Letter to Kathy Part 2

You know Kathy, we’ve been fairly blunt with you today. Flippant, too. And it’s tough when people talk to/about you that way. I’m sorry for that.

If we could cut through all the rhetoric for a second, I’d like to commiserate with you. A little over 4 years ago, I was a very dedicated Christian. I had some doubts, but they weren’t about the Christian faith, just my understanding of it.

I felt like there were problems in my beliefs about the gospel. I believed in a literal Hell, and I believed a lot of people would be going there. But I had a very hard time squaring that with a loving God. I had matured enough to realize that most people were pretty decent. Not perfect, certainly, but good people who cared about others and typically wanted to do the right thing. I didn’t think such people deserved Hell. In fact, like Paul, I often thought that if God would accept it, I’d gladly go to Hell myself, if it would save my friends and family. And if everyone else could be added into that deal too, even better.

So if I felt that way, could I be more compassionate than God? Of course not. But I had a very hard time finding anything in the Bible that backed up an idea that most people, regardless of creed or  belief would be saved.

I didn’t give up though. I knew about Universalists, so I decided to read up on their reasons for thinking everyone went to Heaven. It sounded good, but I just wasn’t convinced by their arguments. I just didn’t see the Bible teaching such a doctrine, and I still believed the Bible was the inerrant word of God.

I was in a state of flux.

And that’s the position I was in when I first ran across articles that pointed out flaws in the Bible. I was shocked by what the articles said, but since I didn’t have any answers against them at the moment, I got busy with research. I didn’t even comment on the articles — I just went to work. It wasn’t about winning any arguments; it was simply a search for answers.

I think that frame of mind I was in made all the difference for me. Deep down, I was already struggling. The doctrines I had long believed in, and even taught to others, didn’t fit together in my mind as well as they once had.

That’s probably the difference between you and me. I get the feeling that you question nothing about your faith. Not trying to put you down about that; just making an observation.

For me, discovering that the Bible was not the perfect book I had always thought it to be, and finding out that some of these church leaders I had always admired knew of these problems but never spoke of them, helped me make sense of a lot of things. It took time, and it wasn’t easy to come to the realizations, but everything finally fell into place for me when I realized Christianity was just another religion. For the first time, I finally understood the sentiment of that line from “Amazing Grace,” I once was blind, but now I see…

I don’t know if that’s helpful to you at all. Maybe one day it will be. Maybe one day, something will make you ask a few questions, and you’ll think back to those non- believers who were so insistent that Christianity was certainly not the only way. If that day comes, I hope you’ll find this exchange helpful and realize you’re not alone.

Advertisements

2,018 thoughts on “Letter to Kathy Part 2”

  1. Sad to say, but that comment, however wise, will go in one ear and out the other, there’s nothing in there to stop it. Expect invective.

    Like

  2. You needn’t worry about that KC, Kathy will never allow the facts to interfere with her beliefs.
    Faith is believin’ what you know ain’t so.
    ~~ Mark Twain ~~

    Like

  3. Nate,
    I appreciate your sincere attempt to help me see where you are “coming from”.. you’ve given specific attention to helping me see how objective you were when you came to your conclusion. But, here’s the problem… you are failing to see something that I see very clearly.. you have a real problem being objective. At this point it’s pretty much a well known fact to people who apply objectivity. It took me a lot of effort to get you to answer my question and when you finally did, you didn’t follow through when I asked you to explain WHY you believe Buddhism has more credentials than Christianity. So, it looks like we’re back to square one.. so, thank goodness you started a part 2 of the post!! Sigh. How long will it take for you to answer this follow up question Nate?

    Bottom line, you don’t know how to be objective.. and I am honestly starting to wonder if you.. and William and Arch and Ruth and every other liberal here can even see your lack of objectivity.

    So, I don’t trust your judgment in becoming an atheist.. I believe you lack the credentials.. you lack the most important one.. objectivity.

    And as to my objectivity.. you said: “I get the feeling that you question nothing about your faith.”

    Nate, I’ve made several comments on “Part 1” that prove your feeling wrong, I’ll find them if I have to… I’ve agreed with you when you’ve stated things you are/ were struggling with… how can ANY Christian not struggle with some of the things in the Bible?? I’ve already explained that it takes a real effort to search out the answers.. but you didn’t allow any of that to sink in.. you NEED to believe that I’m the one who isn’t objective.. and that you are the objective one. And I don’t think any amount of proof.. re: PART ONE comments.. will cause you to believe otherwise.. and so goes the proof that PRIDE is a very powerful tool.. satan uses it because.. IT WORKS! And you all have demonstrated exactly how well it works… you are literally blinded by it.. pride actually STEALS objectivity.

    You seem to think that making the claim that you were once a Christian is “proof” or “evidence” for your belief.. yet you so quickly and hypocritically dismiss that very same evidence when I claim it… that which is in the mind of the witnesses.. their “conviction”. You can’t have it both ways.. but you sure are trying.

    The more time I spend on this blog, the more I’m convinced that none of you were truly Christians who loved God. You didn’t “lose” your Christian faith.. you never had it to begin with.

    Like

  4. Actually liked this post to be honest. It finally admits clearly to what I had picked up long ago. Its a n admission that Nate’s “dillemma” with Christianity did not start with facts but his issue with hell and the unchristian (and naive) belief that people are all in all pretty good. He’s said it before but here he makes it even clearer

    By the time he began to read Till he was already disposed to leaving whatever faith he had for emotional reasons. As time went along he fooled himself as I have indicated before that he had no bias when in fact he had and has EXTREME bias

    Like

  5. “The more time I spend on this blog, the more I’m convinced that none of you were truly Christians who loved God. You didn’t “lose” your Christian faith.. you never had it to begin with’

    Well thats been my view for some time and when you analyze this post it s even easy to see that Nate didn’t start out with a Christian perspective at all. Read carefully and you realize as central tenet of his world view he just didn’t believe people were sinners –

    “I had matured enough to realize that most people were pretty decent. Not perfect, certainly, but good people who cared about others and typically wanted to do the right thing”

    I don’t know any believer that held that view and Nate claims to have had it (even begging that its mature) while still allegedly a Christian.

    Its a hazard of Christianity (at least protestantism) that there is no central body that gives out certification of membership. So whether they like it or not are offended at it or not we have to go off of beliefs and understandings. Believing that people are of the nature that they just want to do the right thing isn’t a belief a true Christian has

    Frankly it also betrays a lack of Christian morality since its pretty impossible for a person in the 21st century with possession of a television to see the world is not living in line with biblical morality So Nate’s sense of “the right thing” was already non (and even anti) Christian.

    Like

  6. “In fact, like Paul, I often thought that if God would accept it, I’d gladly go to Hell myself, if it would save my friends and family. And if everyone else could be added into that deal too, even better.

    So if I felt that way, could I be more compassionate than God? Of course not.”

    Why would such a preposterous question even come into the mind of a true Christian? You add the words “of course not” but that entire thought process indicates (within the context of Christianity) you thought your desire exceeded God’s compassion.Thats obvious. A Christian even with basic understanding would never need go even close to there because of what happened at the cross. Your sanctimonious hypothetical caring was already exceeded by the actual in the trenches sacrifice of God himself.

    “You seem to think that making the claim that you were once a Christian is “proof” or “evidence” for your belief”

    That’s the whole passionate emotional plea to you Kathy. Like A TV evangelistic testimonial. I was where you are, I saw as you saw and feel as you feel so let me show you the light. Pretending all along that any one who does not accept their “facts” hasn’t studied them. Don’t believe that lie. I’ve been debating atheists for a decade a half at least and I have studied and studied beyond where they are to see as you have seen here – that they offer almost no primary evidence but just regurgitate other skeptics before them as evidence – a great may who have already been debunked or are as in the case of Finkelstein in the process of being debunked (in particular his King David hypothesis).

    Strain out a gnat and swallow a camel

    Like

  7. @Mike.
    If you, like Kathy, feel none of us were ever true Christians, could you please explain the difference between yourself and Nate for example.
    What is it that you understand as fact that Nate and the rest of us came to understand as myth, legend and interpolation.

    Like

  8. Nate, I’ve been following the two letters you wrote to Kathy – and the responses. I must say that all of the commenters (and you) have offered sensible, logical, well-thought-out arguments to Kathy and TBlacksman’s assertions. However, it’s clear to a neutral observer like myself that the reason none of you are ‘getting through’ to Kathy and TBlacksman is because their responses illustrate their stance; that of standing – fingers in ears – saying,

    “I can’t heeeear you!”

    You’ve all given it your very best shot, though! Kudos for trying!

    Like

  9. ” However, it’s clear to a neutral observer like myself that the reason none of you are ‘getting through’ to Kathy and TBlacksman is because their responses illustrate their stance; that of standing – fingers in ears – saying,

    “I can’t heeeear you!”

    Which only goes to show that atheist who don’t post usually are capable of being as much of liars as those that do.

    Not for disagreeing but for claiming to be a “neutral observer”

    Like

  10. I’m pretty busy for the next several days so won’t be posting much. The back and forth has become rather grinding, each side accusing the other of not being objective, of being ignorant, of being too liberal, too atheist, too theist, too conservative….too whatever. I’m deeply sorry for my part in that.

    Condescension and dismissive attitudes usually don’t lend to productive conversation; both sides claiming to know more about the other than they know themselves; both sides claiming to see so much more clearly than the other; both sides attempting to remove the speck of dust from the other’s eye. It’s difficult to expect another person to take anything you say seriously when they feel their own point of view is dismissed summarily. I think it’s safe to say both sides feel this way over this conversation whether it is entirely true or not.

    We all feel we’ve looked at the evidence presented and, with whatever amount of objectivity or bias, we’ve come to different conclusions. I’m not at all convinced that an impartial jury would be impressed or convinced by either side. It would most likely come away hung.

    The last thing I’d like to say about this entire matter is about the definition of evidence. Kathy has asked a number of times for us to declare which religion has the most evidence for it’s truth regardless of what value one puts on the evidence. I’m finding that paradoxical. If little to no value is put on a “piece of evidence” that evidence would be inadmissible – a non-starter, which is why this particular question keeps going round and round. Evidence that carries no sway wouldn’t be evidence.

    Like

  11. Yes, TBlacksman; I should have called myself a ‘casual’ observer. Even so, I am still getting the visual. . . .:)

    Like

  12. Where to begin?

    I’ve already explained that it takes a real effort to search out the answers.. but you didn’t allow any of that to sink in.. you NEED to believe that I’m the one who isn’t objective..” – I’ve given you a half-dozen pieces of information – “answers,” if you will – that you’ve not even bothered to look at, much less consider, and yet you accuse us of not putting forth “real effort to search out the answers”. How hypocritical! When it’s YOUR point of view, it’s “answers,” when it’s ours, it’s “liberal propaganda”! Who is it again who “can’t have it both ways”?

    Like

  13. “I NEVER asked for which one Nate thought was true William. Please re-read my comments.. you’re twisting and distorting just like everyone else in order to get Nate out of this dilemma he has put himself in by refusing to apply honesty and objectivity.” – kathy

    @kathy

    You asked which religion had the most credentials toward it being true. I don’t thinK i misread anything.

    I’d still like for you address my questions to you.

    Like

  14. Nate:
    “I had matured enough to realize that most people were pretty decent. Not perfect, certainly, but good people who cared about others and typically wanted to do the right thing

    Black-something-or-other:
    I don’t know any believer that held that view

    What a horribly sad outlook you Christians must have! Pathetic, really.

    Like

  15. This is the point, Ruth. And is the one that Kathy, Mike and every believer cannot seem to grasp.
    There is no evidence for the foundational claims of any religion that is based on the supernatural.

    Such claims of veracity exist only in the minds of believers, and are usually there because of indoctrination. You should know, you’ve been there.
    And how long did you/have you had to endure the derisive “You were never a real Christian” taunts?
    I would guess you may have leveled a similar accusation to other deconverts before your own deconversion.

    This is why, engaging with people like Mike and Kathy will likely as not never produce a positive outcome.
    True enlightenment comes from within via a willingness to be open to critical thought and inquiry.
    Religious Indoctrination actively discourages this.

    Like

  16. Frankly it also betrays a lack of Christian morality since its pretty impossible for a person in the 21st century with possession of a television to see the world is not living in line with biblical morality So Nate’s sense of ‘the right thing’ was already non (and even anti) Christian.

    Mikey, if this is truly the way you see things, then I’m beginning to get a much clearer understanding as to why you’re such a bitter person. How sad for you. You must have lived a horrible life. The good news is, it’s nearly over – you’ll finally be free of the grip of your parents.

    Like

  17. “you’re twisting and distorting just like everyone else in order to get Nate out of this dilemma he has put himself in by refusing to apply honesty and objectivity” – kathy

    and kathy, I’m certainly not trying to do this. i don’t even think there’s anything to this point you’re trying to make, so have no reason to try and distort anything – I don’t think there’s any dilemma.

    For me at least, i think christianity has as much credentials for being divine (or true or good or whatever it is you’re looking for) as a a ditch digger has for being a jet fuel engineer.

    If you think christianity is has more than any other religion, the put up your evidence side by side with the ones it’s better than. This is your point, and your concern, you show something. You say christianity is better – well show it. It’s your claim, not ours.

    I’ll be honest, i dont think you’ve looking into other religions or anything as much as you have for your religion, so I dont think you really have an educated opinion anyways. I could be wrong, and you could prove me wrong, but so far you havent and have only avoided the real questions presented to you and mike.

    Like

  18. Yes, Ark. You are right. And yes, I did level that accusation at others. I never, in a million years, would have believed that I could be a non-believer. Christians would like to narrow it all down to: you had a bias against the faith and left it (or never were part of it) due to emotional reasons.

    The truth is, that is partially true; there had to be a reason to begin to question, a crack, a catalyst.

    If they were honest with themselves they would acknowledge they are Christians for some emotional reasons as well. So? What does that prove? It doesn’t make it not true just the same as it doesn’t make it true. That has nothing to do with the truthfulness or veracity of the claims being made.

    Like I said yesterday about the “never a real Christian” thing: I’ve been told that for more reasons than I care to count, more times than I care to count. *shrug*

    Like

  19. Why would such a preposterous question even come into the mind of a true Christian?” – so we’ve switched the “No true Scotsman” fallacy for the “No true Christian” fallacy! Sad.

    A religious man wants to look at his religion without the blinders-on bias that you and Kathy are amply demonstrating, and in your mind, that makes him, “No True Christian”? So essentially, you’re implying that “No True Christian” would ever make an effort to take an unbiased look at his/her religion. I WILL say that that explains a lot, that’s certainly one way to keep the flock together —

    Like

  20. Sorry, Carnmen – the way it works, is that if you dare to examine your religion, you’re “No true Christian,” and if you observe without agreeing with Frick and Frack, you’re no true “neutral observer” – that’s how things work in Blacksman’s Universe.

    Like

  21. And we haven’t even touched on any emotional reasons/issues at all ( far as I know) on these posts.
    I doubt Kathy or Mike will countenance that emotions have any validity in their reasons for belief in Christianity.

    As they are adults, they will not likely concede that their beliefs/faith may be due to childhood indoctrination or later emotional trauma and peer pressure.
    This would undermine their evidentiary claims based on logic.
    And as we all know, there is no evidence for the foundational claims they make. None.
    Otherwise, what is the point of faith?

    Like

  22. “Why would such a preposterous question even come into the mind of a true Christian?” _ Mike

    @mike,

    well, because it’s honest. the bible calls god merciful and perfect, and so on. yet he’s sending people to an eternal place of torment for a wide range of reasons. I wouldn’t do that. So am i more merciful than god, and if not, then in what way would god be more merciful than me?

    These questions come up when you think about what the bible says about itself. You are happy to not think about it because in your mind the bible truly from regardless of anything, but i want to think about what it says as mush as possible and then see if i have a correct understanding by weighing the options.

    If the bible was perfect, that fact would prove true again and again, but i don’t see it doing that. So some of these questions that come up through self examination and meditation on the words of the bible, the question that eventually surfaced was “is the bible really from god, and how would I Know?”

    Like

  23. “What is it that you understand as fact that Nate and the rest of us came to understand as myth, legend and interpolation.”

    Ark as I have said before in most controversial subjects the truth comes after

    You have read a position
    Then read a rebuttal to a position
    Then read the first rebuttal to the rebuttal
    Then read a rebuttal to the first rebuttal
    THEN asked the pertinent questions
    and heard back from both

    What I understand is the end of that process and that skeptics are RARELY ever skeptics they are just skeptical of one side. What do I know in regard to his issue because I have researched it to the point listed above?

    That things like the documentary hypothesis and Jesus seminar (ish) material upon which a lot of you rely is really just opinion and a lot like tea leaf reading . As nate has said in another place the Bible like all ancient documents was written and closed centuries ago. theres no science that changes that. textual criticism has a great deal of relevance when dealing with variants but its limited scope is usually expanded upon into highly subjective areas.

    That claims of “no historical support” or “not supported by history” have a LONG history of not panning out as authoritative since we are constantly finding new data that overturns them AND which your group has refused to address time and time again Chronological systems presently employed have many issues unresolved.

    That Nate’s claims of contradictions are all weak and with very plausible answers with origins that would happen in any ancient text (his and thomas’ barf that they should not happen in the bible if its inspired betraying a total lack of understanding of how cultures and languages change and requiring the ridiculous condition that god intervene in fallen society to ensure that they do not)

    An understanding of Hebrew and Greek which inexplicably and rather foolishly half the time you people do not even reference (like critiquing a work in french while refusing to read it). William even claiming he doesn’t need to among the drop down silliest

    Apparently that Israel IS a nation though I notice with entertainment that Ruth linked to some sources that dispute that ( ROFl to the extreme).

    and finally (for now since my time is limited) that none of you have any grasp of any primary evidence. You merely reference another skeptic or skeptical scholar AS evidence with no concept of the difference between the conclusions DRAWN FROM PRIMARY EVIDENCE and the primary evidence itself.

    Not sure you can be blamed too much. GIven that you consider yourself informed by a blog whose owner’s chief “research” resource is the dearly departed Till who wasn’t a scholar in anything – its to be expected.

    Like

  24. “This is the point, Ruth. And is the one that Kathy, Mike and every believer cannot seem to grasp.
    There is no evidence for the foundational claims of any religion that is based on the supernatural”

    Thats known as a priori and the insertion of it within the premise to prove a point is circular – otherwise known as begging the question

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

    Thats the other thing I have come to know

    You are not the brightest bunch online.

    Like

  25. @Mike

    Thats known as a priori and the insertion of it within the premise to prove a point is circular – otherwise known as begging the question

    Your belief must surely be based on something?
    You didn’t just suck it out of the air, and any truth claim must have something to back it up.
    If you consider that I have erred in stating Christianity has no evidence for its foundational claims then please tell me what this evidence is and I will apologize and retract my statement..

    Like

  26. “– so we’ve switched the “No true Scotsman” fallacy for the “No true Christian” fallacy! Sad.”

    BY that bit of non thinking we might as well conclude that liberals are people who believe in limited government, are anti abortion, don’t believe in helping the poor, are social and economic conservatives and go by the name of republicans.

    Please go read up on the “No true scotsman” fallacy to avoid embarrassing yourself again in the future.

    Like

  27. History does support the Bible sometimes. But so what? That does nothing for its claims of inspiration. However, if the Bible contains incorrect history, then that does a great deal of damage to the claim of inspiration. And in fact, history does disagree with the Bible in a number of places. This is not simply due to lack of evidence, but to contrary evidence.

    The Bible contains some prophecies. Some of the most specific ones (primarily in the OT) appear to have come true, but only because the prophecy and the fulfillment were written about at the same time. In the cases where prophecies were given about a far future event — things we could actually verify today, in other words — the prophecies are extremely vague and use a lot of imagery. And some of them, like the one about Tyre, are flat-out wrong. And some NT books, most notably Matthew, misuse OT passages to create prophecies that were never there to begin with. Taken as a whole, prophecy is actually a strike against the legitimacy of the Bible.

    The Bible contains contradictions. Mike says that each of them has plausible explanations, but plausibility lies in the eye of the beholder. Many people do not find the “explanations” plausible in the least. And what does it say about a God who allows for even seeming contradictions in his all-important message to mankind?

    Referring to the original language of a text is useful. However, it’s also prudent to acknowledge one’s lack of expertise in such things. And considering the number of high-quality scholars who have been involved in the major translations of the Bible, it’s not surprising that the translations almost always accurately reflect the original meaning of the text. Many times, this need to refer to the original languages is just a red herring.

    The time and culture that a text was written in is also important to its understanding. But this also strikes against the notion of inspiration, since God is supposed to be outside time and culture. When the Israelites write in a way that matches their time and place in history, and they speak of a tribal god that mirrors the other tribal gods around them, and their understanding of cosmology is geo-centric, and this god evolves as time goes by, showing a notably different nature in later times than he did in earlier times, this only highlights the very human origins of the Bible. On the other hand, if the Bible had taken on a more precise tone that focused on clarity and accuracy, then not only would it have been easily understood by people today, but it would have been easily understood by people of any time.

    Finally, Mike complains that the points we bring up against Christianity just come from other skeptics and aren’t primary. I don’t know what he’s talking about. There are times when we reference the work of others, like William Dever, Israel Finkelstein, Bart Ehrman, etc. But it’s only because they’re experts in their fields, and they have some important things to say. Other than that, we point to actual passages, or actual problems within the Christian doctrines. That IS going back to primary sources. Is he complaining because they’re not new points? I hope not, because why would that matter? And doesn’t he violate his own standards by continually linking to apologetic sites? This is simply more diversion.

    Like

  28. Not sure you can be blamed too much. GIven that you consider yourself informed by a book written by a bunch of priests and scribes, who weren’t scholars in anything – its to be expected.

    Like

  29. ” I wouldn’t do that. So am i more merciful than god, and if not, then in what way would god be more merciful than me?”

    and yet I note with unquestionable truth that with all the causes to die for in this world you have never died for a single one. Nothing like an armchair martyr in delusional quotient.

    Like

  30. and yet I note with unquestionable truth that with all the causes to die for in this world you have never died for a single one.

    Why is that significant? Are you referring to Jesus?

    Like

  31. “I will apologize and retract my statement..”

    When has that lie ever worked outside of your nightmares at night?

    Does this mean you have evidence but refuse to show it, or have no evidence and once again are simply going to avoid the issue and obfuscate as all those schooled in fundamental apologetics do?

    Like

  32. “There is no evidence for the foundational claims of any religion that is based on the supernatural”

    Thats known as a priori and the insertion of it within the premise to prove a point is circular – otherwise known as begging the question

    So if you’re saying Ark is wrong, then you’re saying that such evidence exists – trot it out —

    Like

  33. Thats better. Breath in deep – doesn’t the air feel fresher when you are finally honest??
    How would you know?

    Like

  34. ” Many times, this need to refer to the original languages is just a red herring.”

    Your status as a hack is hereby firmly established. Thats as bone head stupid as a spanish only speaker claiming the need to refer to the nuances of English when studying Shakespeare is a red herring

    You will write anything to delude yourself that you are up to snuff

    Like

  35. “What I understand is the end of that process and that skeptics are RARELY ever skeptics they are just skeptical of one side.” – Mike

    and some believers accept explanations and arguments for their beliefs that they wouldn’t accept for an opposing one. I guess no one is safe from bias, and all struggle with perfect objectivity.

    Like

  36. I would suspect that on boards such as these, Mike finds a sense of importance that is missing in his real life.

    Like

  37. Mike,

    Ok, lets just assume that everyone that doesn’t believe in God is deluded.

    Arch,

    and you disagree.

    Your positions have been outlined.

    rather than continuing to say that they are acting deluded, or stupid, or ridiculous, or deceptive ect.

    wouldn’t this conversation be a lot less muddled and more clear if the questioning of peoples integrity and character subsided?

    What if the focus remained on what people believe and why? Without jumping back to saying how the other party is stupid, or ridiculous, or deceptive ect. ]

    Wouldn’t this be more effective and reasonable?

    Like

  38. @ Mike,

    Are you saying that if a person doesn’t know Hebrew or Greek they have no means or ability to question the veracity of the Bible’s claims? The implication is that they don’t even have the right to do so. Not everyone has the luxury of that type of education. What is the purpose of translation into English if the Bible can only be understood in it’s original language?

    Like

  39. ” And some of them, like the one about Tyre, are flat-out wrong.”

    You flat out flopped on Tyre desperately begging that an island shared borders with sidon several miles up the coast and on the coastland to try and escape that the mainland was considered Tyre in the BIble. It was a performance worthy of a gold medal in olympic contortion gymnastics. Meanwhile the mainland was scraped clean, is in ruins and will never be rebuilt because its under UN protection

    On the other hand you are doing such a bang up job in proving that Israel is not a nation fulfilling many prophecies. Ruth has assisted you I see by linking to some sites that back the claim. Its kind of a good throwback. She is like your straight person in the comedy act. Its nostalgic of comedy acts of the golden era of television. Unique selling point for the DVD.

    Unfortunately my time for comedy must be put off now. The full day awaits

    Like

  40. “and yet I note with unquestionable truth that with all the causes to die for in this world you have never died for a single one. Nothing like an armchair martyr in delusional quotient.” – mike

    you talking about jesus? If i was god, I wouldnt require that my son die to save people from a doom that i created. If anyone had to die, i’d sooner kill myself than my son, but if i’m making all the rules, that wouldnt be necessary.

    Like

  41. Ruth, you bring up an excellent point. And how does the gospel work if one must first become an expert of ancient languages to understand it? Makes one wonder why God ever thought using the written word would be better than direct, individual revelation.

    And Ryan, I think your suggestion is excellent.

    Like

  42. “you flat out flopped on Tyre desperately begging that an island shared borders with sidon several miles up the coast and on the coastland to try and escape that the mainland was considered Tyre in the BIble.” – mike

    I cant believe we’re still talking about this. of course the mainland was part of tyre, but what you keep trying to ignore is that island was also part of tyre, the part with the fortress and ports…

    Oh yeah, you think that NYC was destroyed and never rebuilt on 9/11…

    Like

  43. Oh, and for the record, TBlacksman – I’m not really sure what I am; I’m still figuring it out. (At 56 years of age and still attending church). And before you and Kathy level the “Not a REAL Christian” boom (whatever that means) I’ll just ‘fess up. No, I’m probably not.

    All I know is this. I brought my own kids up (four of them) in the church because that’s what my parents did. I honestly never really thought about the whole thing until a couple of years ago; I just did what I thought was the right thing to do and what I thought was my responsibility as a parent to do.

    I have grandchildren now and they are being brought up in loving, respectful, caring environments (we’ll be up to 11 in the next few days!) where there is no such thing as celestial ‘boogeyman’ to scare them into behaving. They are kind, polite, normal kids (in other words, not perfect!) who treat others the same way they are treated. My children and their partners are doing a wonderful job and I admire the fact that my ‘Nones’ are doing a fine job of raising their children with morals; it’s plain to see in them. They are doing just great without a belief in the supernatural.

    To tell the honest truth, I feel quite silly that I ever believed in such foolishness. Communion? I now shudder to think of what my innocent grandkids would think if they were presented with the ‘blood and body of Christ, shed for you’ . .. it kinda creeps me out to even think of that, now. Yes, I still go through the motions, as it’s part of my social world (and I attend church because of the obligation factor. . . I know, I know – HYPOCRITE!), but our little church will soon be closing and that will be that. That ISN’T to say that I feel any differently about the people I’ve been involved with in churches who DO believe- I respect and care about all of them. What I have learned, however, is that they would still be the wonderful people that they are with or without God. I firmly believe that. Take Nate, for instance (and I could use many people who are commenting on this Blog as examples). You can just tell, reading his Blog, that he’s a good person; it’s in the respectful tone he takes and his willingness to share of himself. I can’t see how anyone would ever think that he wasn’t a good example of a ‘real Christian’ – he’s the embodiment of what most Christians I know would recognize as such!

    I guess, what I’m trying to say is this: I was challenged by my eldest, who asked me one day, “Mum, you don’t really believe all that, do you?? (after telling me that there was no way she was getting our firstborn grandson baptized) I had to really stop and think about things that I had just done out of habit for years. I started reading – books, articles, blogs, you name it. Then I THOUGHT. Then I changed my mind. It really is that simple.

    It’s taken me about two hours to get this written (I get lots of interruptions) and I see by my inbox that there’s been lots more comments – I’ll have to go check them out!

