Anyway, we can dig into it more when you get back. Thanks!

    Like

  9. Kathy,

    You asked, again,

    “Gliese, make your case.. which religion gives a more compelling explanation for our existence.. please don’t send me on a wild goose chase with a list of links.. don’t recommend a pile of books.. there’s plenty of space here to give your reasons for why I should look at another particular religion/explanation. I’ve never closed my mind.. it’s been open, and that’s why I can explain WHY Christianity is the answer.. and not the FSM. If you want to waste time looking into the fsm as a possible explanation, that’s entirely your prerogative.. and please feel free to share what compelling evidence you might find.”

    Zoroastrianism. This is my number 2 answer, as my number 1 answer has been given to you many times, which is “none of the above.” You wont accept that answer, so I will give my number 2, “Zoroastriansim.”

    The religion is older the Christianity. This is the religion that much of Christianity was based off of. It also heavily influenced the Pharisees in the NT. Pharisee means “Persian” and is close to the Persian language of farsi. Before Isael’s exposure to the Persians, they didnt talk about heaven and hell as Christians do, and even the devil or satan was portrayed much differntky in the OT.

    So I say “Zoroastrianism” because the Pharisees and Christians borrowed heavily from it. They even have a virgin birth and martyrs.

    Like

  10. “And it insinuates that God is not where truth leads.” – Kathy

    I think you keep missing the point that the god you’re talking about is only one of many other claimed gods. You seem to ignore that even within Christianity, there are countless sub-sects that don’t agree on much at all beyond a bible and a god (or 3 gods).

    So how is accepting your version of god and your version of biblical interpretation objective? Can you lead us down that path so that we might be able to understand where you’re coming from?

    Otherwise, since I am familiar with the bible already, we may just keep speaking past one another. From my perspective, you’re the main one lacking objectivity – and before you ask again, I’ve pasted your own words many times. We don’t have to argue over who’s more objective or not, I suggest it’s better to discuss the facts and points instead of getting off topic to say that my adversary isn’t objective and then add, “I rest my case.”

    Like

  11. Kathy,

    I’d really like your response to this,

    you said,

    “It was always as if God was just another human being, expected to behave and respond as just another human being… “ – Kathy

    See, here is an example where I think you’ve been missing the points given to you. You keep saying, “god said this,” or, “god did that,” etc but god never wrote anything down. Even if you’re right, god told someone top wrote something down and then have it copied and translated a bunch, so it ends up still only being the author’s claims about a god.

    Also, when we try to validate these author’s claims, we can see what characteristics say god has and then we can place them next to what they say god does – do they match? Many of us say no.

    Is killing a baby to punish the father just? Is it loving or merciful? It is wrathful, that is true, but still a wrath that is void of mercy and justice.

    This is just one example, but I am sure you know there are more that could be given.

    How is what I’ve just said un-objective or un-true?

    Like

  12. “And I’ve stated that you all are liberals, which no one seems to like.. but no one has responded to my request to show that they aren’t liberals by espousing non liberal beliefs.” – Kathy

    Oh, I get it now. Kind of like how you’re an idiot and haven’t shown intelligence yet?
    That was mean and uncalled for, but besides the fact I was being light hearted and not serious, but it also illustrates how pointless your name calling is.

    What are liberal beliefs in your opinion and how have I expressed them?

    Like

  14. “And this is why I leave… I’m just really tired of going around in circles all the time.. really tired.” Kathy

    Then stopping taking us around in circles. You leave, after direct questions are agoven to you, and you return without addressing them. And you havent shown where anyone was un-obejctive but yourself. Copying and pasting a sentence and then claiming it unobjective doesn’t make it so. I highly recommend, again, that you do take a break and step back and re-read all the threads you’ve commented on in the context they were made. I’d suspect that you may learn a lot a bout yourself if you’re as objective as you claim.

    “No points about the actual argument/ debate.. just personal attacks WITHOUT any kind of actual evidence to back it up.” – Kathy

    What do you mean? are you denying the fact that most people respond to you while simultaneously pasting your own comments? I must say, when you say such things it makes you appear very dishonest.

    Like

  15. William, I was just reading about Matthias and it seems, yes, he’s considered by most to be the 12th apostle, although he was not technically chosen by God or Jesus but rather by the remaining 11 apostles casting lots. And it seems he was never mentioned again after this. Under these circumstances, to me, it becomes an open question as to who the 12 apostles really are … in God’s eyes and as referenced in John’s Revelation.

    Of course, some would argue that Paul was the 12th apostle (with which I personally strongly disagree), but again, he was not chosen by Jesus. Rather, he appointed himself.

    Your points about Zoroastrian are excellent! It has been shown by numerous scholars that Christianity is almost entirely based on this Persian religion.

