The Gospel

[articulett]

Trust me, Fowl. You'll never get an answer.

Real answers require real thought. They require integrity, honesty, courage, and compassion. Kathy has demonstrated time and again that she has none of the above. She is shifty, dishonest, cowardly, and hateful. If she had any of those traits, she'd have answered away, and would not have needed to be reminded. She does not have faith. She has programming.

GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

If you're right, does this mean your psychic? When people come to this site to preach, I imagine heads exploding like in the movie "Scanners"...religion seems to make people simple minded (because faith=truth) and so they seem to not "compute" what others are saying...or they get mad (to distract themselves from the notion that their beloved god might not be real--he might just be a myth like Zeus--egads!) God loves dingbats, I guess. (For an almighty being, he sure picks some lame ass people to be his spokesperson...and can't the dude fight his own battles?...what does he need to send Kathy on a troll spree for?)

 

[RandFan]

AS I go to my Biblegateway and read the verse of the day it reminds me how it is really meant to be...

1 Timothy 2:5-6

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

What exactly is so hard for people to understand?

Nothing is hard to understand. It's the believing in silly ideas like god impregnating a woman with himself and fathering himself so that he can have himself to talk to himself to intercede on behalf of mortals to himself.

Father (me), if you (me) are willing, take this cup from me (you); yet not my (your) will, but yours (mine) be done. Huh? Didn't he already know?

Christ was in desperate need of meds.

Logic Kathy, we want logic not silly nonsensical fairy-tales.

 

[delphi_ote]

Saved from drug addiction --- by Allah

Why is kathy too chicken to respond to these posts?

 

[davefoc]

Does anybody have a sense that maybe people have been a little tough on KK (please note I'm not advocating that view, I'm just asking the question)?

As far as KK not responding in the way that might have made sense to many of us, I wonder if it is reasonable to fault her for that. She might be responding in a way that makes sense to her and perhaps KK just can't understand why it doesn't make sense to many of us.

Maybe it is us that can't see the truth. Maybe there is something in a skeptic's brain that locks out the ability to see what is true and we substitute a series of rationalizations about the world for the truth wihich we can't understand because of a defect in our brains.

I put forth the "God so loved the world that he sacrificed his own son" line as an example. That line seems to resonate with masses of people. There is not one part of me that sees the tiniest logic in it. I am farther away from an understanding of why that just doesn't seem like nonsense to everybody as I am to a detailed understanding of how to combine general relativity with quantum mechanics. Maybe what is going on here is that the part of my brain that should allow me to understand that line is defective and I have compensated for that by being a cynical old skeptic. Or maybe not.

 

[LotusMegami]

It's an emotional need, davefoc.

I've felt it at church, at Christmas Mass. I've felt it at a Beltane retreat, where I completely suspended my disbelief and just enjoyed. I felt it at my handfast marriage to a Wiccan.

People are looking for spirituality. When a religion provides an emotional experience, some people perceive their emotions as prove that the religion is true.

 

[Mephisto]

Maybe it is us that can't see the truth. Maybe there is something in a skeptic's brain that locks out the ability to see what is true and we substitute a series of rationalizations about the world for the truth wihich we can't understand because of a defect in our brains.

I put forth the "God so loved the world that he sacrificed his own son" line as an example. That line seems to resonate with masses of people. There is not one part of me that sees the tiniest logic in it. I am farther away from an understanding of why that just doesn't seem like nonsense to everybody as I am to a detailed understanding of how to combine general relativity with quantum mechanics. Maybe what is going on here is that the part of my brain that should allow me to understand that line is defective and I have compensated for that by being a cynical old skeptic. Or maybe not.

Ordinarily I'd highly commend anyone for being so superbly empathic, dave; and you are correct in saying that many of us have not been "accomodating" to Kathy, but I believe the one "defect" lacking in a skeptic's brain that doesn't allow us to process the information presented (poorly) by Kathy is faith.