    Like

  44. “Are you saying that if a person doesn’t know Hebrew or Greek they have no means or ability to question the veracity of the Bible’s claims? The implication is that they don’t even have the right to do so. ”

    I am saying that when you get down to critical researching a book written in Arabic you ummm. I don’t know….errr……..ummmmm……well… might have to do some research into Arabic meanings in order to not be a hack when critiquing it? If you want to read it then fine get the translation and enjoy but if you are claiming to have read it and now are doing critical research then yes you need to reference the Arabic if its a book originally written in Arabic

    Shocking concept to you? My goodness!!!

    Like I said

    Not the brightest people I have met online. To have to state something so elementary is further confirmation that you people delude yourself with how smart you allegedly are

    Like

  45. @Mike
    “I will apologize and retract my statement..”

    When has that lie ever worked outside of your nightmares at night?

    Does this mean you have evidence but refuse to show it, or have no evidence and once again are simply going to avoid the issue and obfuscate as all those schooled in fundamental apologetics do?

    Are you going to answer the question, or not?

    Like

  46. Unfortunately my time for comedy must be put off now. The full day awaits” – so many to insult, so little time —

    Like

  47. *sigh*

    More mudslinging.

    I never said I hadn’t done that. I just know that some people don’t have that luxury because they do lack the education or means to do so. I have done some of that, not to the degree in which I’d like. But on the points that I personally questioned I have referenced the original language. To be honest Greek and Hebrew are quite a bit more nuanced and can change the meaning that fundamentalist preachers try to put on some passages quite a bit depending on the words used. Understanding the original language and context provides quite a bit of nuance that the English language lacks. You know as well as I do that many Greek and Hebrew words have more meanings than our English words do and can be translated differently. So translators used the English word that best fit the context.

    Your implication is, though, that if you can’t do that – for whatever reason – you should just be a Christian because you don’t really have grounds to question it.

    Having already commented on this more than I was going to I think this will be my last on this post. I’m seriously sick and tired of the condescension and arrogance.

    Like

  48. “am saying that when you get down to critical researching a book written in Arabic you ummm. I don’t know….errr……..ummmmm……well… might have to do some research into Arabic meanings in order to not be a hack when critiquing it? If you want to read it then fine get the translation and enjoy but if you are claiming to have read it and now are doing critical research then yes you need to reference the Arabic if its a book originally written in Arabic”

    everyone here has researched ancient greek and Hebrew yet we are still not experts on the language – even our research relies on translations from scholars. You’re trying to say that’s not good enough. you’re making it like one must know the language and this is absurd, but you’re an idiot, so I;m not surprised.

    Like

  49. Are you going to answer the question, or not?” – Ark, I think we all know the answer to that – Mike doesn’t GIVE evidence, he criticizes evidence.

    Like

  50. Ruth, RE: “Your implication is, though, that if you can’t do that – for whatever reason – you should just be a Christian because you don’t really have grounds to question it.
    Couldn’t the converse of that also be said? If you can’t do that – for whatever reason – you should just be an Atheist because you don’t really have grounds to believe it.

    Like

  51. And don’t leave, Ruth – that’s what he wants. If he can run everyone off, he wins by default.

    Like

  52. I don’t think there is anything wrong with acknowledging that there are some things that believers accept on faith. My understanding is that faith is part of what believing in God involves, at some point faith comes in.

    If people have evidence, and want to share it then great 🙂 but I don’t think there is any shame in saying I believe in faith on particular positions.

    Its ok not to have all the answers, We’re all human,

    and theists, I assume you also believe that God made all humans,

    so therefore we are all masterpieces made in the image of God.

    More intricately complicated and beautiful than a Rembrandt.

    atheists, I assume you believe that humanity has a common ancestor. So we all share the same genetic make-up.

    So if these things are going to be discussed, cant we treat each other decently

    You can still disagree with each other, and clearly state why you disagree.

    I’ll shut-up again now 🙂

    Like

  53. And Ruth hit on something very important. To suggest that one can’t critique a passage without going back to the original language means God would expect everyone to accept Christianity a priori. And as she and William both went on to say, looking up Greek and Aramaic / Hebrew words still requires relying on translators. And the words can carry various meanings. It takes more than a couple of semesters at seminary to become an expert on any ancient language.

    @Carmen
    Thanks for sharing your story! And I can identify with your thoughts on trying to tell your grandkids about Communion. We recently went to a service with my grandmother (which was weird after being gone so long), and the preacher was talking about living for Christ above all else. He acknowledged how difficult it was, and he asked “how many of us wake up each morning thinking yes, I’m ready to die today?” I knew what he meant, but my 5-year old was sitting in my lap, and I noticed him very slightly shake his head back and forth at that statement. I had to stifle a grin. I’m glad my kids aren’t being brought up in that environment.

    Like

  54. Ah, Portal – “Blessed are the peacemakers –” Assuming they have a high tolerance for frustration —

    Like

  55. William, look into the Textus Recepticus, the work of Erasmus, in which there were nearly as many errors as accuracies, yet thousands of Bibles were printed using those error-ridden texts. Let’s hear it for “inerrant”!

    “Um, yeah, well, but they were inerrant originally!” – So, are you saying that your god lost control after that? Not very godly of him, was it?

    Like

  56. I knew what he meant, but my 5-year old was sitting in my lap, and I noticed him very slightly shake his head back and forth at that statement.

    “Whachoo talkin’ ’bout, Willis, I just GOT here!”

    Cracked me up!!

    Like

  57. Which strengthens the case against simply banning him.
    If he were offering reasoned arguments he might be worth engaging, but this is simply not the case. He would rather argue the toss over the merits of fictional text – in itself somewhat if a silly exercise – than face the consequences of having to put up or push off.
    He brings absolutely nothing to the blog; he is simply an ass of the first order.
    He isn’t even a fun ‘dickhead’.

    Like

  58. Your obsession with “dickheads” is yet another reason why you and I will never shower together.

    Like

  59. Christian:

    Christianos, Christian, a follower of Christ (Strong’s G5546)

    – someone who is a follower of Christ (CARM)

    – a follower of Christ; one who professes belief in Jesus as the Christ and follows his teachings. (about Christianity)

    – a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ (Merriam-Webster)

    – relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings (Oxford)

    – of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings. (dictionary)

    – professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. (freedictionary)

    And this excerpt from Foundation For Christian Studies:

    Peter’s testimony can be used as a litmus test for all prospective Christians: do they believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God? If the answer is affirmative, then like Peter we may consider the individual a Christian.

    So…

    If at any point in your life you once professed belief in Christ and made an effort to follow his teachings…. you were a Christian.

    Like

  60. Nate

    STILL no answer to my follow up question Nate?? Exactly HOW is Buddhism more credentialed than Christianity?? I know you were hoping that an “answer” to my first question would make it all go away.. but nope, that’s not how it works, I’ve got a point of TRUTH to make.. if you are truly objective, you will follow through and either prove my point wrong or acknowledge my point correct.

    Mike, excellent comments.. we both see right through Nate’s story. He is trying so hard to claim objectivity with his experience of “finding truth”, which, I really think he believes he’s been objective…. but his comments only confirm what we’ve already known.. it’s PRIDE.. all the way through.. that’s what is at the root of his rejection of God. He didn’t like having to answer to God for his sins… because, really, he just doesn’t sin, he owes no “apologies”… sin is a made up concept.. just like God. His story is very much like Nan’s.. pride is at the root of their decision to reject God. And again, the Bible WARNS us about this trap.. those who are wise will head this and all the other warnings.. and then there are those who clearly never will.. their pride is too strong.. they are under it’s control.

    Ruth, you said:

    “Kathy has asked a number of times for us to declare which religion has the most evidence for it’s truth regardless of what value one puts on the evidence. I’m finding that paradoxical. If little to no value is put on a “piece of evidence” that evidence would be inadmissible – a non-starter, which is why this particular question keeps going round and round. Evidence that carries no sway wouldn’t be evidence.”

    Ruth, you clearly aren’t giving up in trying to render my question “invalid”.. due to your desire to “save” Nate.. but, you’ve failed again..

    Who gets to decide which evidence is valuable? I’m guessing that would be.. liberals? Like they believe they should be the deciders of everything? (and they do believe this).

    Nope, sorry, all claim they have evidence.. and it’s the EVIDENCE that is weighed when a person decides a religion is true or false.. clearly ALL of you have decided that all are false.. so you’ve examined the evidence… my questions is a simple request to give your opinion as to which one has the most evidence to support it’s claimed truth.. an opinion you have! or else you’ve dismissed these religions based on nothing but ignorance and bias.

    Arch, you said:

    ” – I’ve given you a half-dozen pieces of information – “answers,” if you will – that you’ve not even bothered to look at, much less consider, and yet you accuse us of not putting forth “real effort to search out the answers”. ”

    Arch.. WHY would I waste my time looking at your “information” when you can’t even defend the claims you’ve already put forth?? I have no reason to believe your “information” is anything more than a waste of time because you obviously aren’t applying objectivity.. I’ve asked you SEVERAL times now what your explanation is for our existence if not a Supreme Being.. you have not answered this.. so whatever you put forth is just basically a bunch of crap.. same old stuff that I’ve seen/ read / heard before. I have zero confidence in your opinions and judgments due to your lack of objectivity. And I have zero desire to waste so much time reading the endless atheist propaganda. Convince me it won’t be a waste of time.. THEN I’ll consider your recommendations.

    William, you said:

    ” “I NEVER asked for which one Nate thought was true William. Please re-read my comments.. you’re twisting and distorting just like everyone else in order to get Nate out of this dilemma he has put himself in by refusing to apply honesty and objectivity.” – kathy

    @kathy

    You asked which religion had the most credentials toward it being true. I don’t thinK i misread anything.”

    Wrong. Why would I ask which one Nate thought was true when I KNOW he’s a claimed atheist? That would make no sense William. My question is asking for an opinion on what religion has the most evidence to support IT’S claimed truth.

    “I’d still like for you address my questions to you.”

    And I still want to.. thanks for reminding me, I’ll try to address them later today..

    Like

  61. It’s funny when someone accuses others of lacking objectivity while simultaneously refusing to look at the evidence they’ve provided.

    Anyway, that’s fine Kathy, let’s go ahead and play your game:

    I think Buddhism’s credentials are better because it needs no credentials. Its precepts are simply principles that anyone can discover, even if they happen to follow another religion.

    Next question..

    Liked by 1 person

  62. “You asked which religion had the most credentials toward it being true. I don’t thinK i misread anything.”

    Wrong. Why would I ask which one Nate thought was true when I KNOW he’s a claimed atheist? That would make no sense William. My question is asking for an opinion on what religion has the most evidence to support IT’S claimed truth.” – kathy

    I think you misread what i said i read…

    unless you are not asking for which religion has the most credentials toward it being true? and by true, I assume you mean the claim that it’s from god.

    I’ll say that Buddhism has less errors in it than the bible. You;d say the the bible doesnt have errors, so I’ll just say “apparent errors.” Buddhism has less apparent errors – my take anyway, but again, i really dont think any has any divine credentials.

    again, which roach do you think is prettiest?

    Like

  63. and kathy, you’ve been reading all of these too. If you think mike is a good example or of good character., it’s an indication that you’re a poor judge of character.

    you guys are both “christain” so i understand siding with him to some degree, but wonder how much doctrine you share and wonder if you really with his arguments or if you’re simply agreeing becuase his conclusion (no matter how poorly conceived) ends up with “therefore jesus.”

    Like

  64. Well, OK. I couldn’t resist. I had to check in and see what was going on. Unfortunately, more of the same. Nevertheless, I simply couldn’t let a couple of comments go unanswered:

    @Kathy

    A looooong time back, you said this: “[A]ll four Gospels are excellent sources of evidence.” As I read this, my immediate question was … “who says?” Oh yeah, Kathy says.

    And, Kathy, all that stuff about the “credentials” of any religion … it seems no matter how people answer your question, you aren’t satisfied. So OK … just for you, Kathy, I’ll say it … “No other religion has more credentials than Christianity.” Does that make you happy? I may not believe this, but it seems this is what you want to hear so now someone has said it.

    I continue to be amazed how you can sit in judgment over others and their relationship to Jesus/God — past or present. I suppose it’s because you see yourself as the “perfect Christian” and anyone who doesn’t measure up to your standards falls under the category of “atheist/liberal.” No matter how you cut it, Kathy, your good friend Jesus said in the book known as Matthew (7:1-3; KJV): “1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” Remember, this is from the very bible that you hold so dear and are totally convinced is inerrant and from “God.” Oh, and by the way, the definition (which you are so fond of using) of “judge” is “to form an opinion or conclusion about; to regard as either good or bad.” So, in other words, to make it simple, Jesus says not to form opinions or conclusions about others … either good or bad. Then he adds this (paraphrasing) — stop looking at the other person’s faults until you examine your own.

    Finally, I think everyone who has been reading your comments recognizes you are totally dedicated to your beliefs. And, contrary to what Mike says, no one is trying to de-convert you. We just don’t agree with your perspective on things.

    Like

  65. Convince me it won’t be a waste of time.. THEN I’ll consider your recommendations.” – you don’t get it, Kathy – I don’t care whether or not you consider my recommendations, you’re not worth the effort. You ARE the waste of time.

    Like

  66. @Nate, “I think Buddhism’s credentials are better because it needs no credentials. ”

    “In one of Buddha’s well-known parables, he likened his teachings to a raft constructed by a monk so he could cross a turbulent river from a side where there was great danger and uncertainty to a side where there was peace and safety. The monk crafted his raft from materials available to him and paddled his way, using his hands, to the other side. The Buddha asked his students whether it would be wise for the monk to carry the raft on his back from then on, grateful that it had brought him to a place of safety. His students said that would not be wise. So the Buddha suggested the monk leave the raft on the shore, thanking it for the safety it had afforded him, and again asked his students if that was wise. They agreed that it was. The Buddha then told his students that the raft was like his teachings, which were of practical assistance for the crossing but were not to be seized and held forever. The truth was in the arrival on the other side, not in the mechanics of what got the monk there.” (from the book Amen by Pastor Gretta Vosper)

    Like

  67. “Reason distrusts revelation in the same measure as it is distrusted by revelation. It relies on observation, reflection, critical thinking, and testing by experimentation, and it builds on what is learned in this way from generation to generation to expand knowledge and understanding.” (from the book Amen by Pastor Gretta Vosper)

    Like

  68. Pastor Gretta Vosper and Bishop John Shelby Spong are considered progressive christians. According to Kathy & Mike’s definition, they were never christians at all.

    Like

  69. Well I, KC, believe the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to have the most reliable credentials, for the very simple reason that it’s the only religion on the market to have the courage to admit that it is pure bullshit!

    Like

  70. Bishop John Shelby Spong has published many books about people like Mike & Kathy. Some of the titles are:

    Why Christianity Must Change or Die
    The Sins of Scripture
    Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture
    Resurrection: Myth or Reality?
    A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith is Dying & How a New Faith is Being Born
    With or Without God: Why the Way We Live Is More Important Than What We Believe
    Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Virgin Birth and the Treatment of Women by a Male-Dominated Church

    I think you get the point……

    Like

  71. “Well I, KC, believe the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to have the most reliable credentials”

    And Arch, I believe you provide compelling evidence for this belief as well ! The Church of FSM. It has a definite ring to it ! 🙂

    Like

  72. “Well I, KC, believe the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to have the most reliable credentials”

    As long as it uses Reason and not Revelation, I’m in !

    Like

  73. You know, in all honesty, I’d also put deism as another religion with solid credentials, though I’m not sure if “religion” is the proper term for it.

    Like

  74. I have yet another book title for you, KC – first, Google Francis A. Schaeffer, then look up his son’s book, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up As One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back.

    Frank Schaeffer has written: “In the mid 1980s I left the Religious Right, after I realized just how very anti-American they are, (the theme I explore in my book Crazy For God).” He added that he was a Republican until 2000, working for Senator John McCain in that year’s primaries, but that after the 2000 election he re-registered as an independent.

    He wrote: “[W]hen my late father — Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer — denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.”

    Like

  75. “Believing that people are of the nature that they just want to do the right thing isn’t a belief a true Christian has”

    Too bad, Mike. I am of the opinion there are hundreds of millions if not billions of people on this planet right now who just want to do the right thing.

    Like

  76. “I have yet another book title for you, KC – first, Google Francis A. Schaeffer, then look up his son’s book, Crazy for God:”

    Thanks Arch. I have a bunch of points / credits with amazon.com. I’ll just order it . Always like broadening my horizons.

    Like

  77. “KC, it’s clear to see that you have the Big Picture!”

    Thanks Arch. I hope so. I just try to be good, because it’s the right thing to do.

    Like

  78. My dog tags read “Deist” in the Army (nobody knew what it meant), because at that young age, I didn’t have the courage to say, “Atheist” – since I became a man, I learned to put aside childish things.

    But in my opinion, “Deist” doesn’t work, because it presupposes a supernatural being. Regarding a god, much as Will Rogers once said, upon seeing a giraffe for the first time, “There just ain’t no sech animal!

    Like

  79. Within that statement, KC, one can easily see the lack of faith in human nature – pathetic, really —

    Like

  80. Francis A. Schaeffer, KC, was a self-affirmed atheist, who, reputedly, set out to disprove the existence of god, by analyzing the Bible, and became not only a full-fledged theist, but the founder of America’s Religious Right – Frank Shaeffer, his son, wrote his book based on his life with Frank and his mother – Francis is reputed (as per NeuroNotes) believed sex to be wrong, but had a need to masturbate, and so used his wife’s vagina for that purpose. If I’m lyin,’ I’m dyin’ —

    Well, we’re all dyin,’ but I’m not lyin’ —

    Like

  81. I just try to be me – because it’s the right thing to do.

    As Mae West once said, “Good has nothing to do with it –“

    Like

  82. Nate, you said:

    “It’s funny when someone accuses others of lacking objectivity while simultaneously refusing to look at the evidence they’ve provided.”

    If you’ll notice, Nate.. I didn’t refuse at all. By your “reasoning”, if I give you a two page list of sites that *I believe* support my beliefs, and you don’t read all of them, that means you lack objectivity. Sorry but we are allowed some discretion. Arch has proven he lacks objectivity/ honesty.. and so did you, in this instance also.. I clearly explained that Arch NEVER answered my valid point.. so why should I have any confidence in his sources for his beliefs? .. beliefs he can’t even defend by answering a simple question?

    “Anyway, that’s fine Kathy, let’s go ahead and play your game:”

    Oh, ok, with you it’s “finding truth”.. but with me, it’s “a game”… because only liberals can have their own beliefs.. and decide what truth is.

    “I think Buddhism’s credentials are better because it needs no credentials. Its precepts are simply principles that anyone can discover, even if they happen to follow another religion.”

    What you just describes isn’t a religion. So, it’s not a valid answer. re: definition of “religion”

    re·li·gion (r-ljn)
    n.
    1.
    a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

    b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

    “Next question..”

    No, it looks like were still stuck on the same question.. which religion has the best credentials to support it’s claimed truth?

    Just admit it’s Christianity.. like Nan did. Because, it IS Christianity.

    Like

  83. @Kathy

    And what credentials does deism have??

    Honestly? None, of course.
    But what has Christianity got that Deism has not?

    I would be very interested to hear what you have to offer, as a Christian, that could possibly sway me.

    Like

  84. JESUS H. LINDER!
    …Is the name of my eldest son:) He is an adorable little Cub Scout.

    So man, I step away for a few months… years, and everything goes to hell in a hand basket on this blog. Nothing but Atheists and Jesus freaks… Oh wait, that’s how it was when I left. My bad.

    @Nate, How you been man? Missed you and Ark:) I’ll get to answering your question at the end of this post as all the middle part is very important for your spiritual development and I do not want you to miss any of it.

    @Arkenaten, I got an entire post put up on my page to answer your comment from Eric’s blog so go check it out if you haven’t seen it yet. Hugs and Kisses. No tongue.

    I like how through the entire post everyone has ignored Portals request for peace and harmony. You guys suck. Yes even you Archaeopteryx, you beautiful bird, because you only paid lip service to the request.

    @Nate, Sorry. Keep reading but I can’t forget to mention you cannot go with Buddhism. It is a philosophy, not a religion so you will have to pick again. Might I recommend Greek Orthodox? I’m non-denominational Christian myself but I like their hats.

    @Nan, What is up with that damn dog! It’s eyes follow me where ever I go! Like it wants to wrestle or something.

    @Carmen, I am very sorry to hear about your church closing. I know your beliefs may not be the same as the others but it is always sad when a group closes. I know it is not pleasant for you so I am truly sorry.

    @Kathy, When did “Liberal” and “Atheist” become synonymous? I know “Liberal” and “Yankee” mean the same thing because those people are just afraid of guns. They can’t help it.

    @Tblacksman, to be referred to from here to fore as “The Troll.”
    I don’t actually have anything to say to you because… well, you’re a troll. All you care about is being right. You don’t care about these people or their spiritual well being. You don’t care if they have peace and joy and where as their immortal souls are just fine, you claim to believe otherwise but do not seem to care about that either. However, that does not mean you should be banned. The only reason Arkenaten even brought it up is because you have stolen his spot and like all South African trolls, he is jealous.

    To all of you who do not know me, SUCK IT!

    Now Nate, you wanted evidence that Christianity, a sub-sect of Judaism, has more, or any, credentials. I give you the Old Testiment. Bare with me.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201%20&version=KJV

    If you read Gen 1:1-26 you will see, though not perfectly, that the story follows what we know about our planets evolution. From the point of the Big Bang to the point that man shows up. Even the fact the plant life would have come first, followed by sea life and then birds and land animals.

    So if there is no God, and it is fine if you believe that, but how do you explain a nomadic Jew writing 5000 years ago getting it this RIGHT?!

    God Bless.
    God Speed.
    God bye:)

    Like

  85. I would be very interested to hear what you have to offer, as a Christian, that could possibly sway me.
    Hawaiian music?

    Like

  86. @Arch

    Hawaiian music?

    Can you visual it; Yeshua in a floral-patterned shirt a la Magnum PI?
    “I told you , Higgins, you can’t be one of my disciples now get over it for my dad’s sake!”

    Since I began asking direct questions Kathy and ”Jesus Sunbeam” Mike, have stopped ‘talking’ to me.
    I am gutted….as you can imagine!

    Like

  87. Hugs and Kisses. No tongue.</em" – You got THAT right! You gotta watch Ark and that tongue, like a damned lizard sometimes —

    "Yes even you Archaeopteryx, you beautiful bird, because you only paid lip service to the request.
    MOI? Proto-bird – I’m a proto-bird. And everybody knows that archaeopteryxeses don’t have lips, any more than chickens do! Sheeesh!

    If you read Gen 1:1-26 you will see, though not perfectly, that the story follows what we know about our planet(‘)s evolution. From the point of the Big Bang to the point that man shows up. Even the fact the plant life would have come first, followed by sea life and then birds and land animals.

    You seem like a cool frood, Haydendlinder, so this isn’t meant sarcastically, but it didn’t happen that way. The stars coalesced billions of years before the sun, and the moon resulted from a collision between Earth and a Mars-sized planet, about 20-100 million years after the solar system coalesced. Single-celled life, monera, began first, and gradually diverged into the five currently existing Kingdoms: plants, fungi, animals, protista, eukaryotic – plant life was WAY down the line – life began in the sea. And birds – trust me on this – evolved from land animals.

    So if there is no God, and it is fine if you believe that, but how do you explain a nomadic Jew writing 5000 years ago getting it this RIGHT?!

    Whether or not there’s a god – bless his noodley appendages – reliable biblical scholars have determined that Gen 1 was written by a group of priests in captivity in Babylon, during the 6th century BCE, who became known as “the Priestly (P) Source,” not “a nomadic Jew writing 5000 years ago,” so you’re only off about 2,500 years – no cigar, but I could probably come up with a half-smoked cigarette, for the effort.

    And thanks for the compliment – you should see the sheen on my feathers in full sunlight. I keep telling him, “Go away, Charlie!” – but he won’t listen. Keeps raving about “Tiger’s blood” and assuring me that “Things go better with Coke.” If it weren’t for the hookers he keeps bring around, I’d un-friend him in a heartbeat!

    Like

  88. Hayden’s comment made me think some more about Kathy’s question. Should certain world-views be considered as off limits because they don’t meet certain pre-conceived notions of what is required from the question (e.g. if they don’t fall into certain people’s definitions of “religion”)?

    I am assuming the question is related to finding truth because it is a phrase that has gotten repeated many times in this series. If that’s the case then the question as phrased seems to be a question that may not get us the desired goal. A better question would be “which worldview matches up best with reality?”. Perhaps others could improve even further on that question so that it meets the goal of the discussion.

    The other thing I’d like to say is that some understanding of epistemology would be helpful in these discussions. I’d even say essential. Unfortunately, while I know more about that field than the average person, I don’t know enough. It’s a field of study that I am continuing to pursue.

    Like

  89. Oh, I can imagine!

    Kathy keeps saying she’s ignoring me, but then she keeps responding to my comments – guess that’s what I get for being irresistible. Just ask Neuro, she’s crazy about me.

    Like

  90. You seem like a cool frood, Haydendlinder

    I got the same impression from his comment. Mornings suck, but got a nice laugh (not at all derisively) from some of his quips. Obviously can’t tell for sure, but seems like a cool guy with a good sense of humor. Too bad he’s gone – Arch, I’m sure the 2 of you could have had lots of fun throwing each other sarcastic commentary. 🙂

    Like

  91. “The time and culture that a text was written in is also important to its understanding. But this also strikes against the notion of inspiration, since God is supposed to be outside time and culture.”

    HAHA what a silly argument. The people being written about are not outside of the culture and time. neither are the first readers and those through the centuries.

    “When the Israelites write in a way that matches their time and place in history, and they speak of a tribal god that mirrors the other tribal gods around them, and their understanding of cosmology is geo-centric”

    Sorry Till failed you again Nate. The bible has little cosmology and geo centricity is not taught in the Bible (unless you want to claim our meteorology services telling us the time of “sunrise” are teaching geo centricity). Next I guess I will read that some passage indicates the Bible teaches the earth is flat as well. Like the ever famous among skeptics – Jesus at the top of the moubtain vision. Lol

    “and this god evolves as time goes by, showing a notably different nature in later times than he did in earlier times”

    Wrong again. Forgiveness is ALL through the Bible and if are referring to lack of judgments in the NT well you just haven’t read very well. The NT states AD 70 was a judgement and Revelations has the mother of all judgements expressed and it aint pretty and nice.

    ” On the other hand, if the Bible had taken on a more precise tone that focused on clarity and accuracy, then not only would it have been easily understood by people today, but it would have been easily understood by people of any time.”

    This has to be one of your silliest paragraphs of all time but its fairly representative of your deluded thinking elsewhere and that is if a book is written within a give culture, language and customs then it cant be inspired because God would have made it easy to understand by anyone in any culture speaking any language no matter how drop down lazy they were. This would require God to completely control cultures and societies to make sure over centuries that they never changed the use of words, had the same cultural reference points and even control viewpoints and outlooks to ensure none of them interfered with understanding anything in the Bible. In fact why stop at societies since family cultures can efffect how people read and view issues. Those must be controlled to to make sure there are no misunderstandings.

    Sorry Nate -there’s no other word for it. Its just a stupid premise begging for laziness. Along with the Bible God has provided ample resources to understand his word. If people are too lazy to accommodate themselves of it its not God’s fault – its theirs and so yours.

    “And Ruth hit on something very important. To suggest that one can’t critique a passage without going back to the original language means God would expect everyone to accept Christianity a priori.”

    No it only requires the brain that God gave them be used to reference the material he made available for them to look at original language even without having a degree in Greek or hebrew. Such VASTLY silly arguments Nate. totally lacking in logic – only underlining my analysis of your post that you are mostly emotionally driven on this issue.

    Like

  92. geo centricity is not taught in the Bible” – prithee tell us how else the day was lengthened by the sun standing still?

    Like

  93. ” All you care about is being right. You don’t care about these people or their spiritual well being. You don’t care if they have peace and joy and where as their immortal souls are just fine, you claim to believe otherwise but do not seem to care about that either.”

    Well you see I don’t believe I am their baby sitters so on that some of what you say is true. I don’t believe I can take them to the water and make them drink and I certainly don’t believe that coddling their arrogance will lead to the redemption of their souls. If one of them showed the slightest bit of honesty to truly be looking for the truth then that would be another matter. Thats CLEARLY not the case when they claim that Israel being a nation is not a fulfillment of many prophecies.