    And, as you said, the beliefs in heaven, hell, and satan did not develop among the Jewish people until after they were exposed to Zoroastrianism. Although ha-satan is used in the OT, it is not the fearsome entity seen in Christianity today. This “evil one” was developed after the Persian captivity by the apocalyptic writers — who were greatly influenced by Zoroastrian beliefs. I go into considerable detail about this in my book. 😉

    Like

  16. nan, I got you. Discussing the bible is difficult sometimes. I dont know if we’re discussing it based upon what it says (like a book review), or if we’re discussing as a believer would, or if we’re discussing as a believer would while pointing the inherent problems with that view, or discussing it as what most likely took place….

    But I’m with you now.

    Like

  17. William, I often use the bible and scripture when discussing it with believers because this is their reference point.

    During the course of writing my book, I did considerable study and research on the history behind several of the more popular doctrines within Christianity. What I learned is that history often does not agree with many (most) of the traditional teachings.

    Since most Christians (Kathy included) do not go to these same lengths to learn about their faith, they are unable to accept anything except what they have been taught. Even if they actually read their bibles, the discussions could be so much more productive, but statistics show that only 1 in 5 Americans read the bible on a regular basis (Huffington Post).

    As has been evidenced on this blog, this ends up with many of us banging our heads against the wall in frustration. This is not to say every contributor falls into this category because some have proven themselves very knowledgeable and the discussions has been lively. Too bad the one who comments the most is not one of them.

    Like

  18. Kathy doesn’t have a clue what’s in the bible,
    she used to argue with me that jews never had slaves,
    and when I showed her the bible verse,
    she said that was man’s idea not god’s,
    even though the passage starts of with and the lord spoke to moooooses and said, yadda, yadda, yadda, go get you some slaves.
    then she said, those people wanted to be slaves.

    she is just a silly twit, she won’t respond to any of the questions William has presented her, she’s just going to say, ” you dishonest liberals have no objectivity”.

    the dumb bitch has been doing this for years,
    she has no intention of learning anything,
    because when she dropped out of high school after getting her racist whore ass plowed and pregnant,
    she thought she knew everything then and hasn’t bothered to learn anything new except how to lie about her income to get food stamps.

    Like

  19. here you will see Kathy being a liar. she’s bitching at Russell brand for “attacking capitalism”, (which he is not).

    the hilarious irony is, the entire time Kathy was on food stamps she was attacking govt handouts.

    see what a lying, stupid, hypocritical whore she is.

    Like

  24. Back!

    @Dave:

    Thanks, I am very curious to hear your idea for a theodicy.

    @Nate:

    I agree that such actions may have fit within that ancient culture better than they do ours, but whose fault is that? You’d think that if the Judeo-Christian god is real, then societies should have started off much better (morally-speaking) than where we are today.

    I understand what you are saying, I think maybe where I veer off in thinking is that the ancient environment was so radically different, that certain things had to be done differently. This is not an excuse for genocide, but I do think it explains certain aspects of the Mosaic Law. Even if it’s true that the environment changes what makes up justice, I don’t think this is the reason for the genocide command. By all accounts it served as divine judgment on a people who had built up their sinful culture for hundreds of years.

    I’m thinking more of examples like the rape law stating that if a man rapes a woman, he must marry her. To us, this is absolutely absurd! This is not justice at all. However, if Tamar, a Bronze Age princess, represented the feelings of ancient women, they would have perceived this law as appropriate justice for their culture. Of course, as time goes on, the law must update to reflect new realities, but the spirit of the law to say that rape is wrong and deserves justice is what does not change.

    Like

  25. Welcome back Brandon,

    When I have some time I’ll write down my idea for a theodicy (luckily I still remember it). For the moment I wanted to respond to a couple things you wrote last time.

    For those of us who are cerebral and trying to understand if we can infer something about the world to figure out what a creator deity would be like, we are the ones that hit the wall of the problem of evil. I think this is all the same type of wall. There is no perfectly satisfactory solution, but the creator deity would know that this would be the case. So, it would be an intentional design. This is why I think for those of us who are cerebral, the first step is thinking there is a possible way for God to be good, for there to be reasons for allowing this existence to be this way. I personally think that it’s more important than arguments for God’s existence and the truth of Christianity.

    I guess what worries me about this approach is that, for me anyway, I would have to re-define my definition of good in order to make the creator deity “good”. To think that things like genocide or asking someone to sacrifice their son on an alter could ever be justified seems backwards. A simpler solution IMO is to absolve the creator deity of these commands and lay the blame on humans.

    Of course the adults in Canaan we can at least imagine that they had built up their iniquities for 400 years of culture until and had fallen under divine judgment. The children on the other hand are not guilty of their parent’s iniquity. So, why have them killed? Is it even possible that God could have a reason? That’s basically the question that is the wall for the modern reader.

    Not only is the commanding of death to children questionable, but the method is also harsh because the Israelites had to be the ones butchering the people. This would leave mental scars for life. Try to imagine what it would be like entering a house and plunging a sword through all of the family members – or having to chase down a kid that ran out the back door and chopping him down. I really think you should reconsider your position on some of these Old Testament stories.

    Like

Leave a comment