Bible scriptures aren't Zen Koans and if there was ever any insight into the nature of God to be gleaned from them it was lost in the many translations. Your tendency for introspection in the search for what "seems" apparent to some is honorable, but I think you'll find that realm populated by belief in sea monsters, devils & demons, and either extremes of a very dualistic philosophy. You have to remember that many of us (JREFers) have come to skepticism BECAUSE of the inadequacies of religion and the God of the Bible.

In short, it doesn't take much to "see what Kathy (or her brethern) see." Simply lose your ability to discern truth from faith. It also calls for two other conditions; attribute anything good to God, and anything bad to God's will.

 

[UrsulaV]

Why is kathy too chicken to respond to these posts?

*cough* I suspect she doesn't understand them.

This isn't actually intended as a jab, but rather an observation--Kathy doesn't really seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. It is entirely possible that the irony is going right over her head and when somebody says "What difference is there?" she can say "Well, I'm a Christian! That's a Muslim they're talking about!" and never consider it any farther or get the glaringly obvious implications. Nothing about her debating technique (and I use the term loosely) has given me any indication that she's really reading and comprehending most of these posts--she sort've appears to be yanking random phrases from posts that catch her eye, and then going into a kind of stream of consciousness about the niftiness of God.

It's also kind of apparent from things she's said before that she can't possibly answer these questions, and is probably unfamiliar with the concept that if you can't answer a question, you admit it specifically and say "You got me there. I don't know the answer." (And, in all fairness, these threads get thick and fast really quick.)

We're not exactly dealing with St. Augustine II here, I'm afraid. Her husband was a lot more on the ball, but he doesn't seem to be posting any more.

I could be wrong, of course, but my leaning is towards "sincere but not very bright" at the moment.

 

[RandFan]

Does anybody have a sense that maybe people have been a little tough on KK (please note I'm not advocating that view, I'm just asking the question)?

As far as KK not responding in the way that might have made sense to many of us, I wonder if it is reasonable to fault her for that. She might be responding in a way that makes sense to her and perhaps KK just can't understand why it doesn't make sense to many of us.

Maybe it is us that can't see the truth. Maybe there is something in a skeptic's brain that locks out the ability to see what is true and we substitute a series of rationalizations about the world for the truth wihich we can't understand because of a defect in our brains.

I put forth the "God so loved the world that he sacrificed his own son" line as an example. That line seems to resonate with masses of people. There is not one part of me that sees the tiniest logic in it. I am farther away from an understanding of why that just doesn't seem like nonsense to everybody as I am to a detailed understanding of how to combine general relativity with quantum mechanics. Maybe what is going on here is that the part of my brain that should allow me to understand that line is defective and I have compensated for that by being a cynical old skeptic. Or maybe not.

Good questions. I have often come to the defense of believers. Having been one myself I can empathies. There is a point however, IMO, when a believer is involved with a discussion simply for ego's sake. Kathy, I believe has crossed that line. I could be wrong. It's really hard to know what is in another person's mind. In any event I find her unwillingness to engage in logical give and take demonstrative of her pigheadedness. She doesn't have to agree with any of us but she could acknowledge points being made. When I was a believer and was involved with debate and discussions I was honest enough to have a debate and discussion.

There is nothing going on here. I can't even label most of her responses as non-sequiturs because they don't even attempt to address any points. She might as well be a robot. Perhaps our responses aren't best but given her inability to even consider points I don't see what is better.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Why is the gospel such an offense to people?

Just for fun, going back to the op . . .

KK, I consider the gospel offensive to God. It accuses God of premeditated murder.

 

[davefoc]

Ordinarily I'd highly commend anyone for being so superbly empathic, dave; and you are correct in saying that many of us have not been "accomodating" to Kathy, but I believe the one "defect" lacking in a skeptic's brain that doesn't allow us to process the information presented (poorly) by Kathy is faith.

Bible scriptures aren't Zen Koans and if there was ever any insight into the nature of God to be gleaned from them it was lost in the many translations. Your tendency for introspection in the search for what "seems" apparent to some is honorable, but I think you'll find that realm populated by belief in sea monsters, devils & demons, and either extremes of a very dualistic philosophy. You have to remember that many of us (JREFers) have come to skepticism BECAUSE of the inadequacies of religion and the God of the Bible.