    It would be one thing if they said okay yes that IS a fulfilled prophecy but its not enough for me but what you see in that kind of response negating any and everything is an unreasonable belligerence

    So why do i post? For people like Kathy who they want to flake out on their faith like they did. Simple – and to give them the public service that is probably more helpful than anything you propose as an alternative – Open rebuke

    Proverbs 27:5 (KJV)
    5 Open rebuke is better than secret love.

    arrogance and false wisdom is 75% of the issue and if you think not addressing where that appears and pointing it out will do good to anyone’s soul you are sadly mistaken

    Like

  94. ““geo centricity is not taught in the Bible” – prithee tell us how else the day was lengthened by the sun standing still?”

    A relational reference that we use to this day

    or ummmm….do you believe the sun rose this morning???

    🙂

    Like

  95. “Whether or not there’s a god – bless his noodley appendages – reliable biblical scholars have determined that Gen 1 was written by a group of priests in captivity in Babylon, ”

    ROFL…and by reliable he means the ones what agree with him to the exclusion of all others. Sophistry at its finest!

    Like

  96. Thats CLEARLY not the case when they claim that Israel being a nation is not a fulfillment of many prophecies.” – everytime the temple has been torn down, it has been rebuilt – how difficult would it be to predict that it would be so again someday? And at what point does a prophecy become self-fulfilling? “Well, the prophecy says it will be done, so I guess we gotta do it!” All that’s really required to make such a prophecy, is some degree of knowledge regarding the fanaticism of those it involves, and these are a people who, yet today, well past the Age of Reason, put aluminum foil on their household switches, whether gas or electric, to remind themselves not to turn anything on or off on the Sabbath. Guess what? I prophesy they’ll do it again NEXT week.

    Like

  97. “everytime the temple has been torn down, it has been rebuilt – how difficult would it be to predict that it would be so again someday? And at what point does a prophecy become self-fulfilling? “Well, the prophecy says it will be done, so I guess we gotta do it!”

    LOL…so we can expect the return of the Amalekites when? and the American Indians will one day retake the US because they say “I guess we gotta do it”

    You so funny 🙂 Go read some history.

    Like

  98. No, I believe the earth revolved. But using “sunrise” and “sunset” as colloquialisms is one thing, but to say,

    “Joshua 10:13 – New International Version (NIV)

    13 So the sun stood still,
    and the moon stopped,
    till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
    as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
    The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.”

    Now come on, I’ve seen you spin like a dervish, you’re slowing down in your old age – pop another Viagra and dig in —

    Like

  99. ROFL…and by reliable he means the ones what agree with him to the exclusion of all others. Sophistry at its finest!” – says the man who gets his information from Answers In Genesis —

    Like

  100. “No, I believe the earth revolved. But using “sunrise” and “sunset” as colloquialisms is one thing, but to say,”

    Go for it sparky 3. tell me why its right to say the sun rose and that it set but its wrong to say it stood still in reference to a given spot.

    Remember expressions of incredulity are not points neither is frothing at the mouth. Please let me know if you are going to attempt to intelligently rebut that sunrise and sunset are the same kind of relational references we use to this day even in the SCIENCE of meteorology

    I’ll make sure to get some popcorn. If not and its the same old rhetoric and hand waving I’ll have to pass – theres paint drying nearby somewhere more entertaining.

    Like

  101. Once again, you’re not answering, you’re turning it into a question and throwing it back on me. Sorry, Bub – I won’t play your games. Go see what AIG has to say, then come back and parrot it to us – until then, I’ve got a little paint drying to watch myself.

    Like

  102. I’ll bet you wish YOU had a BA in English – as far as I can tell, you have only a BS in BS.

    Like

  103. Yes, Lord Genocide stopped the earth from spinning on it’s axis at ~1040 mph (1675 km/h, 465 m/s) just so the Israelites could finish slaughtering the Amorites. Then he spun right it back up again. Sounds like the person who wrote that was clueless about the laws of motion.

    Like

  104. The “T ‘Mikey’ Blacksman” debating strategy:

    1. When asked a question, never commit to a response – rephrase the question into a question for your opponent, then throw it back at him.

    2. Ridicule any response he’s naive enough to give – you win!

    Antithesis: Don’t play the game – if you ask him a question, let him answer it – don’t fall for him throwing it back at you.

    Like

  105. Of course everything ON the earth continued spinning at 1040 mph (1675 km/h, 465 m/s) —

    See, Mikey is trying to spin (no pun intended) it as though that was just an expression, like sunrise and sunset, and what it REALLY meant, was, “We had a really long day at the office, what with all the slaughtering and butchering and maiming and all – you got someplace I can wash up?”

    Like

  106. Nate-
    A lot of your journey resonates with me. I’ve been to a lot of the same places you’ve been, yet I continue to cling to the hope offered by this man called Jesus. Sometimes I honestly don’t know why – it’s like, even when I want to let go my hope and faith remain. Anyway, I find myself wishing the conversation here could be more civil. I have come to a place where I am comfortable that I can’t provide answers and comfortable with “I don’t know”. I wonder if we’d get more from each other if all of us could back off from the chest-puffing. I know I’ve turned a lot of people away with my feigned certainty more than my faith in past conversations. Not sure this is any more than rambling, but I thought I’d throw a couple cents in.
    -Josh

    Like

  107. Hi Hayden! Great to hear from you again! 🙂 Despite the current state of my blog, things have been going pretty well for me lately — you?

    If you read Gen 1:1-26 you will see, though not perfectly, that the story follows what we know about our planets evolution. From the point of the Big Bang to the point that man shows up. Even the fact the plant life would have come first, followed by sea life and then birds and land animals.

    I think Arch gave a great answer to this. I have a hard time lining up the Genesis account with what we know from science. Take this, for instance (Gen 1:6-8):

    6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

    The people that wrote this apparently believed that a barrier was placed over the earth, and above it was a whole lot of water. It’s easy to see why they would think that. For one thing, the sky is blue, just like the ocean. For another, the rain has to come from somewhere:

    11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
    — Gen 7:11

    2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,
    — Gen 8:2

    The sun, moon, and stars were “fixed” into this barrier so we could have some light. It’s a very specific description of the cosmos, and it’s very different from what we’ve discovered in all the centuries since this was written.

    I think this factors in to Arch’s and Mike’s discussion, too. We’re not just dealing with terms like “sunrise” and “sunset” in the Bible. It goes way beyond that.

    Like

  108. I did, go back and read my comment to him! You’ve been in a bit of a snit all day, who did YOU get up on the wrong side of?

    Like

  109. Hi Josh!

    Anyway, I find myself wishing the conversation here could be more civil. I have come to a place where I am comfortable that I can’t provide answers and comfortable with “I don’t know”. I wonder if we’d get more from each other if all of us could back off from the chest-puffing.

    This echoes what Ryan (portal) said, and you both make really good points. I agree with you completely. I’ve also hit a point where I’m very comfortable with saying “I don’t know” about a lot of things, though I may not always show that in some of these comments. I definitely prefer conversations where each person offers what they think and why without the need to criticize those who don’t agree. Not sure we’ll be able to right the ship at this point, but it would certainly be nice.

    Like

  110. “HAHA what a silly argument. The people being written about are not outside of the culture and time. neither are the first readers and those through the centuries.”

    Mike does have a valid point for once in his life. The Bible was obviously written for people thousands of years ago and they thought the world was going to come to and end soon ! No need to write something for people in the future.

    Their holy writers and later their main man Jesus even predicted it. AND it did NOT happen. Now there’s unfulfilled prophesies for ya , Mike ! And lots of them. Even your pal, CS Lewis said Jesus was WRONG. “‘Say what you like,’ we shall be told, ‘the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And He was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.’ It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” Essay “The World’s Last Night” (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p-385.”

    Verses 1 & 3 of the first chapter of Revelation says it all. “1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.”

    So why are we all arguing about what a book really says when it was NEVER intended for us to read in the first place ?

    Like

  111. It’s not easy to type and laugh at the same time, but no, Nate, I don’t think there’s any righting THIS ship!

    Like

  112. LOL — I haven’t been in a snit all day, not even. A little sensitive today? 😉

    You and T (and sometimes SOM) get to going and the comment section on Nate’s posts turn into a chest-beating match which is why I rarely participate here.

    Like

  113. I definitely prefer conversations where each person offers what they think and why without the need to criticize those who don’t agree. Not sure we’ll be able to right the ship at this point, but it would certainly be nice.

    Nate, well put – it’s my preference as well along with Ryan (Portal), Josh, and some others but I share in your skepticism that the ship can head that direction.

    Like

  114. Kathy,

    Notice the second definition.

    religion:

    noun

    1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
    3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
    4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
    5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

    I’m sticking with my answer. Do you have any follow-up questions?

    Like

  115. “Once again, you’re not answering, you’re turning it into a question and throwing it back on me. Sorry, Bub – I won’t play your games

    LOL….which means you can’t think of a way that they are different. Thanks.

    Like

  116. No, it means that you can’t admit you were wrong in your statement that there was no geo-centrism in the Bible. So, thanks backatcha —

    Like

  117. “The people that wrote this apparently believed that a barrier was placed over the earth, and above it was a whole lot of water. It’s easy to see why they would think that. For one thing, the sky is blue, just like the ocean. For another, the rain has to come from somewhere:”

    What are you talking about Nate. there is water in the atmosphere and no firmament doe not mean barrier its another way of referring to the sky that birds fly in

    Genesis 1:20 (KJV)
    20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

    IF birds fly in it its not a “barrier”

    “We’re not just dealing with terms like “sunrise” and “sunset” in the Bible. It goes way beyond that”

    go for it

    Like

  118. What happened? I thought Mikey was going to start spending his time on a project that was going to “set him up for life” and would be too busy to offer his brand of reasoning to Nate’s crowd … ?? Perhaps another fantasy?

    Like

  119. “No, it means that you can’t admit you were wrong in your statement that there was no geo-centrism in the Bible. ”

    I’m not unless you are claiming there is geo centrism in meteorology that uses the same kind of expressions. No?

    🙂 then go ahead Sparky 3 – show “sunrise” and “sunset” as substantially different. We both KNOW that you can’t. Despite your hand waving that IS my answer – that that passage just like every day in our own culture refers to the relational position of the sun to our spot on the earth.

    Try again to hand wave – trying to hide the fact that you got nothing isn’t working

    Like

  120. “What happened? I thought Mikey was going to start spending his time on a project that was going to “set him up for life” and would be too busy to offer his brand of reasoning to Nate’s crowd … ?? Perhaps another fantasy?”

    Perhaps you have fallen on your head and don’t know its the weekend? Projects going nicely though. Thanks or asking.

    Like

  121. “Yes, Lord Genocide stopped the earth from spinning on it’s axis at ~1040 mph (1675 km/h, 465 m/s) just so the Israelites could finish slaughtering the Amorites. Then he spun right it back up again. Sounds like the person who wrote that was clueless about the laws of motion.”

    Seems Like Ronnie boy is clueless about time moving at different speeds in different parts of the universe. Here your treasured resource on the topic

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

    Like

  122. “So why are we all arguing about what a book really says when it was NEVER intended for us to read in the first place ?”

    Ken — I see your point. It’s just that if such beliefs presented in the Bible didn’t affect the human rights of others, still today; affect our laws, and indoctrinate children during crucial brain development with the threat of eternal hell, Satan, demons, shame (psychological abuse), etc., I doubt we’d be having this conversation. Remember Gary? Therefore, I think there is benefit in having these discussions.

    Liked by 1 person

  123. On Hebrew Cosmology:

    “The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.”

    Jewish Encyclopedia

    See also: The Three-Story Universe

    Like

  124. RE:

    “Genesis 1:20 (KJV)
    20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

    IF birds fly in it its not a ‘barrier’”

    Gosh, Mikey, here you are telling us how important it is to look at the Bible in it’s original languages, yet you’re quoting to us from the KJV in English! Let’s go to the Latin Vulgate – you should be conversant in Latin, I am – and see what it says:

    dixit etiam Deus producant aquae reptile animae viventis et volatile super terram sub firmamento caeli” – “over the earth under  (not “in”) the firmament of heaven” – “super,” meaning “above,” “sub,” meaning, “below.”

    If they are forced to fly UNDER it, then I guess it IS a barrier! Read a book, Mike —

    Like

  125. ” And lots of them. Even your pal, CS Lewis said Jesus was WRONG. “‘Say what you like,’ we shall be told, ‘the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime.”

    Sorry KK your failure each time in bringing up CS Lewis is that he never was much of a Bible scholar. Now if you wanted to rebut creativity in some issues in regard to the Chronicles of Narnia then perhaps you could use him convincingly.

    Lewis was seemingly unaware (as you are no doubt and many others) that “this” in greek (as in Engish) can refer to a current time or to time being talked about. What determines the meaning is context. Once you examine the context your (and Preterists) position falls apart swiftly.

    If you wish you can debate me on it. You will lose (but or course claim you didn’t) but your position will be dismantled. I love me some Matthew 24. 🙂

    Like

  126. T “Mikey” Blacksman, the King of Obfuscation! You were wrong, you were caught being wrong, and wiggle as you may – your stock in trade – everyone knows you were wrong.

    Like

  127. Time dilation! Does the man know no shame? Is there NO depth to which he won’t sink to appear to be right? All I can say, is holy crap!

    Like

  128. “Sorry KK your failure each time in bringing up CS Lewis is that he never was much of a Bible scholar. ”

    And I suppose you are ? This is probably why you rarely quote scholars because you really do think you are the smartest one to quote. Very delusional Mikey .

    I think we should all just wave you into the sunset.

    I knew you were full of yourself when you acted like you had no clue who Geza Vermes was. You simply referred to him as an author.

    I doubt that you have read very many scholar’s works. No need to. You know it all ! 🙂

    Like

  129. TBlacksman, I am concerned. As someone who is defending Christianity, you are doing so with some slanderous remarks to your fellow (wo)men. Did Jesus not speak of loving one’s enemies in Luke 6?

    27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

    Yes, there are some harsh remarks thrown in your direction, I have seen, but for one who defends the Gospel, there seems to be significant hypocrisy in your approach at times. Hold concern for your brothers and sisters, it’s okay to release the contempt you are holding on to. Forgiveness is available should you be open to accept it.

    Like

  130. “Therefore, I think there is benefit in having these discussions.”

    Victoria, I couldn’t agree more. I was being facetious . 🙂

    Like

  131. “What determines the meaning is context. Once you examine the context your (and Preterists) position falls apart swiftly.”

    Mike, once we all read anything you wrote in context, your position fell immediately apart. 🙂

    Like

  132. Confess your arrogance and spite and pride, and good lord willin’ and the creek don’t rise, you’ll be forgiven! You can do it right here on the board, we’ll gladly listen to your confession and prescribe your penance!

    Like

  133. I’ve noticed his responses are getting weaker and weaker – he’s running out of steam.

    Like

  134. “Gosh, Mikey, here you are telling us how important it is to look at the Bible in it’s original languages, yet you’re quoting to us from the KJV in English! Let’s go to the Latin Vulgate – you should be conversant in Latin, I am – and see”

    ROFL….Arch thinks the Bible was written in Latin.

    But anyway I will throw you a bone. you have a point about under in that birds do not fly that high generally (however the are the birds of the Firmament heaven) but sorry Firmament does NOT mean barrier. Maybe you can look that up in Latin too:)

    You people just don’t do much study. There are three heavens as Far as the Bible records

    The firmament you are referring to ERRONEOUSLY as a barrier is Heaven number one

    “And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day”
    The New King James Version

    So Heaven IS a firmament singular – one of at least three

    2 Corinthians 12:2 (KJV)
    2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

    The first is the what we would call our atmosphere, the third would be heaven where God dwells (as referenced above). That leaves us with a second in between. So um

    The earth’s atmosphere
    A space above that
    and God’s heaven

    So um Wheres the cosmological problem? None of them are “barriers”

    Like

  135. My guess is that Ol’ Mikey is off reading what the experts have to say about Gen 1:20 in the Latin Vulgate! After all his bluster about languages, he knows less than some of US do. What a Schmoo!

    Omni est Gallia divide en tres partes, Mike – didja know that?

    Like

  136. “TBlacksman, I am concerned. As someone who is defending Christianity, you are doing so with some slanderous remarks to your fellow (wo)men. ”

    Where? where be the slander? Surely thou jesteth. Telling the truth is slander? Do tell.

    anyway the whole chiding me using Bible verses thing has been done. i don’t fault you for unoriginality these threads have been long but you forgot a passage

    “Matthew 23:14-17 (KJV)
    14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
    15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
    16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
    17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? ”

    Slander or telling the truth?

    Like

  137. “My guess is that Ol’ Mikey is off reading what the experts have to say about Gen 1:20 in the Latin Vulgate! After all his bluster about languages, he knows less than some of US do.”

    Embarrassing second note to Arch. the Bible was NOT written in Latin. LOL This place is tooooooo funny. 🙂 🙂

    Like

  138. But wait, Mike – I thought your god lived beyond space and time!

    No, the Bible was written in Ancient Hebrew, mostly, with some New Hebrew and some Aramaic (after the Jews filtered back in from Babylon), then the NT was written entirely in Greek, but the OT was first translated into Greek, then, into the Latin Vulgate, where it remained suspended for a thousand years, due to the prohibition, upon penalty of death, of owning a Bible in any language other than Latin. So, a novice like you might ask what was the Bible written in, or one could well ask what was it read in most often, and the answer to that, before the 1600’s, would have been Latin. Read a book, Mike —

    Or better yet, go watch paint dry, you’ll be more productive.

    Like

  139. Jason, it has long been apparent to everyone on this blog that the individual who calls himself TBlacksman (Mike) is not interested in demonstrating the “Christian” values that are spoken of in Luke (and other places). It is not his goal to “defend the gospel” as much as it is to argue, insult, make snide/slanderous/harsh remarks to those who disagree with him. And unfortunately, your gentle reprimand will most likely be thrown back in your face.

    Like

  140. Nate, you said:

    “The people that wrote this apparently believed that a barrier was placed over the earth, and above it was a whole lot of water. It’s easy to see why they would think that. For one thing, the sky is blue, just like the ocean. ”

    I’m curious Nate, why they would think that the life spans of humans would diminish greatly after the sky was cleared of the barrier?

    http://www.extinctionshift.com/KNOWLEDGE_BIBLE/Firmament_Gen.htm

    “Hi Hayden! Great to hear from you again! 🙂 Despite the current state of my blog, ”

    What is that supposed to mean?? Your blog is in a bad state because people are challenging your assertions/ beliefs? Or is it because you are unable to successfully DEFEND those challenges? That’s the only way I can interpret your statement. Or.. maybe Mike and are just not being “nice” enough while we are disagreeing? I really hope that’s not it.. but, that IS how the liberal minded think.. disagreement is “mean”.. debating is just another word for “fighting”.

    Again, Nate, “finding truth” (IF that is your TRUE goal) can only truly be done through open dialogue with those who disagree… and if BOTH sides apply objectivity, the truth WILL surface eventually.
    But if everyone agrees on a “truth” that is VOID of actual proof.. you all are just fooling yourselves… you’re “feeding” your egos.. nothing more.

    “Notice the second definition….

    I’m sticking with my answer. Do you have any follow-up questions?”

    Ok, well, then my follow up question would be to explain more specifically my context of my original question.. and then ask it again.

    The context is pretty clear Nate.. it’s in regards to our origins. God or no God. So, when I ask which religion has better credentials, it’s in that context. The reason you gave for Buddhism actually states that it doesn’t conflict with other religions.. so that makes it inapplicable.

    And if you want to argue that Buddhism does give an explanation to our origins, then I would ask, again, WHAT are the credentials that back up these claims and how is it more compelling than Christianity?

    Like

  141. Thanks for clarifying, Nan! Around these parts, we have another word for people like him – shit disturber. 🙂

    Like

  142. “But wait, Mike – I thought your god lived beyond space and time!”

    He does Arch. Let me see if I can help you out with this.

    2 is the next number beyond 1
    3 is the next number beyond 2

    so it goes like this

    1……….2……….3……….

    so beyond 2 being space time would be………3!!!

    Got it now?

    “then, into the Latin Vulgate, where it remained suspended for a thousand years, due to the prohibition, upon penalty of death, of owning a Bible in any language other than Latin. So, a novice like you might ask what was the Bible written in, or one could well ask what was it read in most often, and the answer to that, before the 1600′s, would have been Latin.”

    and um you are hoping all that hand waving will cover for your blunder of conflating Latin with an original language of the bible? Good luck with that but it didn’t work.

    Like

  143. “Time dilation has nothing to do with violating the laws of motion.”

    You are right Ron it doesn’t but the passage you are referring to has EVERYTHING to do with getting more time if you had bothered to read it

    Like

  144. Embarrassing second note to Arch. the Bible was NOT written in Latin.
    REALLY embarassing note to Mikey, yes, it was, for over a thousand years, it was available in no other language. Read a book, Mike.

    Like

  145. What do you suppose happened to little Kathy? Could she have gone in search of the Big Picture?

    Like

  146. Mike… your response to Hayden nailed it… I agree 100%.

    When it is clear, when it’s been PROVEN, that there is a real lack of objectivity, the only
    choice we have is to try and break down that barrier.. no amount of pleading to turn and follow
    Jesus will work UNTIL that wall of pride and ego comes down. We’ve been revealing that wall over and over using their very OWN words. I’m always wondering how long deliberate ignorance can survive when it’s been pointed out so many times. Quite a few times lately, I’ve been tempted to give up, believing that it just isn’t going to happen.. their fate is sealed. I honestly don’t know what it will take.

    Hayden,

    re: your question about liberals and atheists being the same… in my experience with both, I rarely find any differences. It’s true of the overwhelming majority… pride and ego are at the root of their beliefs.

    Like

  147. and if BOTH sides apply objectivity, the truth WILL surface eventually.” – how could BOTH sides apply objectivity, when to you, “objectivity” means only something with which you agree?

    Like

  148. “REALLY embarassing note to Mikey, yes, it was, for over a thousand years, it was available in no other language”

    Second embarrassing note to Arch – Only being able to be read in Latin In some parts of the world does NOT make it an original language of the Bible no matter how much you beg and plead

    Like

  149. Arch said:

    “archaeopteryx1

    July 12, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    What do you suppose happened to little Kathy? Could she have gone in search of the Big Picture?”

    re:

    “Kathy (@kayms99)

    July 12, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    Nate, you said: ..”

    Like

  150. Kathy, you have ch osedn to partner with the most arrogant, egoistic individual I have ever met, and yet have no more sense than to say of us, “pride and ego are at the root of their beliefs.” I can’t possibly imagine why we have a hard time accepting you at your word —

    Like

  151. Show me, Mikey, where I said that Latin was the Bible’s original language? In fact, I even outlined the history of the Bible’s languages. That’s just another obfuscation tactic on your part, to hide the fact that you were wrong again. That’s becoming a trend with you, Mike.

    Like

  152. “Kathy (@kayms99)

    July 12, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    Nate, you said: ..”

    🙂 🙂 You will have to see with Arch. Trifocals must have been on the Fritz

    “Kathy, you have chosen to partner with the most arrogant, egoistic individual I have ever met,”

    IF not for others far worse that might have been technically correct since it cannot accurately be said one has met themselves.

    Like

  153. Here arch. This is where you ocnflated my saying we should look at original languages with latin.

    “Gosh, Mikey, here you are telling us how important it is to look at the Bible in it’s original languages, yet you’re quoting to us from the KJV in English! Let’s go to the Latin Vulgate – you should be conversant in Latin”

    do fix those trifocals

    Like

  154. Ron, that video breaks my heart. It also brings back painful memories. Not for me so much because I didn’t “accept Christ” until I was in my 20’s, but for my children … to whom I subjected this same type of brainwashing. The thing is, what is happening here is only obvious to those of us who no longer “believe.” To Christians, it is a totally acceptable way to reach children. So sad. And sickening as well.

    Like

  155. Arch, you said:

    “Kathy, you have ch osedn to partner with the most arrogant, egoistic individual I have ever met, and yet have no more sense than to say of us, “pride and ego are at the root of their beliefs.” I can’t possibly imagine why we have a hard time accepting you at your word –”

    Arch, where is the pride and ego in our beliefs?? What you perceive as pride and ego are in our responses that point out YOUR pride and ego.. so, of course you aren’t going to like that and call us arrogant… but the fact is, we’ve proven YOUR lack of objectivity & honesty. It’s all on you.. we’re just pointing out the truth. And, liberals don’t like truth.. unless YOU get to determine what that truth is… no matter that in reality, it’s no truth at all.. but that’s ultimately beside the point.

    Like

  156. Yeah, Arch! Haven’t you figured it out YET that the “TRUTH” can only be found in the remarks of Kathy and Mike? Good grief! Anyone who reads this blog can see that!??!

    Like

  157. Nan, please.. you give comments that contain zero substance.. Mike and I ARE posting comments that have actual substance.. they address the actual points. Anyone who is applying objectivity will agree with my point.. not because I said it, but BECAUSE I made a point of substance that you or any other atheist here will NOT be able to refute. This is how it works, liberals. 🙂

    Like

  158. in it’s original languages – I outlined those languages for you, which obviously you couldn’t be bothered to read, and Latin was last in the ascension, next to English. I explained that the Biblee had been written in no other language than Latin for over a thousand years. Your further effort at obfuscation constitutes an awful lot of work, just to avoid admitting you were wrong.

    Don’t bother – handwaving won’t save you now —

    Like

  159. re: Ron’s video “Jesus Camp”

    Yes, maybe it was too intense for children of that age.. but she was speaking truth. And.. you know how that goes with liberals.. shame on that woman for encouraging children to not talk dirty..

    Like

  160. Arch said:

    “You sadden me, Kathy – you truly do. A mind really is a terrible thing to waste.”

    Another comment completely void of substance.. with no addressing of the actual points… what a shocker!

    Like

  161. Kathy, neither of you has made a “point of substance” since you got here, which amply illustrates the degree of your “objectivity”.

    Like

  162. “in it’s original languages – I outlined those languages for you, which obviously you couldn’t be bothered to read, and Latin was last in the ascension, next to English. I explained that the Biblee had been written in no other language ”

    Translated arch not written. Sheesh such density. Latin has no place in the conversation whatsoever in discussion original languages of the Bible. Try again.

    You’ve made no point that proves anything regardless. No matter how you beg and whine and cry firmament does NOT mean “barrier” and this blows up all your claims —-

    “You people just don’t do much study. There are three heavens as Far as the Bible records

    The firmament you are referring to ERRONEOUSLY as a barrier is Heaven number one

    “And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day”
    The New King James Version

    So Heaven IS a firmament singular – one of at least three

    2 Corinthians 12:2 (KJV)
    2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

    The first is the what we would call our atmosphere, the third would be heaven where God dwells (as referenced above). That leaves us with a second in between. So um

    The earth’s atmosphere
    A space above that
    and God’s heaven

    So um Wheres the cosmological problem? None of them are “barriers”

    Like

  163. Arch said:

    “Kathy, neither of you has made a “point of substance” since you got here, which amply illustrates the degree of your “objectivity”. ”

    Look! MORE POINTLESS babble!

    yet, you ask..

    archaeopteryx1
    July 12, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    “What does “talk dirty” mean to you, Kathy?”

    Liberals always “pick and choose” which points to address..
    this is DISHONEST.. it reveals a LACK of desire to find the truth..
    Clearly the ONLY desire is to be “right”. If you really wanted to know what
    the truth is, you’d WANT to address all the points that challenge your beliefs.

    Like

  164. You don’t know how to discuss, Kathy, the idea of a discussion with you is out of the question.

    Which bachelor has the prettiest wife, Kathy – none, bachelor’s don’t have wives. Which religion is the most credentialed – none, all religions are bogus, and thus don’t have credentials. Case closed.

    Now, what does “talk dirty” mean to you, Kathy?

    Like

  165. “Gosh, Mikey, here you are telling us how important it is to look at the Bible in it’s original languages, yet you’re quoting to us from the KJV in English! Let’s go to the Latin Vulgate – you should be conversant in Latin”

    Mike, again you are totally wrong ! Arch was suggesting the Latin Vulgate because you were using the KJV.

    No where did he say Latin was the original language. You are lying , Mike and you know it !

    Like

  166. “No where did he say Latin was the original language. You are lying , Mike and you know it !”

    LOL sparky 2 tries to come to the rescue of sparky 3. I know he wrote this

    ““Gosh, Mikey, here you are telling us how important it is to look at the Bible in it’s original languages, yet you’re quoting to us from the KJV in English! Let’s go to the Latin Vulgate – you should be conversant in Latin””

    Which IS (no matter how much you beg and cry ) conflating the issue of understanding the original languages with Latin

    “Arch was suggesting the Latin Vulgate because you were using the KJV.”

    The KJV was tanslated from the Hebrew and Greek. Buy a clue

    Again the issue of Latin had nothing to do with anything.

    Like

  167. Anyone who is applying objectivity will agree with my point.. not because I said it, but BECAUSE I made a point of substance that you or any other atheist here will NOT be able to refute. — Kathy

    Kathy, your “points of substance” have been refuted time and time again. The problem is you simply can’t see beyond your own “objectivity” to recognize when someone has pointed out the error of your thinking.

    So like I said before — around and around it goes.

    Like

  168. Hey KK since you are here. Take a stab at what your pal has been avoiding

    FIRST

    ” tell me why its right to say the sun rose and that it set but its wrong to say it stood still in reference to a given spot.

    Remember expressions of incredulity are not points neither is frothing at the mouth. Please let me know if you are going to attempt to intelligently rebut that sunrise and sunset are the same kind of relational references we use to this day even in the SCIENCE of meteorology”

    I’ve heard crickets on that subject up to now and

    SECOND

    ““You people just don’t do much study. There are three heavens as Far as the Bible records

    The firmament you are referring to ERRONEOUSLY as a barrier is Heaven number one

    “And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day”
    The New King James Version

    So Heaven IS a firmament singular – one of at least three

    2 Corinthians 12:2 (KJV)
    2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

    The first is the what we would call our atmosphere, the third would be heaven where God dwells (as referenced above). That leaves us with a second in between. So um

    The earth’s atmosphere
    A space above that
    and God’s heaven

    So um Wheres the cosmological problem? None of them are “barriers”

    More crickets on that too.

    Like

  169. TBlacksman, the passage you shared with me reflects what many modern day churches seem to tend to do. It’s likely why Christianity is under such attack these days as well.

    As for slander, upon a quick scroll I came across this:

    “Your status as a hack is hereby firmly established. Thats as bone head stupid as a spanish only speaker claiming the need to refer to the nuances of English when studying Shakespeare is a red herring”

    I’m guessing by your response that you must be fulfilled and inspired having such derogatory language spoken of and to you when someone else’s truth is that you are mistaken? Are you sure you are loving your neighbour as yourself?

    Like

  170. Wading in and raising my hand to ask a question:

    Is it true that the oldest Hebrew manuscripts are from the 2n & 3rd century B.C.? Was this the original Hebrew language that these would have been written in? Or was this a translation into a newer Hebrew language?

    Like

  171. He was caught with his pants down and knows it, KC – that’s just another of his ways of trying to wiggle out of it.

    Like

  172. The earliest proto-Hebrew inscriptions, Ruth, date back to 1000, BCE to a single piece of pottery – the Hebrews seem not to have had a written language prior to that. The Hebrew language evolved, just as all languages do (for a look at the evolution of English, Google Chaucer). After the fall of Jerusalem in the 6th century BCE, they came back from Babylon late in that century, speaking Aramaic, and continued to do so – Yeshua spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. Of course, when Alexander conquered the Levant, Greek began to be spoken among the better educated, at least as a language for business. Then, a couple of hundred years later, Rome conquered, and Latin became the lengua franca.

    Like

  173. Arch said:

    “You don’t know how to discuss, Kathy, the idea of a discussion with you is out of the question.

    Which bachelor has the prettiest wife, Kathy – none, bachelor’s don’t have wives. Which religion is the most credentialed – none, all religions are bogus, and thus don’t have credentials. Case closed.”

    Nan said:

    “Kathy, your “points of substance” have been refuted time and time again. The problem is you simply can’t see beyond your own “objectivity” to recognize when someone has pointed out the error of your thinking.”

    Do either of you know what I mean by “substance”?? Clearly you don’t even though I’ve spelled it out for you… it’s to actually address THE POINTS.

    Making personal, opinionated judgments is NOT addressing the points.. yet, you both keep doing it.. you all prove me right in every comment you make and you can’t even see this.

    It’s mind boggling. Again, pride blinds you.. it steals your objectivity/ awareness.

    Like

  174. “I’m guessing by your response that you must be fulfilled and inspired having such derogatory language spoken of and to you when someone else’s truth is that you are mistaken? Are you sure you are loving your neighbour as yourself?”

    quite. want to come over and knock on their doors and ask them ??

    Now do you wish to make a substantive point as to why begging that you can properly research a document in Spanish without referencing spanish is not a bonehead stupid claim to make.? Because I stand by it. Its one of the silliest claims I have ever read in my life.

    “TBlacksman, the passage you shared with me reflects what many modern day churches seem to tend to do. It’s likely why Christianity is under such attack these days as well.”

    Would you like me to make social commentary on why it is in most polls atheism cannot hit double digits. I am game but as i think you can gather I am not really impressed with drive by pontificators. Add something of value or even engage in a debate/discussion and I might grant you some credibility from my side.

    Like

  175. You have no points to address, Kathy, that don’t involve a supernatural entity, which you cannot prove exists – prove that to our satisfaction, and let’s take it from there.

    Like

  176. “After the fall of Jerusalem in the 6th century BCE, they came back from Babylon late in that century, speaking Aramaic, and continued to do so – Yeshua spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. ”

    which is irrelevant to the question. Hebrew manuscripts would refer to the old testament /Tanach predominantly written in Hebrew. Yeshua was the new testament. to answer Ruth’s question manuscriptswere mostly copied not translated. Modern Hebrew is in fact a bit different from biblical Hebrew.

    Like

  177. ‘You have no points to address, Kathy, that don’t involve a supernatural entity, which you cannot prove exists – prove that to our satisfaction, and let’s take it from there.”

    You lost the claim of rejecting based on the supernatural when you went to Krauss’ everything from nothing religion. That cat is out the bag and not going back in either.

    Like

  178. “that’s just another of his ways of trying to wiggle out of it.”

    Speaking of “wiggling out” do I need to post AGAIN the two points I posted last to KC? They could attach some wires to you and you could power your city with all the gyrations you’ve employed to avoid answering. Say the word and I can copy and past them again

    Like

  179. TBlacksman, acting a little high and mighty there don’t you think?

    You are aware that by neighbours Jesus was referring to fellow human beings, not just those living in your immediate vicinity?

    There is no sense in engaging you in discussion when there is such hypocrisy in your position.

    Like

  180. Arch said:

    “You have no points to address, Kathy, that don’t involve a supernatural entity, which you cannot prove exists – prove that to our satisfaction, and let’s take it from there.”

    Wrong Arch.. my point is extremely valid since we have NO other valid explanation. Again, I’ve asked you several times to give an alternative possibility.. you haven’t.

    Plus, here’s the other big problem with your supernatural dismissal.. natural laws/ science actually argues AGAINST the logic of existence. Atheists ignore that fact.. you try to pretend it’s not true. You all even actually put forth “ideas” of how to get something from nothing.. it’s comical to witness.

    Like

  181. “TBlacksman, acting a little high and mighty there don’t you think?”

    NO I don’t think so . Practically everything you ave posted in this thread has been pontification so its seems a little pot calling the Kettle black there.

    “You are aware that by neighbours Jesus was referring to fellow human beings, not just those living in your immediate vicinity?”

    As the verses I showed indicate the passages you cite do NOT mean that people cannot speak plainly the truth. Plus to be honest after reading a bit of your blog its quite apparent to me you really are not in a position to teach about the Bible.

    “There is no sense in engaging you in discussion when there is such hypocrisy in your position.”

    If that was your idea of a discussion and substance then we agree – there was little sense in it.

    Like

  182. I’ve drawn the same conclusion, as many of us have – he doesn’t engage, he merely bounces around an issue and obfuscates, while hurling invectives, much like an ape hurling feces. As far as I can tell, he’s a waste of skin. Kathy has a chance to be human, but with Mike goading her, she’s rapidly deteriorating.

    Like

  183. RE: “we have NO other valid explanation” – I’m not agreeing that that’s true, but why do we NEED one? How about saying, “We don’t currently have a valid explanation, but tossing a supernatural, magical entity into the mix, sure isn’t gonna do it!”

    We’ve bought into BS beliefs for thousands of years, one of which actually has the earth balanced on the back of a stack of turtles – how much good has it done us to have those? Whether or not you accept Krause’s thesis is irrelevant to me, the point is, that a valid explanation WILL be found at some point, just as relativity was discovered at the beginning of the last century, and when it is, it will be scientific and will not involve any supernatural entities – OR turtles.

    Until then, I’m perfectly fine with no explanation at all.

    Like

  184. Wow, Nate! Your patience speaks of your kind character, not an ancient book or a magical prayer language.

    Re: Jesus Camp (referencing Harry Potter) …warlock bad, prophet good? Mystical literature is still mystical literature, no matter if “Holy Bible” is on the cover or not. At least the Potter series hasn’t turned my nine year old into something he’s not, unlike the Bible.

    It appears to me that an all powerful god isn’t really the Almighty if he needs a few Evangelicals to hog this blog in an attempt to convert us. Then again, maybe their staunch arguments are to convince themselves to remain in the faith. Many of us deconverts recognize that “righteous indignation”. We were stuck in that sort of doubt and confusion ourselves for years. Dear Evangelicals, it’s seriously okay to question.

    Here’s to a good weekend and week ahead to everyone! Enjoy your friends and families, breathe in some fresh air!

    Peace,
    Charity

    Like

  185. “Plus to be honest after reading a bit of your blog its quite apparent to me you really are not in a position to teach about the Bible.”

    Mike to be honest, you don’t think anyone is in a position to teach about the bible or know how to be a christian unless they receive instruction from you first.

    As far as the sunrise/sunset and the sun standing still thing, if I had the perfect answer that 7 billion people on the planet unanimously agreed with, you would tell me how stupid and ridiculous my explanation was. I’ll pass. Keep listening to those crickets.

    Like

  186. He just seems hardened in his ways, not realizing the inconsistencies between his approach and his faith. I’m sure he means well, like all of us, he is working with what he has come to understand so far. There’s no sense in holding that against him. Beating the unruly does not tend to tame, but instead harbours more resentment. That does little good in opening connection to wider understandings.

    Like

  187. Keep listening to those crickets.” – Listening?! He not listening, he’s EATING them!

    Like

  188. Beating the unruly does not tend to tame” – yeah, but it’s a lot more fun than beating a dead horse, trust me!

    Just kidding – yes, you’re right (hangs head) – “Forgive me father, for I have sinned –“

    Like

  189. TBlacksman, offering to grant me credibility isn’t a way of acting high and mighty? You may wish to reconsider your view.

    Speaking plainly the truth is good, I don’t disagree with that. I wouldn’t have brought it up if you were doing just that.

    Thank you for the blog visit. I am not claiming to be teaching a definitive view of the Bible, my blog is focused on exploring perspectives of it, and focusing on the troubles I’ve seen with how it is commonly understood that go against the humanitarian lead that Jesus takes.

    Like

  190. “TBlacksman, offering to grant me credibility isn’t a way of acting high and mighty? You may wish to reconsider your view.”

    No you might consider using some common sense because you just can’t read very well. I wrote

    ” I might grant you some credibility from my side”

    If you are suggesting that I can’t decide on what I find credible to me on your say so then you are pretty high on the high and mighty list.

    “Speaking plainly the truth is good, I don’t disagree with that. I wouldn’t have brought it up if you were doing just that.”

    And when were you appointed the arbiter of what i was or was not just doing? See how you are getting back to your own high and mightiness? 🙂 Pontificators often do. Take a bow. You are our own best example of what you criticize

    Like

  191. “I’ve seen with how it is commonly understood that go against the humanitarian lead that Jesus takes.”

    actually thats what I meant. You don’t speak for Jesus since frankly your blog betrays you don’t even know what he is about. You merely try to input your idea of ‘humanitarian lead” and incorporate him into your own ideology something I see others have taken you on about.

    However I thought we had agreed this discussion made no sense (since it never was one)

    Like

  192. ” I’ll pass. Keep listening to those crickets.”

    🙂 🙂 Of course you will KC because that saves you the embarrassment of saying

    “Mike I really tried to come up with something but……….I got nothing”

    so what else is there to listen to besides the crickets?

    Like

  193. ” the point is, that a valid explanation WILL be found at some point, just as relativity was discovered at the beginning of the last century, and when it is, it will be scientific and will not involve any supernatural entities – OR turtles.

    Until then, I’m perfectly fine with no explanation at all.”

    It was almost as if as you wrote that you had “Somewhere over the rainbow’ playing in the background. Its really quite clear you have no understanding of the issues. Science will NEVER ever give a rational explanation for what Krauss was attempting to answer – ultimate causation. There are only two options

    either something must exist that has no cause or causes are of an infinite regression.

    Either option stops science in its track because science cannot be invoked to explain what has no explanation. Despite your speech invested with all the faith and worship of scientism scientific progress has been limited to how things work. We ‘ve made no progress on on any question about ultimate causation and its dubious science is even intended for such a task

    So you can write your “WILL”. in caps, bold letters even a different font because science itself teaches us thatt the answers for that lay outside of our cause and effect universe. How you think with such assurance scientists will breach the singularity which is unbreachable is beyond me …and beyond common sense.

    furthermore something without cause is pretty much indistinguishable from a supernatural concept in and of itself. So click your heels all you want and say you’d rather be in Kansas but you are stuck with a supernatural meta-physcical concept somewhere.

    Like

  194. such assurance scientists will breach the singularity which is unbreachable is beyond me” – as, obviously, are so many, MANY other things as well.

    Like

  195. Arch,

    re: ” RE: “we have NO other valid explanation” – I’m not agreeing that that’s true, but why do we NEED one? How about saying, “We don’t currently have a valid explanation, but tossing a supernatural, magical entity into the mix, sure isn’t gonna do it!” ”

    Why do you need to believe we aren’t created beings with a Creator? How about saying He COULD exist?? Same thing.

    The truth, whatever it is, has NOTHING to do with “need”.. it has to do with TRUTH.. what actually is.. regardless of what we want or how we feel about it. That’s why it is mind boggling that people turn away from God because they don’t like having to answer to Him.. pretending to not believe in Him because it hurts your fragile ego and pride and inconveniences your will, won’t change the truth of His existence one. single. bit.

    And it’s also so incredibly ignorant to insist that something couldn’t exist just because in your very short time in existence, in your tiny little place in a tiny little world, in a never ending, ILLOGICAL universe, you haven’t witnessed anything “supernatural”. It’s incredible arrogance. It is a total absence of humility. The more knowledge we gain by learning about the universe, the more HUMBLE we should be.. because it just makes us smaller and smaller and smaller… but with the atheist.. knowledge makes them more prideful and arrogant instead. Erroneously believing that scientific knowledge somehow disproves God. ..it doesn’t.. and it NEVER DID.. just because “ignorant, uneducated” “cave dwellers” believed that God was the cause of thunder.. knowing the scientific reasons for thunder today doesn’t then prove them wrong.. it STILL could have been God expressing His anger… using the science HE created.
    “just because a person is paranoid.. that doesn’t mean they aren’t being followed”.

    Only a truly arrogant person will claim what “can’t” be.. how can anyone know about the massive incredible universe and then say the Earth couldn’t be created in 6 days? Whoever created the universe, clearly has no limits. It’s complete arrogance.. a complete lack of humility. That’s what the universe was meant for.. to help man see how great God is.. but to the prideful and arrogant, they see how “great” they are for having the knowledge.

    Like

  196. Bottom line Arch.. whether atheists like it or not, which, you obviously do NOT.. the most rational reasonable explanation for our existence is that we have a Creator. This is true of everything in existence.. but somehow, for some reason.. it’s not true of humans and other living things. There is no valid argument for us NOT being created beings… none. It’s pure pride that causes man to believe he is the unique freak accident.. man who also happens to be the most complicated mass of components in existence.. all just a freak accident.

    Like

  197. Well HELL lo everybody,

    @NAN, I didn’t see an answer to my comment about that dog, Nan. You tell that creature, “I aint skeard.”

    @jasonjshaw, That will be just about enough of the genuine Christian conduct out of you young man. If these Christian’s wanted to conduct themselves as they should then they wouldn’t be on Nate’s Blog:) And you had better start acting a good deal more like a jerk yourself if you know whats good for you!

    While I’m on the subject, @Charity, That will be ENOUGH, of the edifying comments like the last one to Nate! He has a big enough head as it is woman!

    @Archaeopteryx, How dare you sir! If “bird” is in the name, “Proto-bird,” then YOU ARE A BEAUTIFUL BIRD!

    @KC, Uh, I got nothin man. It’s not a bad thing! Just you seem emotionally stable and pretty sane. I’m not seeing a lot I can harass you about. Maybe some day you’ll become a little less balanced and give me something to work with. I can dream:)

    OK NOW! Back to conducting myself now a proper Christian. Well, as good a one as the Old Man is gonna get. He knew what he was getting when he called me.

    @Archaeopteryx and @Nate
    The first hurtle we have to clear is this. I am not a Pauline. For an example of a Pauline, ask Nate to tell you about the Church of Christ. They are dead on.

    Not being a Pauline means I DO NOT WORSHIP THE BIBLE. It is an “inspired” work. Inspired by it’s very definition does NOT carry the meaning of “perfect” or “infallible.” It was only meant to illuminate, educate and “inspire” those who read it to be more.

    Now in reply to the Beautiful bird’s and Nate’s response to my comments about Genesis, Let us take a closer look.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Now keep in mind, you CAN tell me I am bughouse crap faced crazy at any time. You’ll sound like my mother, but you it is your right.

    This first part is metaphorical. The first verse is a statement of being as to who God is. It has almost nothing to do with verse 2.

    In verse 2 the earth is what existed before the BANG. The water is a metophore for the “Word of God.” No not the Bible you poor Pauline beaten children, the Messiah. The part of God that directly interacts with the physical realm. He broods over the water because he is about to use it.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Big Bang. What? You don’t think it had a lot of light?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The dividing was the part where matter began to separate. This part would have taken millions of years for stars and planets to form.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Funny thing about the Hebrew language, the same word they use for day can mean age. Just like in English. “In my day…” This verse just conveys that the first age came to a close when the planets and stars were formed.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
    7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
    8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    These verses are referring to two different things. The word of God (water) and the Oceans that covered the planet (water). I don’t care that you don’t buy it. It’s OK.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    9-13 are about land emerging and plants coming into being.
    At this point “Archaeopteryx commented that single celled monera came first and then diverged but that plants came way down the line. They did but nothing that a nomadic Jew 5000 years ago, YES I SAW YOUR COMMENT AND IT DOES INTEREST ME. This was all caps so you know I saw it, would recognize as animal. So Plants come next to include the algae the first life would have eaten in the see.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    14-19 We’re skipping the next few verses as the information about the stars and sun and moon is incorrect.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    20: “Archaeopteryx”… life began in the sea. And birds – trust me on this – evolved from land animals.

    Yes they did. But the old Jew got it right on it beginning in the sea. It’s the first thing he mentioned in verse 20.
    And then it goes on to talk about great creatures in the sea that followed and then land animals. So the old guy got birds wrong. Not bad for a dude that only had God to ask for help.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Now, Archaeopteryx, what are the expert witnesses about when the Old test was written? I’d like some links if you got em.

    Like

  198. How about saying He COULD exist??” – How about explaining what created him?
    pretending to not believe in Him” – Hello – not pretending here —

    The more knowledge we gain by learning about the universe, the smaller and smaller and smaller the need becomes for your “god of the gaps.”
    God is an ever-decreasing pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes by.
    ~~ astrophysist, Neill Degrasse Tyson ~~

    just because ‘ignorant, uneducated’ ‘cave dwellers’ believed that God was the cause of thunder.. knowing the scientific reasons for thunder today doesn’t then prove them wrong.. it STILL could have been God expressing His anger… using the science HE created.” – Why would an omnipotent entity use an electomagnetic display of electron imbalance to express anger? For that matter, why would any supreme being even feel anger at all? How “supreme” could he be, if his emotions are identical to our own?

    That’s what the universe was meant for.. to help man see how great God is” – Why would a supreme being NEED anyone to see how great he is? When I do a good deed for someone, help a lady change a tire, etc., I generally try to slip away with the least amount of fan fare, because I didn’t do it for praise or adulation, I did it simply because it needed to be done. One would certainly expect a god to have superior qualities to a Human, but according to you, he created an entire Universe just to say, “Look at me! Look at what I can do!” That doesn’t sound like superior behavior to me —

    I WILL say this, you’re far more pleasant to talk to when you’re not raving and ranting and calling everyone names.

    Like

  199. It’s pure pride that causes man to believe he is the unique freak accident.. man who also happens to be the most complicated mass of components in existence.. all just a freak accident.” – This is what gives me reason to believe that you have never studied much about evolution, because that is not what evolution proposes. It’s absolutely true that we are a very complicated mass of components, but the first life on the planet wasn’t – it consisted of only a single cell. And those single cells did great for millions of years, until two cells somehow joined, or maybe never completely separated, but the double cell enjoyed advantages that a single cell didn’t, and lived to pass on its DNA to offspring, i.e., divisions of itself. The point is, that this complex organism that is us, grew over billions of years as a consequence of random DNA mutations, and those that were successful, lived to pass on those mutations to their offspring, while those whose mutations weren’t, died out. And so it went, and here we are.

    It’s also clear, Kathy – and I don’t say this to demean you – that you don’t seem to know a great deal about how scientific theories are approached. Those who develop them, then work hard to prove them wrong, because when they are ultimately reviewed by their peers – other members of their scientific community – those peers are going to do their best to tear the theory apart, not because they’re mean and cruel, but because they take great pride in their scientific organization, and can’t release any theory as fact that hasn’t been tested and retested. And they don’t just look for the results they WANT to find either, in fact, they look even harder for the results that they DON’T want to find, because they would rather find it themselves, than have someone on the outside find it and they be made fools of.

    This is why so many here are suggesting you look long and hard into other religions, really get to know them, rather than simply deciding that yours is superior, and thus you don’t feel you need to know about any others. If you don’t test your belief, like a scientist tests a theory, against others of its kind, then you can only believe it’s true, but you can never know for certain.

    Like

  200. RE: “@Archaeopteryx, How dare you sir! If “bird” is in the name, “Proto-bird,” then YOU ARE A BEAUTIFUL BIRD!” – Foist of all, haydendlinder, I won’t argue with you, I’m gorgeous – happy now? But the point I’m trying to make, is that I’m a transitional species, of which, anti-evolutionists say there ain’t none of.

    Secondly, RE: “you CAN tell me I am bughouse crap faced crazy at any time.” – Some of my best friends are bughouse crap faced crazy – well, you KNOW Ark – you should fit right in.

    And thirdly, and probably most importantly, it is nearly three freakin’ o’clock in my am, and I don’t even have enough left to read that long-assed comment that you wrote, much less dig up any references for you tonig-morning. I will read it when I awaken at the crack of noon, scout’s honor, and respond appropriately.

    Don’t call me, I’ll call you.

    Buenos nachos!

    Like

  201. ““How about saying He COULD exist??” – How about explaining what created him?”

    To use YOUR argument…

    why do we NEED to know? How about saying, “We don’t currently have a valid explanation?

    “The more knowledge we gain by learning about the universe, the smaller and smaller and smaller the need becomes for your “god of the gaps.”

    See?!?! You just proved me right.. again! With knowledge there is incredible arrogance and pride. Arch, here’s a question I really want an answer to.. please explain HOW scientific knowledge disproves a Creator.

    And please explain how “NEED” has ANY bearing on TRUTH.

    You and Neil Tyson and every other atheist LIES to yourselves by believing that knowing how it all works somehow disproves a Creator. But I’ve asked so many atheists… including Tyson and I have NEVER gotten an answer.. instead I get atheists backtracking and trying to claim they never made the claim. But your comment, and Tyson’s imply the complete opposite.. so, I’m asking HOW.. please explain this..

    “Why would an omnipotent entity use an electomagnetic display of electron imbalance to express anger?”

    Why not?? It’s a very affective way to get our attention… particularly the lightening part.

    “For that matter, why would any supreme being even feel anger at all? How “supreme” could he be, if his emotions are identical to our own?” ”

    Who says God can’t have emotions?? Who made this “rule”?? You, just like Nate are making narrow minded assumptions about Someone who created YOU.. and everything around you.. and you see no problem with making these assumptions.. I don’t understand it.

    “Why would a supreme being NEED anyone to see how great he is? ”

    So, since you don’t understand His motives or His emotions, that means you get a “pass” and don’t have to believe in Him or worship Him? How do you think He’s going to react to that? Who are we to demand understanding before we will bow down to Him? There’s nothing wrong with asking questions but that’s not what you and Nate and others are doing.. you’re making demands. You are judging God and attempting to call the shots. How can anyone think this way?? Oh, never mind.. how could I forget.. pride.

    You are CHOOSING to judge God instead of trying to understand Him. If you truly tried to understand Him, you wouldn’t have such questions to begin with.

    “When I do a good deed for someone, help a lady change a tire, etc., I generally try to slip away with the least amount of fan fare, because I didn’t do it for praise or adulation, I did it simply because it needed to be done.” Good for you.. and I’m pretty sure God’s done more for you than you will ever realize.. and He hasn’t demanded any “fan fare” either.

    One would certainly expect a god to have superior qualities to a Human, but according to you, he created an entire Universe just to say, “Look at me! Look at what I can do!” That doesn’t sound like superior behavior to me – ”

    I never said this.. anywhere.. and there is NOTHING in the Bible that supports this “judgment” you’ve made against God. It’s all coming straight from your pride & ego. The Bible is clear.. He created us out of love. For us to love Him and for Him to love us. And His love for us was amazingly demonstrated through His Son. You kind of skipped right over that part.. but then, that’s what atheists have to do in order to be atheists.. you have to ignore all the things you have, all your blessings, your life, and especially Jesus’ sacrifice.. you have to ignore all of it.. and you all do that very very well unfortunately.

    Like

  202. You and Neil Tyson and every other atheist LIES to yourselves by believing that knowing how it all works somehow disproves a Creator.

    Wrong, Kathy. Very wrong.
    The atheist is in no position to categorically state there is or is not a creator.
    What we ARE saying is this:

    The evidence offered up so far for this creator deity, especially by theists such as yourself and Mike does not warrant consideration and can be dismissed.
    It is unverifiable, not falsifiable and is largely derived from erroneous fallacious religious text.

    If you, or any other religious person, however, has verifiable evidence to back your god claims then please show us.

    There is no lying involved by atheists in this regard.
    I, for one, am genuine, as I have a deep fascination for certain aspects of biblical history, Moses for one.
    So please, feel free to offer any and all evidence you have for such claims of veracity and I will most definitely investigate.

    Like

  203. Kathy –

    I am appalled and dismayed by the cavalier response you gave to that HORRID video. That woman was ‘speaking the truth’!??? Yes, indeed, it WAS too intense for children of that age. . . . . ANY age. I’ll bet that the rest of the people commenting on this thread (perhaps even TBlacksman) recognize what that tirade really was/is. Mental/emotional abuse of children. That woman’s face should be posted all over social media, and labelled as an abuser – and you defend her as she is, “encouraging children to not talk dirty”!??? I’d also like to know what you consider talking dirty. (using swear words? speaking of imaginary wizards? – what??)

    In my opinion, this single comment establishes that you have absolutely no credibility. Anyone who is not completely horrified by that woman’s actions is not thinking clearly at all.

    I shudder to think that there are children this very day who are listening to some nutbar like that woman and internalizing the message that they are not worthy. How dreadful. How despicable that anyone would defend her actions for ANY reason.

    If that’s the kind of casual disregard you have for children’s feelings – in defence of the Christian god – than you really do need to take a closer look at your convictions.

    OH, and by the way. Not one single thing you have said establishes that the christian god is responsible for creation, any more than allah, the muslim god. (I believe there are others, as well?) You’ll need to dig a little deeper.

    Like

  204. “You and Neil Tyson and every other atheist LIES to yourselves by believing that knowing how it all works somehow disproves a Creator. ”

    But they don’t even have that going for them really. No one understands how quantum mechanics works and it apparently affects everything. The very nature of it is counter intuitive and does not open itself greatly to study of its ultimate causation. I don’t think they are necessarily lying but they are given to great fantasies in the name of science.

    Its amusing to see Arch quote Tyson as if he is quoting a prophet or priest. This is why many are beginning to see atheism is its own religion. As you have seen from this group it not only has its beliefs ( everything out of nothing sans evidence) it has dogma and now even prophesies (of what Science WILL – lol – show).

    Modern atheism has MANY beliefs and not the least is that science serves a master called materialism. Some have even convinced themselves (again sans evidence) that science is in the service of atheism. In other words they KNOW with perfect faith though science is provisional that in the great by and by it will always advanced both atheism and materialism.