In short, it doesn't take much to "see what Kathy (or her brethern) see." Simply lose your ability to discern truth from faith. It also calls for two other conditions; attribute anything good to God, and anything bad to God's will.

superbly empathic, I like it.

I agree with most of your post, but there is a bit of a conundrum here. Essentially everybody believes that they have risen above their biases to make reasonably rational decisions about the nature of the world. So since everybody pretty much thinks they are right is there any probitive value to be gained from the fact that one thinks that one is right?

Of course I do have a personal rationalization which allows me to understand why I am right and others are wrong. I believe that skeptics have an inordinate view that truth matters. There is no particular evidence that truth matters but we believe it. So when we are thinking about something we often are making very active efforts to suppress biases so as to be able to discern as much truth as we can.

Non-skeptics are more willing to be rational about the importance of truth. That is: It's a nice thing, but it shouldn't get in the way of beliefs that make us feel good.

 

[delphi_ote]

*cough* I suspect she doesn't understand them.

I suspect the same, but I was trying to bait her into thinking about them and maybe even responding. The irony might sink a little deeper into the fuzzy jumble of her cognative process.

 

[RandFan]

I agree with most of your post, but there is a bit of a conundrum here. Essentially everybody believes that they have risen above their biases to make reasonably rational decisions about the nature of the world. So since everybody pretty much thinks they are right is there any probitive value to be gained from the fact that one thinks that one is right?

I don't know to what extent I have risen above my biases if I have at all. I recognize that I have bias. I recognize my ability to decieve myself. I don't think that I'm pretty much right. On the contrary based on statistical probability I expect that I'm wrong about a number of things. So what's left? Skepticism, critical thinking and a commitment to find the truth no matter what the consequences. And to be sure there have been some serious consequences for me in the past when I followed that commitment. I will note the fact that any consequences resulting from the acceptence of a belief do not constitute proof of that belief.

I follow the admonition of Paul in his letter to the Thesolonians,

"Prove all things: hold fast that which is good."-- 1 Thess. 5:21 (emphasis mine)

 

[Mephisto]

I agree with most of your post, but there is a bit of a conundrum here. Essentially everybody believes that they have risen above their biases to make reasonably rational decisions about the nature of the world. So since everybody pretty much thinks they are right is there any probitive value to be gained from the fact that one thinks that one is right?

I'm always open-minded regarding "things we've yet to know" in this world, but most of us here can remember viewing the world through "Kathy's eyes," and can remember when faith got us through the day.

I don't routinely discount anyone's spiritualism or religion until they're convinced that it suits me perfectly. That is Kathy's problem and the problem of many Christians I've known.

I think you make an excellent point about always re-examining our own beliefs with a skeptical eye. Life's learning experiences and knowledge SHOULD change otherwise we'll stagnate - close introspection can allow us to be more aware of how, when and why they change. If "rising above our biases" can be seen as more of a lateral movement, Kathy's insistence need not be seen as anything more than enthusiasm for what she believes is good.

I'd like to think that the "absolute" is beyond us all, and no book, man, or church can tell you anything about it.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Let me get this straight, Kathy quoted a molesting preist as support for her preaching?

Yeah, that's about on par.

Way to go kathy. You're making it easier for us to show you for the idiot you are.

This is what I should expect from a skeptic board, adversity. That's okay, play your games if it makes you feel better. I am just here to share what I have found to be true. You can believe if you want to, or you can stay in denial to the only one that can save anyone from themself, JESUS!

 

[Ducky]

This is what I should expect from a skeptic board, adversity. That's okay, play your games if it makes you feel better. I am just here to share what I have found to be true. You can believe if you want to, or you can stay in denial to the only one that can save anyone from themself, JESUS!

The "adversity" you are talking about is purely something you created. Ask yourself why so many Christians on this board like KellyJ, KittyNH, Roadtoad, and too many others to list don't have the "adversity" you do.