    The really great thing about being an atheist is that religion is pretty much beneath you to study. the embarrassing thing about that ignorance is bliss state is that it makes them say outrageously stupid things. Take Tyson’s comment that atheists memorize and go into a state of zen over – that God is a “ever decreasing pocket of ignorance” – it s amusingly actually quite the contrary.

    We both know that the Bible claims God creates by Law, not by waving a magical stick or exerting any unknown force. he speaks and its done. Thats in all of genesis 1 and it extends to the very end of the New Testament over and over and over again. Yet what do we hear leading atheists say over and over again in almost assinine bliss – well its “once we have the laws of nature we do not need God or religion”.

    See? complete ignorance of what it is they are opposing. For God and religion to be an ever decreasing pocket of ignorance you would need to be able to say that we don’t need the laws he is alleged to provide but what they tacitly admit to is that that sphere has not shrinked an inch. We very much require law and we don’t know how to explain it – even if we would be Krauss invoking law to create everything out of nothing.

    Whats so entertaining about people like Arch and Ark is that you realize, even as they are blubbering on about Krauss and materialism out of nothing, that they don’t even understand the implications – If everything came out of nothing from any kind of law it would CONFIRM religion and God not disprove his existence.

    Like

  205. If everything came out of nothing from any kind of law it would CONFIRM religion and God not disprove his existence.

    Once more, Mike, all you have to do is profer some verifiable evidence. This would immediately dispel all doubt and answer your critics once and for all.
    But please, start with the god you worship…Yeshua.

    Like

  206. TBlacksman, I actually have experience with “speaking the truth” when in fact my “truth” was actually more vicious of nature rather than conveying honest information. I noticed this in a number of your responses, which is why I spoke up.

    Like

  207. “I shudder to think that there are children this very day who are listening to some nutbar like that woman and internalizing the message that they are not worthy. How dreadful. How despicable that anyone would defend her actions for ANY reason. ”

    Yawn……….. your emotional theatric outrage does not make for evidence. Frankly I don’t watch the videos you guys post but since you mentioned me as possibly not agreeing I did this once. I had no problem with the first part but yeah I could do without the last part with the unbiblical washing of hands and chanting as if that does anything. I also think she’s watched one too many TV evangelist.

    I can see having a problem with those things and with the style but the substance is just you being outraged that people don’t believe as you do – nothing much else. I don’t know about the rest of that camp but I didn’t hear her say the kids were unworthy either. I’ve seen children crying before even my own and its a beautiful thing. As you read me saying that I can bet that just raises your emotional outrage for me to say such a thing but it illustrates how your emotional reactions don’t mean anything except that you think you are more righteous and caring based on sound bites. Why?

    because my children have cried when they realized they hurt their siblings feelings so yes sometimes crying can be a beautiful thing.

    Meanwhile don’t think we don’t see through the outrage and bluster about child abuse. I am so thankful that atheists are in the minority because its quite clear and some of you have said as much – you would LOVE to violate our freedom of religion on the pretense of alleged child abuse. Today it will be for how some TV evangelists inspired person speaks tomorrow it will be just for teaching our kids the bible is the word of God.

    Like

  208. “TBlacksman, I actually have experience’

    Don’t care what you have experience with. One thing you don’t obviously have experience with is following through with your own words. You said this exchange makes no sense a day ago and you are till carrying it on. Your ENTIRE input here has been focusing on criticizing one person with no other substance or positive input into any discussion

    So now whose the hypocrite?

    Like

  209. you would LOVE to violate our freedom of religion on the pretense of alleged child abuse.

    Oh…..that day is coming, hotshot. Count on it. Self-centered, sanctimonious hypocritical bastards like you will have to get used to the fact that,em>every Abrahamic religion will eventually be regarded as nothing but disgusting little cults.
    Oh, it will take while, no doubt, but science has been the death knell for myriad religious practices. Your piss willy faith will go the same way.

    Like

  210. “This would immediately dispel all doubt and answer your critics once and for all.”

    I’d ask why you must incessantly lie the way you do but it will only add to the questions you have refused to deal with. If you were not among the group that just about denied Israel was a nation again as prophesied and tried to float that everything came out of nothing then you would have a chance at being credible on that barf but ….well we know how that condition was flunked.

    Like

  211. I’d ask why you must incessantly lie the way you do but it will only add to the questions you have refused to deal with

    I don’t recall you asking me any questions?
    But, please, feel free. Perhaps a brief summary would be in order and I will most definitely answer them.

    Like

  212. “you would LOVE to violate our freedom of religion on the pretense of alleged child abuse.”

    Oh…..that day is coming, hotshot. Count on it. Self-centered, sanctimonious hypocritical bastards like you will have to get used to the fact that,em>every Abrahamic religion will eventually be regarded as nothing but disgusting little cults.”

    ROFL….. I love it. One stepped right up and owned he wants to take away freedom of Religion. Thanks Ark you saved me a ton load of time responding to those who were set to deny it.

    and umm good luck with that dream of yours. Given the poll numbers on atheism its quite the fantasy.

    Like

  213. and umm good luck with that dream of yours. Given the poll numbers on atheism its quite the fantasy.

    Oh, there’s no need to deprive adults of their freedom of religion. Why would anyone want to?Common sense will prevail there.
    Every deconvert is an example of this. But children are another matter.
    And if you look at the ‘numbers’ correctly you will see that you are wrong. Oh, so very wrong.

    Like

  214. ” But children are another matter.”

    One that you cant address without violating freedom of religion so your denial is a facade. As Kathy might say – typical liberal. You are the first to want to take away freedoms if it suits you.

    Like

  215. Oh, I am dreadfully sorry. Are you one of those who believes the US is the world? As far as religion goes the US (your country?) is probably up there with some of most backward on the planet.
    Oh, dear….
    Every nation goes through its religious phase. The more advanced ones come through it and begin to accept and adopt secularism.
    The US will get there…eventually. Patience, Mike. Patience.

    One that you cant address without violating freedom of religion

    au contraire, my dear Mike.
    A child has individual rights. Rights which are violated by enforcing an adult’s religion upon them without choice.
    The above video is a perfect example. Also the abuse they are subject to with Creationism under the pretext of such nonsense as ACE schooling.

    You may recall a case was brought to the Hague last year in an attempt to have circumcision outlawed for religious regions.
    It failed. But that is a good thing…because that’s where it starts, Mike.

    Like

  216. “Oh, I am dreadfully sorry. Are you one of those who believes the US is the world? As far as religion goes the US (your country?) is probably up there with some of most backward on the planet.’

    🙂 🙂 Oh I am dreadfully sorry Arch are you one of those people that think that Muslims countries are not part of the world or that Africa and south america are not either?

    Your favorite resource rebuts your latest desperate claims

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country

    “You may recall a case was brought to the Hague last year in an attempt to have circumcision outlawed for religious regions.
    It failed.”

    But of course it failed since as with every thing the creator calls for it has sweeping benefits

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-study-reports/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

    Keep trying Arch. You may yet make a good point….or at least bore me to the point of leaving (If kathy will not give up on you soon).

    Like

  217. Greetings, all! I have been reading Nate’s blog daily for the past few weeks and initially found this back and for the to be interesting. As of late, it’s getting tiresome. I’d like to try and take it in a slightly different direction.

    Kathy, I know many here are firmly in the Atheist camp. I would consider myself an Agnostic. I have no problem with the idea of a Creator. So let’s start with the assumption that there is someone/something out there that created us. Taking out that hurdle, what evidence do you have that that Creator is the God of the Bible? Other than its own claims, what do you have to back that assumption up? THAT is where I see the contradictions and failed prophecies as problematic. If our Creator chose to communicate with us (and there’s nothing that says he HAD to do so), then we should be able to definitively determine which communication is from the divine as opposed to being from man. I would like to see you counter the “credentials” of the Christian God against those of other religions. What is it that causes you to dismiss Islam, Hinduism, etc… that wouldn’t also cause you to dismiss Christianity? I came out of the same ultra-conservative, literalist background as Nate and believed fervently for many years too. But after stepping away and looking at it OBJECTIVELY and with as little bias as I could muster, came away thoroughly convinced that the Bible was not divinely inspired. The problem many Christians have with being objective is that to them, the Bible IS God and the two are inseparable. Try to remember that when Nate and William and others are picking apart the continuity and inaccuracy of the Bible, they aren’t questioning God, they are questioning the veracity of a book written by men.

    All that said, I think the arguments about our creation are pointless as neither side can provide any evidence at this juncture. I’d like to see the conversation move back to the evidences for and against the book. And when “evidence” is presented by EITHERwhether it be an article, a video, or whatever, if anyone dismisses it out of hand and refuses to even look, that person is certainly not being objective.

    Just my .02 on the matter.

    Like

  218. Kathy – sorry i couldn’t stay up and play with you, but I have a long day ahead.
    This is in response to your comment https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/letter-to-kathy-part-2/#comment-13881, in case there are others – sorry the comments don’t line up under each other, so you can tell which one I’m responding to.

    I asked who created your god, you answered with my own question, as to why anyone NEEDS to know the answer to that, then defeated your own response by asking what need had to do with anything, which brings us back to square one:
    And please explain how ‘NEED has ANY bearing on TRUTH.
    So how about explaining what created him?”

    Arch, here’s a question I really want an answer to.. please explain HOW scientific knowledge disproves a Creator.
    I could ask the same question of unicorns or leprechauns, or a teacup orbiting Mars. It’s impossible to disprove a negative – I can ask you to disprove any number of things that don’t exist, and you can’t, which is why, when someone makes a claim that something DOES exist, we expect proof that it does, THAT, if it exists, can be proven.

    So, since you don’t understand His motives or His emotions, that means you get a ‘pass’ and don’t have to believe in Him or worship Him?
    No, Kathy, it means I don’t have to believe in him/her/it until someone provides me with irrefutable evidence that he/she/it exists, and it would appear you’re getting irritable again —

    How do you think He’s going to react to that?
    A non-existing entity cannot react, so I’m not expecting much.

    “One would certainly expect a god to have superior qualities to a Human, but according to you, he created an entire Universe just to say, ‘Look at me! Look at what I can do!’ That doesn’t sound like superior behavior to me – ”

    I never said this.. anywhere..
    Yes, you did, Kathy – “That’s what the universe was meant for.. to help man see how great God is..” Do you sometimes get so irritated that others don’t see things your way, that you forget what you said?

    Maybe if you prayed about that temper – or more realistically, saw a therapist —

    Like

  219. Oh I am dreadfully sorry Arch are you one of those people that think that Muslims countries are not part of the world or that Africa and south america are not either?

    I believe you forgot China, Mike. Mustn’t forget the Chinese.
    As I said, all countries go through a religious phase and a lot more religions have come and gone than miracles Yeshua performed.
    The US is still going through its dumb as dog-do phase regarding religion.
    It’ll come right, have no fear.
    Your religion will eventually see its arse. Science has proved the death knell of so many religious cults there is no reason at all to believe yours will be any different.
    Time, Mike…just time.

    But of course it failed since as with every thing the creator calls for it has sweeping benefits

    Ah, yes, one does forget how you do try to educate us, Mike.
    Every ”intelligent” person can see why your god insisted having part of his foreskin removed.
    A no brainer really, right?

    Note the relieved and gleeful smiles?

    BTW, are there any serious questions you wish me to answer?
    You did make mention that I hadn’t done so, I believe?

    Like

  220. Carmen, RE: “I’d also like to know what you consider talking dirty.” – Good luck with that. I asked the same question, got no answer.

    Like

  221. I knew SOMEONE else had asked; I was just too lazy to go through the comment thread to find out. . thanks!

    As my little grandchildren chuckle in the background to cartoons they are watching on TV, I’m chuckling at the verbal antics being played out on this Blog. . .some of you are GOOD! 😉

    Like

  222. RE: “Keep trying Arch. You may yet make a good point” – Sober up, Mike – that wasn’t me. Try some coffee.

    Like

  223. I guess I haven’t met you before, Carmen – what’s that they say – “Come here often?”
    (And no, I won’t ask, “What’s your sign?”)

    Like

  224. “THAT is where I see the contradictions and failed prophecies as problematic. If our Creator chose to communicate with us (and there’s nothing that says he HAD to do so), then we should be able to definitively determine which communication is from the divine as opposed to being from man.”

    Thats where the whole discussion became and becomes problematic. Kathy does not accept those premises because they are unproven and this blog’s position is that the the assertions and arguments that there are contradictions and failed prophecies is enough to establish them as having been proven.

    Thats the great divide.

    Like

  225. Nope I didn’t poor ark. Read er and weep

    Nope…no need to shed ne’er a tear, Mike. As I said, all nations go through a religious phase. Belief and eventual rejection of supernatural belief It is all part of growing up.
    Look at the most socially developed nations, Mike. This is the way things will eventually go.
    Such countries are NOT moving back toward religion, although the world is replete with evangelical idiots trying their best to hold back kids and abuse them with this hate and fear filled nonsense. ( such as in the video, Ron posted)

    But this behavior is regressive, Mike. Hence the reason why the more socially developed an individual/ country and eventually, the world will reject such nonsense.

    You can bleat all you like, it makes not one iota of difference. It is already happening.
    It may take a few hundred years. So what?
    It’s un the wane, Mike. You will just have to get used to it.

    Like

  226. “You can bleat all you like, it makes not one iota of difference. It is already happening.
    It may take a few hundred years. So what?”

    🙂 🙂 reduced to prophecying events hundreds of years into the future? Say it aint so Ark. lol

    Like

  227. Who says God can’t have emotions?? Who made this “rule”??

    Kathy, as already explained here, logic itself dictates it. Rage, anger, hatred, jealousy, vengefulness, grief and remorse betray a lack of control—the exact opposite of what it means to be an all-perfect, all-poweful and all-knowing being.

    Unless, of course, you wish to argue that your god doesn’t need to follow the rules of logic.

    Like

  228. How many people wake up in a cold sweat at night worrying about how the universe started?

    Could it have been done by a god? Sure. But why stop there? Why not two, or three, or a dozen, or a thousand? Or why not magic pixies, or sprites, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the great pumpkin? To date, I see no convincing evidence to conclude any of these.

    Like

  229. OK, Heyden – I leaped to my feet a little earlier than expected (actually, I drug myself off the wrong side of the floor), now to wade through your comment.

    Even with your expositional comments, Heyden, I have some issues with your explanation of the following, in terms of matching it up with actual events:

    4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The dividing was the part where matter began to separate. This part would have taken millions of years for stars and planets to form.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

    As you can see by the illustration, the early universe was composed entirely of a quark–gluon plasma – heat so intense that not even atoms could form. Had you explained that from about 180,000 years to 800,000 years, the photons in the plasma were interacting with protons and electrons, and that as a consequence, the universe was opaque or “foggy” – there was light but not light we can now observe through telescopes (the baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during “recombination”, thereby releasing the photons to shine out as light). SO, during that period, it was known as the universe’s “Dark Ages,” i.e., – had there been a place to stand, and a person to stand there, he, she, or it, could not have seen light emerging from the evolving universe during that time period. For what that’s worth.

    Bear in mind, I’m not correcting you, as my opinion is that the Bible is 90% made-up goat-herder crap, and if anyone wants to believe it, why should I care, until they start trying to make me believe it too, which you haven’t done.

    If you have a blog, could you give me your URL? You seem like an interesting person.

    Like

  230. “Unless, of course, you wish to argue that your god doesn’t need to follow the rules of logic.”

    No we can just dispense with the idea of you possessing any logic (as I have demonstrated countless times of you) or knowing its definition. Emotion does not have to betray logic or control. One can be angry and in complete control despite your beg. Most married people have a problem with their spouses sleeping with someone else. thats jealousy but it hardly means that they are out of control. Are they supposed to be happy about it? and if grief/being sad means someone is out of control then empathy is being out of control which is just a silly conclusion

    Your points are almost always just the silliest on here to be honest.

    Like

  231. Wrong again, weren’t you? Considering the rate at which that keeps happening, at least we now understand why you prefer not to commit to anything – how can you be wrong, when all you do is heckle? You should probably wipe the drool off your own keyboard before you worry about mine.

    Like

  232. Do married couples have complete knowledge or exercise complete control over their spouse’s actions? No, they usually do not.

    But an all-knowing all-powerful being that’s created everything from scratch in accordance with its own design would have complete and utter control over what transpires. To get angry when things go exactly as you planned them would be illogical. But then again, the people who invented Yahweh weren’t exactly the sharpest people on earth.

    Like

  233. Ron, RE: “Unless, of course, you wish to argue that your god doesn’t need to follow the rules of logic.” – wouldn’t that imply a degree of madness? That would certainly explain a lot – a god exists, but he’s insane – I like that!

    Like

  234. @ kathy

    Here’s a few of the questions that I asked you on the last thread:

    1) how many religions have you rally researched, and have you done so fairly?

    2) if you researched other religions, were you trying to prove them right, as you do the bible, or were you trying to find their errors?

    3) what evidences lend credit to the bible, that also do not take credit from it? (history, archaeology, science – all discredit the bible as much as it may credit it, and many other religions claim the same, so how is the bible better, how do the claims in the bible trump the claims of other religions?).

    4) Have you read these passages?

    John: 13:1; 18:28, 39; 19:14, 31, 42 (before passover)

    Mark: 14:12 (passover)

    Matthew: 26:17 (passover)

    Luke: 22:7 (passover)

    after reading these, never mind telling me which day he was crucified on, just tell me whether or not you can at least understand where some people would be confused by this.

    There are more, but so that none are overlooked, we can start here and add more later.

    thanks,

    William

    Like

  235. Nate, it’s always refreshing to see a genuinely nice person engage others and without flamethrowing. I thought I would just make a comment about the Christian scheme that you alluded to when you were first questioning your faith.

    One of the problems with the standard evangelical schemes are that they leave out several important biblical concepts. The first is the idea that we must believe a particular doctrine to be saved. This idea undercuts all of the prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul saying clearly that we will be judged based on our deeds. This is the great equalizer: the human conscience. Paul states in Romans 2 that the Gentiles will be judged by their conscience. That does not mean that believing and faith are unimportant for those who have been called to believe which brings us to our second point.

    Second, is the idea of calling. God calls certain people to be part of the church and they may accept or reject this call. Let’s take some extreme examples to understand this. If God puts someone (i.e., the consciousness or soul) in an isolated culture, how can God expect them to become a Christian? It’s clear that by placing them in the isolated culture God does not expect them to believe unless God sends missionaries. On the other end, if God puts someone in a culture where they are presented the gospel and understand the content, that’s God calling them. It’s like informed consent, they can reject this or accept it or be ambivalent or whatever. And, being studied and reciting scripture is not the same as understanding content.

    Third, the idea of relative judgment. Judgment will be relative to the individual’s situation. A stagnant selfish Christian who refuses to repent will be judged harsher than a charitable Buddhist who has not been called to be in the church. Jesus said to whom much is given much is expected. Jesus also said that the towns that rejected him during his ministry will be judged harsher than Sodom and Gomorrah which is the idea of relative judgment.

    Here’s the problem. As humans we want to make a scheme so that we know who is on track to salvation and who is on track to damnation. We want to be able to say that this group is saved and this group is damned. But, we should be extremely careful not least because this can lead to tribalism. For everyone comes from a different starting point with different struggles and abilities. To see past behavior and spoken confessions, to get the heart of the person, is impossible for humans because it requires omniscience.

    Like

  236. “Do married couples have complete knowledge or exercise complete control over their spouse’s actions? No, they usually do not.

    But an all-knowing all-powerful being that’s created everything from scratch in accordance with its own design would have complete and utter control over what transpires.”

    Crack open a bible kid. Nowhere does it say that God controls all of people’s actions. Your point got busted. Move on.

    “But then again, the people who invented Yahweh weren’t exactly the sharpest people on earth.”

    apparently still sharper than you.

    Like

  237. Jesus also said that the towns that rejected him during his ministry will be judged harsher than Sodom and Gomorrah which is the idea of relative judgment.
    Yet another point against your buddy, Yeshua – clearly, as the son of your god, he was a bit short on geological information. Sodom and Gomorrah were located at the southern end of the Dead Sea, through which runs a geological fault that originates south of the Olduvai Gorge in Africa, and goes all the way to deep in the Levant. The area near the Dead sea is rich in bitumen, a tar-like substance halfway between oil and it’s ultimate by-product, coal. Egyptians used to travel there to mine it, for use in mummification. It is quite flammable. When the earthquake hit, it tossed bitumen into the air, which caught fire, and rained down. Kathy will still claim that “goddidit,” but it was a perfectly natural phenomenon.

    Like

  238. @archaeopteryx1: Jesus was talking about eschatological judgment which has not occurred yet. But, your point is still very interesting. Why can’t natural phenomena come about as an act of God? I mean why would it be logically impossible? Or, if you can’t prove that (which I’m certain you can’t), why is it more reasonable to conclude that natural phenomena cannot be an act of God?

    Like

  239. ” It is quite flammable. When the earthquake hit, it tossed bitumen into the air, which caught fire, and rained down. Kathy will still claim that “goddidit,” but it was a perfectly natural phenomenon.”

    Yet another point against you buddy. You don’t understand theology. God uses natural phenomenons all the time cause ummm he’s the God of nature

    “clearly, as the son of your god, he was a bit short on geological information…..The area near the Dead sea is rich in bitumen, a tar-like substance halfway between oil and it’s ultimate by-product, coal”

    Nah you are just short on BIble Knowledge. Yeshua already knew because the Bible already covers your little geology lesson if you had cracked it open

    Gen 14:10 Now the Valley of Siddim was full of asphalt pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled; some fell there, and the remainder fled to the mountains.

    Like

  240. “@archaeopteryx1: Jesus was talking about eschatological judgment which has not occurred yet. But, your point is still very interesting. Why can’t natural phenomena come about as an act of God? I mean why would it be logically impossible? Or, if you can’t prove that (which I’m certain you can’t), why is it more reasonable to conclude that natural phenomena cannot be an act of God?”

    This is interesting to me, so I hope you dont me chiming in. Maybe everything is under god’s control, or maybe somethings are under god’s control, and maybe nothing is.

    But if god is behind natural disasters, this is almost cruel. why would a perfect and just being send nondiscriminatory and widespread destruction and death? Couldn’t god send natural disasters and spare the lives of innocents and children? yet he does not.

    And if god only works through natural, physical laws (like those that create natural disasters) why get upset if people think they’re only natural (without god’s finger in the mix)?

    Like

  241. “Take Tyson’s comment that atheists memorize and go into a state of zen over – that God is a “ever decreasing pocket of ignorance” – it s amusingly actually quite the contrary. ”

    Tell that to Galileo.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/01/world/vatican-science-panel-told-by-pope-galileo-was-right.html

    The church seems to tend to lag behind in accepting scientific discoveries as truth. God is commonly used as a source of willful ignorance by the religious.

    Like

  242. @anaivethinker:

    … to get the heart of the person, is impossible for humans because it requires omniscience.

    I’m reminded of the scripture in Solomon (16:7) that says (NRSV): ” … for the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

    In other words, God is more interested in the motive behind the things a person says or does. A Christian may faithfully read the bible, attend church regularly, pray everyday, and defend their faith, but if their heart is not in the right place (i.e., to honor God), then they are nothing short of a hypocrite.

    Moreover, judging others is forbidden and your comment clearly illustrates why.

    Like

  243. Nowhere does it say that God controls all of people’s actions?

    You mean except https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen+25%3A23%3BExodus+9%3A16%2C+33%3A19%3BIsaiah+29%3A16%3B+45%3A9%3BActs+13%3A48%3B+Rom+8%3A28-30%3B+Rom+9%3A11-21%3B+Eph+1%3A4-5%2C+11%3B+2+Thes+2%3A11-12%3B+2+Tim+1%3A9&version=NIV“>here.

    My point stands firm and resolute. The buck stops with the creator of the universe. And a god that guides everything has no grounds for getting irate when things go just as it has planned them in advance—unless. of course, it’s psychotic.

    Like

  244. Why would it need to be, Brandon – why do you need a god so desperately? What psychological feelings of inadequacy are driving you to need someone superior to yourself, and why haven’t you sought therapy for it?

    Like

  245. Gen 14:10 Now the Valley of Siddim was full of asphalt pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled; some fell there, and the remainder fled to the mountains.” – yeah, I recall that one, that was the Tall Tale where 100-year old Abe and his 300 Ninja-shepherds routed five seasoned Mesopotamian armies and chased them all the way to Dan, despite the fact that they had Lot’s family and all of his livestock along to slow them down. I remember I laughed for a week! Thanks for reminding me, now I can get a second round of laughter out of it!

    Like

  246. “The church seems to tend to lag behind in accepting scientific discoveries as truth.

    Apparently you know how to do nothing but spout rhetoric as fact. The much ballyhoed example of Galileo (whatever would atheist do without him?)ignores the fact that scientists themselves have resisted certain truths because consensus can often get in the way of ANY set of people being slow to accept new things. Not that Gallileo was all that revolutionary even to “the church” (which atheist seem particularly dull in recognizing was not and is not the Roman Catholic church) .

    “God is commonly used as a source of willful ignorance by the religious.”

    and as you demonstrate rhetoric is commonly used as a source for the ignorant as well.

    Like

  247. @william: those are fantastic questions, I had anticipated the problem of evil would come up. If I said, “Yeah God planned on destroying Sodom from the beginning and programmed the plate tectonic shift from the very beginning of time at the Big Bang” it opens up a slew of secondary problems. The most significant is the problem of evil.

    I don’t want to bore you with a treatise here, so I’ll be very brief (hopefully). Ultimately, I think we don’t fully understand the moral relationship between Creator and humanity and the problem of evil must assume that we understand it. Sodom did not have even 10 righteous men, so God destroyed it for its wickedness. But, God permitted Job to undergo suffering even though Job was righteous. What does this say? Well, it’s complicated. God can judge through natural disaster, but also some people will suffer that don’t deserve this by moral standing. Has God wronged them? You need to construct some theory in order to judge God and condemn God, but is this construction actually true? Both the problem of evil and theodicies are constructions that rest on certain assumptions.

    In Judaism it was not clear what was the character of God. God was very high and holy (separated), unreachable, and a divine judge. But, we learned the character of God when it was revealed to us in Jesus. Jesus endured mocking and torture, extreme suffering to provide us with atonement, NOTto absorb God’s wrath, but to provide us a place to come before God and request forgiveness and mercy. This action reveals God’s character to be the utmost humility and that of love. That’s why John said God is love.

    Of course there are evil forces out there, be they evil ideologies, selfish desires, or if you believe in Satan or whatever. Whatever they are, they are evil. But, they do not come from God. God just permits them temporarily until this universe is destroyed and remade into a new creation.

    So much for a brief comment. . . and your other question about humans being natural, I guess I don’t really have a problem with someone claiming humans are only natural. I don’t support the idea of “supernatural” because I think it’s an unnecessarily constructed idea. Along those lines, why can’t the soul be natural? What does it mean to be natural? This is actually a difficult philosophical question to answer.

    Like

  248. “yeah, I recall that one, ”

    🙂 glad to be of assistance in jogging your slowing memory. Pity you hadn’t recalled it before making a fool of yourself claiming the geology of the area was not known.

    Like

  249. “Has God wronged them? You need to construct some theory in order to judge God and condemn God, but is this construction actually true?”

    or, has god even played a role?

    I mean, I get what you’re saying about us not being able to fully understand the relationship between creator and creation, but the bible uses certain terms, defines them at times, terms like “love,” “mercy,” “justice”, etc, etc.

    It goes on in places to say that we should do good when it’s in our power to do so…

    So I think we can know those terms. I think that when the bible identifies god as such, we can know what that means, and if we cant understand the descriptions of god when they’re given to descriptive god, then that presents many more questions.

    Here’s how i look at it. The bible makes certain claims – do those claims hold up? The bible says that god is just, yet it shows him punishing certain people that did no wrong (david’s baby with bathsheba – sure it punished david as well, but …). The bible says that god is merciful, yet we see him act without mercy…

    So, the question i think is, “does the bible really speak for god?” the “problem of evil” shows a problem – god is either contradictory, or the bible somewhat flawed, or the bible is just a product of man.

    and since god is said to have man write the bible, questioning the messenger to ensure the message is actually from the one they claim it’s from, is not the same as questioning the king.

    Like

  250. @Nan: nice scripture, I forgot about that one! And, I see you use NRSV as well. 😉 I agree with you, and knowing that we can appear to be doing good even with evil hearts is fearful. It should cause us to examine ourselves for sure!

    @archaeopteryx1: Arch, to me God is not a psychological crutch. Do you think my belief has ridded me of suffering and feelings of meaninglessness? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It’s complicated. The path toward psychological stability is not always connected with what people believe. And, when it is connected, is this correlation or causation? How about I get in your head now. Why do you want my belief to be a psychological crutch? Is that your psychological crutch?

    Like

  251. Nate,
    Feel free to move any discussion generated by this comment into a separate thread (attached to a separate post, I guess), and direct us to follow, if you think it may help to keep this metadiscussion separate.

    ————————–

    I’ve been following some of the messes in the last few comment threads quietly.
    Kathy said here, “Again, Nate, ‘finding truth’ (IF that is your TRUE goal) can only truly be done through open dialogue with those who disagree… and if BOTH sides apply objectivity, the truth WILL surface eventually.”
    I agree that this is possibly the best way to have hope of arriving at truth in these matters, though I won’t go so far as to say that it’s a sure thing we’ll get there.
    My mantra since the beginning of my recent questioning had been that the truth should withstand scrutiny. That’s why I started reading blogs like this one. As a Christian, I was applying scrutiny to my own beliefs. Now, as an unbeliever (am I still even tentative? IDK), I’m happy to have Christians posting in the comments sections, to serve the same purpose.
    TBlacksman (formerly known as “Mike Anthony”, IIRC) has not been contributing productively to the conversations here. I asked him once or twice to put more substance and less vitriol in his comments, but he refused. I explained how it detracts from any worthwhile points he may be making (and it makes it harder to tell what they are), but he expressly didn’t care. He seems to think that the ends justify the means (whereas I tried to explain how it’s counterproductive). Not only have several unbelievers chided him, but even several other Christians here have attempted to get him to change his tone, but he still refuses.
    It seems to me that he’s not constructing any coherent positive cases for his beliefs or the challenges he’s making to claims made by you and others here. He mostly handwaves and obfuscates and take us into conversations that go far off topic, and lead nowhere useful that I can tell.
    So, here it is Nate, my request: please ban TBlacksman (Mike). (Or at least put it to a vote.)
    He has singlehandedly turned the comments sections of the posts on your blog in which he participates into shitstorms of frustratingly useless disagreement. (Note the qualifiers; disagreement can be productive.) The “signal to noise ratio” of the conversation here has been drastically reduced, and I hope it can be restored.
    If some Christians here disagree and think I’m (we’re) just biased–I’d say let’s have some of your other friends join you in the dialog here–as long as they can be civil, and at least attempt to construct coherent, logical arguments for their positions.

    Like

  252. “I asked him once or twice to put more substance and less vitriol in his comments, but he refused. I explained how it detracts from any worthwhile points he may be making (and it makes it harder to tell what they are), but he expressly didn’t care.”

    Rata as i’ve told you and others before the presence of Arch’s and Arks vitriol LOOOOOONG before I ever arrived – name calling, cursing, slander and hate speech – FOREVER rebuts your claims that you wish to ban me for “detracting” and exposes your hypocrisy

    Its a point proven by their many vitriolic posts that if I supported your atheistic viewpoints you would EMBRACE me with OPEN LOVING arms 🙂 as you do the foaming at the mouth arck brothers

    So be my guest and ban Away. i have told Nate on many occasions it doesn’t matter to me. I know that beyond the ability to answer you back with your own style better than you can (collectively) give what really enrages you is how many of your alleged “contradictions” have been exposed by me to be on veeeery shaky grounds at best.

    I only have one demand should Nate decided to follow through on your request _ don;t mention my name on the blog or on comments either directly or indirectly. I say demand because as wordpress webmaster myself I know it just is not possible to ban anyone with the amount of free email addresses and IPs on the net.

    You are free to continue slandering Christians in general from the NT era to present day as you do often and what this blog is actually about but name my name or attempt to identify me indirectly then I am will not be obliged to abide the banning.

    As matter of fact heres a deal. Don’t mention my name nor respond to me and I can go softly into that good night right now.

    Deal? 🙂

    Like

  253. Note how Miguelito denigrates that which is backed by evidence, while promoting that which has none. What a Schmoo!

    Like

  254. ” but even several other Christians here have attempted to get him to change his tone, but he still refuses.”

    Outside of kathy and anaivethinker (who despite having an extremely bend back gentle tone has been nevertheless been laced with vitriol by arch and company with no talk of a ban of his abusers) and possibly Port I haven’t seen any Christian engaged here. There have been two drive byers who by not presenting anything else seemed to have just been sent for the purpose or really had no Christian convictions so – tokens? I dunno.

    Would have been more convincing had they hung around to say something else.

    I will say that I agree at this point there is no real productive dialogue going on but then there never was or has been. Some of the greatest anger from Nate’s regular readers came about when they had certain long held alleged contradictions debunked. That pretty much confirmed that the whole “place of dialogue” and discussions is just quite the farce – which is why I am quite willing to leave as i said given the conditions just explained.

    Like

  255. In Judaism it was not clear what was the character of God.” – How odd, when it’s very clear to me – we created him, in our own image.

    Jesus endured mocking and torture, extreme suffering to provide us with atonement” – as reported to us by men who never met him.

    Like

  256. “Note how Miguelito denigrates that which is backed by evidence,”

    What would that be Arch? the primary evidence I have asked for but never received or the evidence of everything coming out of nothing our high priest claims and you posted a video of to show Kathy how uninformed she is. Or was it the duck and run for cover of Finkelstein being debunked on his David hypothesis.

    What a laugher. Citing the consensus of only your skeptic scholars as evidence, You are as always a funny funny guy.

    Like

  257. Obviously I didn’t claim that the geology of the area was unknown, as I specifically mentioned that Egyptians came to the area to mine bitumen. Possibly you should get your tri-focals changed. I said your son of god hadn’t a clue when it came to knowing the cause of the destruction of the area.

    Comprehension problem?

    Like

  258. Why do you want my belief to be a psychological crutch?” – It has nothing to do with what I want, but rather with what it is. Since there are no gods, the problem could only be psychological.

    Like

  259. In addition to being a legend in his own mind, now he’s a wordpress webmaster – a wordpress webmaster that spells like a ten-year old. I’d bet that Nate can ban faster than Mikey can get new email addresses, and IP addresses aren’t that easy to fake – I can’t imagine it would be hard to guess which new commenter is Mike, because I doubt that he could behave any differently than he does.

    Like

  260. You’ve GOT to be kidding! Do you REALLY think you’ve debunked anything? You’ve accomplished nothing, except waste yours and everyone else’s time.

    Like

  261. I comprehend fully you are attempting to spin yourself out of your latest blunder.” – said the dervish.

    Like

  262. @TBlacksman,

    “Rata as i’ve told you and others before the presence of Arch’s and Arks vitriol LOOOOOONG before I ever arrived – name calling, cursing, slander and hate speech – FOREVER rebuts your claims that you wish to ban me for ‘detracting’ and exposes your hypocrisy

    “Its a point proven by their many vitriolic posts that if I supported your atheistic viewpoints you would EMBRACE me with OPEN LOVING arms 🙂 as you do the foaming at the mouth arck brothers”

    1. In the interest of fairness: I’ve already admitted that ark’s and arch’s tones and approaches are sometimes less than ideal, and I invited Nate to moderate/advise if he saw fit. Personally, I’ve often wondered if they were treating the subject matter fairly. However, I tend to engage in more conversation in with others, as I found it more productive for my goals.

    Nevertheless, I find your posts to be far more off the mark than theirs may or may not be. I suspect I’m not alone in this assessment.

    And at least when they’re poking fun or insulting, they’re funny. I could see that even as a believer; even if I felt insulted, at least they might have a point. I can’t say the same for most of your comments.

    2. A weak/agnostic atheist need not necessarily build a constructive case for there being no deity; he/she need only show that the claims of revealed deities are improbable/implausible. By constrast, a theist claiming revelation has more work to do. You’re failing at your task, and setting a poor example of behavior.

    Like

  263. Ark,

    me: “You and Neil Tyson and every other atheist LIES to yourselves by believing that knowing how it all works somehow disproves a Creator.”

    “Wrong, Kathy. Very wrong.
    The atheist is in no position to categorically state there is or is not a creator.
    What we ARE saying is this:

    The evidence offered up so far for this creator deity, especially by theists such as yourself and Mike does not warrant consideration and can be dismissed.”

    Wrong, very wrong Ark. What atheists like Nate and others here clearly claim is that God or a Creator doesn’t exist.. period. You all make this claim and then always try to backtrack when cornered. If you truly are in “no position” to state God doesn’t exist.. then STOP claiming we are not created beings.. that we evolved from pond scum, fully explainable through your god.. science. Which, it is most certainly NOT fully explainable through your god. Your god says we shouldn’t be… quite the opposite of explaining existence.

    And you are especially wrong in claiming that there is no “warranted” evidence for the God of the Bible.. you are FACTUALLY wrong on that. Again, the evidence for the God of the Bible far exceeds all other religions.. that warrants consideration.

    “It is unverifiable, not falsifiable and is largely derived from erroneous fallacious religious text.”

    Then how do you know that ANYTHING about the past is accurate? I bet you accept plenty of accounts that come from non Christians.. huh?

    The overwhelming majority of the Bible which gives dates, names, places etc.. are VERY MUCH verifiable. And all of that can also be falsified. And also proven erroneous.. but despite the desperation of people like you and Nate and others, nothing’s been proven erroneous.

    And this blog is full of comments that offer evidence for the truth of the Bible.. I don’t know where you’ve been.

    Like

  264. “Nevertheless, I find your posts to be far more off the mark than theirs may or may not be. I suspect I’m not alone in this assessment.”

    Rata you are fooling no one . the reason you find that for yourself is because you agree with them and thats the same for not being alone in that “assessment”. What a silly point and a shocker – on an atheist blog the assessment is in the atheists favor.

    Great point there my man

    Theres no amount of twisting and spinning you can do to save your logic. the foam at the mouth and spittle brothers do all kinds of name calling, virtriol and hate and you are not calling for their banning because you are sympathetic and share their beliefs

    the end (on that issue)

    “By constrast, a theist claiming revelation has more work to do. You’re failing at your task, and setting a poor example of behavior.”

    To whom? this is your illusion. Most of the world has already concluded for theism so the atheist has more work to do. Plus do at least try and keep your story straight. Did you forget that according to you I am not attempting dialogue so why would it be I am failing at a task of convincing anyone when I am not trying to?

    Rhetoric will always catch you at your game

    Like

  265. Not Ark here (I’m the GOOD one!), but all I’ve ever asked for is evidence that your god exists, and no one has yet given me any.

    Like

  266. Carmen, you said:

    “Kathy –

    I am appalled and dismayed by the cavalier response you gave to that HORRID video. That woman was ‘speaking the truth’!??? Yes, indeed, it WAS too intense for children of that age. . . . . ANY age. I’ll bet that the rest of the people commenting on this thread (perhaps even TBlacksman) recognize what that tirade really was/is. Mental/emotional abuse of children.”

    I was wondering if my comment about the video was going to get any response.. I certainly expected it. It’s too easy to not use as an argument against God. Children crying.. “tormented” by an “evil” Christian woman’s desire to scare them into belief.

    First, I’m not defending that woman.. based on what I watched, I question her true motives. What I do defend are her words. It’s very true that satan goes after children. re: liberal indoctrination in schools as an excellent example. And there is NOTHING wrong with encouraging children to not say and do sinful harmful things. Basically that is all this woman was addressing. Which makes me question WHY these children were crying.. what exactly did she say to cause them to get that upset?? I question the truth of that video.. I suspect that there was some anti Christian “editing” going on. It’s just more atheist propaganda.. which I’m sure Ron and all atheists know right where to go to find it.

    “That woman’s face should be posted all over social media, and labelled as an abuser – and you defend her as she is, “encouraging children to not talk dirty”!??? I’d also like to know what you consider talking dirty. (using swear words? speaking of imaginary wizards? – what??)”

    I’m inclined to agree.. I don’t like her style either.. if those children are truly crying due to her words and tone, she’s not doing it right. Atheists are always going to find people like her.. people who are not truly about doing Jesus’ will. Jesus never taught to scare children into belief.. there is no scripture that supports that.

    “dirty talk”? It’s pretty obvious.. yes, swear words and hurtful words.. and talk that leads to sinful thoughts and desires. If grown ups don’t understand what “dirty talk” entails, that shows a need for people to explain it to children.. who actually have an excuse for not knowing.

    “I shudder to think that there are children this very day who are listening to some nutbar like that woman and internalizing the message that they are not worthy.”

    I must have missed that part.. what exactly did she say? The Bible teaches that we are so worthy that God actually died for us.

    “If that’s the kind of casual disregard you have for children’s feelings – in defence of the Christian god – than you really do need to take a closer look at your convictions.”

    You aren’t applying objectivity. You obviously are looking for a way to make me appear wrong. My first words about the video agreed that it was too intense for children…. based on how upset they were.. but again, I don’t know what she said that was wrong… it might have just been her approach.

    “OH, and by the way. Not one single thing you have said establishes that the christian god is responsible for creation, any more than allah, the muslim god. (I believe there are others, as well?) You’ll need to dig a little deeper.”

    Sorry but you are wrong. I’ve made lots of statements that support the God of the Bible being our Creator. allah or any other god has no evidence by comparison.

    Like

  267. Mike, you said to Carmen:

    “Meanwhile don’t think we don’t see through the outrage and bluster about child abuse. I am so thankful that atheists are in the minority because its quite clear and some of you have said as much – you would LOVE to violate our freedom of religion on the pretense of alleged child abuse. ”

    This is true of liberals in general.. they are looking for ways to restrain our first amendment rights, because they know they cannot win the debates…so it’s all they have left to do to control the beliefs of the masses. I just learned of an interesting statistic.. the abortion rate in New Zealand is at it’s lowest in the last 20 years.. and an ad campaign is believed to be a major reason why… because it calls abortion what it is.. murder. Liberals want to take away our right to call it murder.. claiming it’s “hate speech”.. just another example of how liberals hate truth and how their lies are so destructive.

    And it’s funny how those who are supposedly so concerned for children, ALSO support abortion “rights”.. it makes absolutely no sense.

    Like

  268. RE: “I’ve made lots of statements that support the God of the Bible being our Creator.” – I sincerely hope, Kathy, that you don’t consider your statements any form of evidence – they’re opinions, nothing more.

    talk that leads to sinful thoughts and desires” – According to what? Your little Bible, or the opinions of the real world?

    Like

  269. The god of the bible does not exist. Period. As to whether there is some kind of supernatural entity that played a role in the creation of the universe? Doubtful, but essentially unknown because there simply is NO tangible proof.

    Like

  270. RE: “This is true of liberals in general.. they are looking for ways to restrain our first amendment rights, because they know they cannot win the debates

    The First Amendment, in the event you are as unfamiliar with the US Constitution, as I have found you to be on most other matters, separates government from religion. When you and your theists have removed your Ten Commandments from our Public Courthouses, your prayers from our government convocations, your creationism from our public schools, and declined government financial assistance, via vouchers, to fund your private religious school tuitions, then come and talk to us about how we are usurping your First Amendment rights.

    Like

  271. Kathy, how many Muslims are there in the world? I believe it ‘s the fastest-growing religion. .. perhaps all those people know of all sorts of evidence (as opposed to opinions) for the ‘fact’ of allah being the creator, as well. You’re on shifting sand, here.

    Another thing you should know – I’m a public school teacher. I don’t need to try and make you LOOK wrong. You are.

    Like

  272. Arch, you said:

    “I asked who created your god, you answered with my own question, as to why anyone NEEDS to know the answer to that, then defeated your own response by asking what need had to do with anything, which brings us back to square one:
    “And please explain how ‘NEED has ANY bearing on TRUTH.”
    So how about explaining what created him?” ”

    I answered with YOUR question to point out YOUR hypocrisy/ bias. When it’s a question that supports your argument, you want to know the answer, but if it doesn’t, then you ask “why do we ‘need’ an answer?”..

    Of course I’ve wondered about where God came from.. according to the Bible, He always is/ was. And yes, that is very hard to grasp based on the logic we seem to be bound by.

    “Arch, here’s a question I really want an answer to.. please explain HOW scientific knowledge disproves a Creator.
    you: I could ask the same question of unicorns or leprechauns, or a teacup orbiting Mars. It’s impossible to disprove a negative – I can ask you to disprove any number of things that don’t exist, and you can’t, which is why, when someone makes a claim that something DOES exist, we expect proof that it does, THAT, if it exists, can be proven.”

    Yep, you can certainly ask that question about unicorns or teacups in orbit.. but.. WHY?? What evidence are you working with to ask about these “possible” answers??

    Here is where we go back to my 50/50 odds.. when it’s between 2 choices, either we are an accident or we are created with a Creator, it’s either one or the other.. so my question is valid.. HOW does science disprove a Creator?? Again, this IS what yours and Tyson’s statements are claiming! (no “irritation” with that exclamation mark.. just an emphasis to my point.. thanks)..

    ““So, since you don’t understand His motives or His emotions, that means you get a ‘pass’ and don’t have to believe in Him or worship Him?”
    you: No, Kathy, it means I don’t have to believe in him/her/it until someone provides me with irrefutable evidence that he/she/it exists, and it would appear you’re getting irritable again – ”

    You have evidence Arch.. it’s all around you.. it’s EXISTENCE.. of us and animals, plants, the planet, the universe.. you cannot “refute” this. YOU have ZERO evidence to prove that existence is not due to a Supreme Being. And again, a Supreme Being is the MOST reasonable explanation. If you are going to disagree again.. please give ANOTHER more “reasonable” explanation.. what you’ve FAILED to do over and over so far upon request.

    And then we have the BIBLE.. ALSO very compelling evidence for God’s existence.

    But, I assume by “irrefutable” you mean “empirical” evidence of God’s existence.. your stance is that you will NOT believe in God UNTIL He proves Himself to you with empirical evidence.

    That’s FINE.. God gave you free will to make that demand. You can demand that all day long.. all your life.. good luck with that though.

    ““I never said this.. anywhere..”
    Yes, you did, Kathy – “That’s what the universe was meant for.. to help man see how great God is..” Do you sometimes get so irritated that others don’t see things your way, that you forget what you said?”

    Sigh, you made an incorrect assumption. IF you had applied the correct CONTEXT, you’d know that is not what I meant.. God is trying to HELP us see the truth by displaying His power.. only a liberal/ atheist would misinterpret that to mean what you claimed. .. pure lack of objectivity… pure pride and ego. You don’t like how powerful God is.. it intimidates you.. you feel like He’s “bragging”.. awe.. poor Arch.. poor Nate. poor Ark and William and Ruth and Nan and Carmen and Kc and Ron…. poor poor atheists and liberals.. God is such a bully!

    Like

  273. And Arch, it appears my questions, that I stated that I really would like answered, still haven’t been answered..

    How does science disprove God?

    And what does “need” have to do with actual TRUTH??

    Like

  274. either we are an accident or we are created with a Creator, it’s either one or the other.” – OR, there are any number of explanations that we simply haven’t considered yet. It’s far from 50/50, more like 1/∞.

    You have evidence Arch.. it’s all around you.. it’s EXISTENCE.. of us and animals, plants, the planet, the universe.. you cannot “refute” this. YOU have ZERO evidence to prove that existence is not due to a Supreme Being.” – and you have zero evidence to prove that it is.

    then we have the BIBLE.. ALSO very compelling evidence for God’s existence.” – The Bible is only compelling evidence that 3000 years ago, Hebrews could write.

    poor Arch.. poor Nate. poor Ark and William and Ruth and Nan and Carmen and Kc and Ron…. poor poor atheists and liberals” – poor Kathy —

    Like

  275. @william: I do agree with you to an extent. Certainly, the bible uses understandable terms as you say. I think part of the problem is that you are viewing mercy and wrath as incompatible. But, why can’t love be expressed as either mercy or wrath given particular circumstances?

    Also, you said: “The bible says that god is just, yet it shows him punishing certain people that did no wrong (david’s baby with bathsheba – sure it punished david as well, but. . .)”
    The scripture never says God was punishing their child; instead it is clear that the child would die because of David’s sins of adultery and killing Uriah. Of course if a human tried to act like God as a divine judge, they would be wrong. But, what about God? Everyone in human history has died, but are we all being punished by God? No, here’s a theodicy: God gives life and has the right to take it back.

    But, I don’t think the problem of evil is really what bothers you rather than the bible appearing to be manmade. Is that correct? I mean I certainly understand your concern here.

    Like

  276. How does science disprove God?” – I DID answer that:
    It’s impossible to disprove a negative – I can ask you to disprove any number of things that don’t exist, and you can’t, which is why, when someone makes a claim that something DOES exist, we expect proof that it does, THAT, if it exists, can be proven.
    Still waiting for you to prove your god exists.

    And what does “need” have to do with actual TRUTH??” – I’m really not clear as to why you are asking this. My original question was: “Why would a supreme being NEED anyone to see how great he is?” I’m still waiting for an answer to that. I’m good at a number of things, and I feel no need to say, “Look at me everyone, look at all of the wonderful things I can do.” If I, a mere human, have no such needs, why would a god who should at least, be superior to me? He (according to Exodus) hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he could bring plagues on Egypt, including killing all of the first-born children of Egypt, just so he could show his power, whereas if he hadn’t robbed Pharaoh of his free will, and hardened his heart (by magic), that might all have been avoided – self-promotion, pure and simple!

    I’m not saying that ANY of this really happened, I’m just saying why would anyone want to worship such an entity if indeed he did exist.

    Like

  277. Arch said:

    ““How does science disprove God?” – I DID answer that:
    It’s impossible to disprove a negative –”

    Then WHAT did you mean by this:

    “The more knowledge we gain by learning about the universe, the smaller and smaller and smaller the need becomes for your “god of the gaps.”

    “God is an ever-decreasing pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes by.”
    ~~ astrophysist, Neill Degrasse Tyson ~~

    HOW does knowledge disprove or “argue” against the existence of God?

    And what does “need” have to do with the truth of God’s existence??

    Like

  278. Graham, you said:

    ” Taking out that hurdle, what evidence do you have that that Creator is the God of the Bible? Other than its own claims, what do you have to back that assumption up? ”

    All of the religions have only their own claims. All we can do is test those claims to see
    if they are based on truth. The Bible passes the test. It provides lots of information that could “fail” the test if outside historical records dispute it… or by determining if prophecies have come true.. by checking consistency of doctrine throughout the Bible.. there are lots of ways to disprove the Bible, but that hasn’t been done. And if you argue that Islam hasn’t been disproven either, you take into consideration that it’s based on one man’s word.. as opposed to many different testimonies in the Bible.. with one man, it’s very easy to perpetuate a lie.

    When you weigh all the evidence, it’s Christianity that has the credentials.. far exceeding any other religion.

    Like

  279. HOW does knowledge disprove or ‘argue’ against the existence of God?” – Simple, it removes the knowledge gaps that you people try to cram your god into, thus making it ever more difficult to even BEGIN to supply even the slightest modicum of possibility that he/she/it might exist.

    And what does ‘need’ have to do with the truth of God’s existence??” – good question, why do you NEED to believe in one?

    Like

  280. All of the religions have only their own claims. All we can do is test those claims to see
    if they are based on truth. The Bible passes the test. It provides lots of information that could “fail” the test if outside historical records dispute it… or by determining if prophecies have come true.. by checking consistency of doctrine throughout the Bible.. there are lots of ways to disprove the Bible, but that hasn’t been done.

    But Kathy, this is where you’re simply wrong. The Bible does not pass those tests. Why else do you think there are so many “liberal” Christians these days? Most of them have come to terms with the fact that the Bible has flaws. The information is easy to come by, too. In fact, several of us here have pointed you to resources that would help you learn more about them.

    Also, since you keep asking why science points toward there being no creator, let me try to answer it this way:

    First, I don’t think your 50/50 point is accurate. You’ve said that there’s either a creator, or we’re an accident. I don’t think that’s an accurate way of stating it. There’s the third possibility that given natural law, it’s a statistical possibility, maybe even likelihood, that us or something like us would eventually evolve. It’s sort of like deaths being caused by a tornado. There are many places in the world where a tornado will not harm anyone. But if a tornado runs through a populated area, some people will likely die. That doesn’t mean some intelligent being made the tornado kill people, but it also wouldn’t be quite right to refer to it as an accident. It’s just something that’s going to happen in a world that has both tornadoes and people.

    Back to the original point, it’s true that science can not disprove God, or even a creator of some kind. However, as we’ve learned more about nature, we find that everything (so far) operates via natural processes. So many things about nature used to be described by supernatural forces: disease, lightning, the sun, the moon, eclipses, drought, flood, etc. But every one of those has been found to operate naturally. Seeing that trend, we atheists think it’s likely that everything has a natural explanation, even if we don’t always know what that explanation is. We certainly don’t find it reasonable to say that a supernatural entity caused everything, because the supernatural hasn’t been shown to even exist.

    I know that’s not how you see things, but I hope it at least explains why we feel science points away from a deity.

    Like

  281. @Brandon (anaivethinker)

    I thought your first comment was very good and quite interesting. Thanks for chiming in with it — this is the kind of thing that I enjoy discussing.

    I’ll say up front that the kind of Christianity you’re espousing is something that I don’t have much problem with. It’s a rational, moderate approach to religion that remains respectful of alternate views. I think that’s the main thing we should all be shooting for, regardless of our various worldviews. I don’t always meet that goal, but it is the one I shoot for.

    Anyway, when I was a Christian, I thought a lot about the perspective you’re advocating. You’re right that Romans 2 says the Gentiles were a “law unto themselves” when they lived morally, even though they didn’t have the law.

    I took some comfort from passages like that, but I felt like other parts of the Bible put limitations on them. In Acts 17:30, Paul talks about those times of ignorance, when the Gentiles did not know him, and he says that they’re over. God now requires repentance. Heb 11:6 says that it’s impossible to please God unless one has faith in him.

    I also thought about the directive for Christians to spread the gospel. It seemed to me that if people could be saved without it by living morally, wouldn’t it decrease their chances of being saved if the gospel was presented to them? What if they weren’t convinced? Even if they lived morally, that would no longer be enough for them.

    And if God could save people without their ever having been exposed to the gospel, why not just do that for everyone? Why did Christianity ever need to be turned into a religion that must be accepted for people to be saved?

    These are some of the questions that troubled me as I tried to work out what salvation meant and who would receive it. Are those things you’ve thought about as well?

    Thanks again for the comment.

    Like

  282. Nate – Brandon and I have beaucoup issues from earlier, so I’m staying out of any discussions between the two of you, as it is obvious you’re attempting to establish a dialogue – suffice to say, that without the resurrection of Yeshua, Brandon’s entire house of cards topples.

    Like

  283. “However, as we’ve learned more about nature, we find that everything (so far) operates via natural processes.”

    How do laws of nature operate by natural processes Nate? What PROCESS is involved with them? As far as we can tell science has taught us that the laws are just brute fact NOT operating by natural processes. So essentially all we know is how the lego blocks fit together. We have no natural process for the blocks/laws themselves fitting together – they just do

    “So many things about nature used to be described by supernatural forces: disease, lightning, the sun, the moon, eclipses, drought, flood, etc. But every one of those has been found to operate naturally.”

    Which ones? this is somewhat of an atheist myth. I don’t see much people pre 1800s claiming that rain was a miracle or the moon appearing was a supernatural feat. They thought pretty much what we do today that they operate by law. Mind you they would have said God’s law but given that science despite your claims really has no explanation for any law of nature they have not been proven to be wrong as you erroneously allege. Even biblically a distinction is made between what a miracle is and the sun rising in the morning. Like I said the claim that everything was deemed miraculous or supernatural before science came along is an atheist myth.

    “Seeing that trend, we atheists think it’s likely that everything has a natural explanation”

    Thats actually quite impossible. You (like many atheists) have just not thought it through. everything cannot have an explanation much less a natural explanation. Every “explanation” is actually dependent on a piece of reality that too must have an explanation and that too must be dependent on something else that has an explanation – the buck MUST sop somewhere and it you say no then you are still at the same place because infinite regress means there is no explanation anyway. Infinite means no end.

    “even if we don’t always know what that explanation is. We certainly don’t find it reasonable to say that a supernatural entity caused everything, because the supernatural hasn’t been shown to even exist.”

    the supernatural is actually inescapable Nate. You scoffed at that the last time I said it but you didn’t apply yourself to to the logic behind it. If you even have an infinite regress of explanations it means that there is no explanation because thats what you are left with with infinite past – never ending past.