You are "just here" to preach. Nothing more nothing less. You're trolling, and you aren't even very original or charismatic about it.

As for believing, why is it so hard for you to understand that most of us here were Christians and found the whole package wanting. Why is it so hard for you to understand that nothing you have said is anything we haven't heard before and dismiss? Why do you contantly try to affirm to yourself you are better than us because you believe in a mythology?

Get over yourself. As you have been told many times before, you cannot play the martyr when you have manufactured the conflict.


But I see, as usual, you have nothing to comment on or refute your source's charges of molestation. Nor have you answered ANY of my questions.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Just for fun, going back to the op . . .

KK, I consider the gospel offensive to God. It accuses God of premeditated murder.

Then this one statement tells me you are not truely trying to see things from a holy God's perspective. The only one that was capable of coming in the flesh and living a life without sin was God the Son. Because Jesus was/is holy his sacrifice was acceptable to God.

2 Cor. 5:21...God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

I myself will be forever greatful for this gift of grace. Jesus died to redeem us from our crummy sinful world! If you want to get mad at someone, why don't you look at Adam or Satan first? At least this is what I reflect on. We live in a fallen world.

 

[slingblade]

Does anybody have a sense that maybe people have been a little tough on KK (please note I'm not advocating that view, I'm just asking the question)?

Good question. Legit question.

My only beef with KK is her insistence that if I will just give my life, mind, and supposed soul to God, my life will get better, my prayers will be answered, and I will have peace of mind and serenity.

And I keep telling her I was a Fundamentalist Christian practically from birth, and for the first 31+ years of my life, and all it got me was abused, beaten, ridiculed, hurt, no prayers answered, no peace of mind, no serenity, and a huge self-hatred complex. Christianity doesn't do what KK promises, God or no God.

And yet she keeps insisting it will. So I rarely ever read threads she posts in, and rarely respond to her anymore. She doesn't get where I'm coming from, so I've pretty much stopped trying.

Today, I was just bored, and looking for something to read.

 

[bluess]

Actually, you should blame the god you worship, who created Adam and is therefore the first cause.

Hey, does this mean if your kid offends you, you will try to torture his offspring unto the tenth generation?

 

[Ducky]

Then this one statement tells me you are not truely trying to see things from a holy God's perspective. The only one that was capable of coming in the flesh and living a life without sin was God the Son. Because Jesus was/is holy his sacrifice was acceptable to God.

2 Cor. 5:21...God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

I myself will be forever greatful for this gift of grace. Jesus died to redeem us from our crummy sinful world! If you want to get mad at someone, why don't you look at Adam or Satan first? At least this is what I reflect on. We live in a fallen world.

"Truly." What about those english classes you were going to take?

The rest of your post was craptastic save one statement:

Then this one statement tells me you are not truely trying to see things from a holy God's perspective.

Are you saying that you understand and know the perspective of your unknowable, untestable fictional diety?

The sheer arrogance of your assumption that you know the perspective of an omnipotent and omniscient being is astounding.

 

[kurious_kathy]

"Truly." What about those english classes you were going to take?

The rest of your post was craptastic save one statement:



Are you saying that you understand and know the perspective of your unknowable, untestable fictional diety?

The sheer arrogance of your assumption that you know the perspective of an omnipotent and omniscient being is astounding.

It's not an assumption. God has revealed himself to me! You are the one that doesn't believe it is possible!!

And as for classes I still have to get some doctor appts. out of the way to be cleared for anything. I really can't even sit at my PC too long or I have terrible neck pain. Sorry but it does interfere with me getting back to people sometimes. Other times I find it easier not to respond because I feel there is no point. Many of you guys are just not willing to listen.

I just want to back up and let you guys know I was once not open to hear it either. I kept pushing my almost ex-husband away because I did not want to hear it. This is the same behavior I see in you guys now. All I can say is that I hope someday you will at least try to be more open to Christ! If not with me, then perhaps with someone else you know or meet out there.