    In a sense you are right to put together the idea of explanations and the supernatural because you realize that things without explanation ARE considered supernatural and by that I mean not that we don’t know the explanation but that there is actually no explanation.

    At this point in this kind of discussion atheists usually throw up their hands and say -“well we just don’t know yet is all” but the problem is – thats a lie – we do know the basics. We know there are only two options

    explanation and causes must have a terminus

    or

    They go on endlessly and therefore there is no ultimate natural explanation for anything

    Those are the only two options that SCIENCE and logic give us. The reason atheist immediately say “well we don’t know” is because the ONLY two possible answer BOTH lead to an answer they don’t like

    and that is that something happening for no natural reason at all is inevitable and inescapable.

    Like

  284. Here’s a few of the questions that I asked you on the last thread:

    1) how many religions have you rally researched, and have you done so fairly?

    I don’t know what you mean by “fairly” but I am aware of the basic beliefs of the major religions.. it’s enough to see that they don’t compare with Christianity.

    2) if you researched other religions, were you trying to prove them right, as you do the bible, or were you trying to find their errors?

    You mean, was I applying objectivity? Since I have no desire to adhere to a false religion or dismiss truth, I do believe I’ve applied objectivity.

    3) what evidences lend credit to the bible, that also do not take credit from it? (history, archaeology, science – all discredit the bible as much as it may credit it, and many other religions claim the same, so how is the bible better, how do the claims in the bible trump the claims of other religions?).

    William, I don’t know of any evidence that disproves the Bible.

    4) Have you read these passages?

    John: 13:1; 18:28, 39; 19:14, 31, 42 (before passover)

    Mark: 14:12 (passover)

    Matthew: 26:17 (passover)

    Luke: 22:7 (passover)

    after reading these, never mind telling me which day he was crucified on, just tell me whether or not you can at least understand where some people would be confused by this.

    Can you tell me what the contradiction is you are referring to?

    And yes, I’ve already acknowledged that there are things in the Bible that APPEAR to be contradictions.. until further research is done to give possible explanations.

    Like

  285. RE: “causes must have a terminus” – Perhaps we will finally learn what that terminus is, as soon as you reveal to us who created your god.

    Like

  286. “All we can do is test those claims to see
    if they are based on truth. The Bible passes the test. It provides lots of information that could “fail” the test if outside historical records dispute it… or by determining if prophecies have come true.. by checking consistency of doctrine throughout the Bible..”

    But its all rather pointless to this crew though Kathy. Look at what happened when I pretty much debunked Nate’s statement that there were no fulfilled prophecies in the bible by pointing to Israel being a nation again. The honest approach would be to say okay that is one even if they said that is not enough

    Did we get that honest approach? No we had flat out denial in the face of obvious fact.Ruth posted some link to some foolishness about Israel not being the kind of nations its supposed to be (even though we both know its not supposed to be a certain kind of Israel until Messiah returns)and what ensued was all but denying that Israel was a nation

    I mean Its widely attested to prophecy which again they could have said okay true enough but thats not enough for us. Instead they went to the twist the facts play to try and avoid the truth. The other game being played as am sure you have noticed is the you don’t have any evidence game by which they mean any evidence that they do not accept is thereby non existent on their say so. Sometimes they do nothing but link to a skeptic site and say here we have presented evidence but if you should link to a theist’s site well that is disallowed.

    Its all a big game. You’d have to be brain dead to think that ark or art or William or any of the others including Nate have any desire whatsoever to hear you out for anything but denial

    Like

  287. “RE: “causes must have a terminus” – Perhaps we will finally learn what that terminus is, as soon as you reveal to us who created your god.”

    the part you quoted must have went straight over you head like so much other things

    Like

  288. “And yes, I’ve already acknowledged that there are things in the Bible that APPEAR to be contradictions.. until further research is done to give possible explanations.”

    Kathy he is referring to what is explained here

    http://www.tektonics.org/lp/passovertime.php

    He asked me the same question and I gave him that link and then he weakly claimed that I should not have given him a link but explained it in my own words. just another game being played

    Like

  289. Not at all, you maintain that there is no such thing as infinite regression, yet you also maintain that your god created the universe, so I’m assuming that the regression would quite likely terminate with whomever created your god. Unless, of course, you are personally aware of who created THAT creator —

    Like

  290. @Archaeopteryx who I shall from now on refer to as “The BIRD.”
    When you click on my name in this thread it should take you to my wordpress page. It does for me but just in case it isn’t working for you, here it tis.
    http://haydendlinder.wordpress.com/

    In response to the light I mentioned in Gen 1, I don;t know man. The explanation seems a little iffy about there being no light but I will assume this is absolutely correct as I do not have a reason not to. Even if the light in Gen 1 came 400,000 years later it would still fall under the gen story. The story is metaphorical. My point is that from an “unbiased” standpoint, the writer did pretty damn well on accuracy.

    Note: “The BIRD” said: “– wouldn’t that imply a degree of madness? That would certainly explain a lot – a god exists, but he’s insane – I like that!”

    I had a friend who’s faith was based on that. He said God is really cool, Just a little loopy and forgetful.

    @Carmen and @Kathy, I can’t believe I get to make one reply to the both of you. Far out.
    Anyway, you both know that the God of the bible and the Allah are the same GOD of Abraham. Right?

    @”The BIRD” You keep asking Mike this question so I gotta answer you honestly.
    No one created the creator. But what your seeing as God is not really him and what people have tried to sell you as being God is not really him. The Lord of the OT was written about by the Nomadic Jews some 5000 years ago, yes I know you want to argue over the date and you certainly can. However when they wrote you have to remember the Jews are a race of warriors. They kill well. They, much like us, have to be reminded of mercy and compassion cause it ain’t the first thing on their list. So when you read about the God of the OT you have to remember the source. These were the predecessors of the civilians in the warsaw ghettos of WWII who held off the best infantry in the world for 45 days with stolen weapons. Their view of God is going to be a little on the “Lord make the day longer so we can kill more of our enemies!” side.

    The creator on the other hand is supersweet.

    Like

  291. Nate, you said:

    “But Kathy, this is where you’re simply wrong. The Bible does not pass those tests. Why else do you think there are so many “liberal” Christians these days? Most of them have come to terms with the fact that the Bible has flaws. The information is easy to come by, too. In fact, several of us here have pointed you to resources that would help you learn more about them.”

    Nate, there are liberal “Christians” because they want to please their will, not God’s. They call themselves Christians for what they get out of it.. it’s not about God.

    And again, I don’t know of any flaws in the Bible. There are possible reasonable explanations for everything you’ve put forth.

    What you call “resources”, I call biased opinions.

    “First, I don’t think your 50/50 point is accurate. You’ve said that there’s either a creator, or we’re an accident. I don’t think that’s an accurate way of stating it. There’s the third possibility that given natural law, it’s a statistical possibility, maybe even likelihood, that us or something like us would eventually evolve.”

    Even if you’re right, that would be a 33% chance that we are created beings.. STILL not very good odds.. would you drive in a car if that were the odds of you surviving?

    But, it’s still 50/50 that we are created beings. Your argument of a statistical possibility would still fall under “accident”.. meaning, non intentional… without meaning or purpose.. as opposed to being created, with intent/ purpose.

    ” So many things about nature used to be described by supernatural forces: disease, lightning, the sun, the moon, eclipses, drought, flood, etc. But every one of those has been found to operate naturally. Seeing that trend, we atheists think it’s likely that everything has a natural explanation, even if we don’t always know what that explanation is. We certainly don’t find it reasonable to say that a supernatural entity caused everything, because the supernatural hasn’t been shown to even exist. ”

    Why does it matter that people used to think that supernatural forces caused natural events? How does that have any bearing on what the truth is? I don’t get the connection at all.

    And again, how does discovering the natural process disprove a supernatural original cause?
    Yes, I get that you might be inclined to believe that natural forces will explain everything but my question is how scientific understanding disproves God. You, like Arch say it doesn’t, but then you all make comments like this:


    “The more knowledge we gain by learning about the universe, the smaller and smaller and smaller the need becomes for your “god of the gaps.”

    “God is an ever-decreasing pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes by.”
    ~~ astrophysist, Neill Degrasse Tyson ~~ ”

    This argues that science disproves God. And again, it doesn’t.. in ANY way! Science just explains HOW God did it. But going further, again, science ALSO shows that existence can’t be at all.. because 1st cause is illogical. So, a supernatural explanation is all that is left.

    But, I have a question I’ve been wanting to ask atheists for awhile now..

    From my own personal experience, I am convinced that “esp” is real.. I can see how some of it might be scientifically explained one day but some I just can’t see.. as one example, I had a dream/ nightmare about a horrible motorcycle accident, it happened at night and I was the only one to come upon it, there was a young couple lying in the road, it was very gory and I was horrified, running from house to house trying to get help.

    It happened the very next day, in real life.. the gory part didn’t happen, but I was one of the first to come upon the accident, it was a young couple laying in the road, not moving.. someone had just run up to one of them as others were stopping to help.
    And this isn’t the only dream.. I’ve had several dreams, and other intuitions, that defy logic. There is no “natural” explanation for knowing about something that hasn’t happened yet. Maybe one day science will be able to explain this.. but as of now, it’s considered “supernatural”. So, I don’t see how you can claim that it doesn’t exist. It’s something as simple as knowing when someone is looking at you and turning around to see them looking at you. It’s that six sense that everyone has experienced but there is no logical explanation for it.

    Like

  292. Hayden, you said:

    “@Carmen and @Kathy, I can’t believe I get to make one reply to the both of you. Far out.
    Anyway, you both know that the God of the bible and the Allah are the same GOD of Abraham. Right?”

    Even though this is what Muhammad claimed, when you read the Koran … it’s very clear that allah is NOT the God of the Bible… NOT the God of Abraham. The fictitious god of Islam is a god of violence and hate based on the lies of Muhammad.

    Like

  293. Arch,

    ““HOW does knowledge disprove or ‘argue’ against the existence of God?” – Simple, it removes the knowledge gaps that you people try to cram your god into, thus making it ever more difficult to even BEGIN to supply even the slightest modicum of possibility that he/she/it might exist. ”

    Sorry, that does NOT answer the question.. HOW does removing the “gaps” disprove God?? You are lying to yourself.. you’ve been brainwashed into believing it somehow does.. but.. IT DOESN’T.. in any way!

    “And what does ‘need’ have to do with the truth of God’s existence??” – good question, why do you NEED to believe in one?

    LOL… sorry, that’s not an answer to my question either. You’ve implied that need is pertinent to truth.. and obviously you have nothing to base that belief on.. except more liberal, anti God BRAINWASHING.

    Like

  294. @Kathy “…The fictitious god of Islam is a god of violence and hate based on the lies of Muhammad.”

    Now normally I would be calm and rational with you on this topic. Unfortunately I have Muslim friends so that is not an option as you just slandered them, being your brothers and sisters, and our God. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR DAMN MIND?!

    The terrorist hate mongers you equate to the teachings of Allah are no more following the Muslim teachings than the Ku Klux Klan are Christian!

    Like

  295. Kathy,

    1. are all the evils and destruction of the world caused by liberals?

    2. Who exactly are you referring to when you write liberals?

    3. who was tearing America apart before the liberals came?

    Like

  296. and just to note,

    those who flew two planes full of people into the Twin Towers were definitely not liberals.

    So perhaps liberals aren’t the cause of all evils

    Like

  297. “Not at all, you maintain that there is no such thing as infinite regression, yet you also maintain that your god created the universe, so I’m assuming that the regression would quite likely terminate with whomever created your god. Unless, of course, you are personally aware of who created THAT creator –”

    Like I said everything about infinite regression and causation having an end just flew right over your head. Science has taught us that everything natural has an explanation. whatever terminates causation cannot have an explanation and therefore has a super (beyond) natural quality.

    I know……

    It flew right over your head again

    Like

  298. This whole thread reminds me of something someone else wrote (on another Blog) this a.m. Since it’s so applicable to you, Kathy, I’ll use their words. It is obvious that you are hopelessly mired in fundamentalist thinking (and, by the way, I think you should switch to the word, ‘progressive’ as opposed to ‘liberal’ thinking) BUT as long as you are breathing you are a prospect for reason.

    It’s clear that many who are commenting have this in mind. (and don’t worry, Nate – it’ll be my last ‘kick at the can’ for this thread) 🙂

    Like

  299. “being your brothers and sisters, and our God. ”

    Whoa there Nelly . Your theology is your own. the whole we are brothers and sisters of the same God is an unbiblical and non Christian teaching. Thats not saying anything about Muslims either – just that you badly misprepresented Christianity in your reply while assuming a premise that is UTTERLY wrong.

    Like

  300. The fictitious god of Islam is a god of violence and hate based on the lies of Muhammad.” – Whereas the fictitious god of the Bible is a god of violence and hate based on the lies of hundreds of priests. She’s right, there IS a difference. But I believe it was Mr. Spock who once said, “A difference that makes no difference, IS no difference.”

    Like

  301. Here are some resources for evolutionary theory as it relates to humans. None of them are links to skeptic websites.

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275670/human-evolution

    http://genome.cshlp.org/content/8/4/339.full

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topics.php?topic_id=14

    The links I posted to Christian websites refuting the idea that Israel’s reformation is a fulfillment of prophecy is not because I believe that rot. It was simply to show that even with Christendom there is wide disagreement about whether that prophecy even applies to the current nation.

    Throughout this discussion it has been bandied about that it definitely is a fulfillment of prophecy. I won’t claim to know whether or not the Bible got the year right or that it can be accurately calculated. But the reformation of Israel did happen regardless of the other details. That isn’t enough to prove that God exists or that he had anything to do with it. There are many things throughout history which have been predicted or “foretold”. We only remember the ones which come to fruition and we don’t call most of them fulfilled prophecy unless we use the word “self” in front of it. No one here is claiming that Israel is not a nation.

    The Jews are quite nationalistic. Throughout the OT that is what can be seen. It was and still is important for them to keep their tribe/tribes together. So for one or a number of them to predict that, even though they might be scattered or in captivity, they would one day be a Nation again wouldn’t be all that unheard of and they had been working toward that end. They have claimed that piece of dirt for themselves as a “promised land” for thousands of years. Naturally, since they believe this is their dirt they’re going to fight for it and try to acquire it by any means necessary. They have done this throughout history starting with the Canaanites – if you believe that story is literally true. Had it not been in 1948 it would have been at some point because they were bound and determined to have it.

    Like

  302. I think part of the problem is that you are viewing mercy and wrath as incompatible. But, why can’t love be expressed as either mercy or wrath given particular circumstances?” – anaivethinker

    @anaivethinker,

    I dont think this is really the case.

    I mean, I think I agree that in certain instances something that is merciful can indeed be wrathful at times – I do not believe that justice must be at odds with either wrath or mercy.

    That being said, how is killing young children merciful or just? it is wrath, I’ll give you that, but i do beieve that in certain instances, wrath is very much at odds with mercy… and justice.

    Like

  303. Kathy, you poor child – and you’re not really a child anymore, are you? – if anyone has been brainwashed, it is definitely you. I understand that one of your heroes is Sarah “I can see Russia from here!” Palin.

    John Cleese of “Monty Python” once remarked, “And I used to think Michael was the funny Palin!”

    Like

  304. whatever terminates causation cannot have an explanation” – Why not?

    And assuming that’s true – and I’m not conceding that it is – why does it have to be your god?

    Like

  305. @kathy,

    thanks for taking the time.

    “1) how many religions have you rally researched, and have you done so fairly?
    I don’t know what you mean by “fairly” but I am aware of the basic beliefs of the major religions.. it’s enough to see that they don’t compare with Christianity.” – kathy

    Fair is treating them the same, examining them the same. giving equal time and using an equitable measure for each. You tell me, is reading the entire bible and studying biblical apologetics the same as hearing a few “basic beliefs” of other religions?

    “2) if you researched other religions, were you trying to prove them right, as you do the bible, or were you trying to find their errors?
    You mean, was I applying objectivity? Since I have no desire to adhere to a false religion or dismiss truth, I do believe I’ve applied objectivity.” – kathy

    I mean, when you read the bible, did you ever consider that it may be false, or do you just “know” that it’s from god; and when you consider the other religions, did you view them the same way at the start. If you start off assuming the bible is correct and that the others are wrong, and if you start off studying christianity and digging into the minutia if it, but dont do that with the other religions, then i suggest it is not objective or fair.

    “3) what evidences lend credit to the bible, that also do not take credit from it? (history, archaeology, science – all discredit the bible as much as it may credit it, and many other religions claim the same, so how is the bible better, how do the claims in the bible trump the claims of other religions?).
    William, I don’t know of any evidence that disproves the Bible.” – kathy

    this is an interesting answer.

    Do you know of any evidence that proves the bible?

    and now I’m curious, what evidence disproves the other religions that you disagree with?

    “4) Have you read these passages?
    John: 13:1; 18:28, 39; 19:14, 31, 42 (before passover)
    Mark: 14:12 (passover)
    Matthew: 26:17 (passover)
    Luke: 22:7 (passover)
    after reading these, never mind telling me which day he was crucified on, just tell me whether or not you can at least understand where some people would be confused by this.
    Can you tell me what the contradiction is you are referring to?” – kathy

    well, John says jesus was crucified BEFORE passover (see verses listed above) while the other gospels say that jesus was crucified DURING (or after) passover. This is a contradiction.

    Mike did provide a link to an article, but I’m not sure that mike even read the thing. It didnt cover all the verses I listed or all the issues this presents. But regardless, I was asking (which he still hasnt answered) whether you could admit that these looked like problems, at least to some people.

    it looks like you have admitted such, thank you, but went on to say with further research and study, we can find that these really arent contradictions. Could tell me how this isnt a contradiction?

    Again, John plainly says BEFORE passover, and the others clearly say DURING/AFTER passover – how is this not a contradiction?

    Like

  306. “Sorry, that does NOT answer the question.. HOW does removing the “gaps” disprove God??” kathy

    disprove? no, it doesn’t disprove god, it just proves that natural, not supernatural, processes or laws are actually behind our physical world in lieu of supernatural or divine intervention.

    I think this line of reasoning isn’t helpful in this type of discussion because when discoveries are made and things are figured out the religious will say that god works through nature since he created it, and the atheists will say that nature happened this or that, therefore god wasn’t needed… and we’re back at square one.

    so my question is, how do the “gaps” prove god?

    and then the follow up is, if god or gods, then how do you know which god?

    Like

  307. “The links I posted to Christian websites refuting the idea that Israel’s reformation is a fulfillment of prophecy is not because I believe that rot. It was simply to show that even with Christendom there is wide disagreement about whether that prophecy even applies to the current nation. ”

    There is no biblical base for any any “wide disagreement” There are ton loads of passages in the Bible that prophecy that event. You just put up a bunch of links. Would you accept a refutation of them by me pointing to blogs that disagreed? Have some integrity in the way you reason. If you don’t know something then learn about it.

    “That isn’t enough to prove that God exists or that he had anything to do with it.”

    There is no added requirement of a prophecy that it has to show God had something to do with it. That’s nonsense. You are making up additional requirements to suit yourself. A prophecied event need not be a miracle. All that is required is that the event take place. No one said one prophecy proves that God exists. As usual you are trying to move the goal posts. Nate said emphatically there were no fulfilled prophecies in the Bible. I provided that as ONE EXAMPLE to refute that and any honest person would concede that Nate’s claims are utterly false even if they do not think (nor should) that the one is sufficient

    “There are many things throughout history which have been predicted or “foretold”.”

    yes and if there is any integrity (of which I see little here) they are analyzed for likelihood on an individual basis. There are a lot of people that say they are telling the truth about all kinds of things and are lying that does not mean that no one ever tells the truth.

    “The Jews are quite nationalistic. Throughout the OT that is what can be seen. It was and still is important for them to keep their tribe/tribes together. So for one or a number of them to predict that, even though they might be scattered or in captivity, they would one day be a Nation again wouldn’t be all that unheard of and they had been working toward that end. ”

    Kindly go read what you are trying to talk about. every nation is “nationalistic”. Since you claim “it wouldn’t be so unheard of” then kindly present me with all the cases that you alleged have been “heard of” where a nation and people have left their land for a thousand years or more and then returned to it and re-established their nation. Your claim is like saying the american indians reclaiming the US would be a ho hum event which is just utter nonsense
    (and that isn’t even a thousand years ago).

    The return of a people to their land is not dependent on their own will. it also has to do with who has the land and controls it. IN the case of Israel their fate was not in their hands the British controlled it and it was Britain that allowed for it.

    “Had it not been in 1948 it would have been at some point because they were bound and determined to have it.”

    what a vacuous silly argument. So any people who want a nation badly enough can just go in and take it? Do tell. I guess the Palestinians just don’t want it enough yet, or the American Indians just didn’t want their land enough to repel the colonies? Shucks any dispersed dispossessed people can just go get whatever land they want eh? All those ancient civilizations that are no more just didn’t want it bad enough. I guess they preferred to juat vanish – maybe to take a vacation on Maui. Sun and Tan who needs a nation I say.

    You illustrate perfectly what this blog is about. Its not about being reasonable and discussing things. That’s a farce. You ask things of Christians for the SOLE purpose of trying to concoct some narrative to rebut what they have to say. In this case its QUITE OBVIOUS that you don’t have a clue about how Jews were granted the land. That wasn’t dependent on how much they were “bound and determined to have it” (Yeah after a few million of them died in gas chambers they were just ready to invade and take over their land…since they wanted it so bad. Nothing like being gassed Ruth. Apparently the cyanide makes you into X- men by key mutations. Did you know David Ben-Gurion made a chunk of cash towhen he sold his story to Marvel for the making of Wolverine?).

    Both the UN and Britain had the major part to play. How about reading up?

    They did not fight their way into the land. The 1948 war was after they were declared a nation. Please get a clue. It will at least for your part make it less obvious that you are all about debunking before you even know what you are talking about.

    Meanwhile its still a fulfilled prophecy and Nate’s claim that there are none is a straight up and up lie.

    Like

  308. “There is no added requirement of a prophecy that it has to show God had something to do with it. That’s nonsense.” – mike

    really? so you believe prophecies and actual fulfillments occur without god?

    you believe that other religions made sound and accurate prophecies?

    are you a christian?

    what can god do that doesn’t already happen without god, and why would we need god?

    Like

  309. “Again, John plainly says BEFORE passover, and the others clearly say DURING/AFTER passover – how is this not a contradiction?”

    Perhaps read the link? Show a little honesty? for once? That is explained clearly in it and its obvious you have no desire to deal with it. which is why you duck it EVERY time

    Like

  310. “Perhaps read the link? Show a little honesty? for once? That is explained clearly in it and its obvious you have no desire to deal with it. which is why you duck it EVERY time” – mike

    you still havent answered my question.

    but your link was stupid. it didnt address all the problems or even all the verses. i suggest you read it before you post it next time.

    But the parts it did talk about were lame anyway. It was more of the same ole, “well, it doesnt really mean before passover…” or “john said sabbath, so he meant sarurday and therefore ‘before passover’ meant something else…” basically he was saying, “nuh-uh.”

    It’s stupid. John says “before passover” and your article says that’s not what he meant… that may solve it for you, but what contradiction cant be “explained” in such a way? really, tell me.

    and passover was a sabbath… the jews had weekly sabbaths and high sabbaths – the passover being one of them.

    In addition to all this, i even asked if the article perfectly expressed your views on it, to which you still havent answered that anyway. You have a habit of posting links as evidence and then claiming that you never said it was a excellent example of what you really thought when someone refutes that article – I was hoping to avoid that.

    since I’m talking with you and not the author of your article I want to know whether you fully agree with his points or whether you’d like to put it in your own words before addressing those points.. and since the article’s author was clearly an idiot, I didnt really want to discuss it if i didnt have to…

    “nuh-uh” isnt a good arguing point and rarely leads to convincing dialogue.

    Like

  311. “really? so you believe prophecies and actual fulfillments occur without god? ………are you a christian? ”

    Dude for the sake of these comments its better that we just not interact because quite honestly I just find your observations always so silly (You and ron). Thats why you see me interact with arch and Ark more than you. You really provide nothing but silliness.

    Within the context of what Ruth said she suggested that the actual coming to pass of the prophecy had to have some indication that God had intervened. It is not a requirement. like the walls prophecy you ran away from. No one says not having walls surrounding your cities would be a miraculous event. Now knowing that it wouldn’t be needed then yes tha

    However If you wish to twist that into your usual juvenile nonsense then knock yourself out. I was in school once myself – Its summer break and things get boring real quick right? Got to make the day pass some way. Anyway grown ups got to get to work now. Remember……Theres always Disney if you get bored again.

    Like

  312. You illustrate perfectly what this blog is about. Its not about being reasonable and discussing things. That’s a farce. You ask things of Christians for the SOLE purpose of trying to concoct some narrative to rebut what they have to say.

    Unlike you?

    In this case its QUITE OBVIOUS that you don’t have a clue about how Jews were granted the land. That wasn’t dependent on how much they were “bound and determined to have it” (Yeah after a few million of them died in gas chambers they were just ready to invade and take over their land…since they wanted it so bad. Nothing like being gassed Ruth. Apparently the cyanide makes you into X- men by key mutations. Did you know David Ben-Gurion made a chunk of cash towhen he sold his story to Marvel for the making of Wolverine?).

    I don’t even think that’s what I just said. Let me retry. They believe that land to be promised to them by God. I didn’t say they took the land by force in 1948. I’m certainly not downplaying the atrocities of Holocaust. No, they immigrated to the land from all over, by the tens of thousands. Why? Because the think it’s theirs, no matter who is occupying it. And, yes, there was a Jewish insurgency.

    http://www.academia.edu/349671/Britain_and_the_Jewish_Underground_1944-46_Intelligence_Policy_and_Resistance

    Insurgencies happen all over. They’re happening right now. When the UN intervenes and resolutions are drafted, are you going to say God did that too?

    Like

  313. Wait…for prophecy fulfillment to be part of the submission of evidence to the claim that there is a God, God need not be involved?

    Like

  314. 🙂 🙂 reduced to prophecying events hundreds of years into the future? Say it aint so Ark. lol

    I just threw that figure into the mix. Could be more, could be less.

    There will no doubt be a number of societal changes that could well influence the rapid breakdown of religion and god belief, not least the eventual freedom from dependence on oil.
    You can work out the reason for yourself, Mike, I’m sure.

    The Internet is another, Call it global awareness.

    As we move from a ”need for greed” to a ”need to feed” and eventually a realisation that we are all merely human, and deserving of a little more respect the divisive nature of religion will
    seem like anathema.
    Why should people listen to the pathetic bleating of people like you and your lunatic, fear inducing god belief?
    Why should people be forced to wear clothes dictated by god belief?
    Why should people suffer physical mutilation because of god belief?
    And goodness knows how much more utterly ridiculous dogma?
    And for what? The vacuous promises found in man-made religious text claimed to be ”god inspired”.

    Truly, the more one looks at this stuff the more it, and those that push it, seem so completely off the rails that it is surprising it has nor yet been declared the cause of mental illness.

    And yet, two steps away from Mainstream Religion is often regarded as totally nuts – Creationism, Evangelism, ID, Ken Ham , Ron Wyatt, ACE schooling. The list goes on and its a similar story in other regions as well.

    Those countries that have moved away from the accepted norms of church, religion and god belief already, in many cases, consider the likes of you and Kathy rather odd ( maybe even dysfunctional?)
    Based on this blog alone, I would venture this is a given.

    Religion has never, not once, come good on its promises. This is why so many of the clergy are leaving, why many churches across Europe stand almost empty. Why the excesses and abuses perpetrated by many – across several religions are coming to light. Religion and the worship of the supernatural is unnatural.

    As I said…it’s only a matter of time, Mike.

    Like

  315. ” like the walls prophecy you ran away from. No one says not having walls surrounding your cities would be a miraculous event. Now knowing that it wouldn’t be needed then yes tha” – mike

    ooohh, so that’s how it works for you… you take a prophecy, and if any tiny portion of it comes true, despite the fact all of the prophecy didnt, then it serves as “fufilled…”

    that’s is ridiculous, but then, so are you – so i see the connection.

    and sorry, i didnt mean to “runaway” from it, i just didnt think there was anything there. There is a big fence, and the middle east is filled with walls, buT i wont argue with you. if you want to maintain that israel has no walls guarding it, then okay – your prophecy still lacks fulfilling.

    but behold, ezekiel said no walls and there are no walls. are there any who can deny such a miracle?

    your god is a god of wonders… not all powerful, and his prophecies must have the 50/50 ratio that kathy has talked about.

    neat.

    Like

  316. “but your link was stupid. it didnt address all the problems or even all the verses. i suggest you read it before you post it next time.

    But the parts it did talk about were lame anyway”

    ROFL…..kiddies…when their points get busted they instantly go to the juvenile words and hand waving. See why you are never worth the time?

    well…..no…… of course you don’t

    “It’s stupid. John says “before passover” and your article says that’s not what he meant… that may solve it for you, but what contradiction cant be “explained” in such a way? really, tell me.”

    John says this you silly person you

    “John 13:1-2 (Darby)
    1 Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus, knowing that his hour had come that he should depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, loved them to the end.
    2 AND during supper, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas [son] of Simon, Iscariote, that he should deliver him up,

    the link I gave explained this to you but you are either too dense or just pain dishonest to deal with it

    see the capped word in verse 2 “AND”. Its a conjunction in English and Greek indicating another thought. It PROVES that verse about before the passover referred to jesus realizing that his time had come to shortly depart from the world . Whats stupid is you not seeing that even after the grammar and the link makes it obvious.

    Like

  317. mike, you’re an idiot, read the other passages before you comment again. that was one of the problems with your article – it didnt cover everything.

    John: 13:1; 18:28, 39; 19:14, 31, 42

    comment on all of them. that will help, not taking two, pretending the context of john doesnt exist and saying “that settles it…”

    It does not. It is lazy, it is dishonest, and it’s just incomplete as well a stupid.

    Like

  318. “Truly, the more one looks at this stuff the more it, and those that push it, seem so completely off the rails that it is surprising it has nor yet been declared the cause of mental illness.”

    Ark, I disagree

    I don’t think its as simple as what you have layed out.

    different faiths have permeated and shape both the history of past lives and those of us that find ourselves here.

    different faiths have manifested and expressed themselves in different ways. In powerful ways. Just one example:

    The salvation Army in Australia does provides a lot of necessary care for those who slip through the cracks of this country. day to day needs are met through these people, who are motivated through faith. I just can’t paint all faiths and beliefs with the same brush.

    There are people who inspire others and do brilliant things. For many of them (not all) faith is a very real part of their lives, which motivates them to do very real things, that provide for very real people who need shelter, food, kindness and people to just care.

    My hat goes off to them, because I don’t go and organise housing or hot food for hungry on the weekends. How is this service, this one example a mental disorder Ark?

    Ryan

    Like

  319. “. No, they immigrated to the land from all over, by the tens of thousands. Why? Because the think it’s theirs, no matter who is occupying it. And, yes, there was a Jewish insurgency. ”

    Ruth what can I say? You are quite clueless. did I ever say that Jews had no interest in the land or that none lived there? Your link only underlines what I said – Jews could not take the land without help from the British and even later UN resolutions. The idea that they would eventually take it back just because they really really really wanted it is just soo stupid. Many people have wanted their nation back. and no try another links – they did not fight their way back in to reclaim it. They were reliant on third parties so the claim of self fulfillment is just drivelling nonsense.

    Further when the prophecy was made there was no telling what might have become of the land over the hundreds and nearly thousands of years. Had anyone of several nations in europe or england claimed it for themselves and established themselves there Jews could want it it all they want and they would not have gotten it no matter how hard they tried.

    Its just a silly argument on your part. Sorry its a fulfilled prophecy and there’s nothing you can do about it. Can you say its not enough? Sure . Its only one – but no fulfilled prophecy at all – rubbish and obvious rubbish. I can only imagine how much handwaving will ensue once you realize there are additional details of how they would occupy the land and what would happen when they did

    because you see I know your “secret”

    It aint nothing bout finding truth

    Like

  320. Portal, can you honestly say that if religion had NEVER been invented, there wouldn’t have been those who empathized with the plight of their fellow man and stepped in and done much the same beneficial things? I’m a dyed in the wool atheist, yet I’ve risked my life on occasion, to help bring voting rights to all Americans, simply because it was the right thing to do. The same is true with work I’ve done with Special Needs children – religion had absolutely no bearing on any of it. I didn’t do it for a god, I did it for my fellow man.

    Like

  321. Some are motivated though their faith to blow themselves up. Some are motivated to cut themselves with whips to prove their devotion, to murder those they don’t agree with.

    And then there are some who are motivated to visit the sick in hospital, to be with those who have lost hope, to sit with those who have been hurt, to raise awareness of those who have no voice. And those people who do this are not only valuable members of a society, they show me that I can be more, that life can be brilliant. And many of these people are devout, but not bent on destruction or hate.

    There are differences. And the differences are based on the God, faith, teachings and hope they place their trust in.

    Like

  322. @ Kathy
    Ark,

    me: “You and Neil Tyson and every other atheist LIES to yourselves by believing that knowing how it all works somehow disproves a Creator.”

    “Wrong, Kathy. Very wrong.
    The atheist is in no position to categorically state there is or is not a creator.
    What we ARE saying is this:

    The evidence offered up so far for this creator deity, especially by theists such as yourself and Mike does not warrant consideration and can be dismissed.”

    Wrong, very wrong Ark. What atheists like Nate and others here clearly claim is that God or a Creator doesn’t exist.. period. You all make this claim and then always try to backtrack when cornered. If you truly are in “no position” to state God doesn’t exist.. then STOP claiming we are not created beings.. that we evolved from pond scum, fully explainable through your god.. science. Which, it is most certainly NOT fully explainable through your god. Your god says we shouldn’t be… quite the opposite of explaining existence.

    No one is Backtracking. Your claim is that there is a creator. The atheist says there is no creator ….Based on The Evidence
    Let me restate that for you.

    Based on the evidence provided by the religious who claim there is a creator the atheists rejects, out of hand, such a claim.

    I hope I made myself clear, Kathy?
    We – atheists – are saying that, if there is a creator then not a shred of evidence has been provided by those making the claim to establish this as fact or even probable.

    And I am saying this, if you have evidence then I for one will consider it.

    And you are especially wrong in claiming that there is no “warranted” evidence for the God of the Bible.. you are FACTUALLY wrong on that. Again, the evidence for the God of the Bible far exceeds all other religions.. that warrants consideration.

    No, there is nothing in the bible concerning Yahweh that can be verified,
    The divinity and godhood of Yeshua were bestowed upon this character by the church. Simply study your history.

    “It is unverifiable, not falsifiable and is largely derived from erroneous fallacious religious text.”

    Then how do you know that ANYTHING about the past is accurate? I bet you accept plenty of accounts that come from non Christians.. huh?

    A lot history cannot be considered accurate. But then most people reject all supernatural historical claims that fall outside of religion.
    To treat religion in the same way historians treat all history would quickly rubbish every supernatural claim ever made by religious people and religious text.
    Furthermore, you reject out of hand supernatural claims from other religions, old and new, so why should your religion be afforded special treatment? That is nothing but special pleading.

    The overwhelming majority of the Bible which gives dates, names, places etc.. are VERY MUCH verifiable. And all of that can also be falsified. And also proven erroneous.. but despite the desperation of people like you and Nate and others, nothing’s been proven erroneous.
    The entire Pentateuch is fiction. Yes there are places in the bible that can be verified. So what?
    There are many novels that use real names and real places as part of the plot. I do it in my own writing.
    I am not desperate in the least. Truly I’m not. I tend to follow the lead of unemotional experts in the field. People like Devers, Finkelstein, Herzog, Kenyon, Wolpe, and a host of others

    The likes of Craig, Habermaas, Ken Ham, Mike Licona, Lee Strobel and their ilk have tittle or no credibility outside of religious circles.

    And this blog is full of comments that offer evidence for the truth of the Bible.. I don’t know where you’ve been.

    The perhaps you could please list just ten things that illustrate the truth of the supernatural claims of the bible?

    Like

  323. “it incomplete as well a stupid.”

    🙂 🙂 Poor will is about to have a breakdown because yet another alleged contradiction is crumbling before his eyes.

    As the link also explains the passover was not just one meal. it also refers to the whole feast time. As kathy rightly predicted – this like almost all of your “contradictions” are products of your own ignorance of what the terms even refer to.

    Cue the Finding “Truth” fall back all purpose argument

    “Well….ummm… errr….God should have made it easier for me to understand. People who can’t be bothered to look things up should ….ummmm. be accommodated.”

    I really got to run Will. Seriously and honestly have a great day.

    Like

  324. And he’s off to seal the deal that will leave him “set for life” – “Who was that masked man?” – “I dunno, but he sure was a putz!”

    Like

  325. 28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.
    — John 18:28

    14 Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour.[c] He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”
    — John 19:14

    31 Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day [what high day? Oh, right: Passover]), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.
    — John 19:31

    42 So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.
    — John 19:42

    Even if the entire week of the Feast of Unleavened Bread was occasionally referred to as “Passover,” just as we might refer to several days around Dec 25 as “Christmas,” there’s still only one actual Passover meal, as referred to in John 18:28. And there’s only one day of preparation for it, as referred to in the other verses. John really couldn’t be clearer here. And since this is the same day that the Jews prepared the Passover lamb, the connection to Jesus is very significant, which explains why John mentions it over and over in his gospel.

    But contrast that with the synoptics, and they all agree with what Mark lays out in Mk 14:12-17:

    12 And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?” 13 And he sent two of his disciples and said to them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him, 14 and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 15 And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us.” 16 And the disciples set out and went to the city and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

    17 And when it was evening, he came with the twelve.

    Verse 12 is very clearly talking about the same day that John is — it even uses the same language about preparing for the Passover. However, according to the synoptic gospels, Jesus wasn’t crucified until the following day. Once evening came, as verse 17 says, Passover began, and that’s the day Jesus was crucified (according to them).

    It’s hilarious to me that in the face of these very clear passages, you can make the most ridiculous statements, like claiming this as a contradictions has been “busted” or is “silly” or is “crumbling.” Believe it or not Mike, but this kind of bluster drives doubting Christians away faster than anything else. So thanks, I guess.

    Like

  326. “Portal, can you honestly say that if religion had NEVER been invented, there wouldn’t have been those who empathized with the plight of their fellow man and stepped in and done much the same beneficial things?”

    Hey Ark, hope your well

    No I can’t say that, I don’t know what the world would be like if this was the case 🙂 I suppose it depends what you mean when you write religion.

    Although suffice to say, that’s not the world we find ourselves on.

    Politics exist. Religions do exist. I think there is a difference between following faith and the maintaining of organised religion in the sense that faith can be expressed in many ways. And like the different members in the Body of Christ, I see Christianity as expressing itself in different ways. Since the church is made up of people 🙂

    I see religion in a systematic angle as more a reflection of traditions, that may or may not have been used to venerate God. Just like those buildings that are said built to the glory of God. Some were funded and completed through violence. Some went through multiple transitions and were used for different purposes and congregations. Like the Notre-Dame Cathedral. Anyway I’m babbling a bit 🙂

    When I think of Organised religion in regards to , certain images are triggered, and that includes amazing buildings and architecture and ceremony. As amazing as this is, and as much historical and traditional value certain rituals have

    James 1:27 reads that:

    – Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (ESV) –

    I don’t do this at the moment. in regards to your question, under this definition if I imagined that that this was never practised… in the sense that true religion never existed, then I believe the world would be a far lesser place of quality.

    Thanks

    Like

  327. “As the link also explains the passover was not just one meal. it also refers to the whole feast time. As kathy rightly predicted – this like almost all of your “contradictions” are products of your own ignorance of what the terms even refer” – mike

    mike, is your daddy able to talk, or is he an idiot too?

    you listed 2 verses and still are avoiding addressing the rest. why?

    the fact that the passover (1 day) and the feast of unleavened bread (7 days) can all sometimes be referred to as simply the “passover” is fine, but doesnt answer the problem for obvious reasons… well, should be obvious reasons, let me try to explain it to you.

    john says before passover… but if mark is right and it was during passover, and then IF we are to splice them topgether for a more clear view, then it still doesn’t make sense.

    how would it be “before passover” if it was during passover as you suggest? It is a silly way to express it, but okay, let’s say they were silly people.

    John also says it was the day of preparation… How many days of preparation were there, mike? The day before the passover meal was teh preparation, when they baked their bread and slaughtered their lamb. They didnt slaughter a lamb every night. but lets say that they really were in fact talking about preparing for day two of the feast as you suggest.

    Why were the jews concerned about being clean only on the sabbath? wouldnt that have had that concern the day before, when it was the real passover? your argument just doesnt hold water.

    You should really read the all passages.

    here they are again:

    John: 13:1; 18:28, 39; 19:14, 31, 42

    cue your typical response:

    “Well….ummm… errr… you’re waving your hands, changing the goal posts, worshiping krauss, and the singularity equals jesus, and you just dont understand. People who can’t be bothered to look things up, or think rationally are ….ummmm. likely christians.”

    i hope you have a good too, and may you find some sense laying around that will help you survive the day.

    Like

  328. “yet I’ve risked my life on occasion, to help bring voting rights to all Americans, simply because it was the right thing to do. The same is true with work I’ve done with Special Needs children”

    And Arch, Its brilliant you have participated in those things… my hat also goes off to you 🙂

    Like

  329. Portal, RE: “Hey Ark, hope your well” – Arch, here Ryan – not Ark – the easiest way to tell us apart, is that I’m the good one. But I’m not irreparably offended, and he needs the compliment, so what the hell?

    I was just left with the impression that in your earlier comment, you were saying that without religion as a basis, people wouldn’t have been performing the kindnesses you described, but from personal experience, I’ve not found that to be true.

    Your last statement set me to pondering: “…in the sense that true religion never existed, then I believe the world would be a far lesser place of quality.

    While on the one hand, I can accept that possibly that some religions press us to see beyond ourselves, which I view as a good thing, beneficial to humanity – not all do, so it comes down to “which religion,” and I must admit, I took serious issue with your phrase, “true religion,” because each religion will claim that it is true, while I would hold that none are.

    Again, Portal, this is friendly discussion, not Mike/Kathy-style vitriol, just to be clear.

    Like

  330. Arch,

    I think I could have said what I meant more clearly.

    By true religion I was referring to what James 1:27 refers to as religion that is pure.

    i.e To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

    So when you asked the question above… if religion in reference to this definition had never been invented, then I believe the world would be a far less decent and awesome place.

    I was not trying to say:

    yes!!!! my particular denomination is the true religion!! we are the only ones doing it the right way!!!!!!!!

    because that would require me to know the ins and outs of ever denomination, which I don’t.

    Like

  331. I understand – there’s just been so much “Big Picture,” “compelling evidence” crap running around here the past couple of weeks, that I’m hesitant to make assumptions about what ANYone means.

    Like

  332. “because each religion will claim that it is true, while I would hold that none are.”

    oh I don’t know 🙂

    I seem to recall you speak quite fondly of the flying spaghetti monster 🙂 I admit I am not an adherent to his vermicelli wile or his tortellini minions…

    Like

  333. @Kathy, you wrote

    “From my own personal experience, I am convinced that “esp” is real.. I can see how some of it might be scientifically explained one day but some I just can’t see.. as one example, I had a dream/ nightmare about a horrible motorcycle accident, it happened at night and I was the only one to come upon it, there was a young couple lying in the road, it was very gory and I was horrified, running from house to house trying to get help.

    It happened the very next day, in real life….And this isn’t the only dream.. I’ve had several dreams, and other intuitions, that defy logic. There is no “natural” explanation for knowing about something that hasn’t happened yet.”

    My mother was staying with me to help out after I gave birth to my daughter. She told me that she woke up from a dream/nightmare feeling that someone in our immediate family was going to die that day. She couldn’t shake it. A couple of hours later, my husband was found dead.

    ——————–

    “The tendency for … telepathic experiences concerning death or crisis to occur on days when the geomagnetic activity is significantly quieter than the days that precede or follow the experience have been found for collections of experiences that occurred during the latter quarter of the last century and this century. This pattern is not unique to spontaneous cases. Over six decades, larger effect sizes for psi experiments occurred during years of quieter geomagnetic activity.

    …analyses of [certain] dream telepathy studies also indicated that the geomagnetic activity on nights in which the contents of were most strongly correlated with the target stimuli had been significantly quieter than the nights in which the dreams did not match the target pictures.” [M.A. Persinger, ‘Geophysical Variables and Human Behavior LXXI. Differential contribution of Geomagnetic Activity to Paranormal Experiences Concerning Death and Crisis]

    ——————–

    You would have, most likely, been considered a witch had you shared your experience with your fellow conservative Christians a couple hundred years ago or less, then tortured and burned at the stake. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  334. I know, I know; said I wouldn’t comment anymore but Nate, can you get a ‘like’ button? ^^^
    . . .giggle, giggle. .

    Like

  335. honestly I just find your observations always so silly (You and ron)

    Translation: Damn, you two guys keep nailing my nuts to the wall with these facts I can’t refute, so I’ll just call you “silly” and pretend like nothing happened and nobody noticed.

    BTW, that apologetics site he keeps referencing is run by a guy with a Masters’ Degree in Library Science. He started a “Christian ministry” under the protection of a 501(c)(3) after being laid off from his prison librarian job. You can read all about him here. The late Farrell Till called him Robert “Blovius Maximus” Turkel.

    He sounds exactly like the guy who posts here under the “TBlacksman” avatar. Same arrogance, same M.O. Perhaps they’re one and the same person.

    Like

  336. That depends entirely on the sauce – and it still beats the hell out of communion, they don’t even offer dip for the wafers! I KNOW! What kind of snack is that?!

    Like

  337. “I’m hesitant to make assumptions about what ANYone means.”

    Arch

    Yeah, I’ve kind of given up on trying to change peoples mind on that. I just wish people could have the kind of discussions of old.

    like the more kind of round table talks with Eric, Josh, Nan, Howie – I mean people coming from different perspectives but are more or less there to discuss, and to understand, buit not necessarily agree. People come away with sharing what they believe,

    not to have a school yard brawl. Cause nobody wins in that scenario. especially when it gets down to –

    Person 1: your a child!!! because X and Y

    Person 2: no, your a child!!! because of A and D

    Ad infinitum. I don’t think truth wins out in these sorts of mindsets. And if truth doesn’t win, then no one wins.

    which makes me sad because under other circumstances the very same people are very articulate and can very clearly share what they think.

    Like

  338. Naah – she would have been tied and tossed in a lake, if she sank, she would have been considered innocent (though somewhat dead, but at least her soul would have been safe in heaven), but if she floated, she would have been considered guilty, and THEN she would have been hung or burned at the stake. Anyone disputing the logic of that experiment, in those days, would have been considered a lying LIBERAL!

    Like

  339. Ron, when it comes to research, you are a male Neuronotes, and believe me – despite the hurtful things she says about me : ( – that IS a compliment!

    Like

  340. Arch,

    lest we forget the wars of 1732? the horror…

    when the pastfarios layed siege to the temple of manicotti, the Primavera was spilled thick that day. Three-cheese sauce soaked the hard bitter ground of schism and misunderstanding. If only pastfarios and Primavera could see over their own bowls….but it was not to be…

    You tell me Arch, when the dust has settled, and the bucati is drained….you tell me, who really won that day? Barilla or De Cecco?

    Answer me this Arch. and then, only then can you look me in the eye and tell me the sauce did not have enough garlic….

    Like

  341. Ruth what can I say? You are quite clueless. did I ever say that Jews had no interest in the land or that none lived there? Your link only underlines what I said – Jews could not take the land without help from the British and even later UN resolutions. The idea that they would eventually take it back just because they really really really wanted it is just soo stupid. Many people have wanted their nation back. and no try another links – they did not fight their way back in to reclaim it. They were reliant on third parties so the claim of self fulfillment is just drivelling nonsense.

    No peoples or nations take a piece of dirt unless they really really really want it. Sometimes militantly, sometimes politically. One side wins the other side loses. That’s the way it works. Yes, they had help. Help from other Zionist nations who also believed that that dirt belonged to the Jews because the Bible tells them so. The Jews could have immigrated to anywhere in the world and they chose that spot because they had an interest in it.

    Further when the prophecy was made there was no telling what might have become of the land over the hundreds and nearly thousands of years. Had anyone of several nations in europe or england claimed it for themselves and established themselves there Jews could want it it all they want and they would not have gotten it no matter how hard they tried.

    You do know that England is part of Britain, right? That they were part of the group that helped? You do know that they were weary and weak from the war themselves? You do know that if they were a bit stronger the outcome might have been different? You do know that Zionism was breaking out in Great Britain? Had that not been so things might have been different as well. We can shoulda, coulda, woulda this to death. We’re not talking about what might have been.

    Like

  342. But then, Portal, even under the best of circumstances, TRUTH is an elusive will-o’-the-wisp.

    Like

  343. “Naah – she would have been tied and tossed in a lake, if she sank, she would have been considered innocent (though somewhat dead, but at least her soul would have been safe in heaven)”

    Oh, gee, that’s right, not to mention the godly priests in the bible poisoning pregnant women suspected of committing adultery or priests burning their daughters who had sex out of wedlock. Those horrible, horrible whores.

    “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” (Leviticus 21:9)

    Like

  344. LMAO 😀 Thanks for the endorphins.” – well, you know how I like to spread it around. Endorphins, too.

    Like

  345. Hi Carmen,

    I think its nice you attend church, no matter where your at. It sounds like those people there are important to you. The way I see it, God knows where we are at 🙂

    Hope you are going well 🙂

    Like

  346. Hi Ryan! (I’m aware that I told Nate I wouldn’t comment – but perhaps he’ll cut me some slack) I can tell you are from Australia; I have family there (half of our grandchildren live there – I just got back about a month ago). I’m ‘going’ well! 🙂

    Just so you know, I don’t believe in any god, but I DO believe in much of what religious people think are good things. . .you know, the Golden Rule, helping others in distress, yada, yada. I just don’t think we need a god to do all those things. We have brains and hearts and good sense; surely we can all figure out what to do on our own. I’m convinced that THIS is the life we get – we need to make the most of it. Being positive seems to be the key. I’m betting the non-believing commenters would second that.

    I do – and always will – think that the people in my church are important. (I have many friends who aren’t ‘church people’ that I feel the same way about) I also have no idea about what many of them REALLY believe but I suspect that many feel just the same way I do. Ours is not a fundagelical denomination and I am thankful for that – the emphasis is on just doing the best one can, trying to be a good neighbour and conscientious steward of the earth. It’s a family, the same as my school family, my community family, and my blood family. We’re all in this together!

    Like

  347. Arch, I have no idea hey why I do that… 🙂 maybe because you both begin with Ar- I dunno 🙂

    Anyway I realise you are both your own people 🙂 Your named after a bird right? and Ark is named after an Egyptian king?

    maybe its because I’ve got an aversion to birds,

    after all as a child I was attacked by a de fossilised archaeopteryx…in a freak petting zoo accident.

    it was kinda weird, but you know what they say, fool me twice, shame on me…

    Like

  348. Hi Carmen 🙂

    “I do – and always will – think that the people in my church are important. (I have many friends who aren’t ‘church people’ that I feel the same way about) ”

    “the emphasis is on just doing the best one can, trying to be a good neighbour and conscientious steward of the earth.”

    I’m down with that 🙂

    I still believe in Jesus, its kind of funny because its been a sort of realisation more than just a choice. I’ve come to realise I still have faith, and to pretend I don’t would be me pretending to be someone else.

    Thanks for giving me a glimpse into your world 🙂 I’m glad your familiar with Australia. Hope you had a great time.

    “:you know, the Golden Rule, helping others in distress,”

    yeah I agree, I think if I focused on these things more, and what Jesus actually taught, rather than other things to get anxious over, then I feel im heading in the right direction 🙂

    Thanks again Carmen,

    Like

  349. First you call me “Ark,” then you call me a bird – have you considered reading Carnegie’s How To Win Friends and Influence People? I am a transitional species – something Creationists maintain never existed.

    Like

  350. Carmen,

    “We’re all in this together!”

    I agree,

    and the better we all understand each other, the fewer ships pass one another in the night.

    the less worlds smash and collide over misunderstandings.

    Like

  351. Yes, it its. I was referring to the Zionism that was a result of the Holocaust sympathy of WWII – not only in Great Britain but the US.

    Like

  352. Arch said:

    ““The fictitious god of Islam is a god of violence and hate based on the lies of Muhammad.” – Whereas the fictitious god of the Bible is a god of violence and hate based on the lies of hundreds of priests. She’s right, there IS a difference. But I believe it was Mr. Spock who once said, “A difference that makes no difference, IS no difference.””

    Sorry Arch, the Christian God never commanded us to kill all the infidels. There is a huge difference between the two religions.

    Like

  353. William, you said:

    Fair is treating them the same, examining them the same. giving equal time and using an equitable measure for each. You tell me, is reading the entire bible and studying biblical apologetics the same as hearing a few “basic beliefs” of other religions?”

    So, by your reasoning, I should learn all about Satanism, as much as I have Christianity before I dismiss it?

    Like

  354. Sorry Arch, the Christian God never commanded us to kill all the infidels. There is a huge difference between the two religions.

    The OT god commanded that very thing. Very little difference, really.

    Like

  355. “So, by your reasoning, I should learn all about Satanism, as much as I have Christianity before I dismiss it?” – kathy

    not at all. I think you should learn all about it if you’re going to say that one has more credentails than the other though.

    What if someone from Islam heard about something the bible (like the days of jesus’ crucifixion) and then just tossed christianity aside based on that?

    wouldnt you think that they were just misinformed or that they didnt give it a fair shake?

    wouldnt you expect them to dig deeper and to examine their own religion with a critical eye – dont you think their soul would depend on such an attitude?

    and if that;s the case, should you set the example you expect them to follow?

    Like

  356. William, cont..

    “I mean, when you read the bible, did you ever consider that it may be false, or do you just “know” that it’s from god; and when you consider the other religions, did you view them the same way at the start. ”

    Of course I had that question in my mind.. I STILL do sometimes (but less and less often)… and that’s NOT against scripture/ God.. believe it or not.

    “William, I don’t know of any evidence that disproves the Bible.” – kathy

    this is an interesting answer.

    Do you know of any evidence that proves the bible?

    and now I’m curious, what evidence disproves the other religions that you disagree with?”

    I’ve already answered these questions.. several times, in part 1 & part 2.. even in my comment you are responding to.

    As for John’s contradiction of the day of Jesus’ crucifixion, I’ll research that and give my thoughts.. please remind me if I forget..

    Like

  357. Nate said:

    “Sorry Arch, the Christian God never commanded us to kill all the infidels. There is a huge difference between the two religions.

    The OT god commanded that very thing. Very little difference, really.”

    It’s not the same at all Nate. God’s command was for a specific group of people in a specific situation.. for reasons other than them being “infidels”.. the key difference is that God’s command at that time was NOT an ongoing command to kill all infidels. This is NOT the case with Islam’s teachings.

    Like

  358. Kathy, the Law of Moses is replete with commands to kill those who violate God’s laws, especially those who follow after false gods — that’s what an infidel is.

    Like

  359. “Do you know of any evidence that proves the bible?
    and now I’m curious, what evidence disproves the other religions that you disagree with?”
    I’ve already answered these questions.. several times, in part 1 & part 2.. even in my comment you are responding to.” – kathy

    @kathy,

    thanks for taking the time to answer.

    do you realize that the evidences you gave are the same evidences claimed by most religions? How do you find them credible for the bible, but incredible for the other religions?

    and thanks for taking the time to read the passages in john before answering.

    Like

  360. ““So, by your reasoning, I should learn all about Satanism, as much as I have Christianity before I dismiss it?” – kathy

    not at all. I think you should learn all about it if you’re going to say that one has more credentails than the other though.

    What if someone from Islam heard about something the bible (like the days of jesus’ crucifixion) and then just tossed christianity aside based on that?”

    A contradiction is much different than a fundamental teaching of evil. It depends on the specifics.. and the best place to start is with the theology.. and then the basic evidence/ credentials. The theology of Islam of exactly what the word means.. “submission” .. by force, according to the teachings. And their credentials are the word of a single person who, there is no disputing, was a pedophile and a murderer. No need to look further.

    Like

  361. Nate,

    “Kathy, the Law of Moses is replete with commands to kill those who violate God’s laws, especially those who follow after false gods — that’s what an infidel is.”

    This was for the Jews.. NOT non believers.

    Like

  362. William,

    ““Sorry, that does NOT answer the question.. HOW does removing the “gaps” disprove God??” kathy

    disprove? no, it doesn’t disprove god,..”

    Yes, that’s what you all keep telling me.. AFTER you make statements like this:

    “The more knowledge we gain by learning about the universe, the smaller and smaller and smaller the need becomes for your “god of the gaps.”

    “God is an ever-decreasing pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes by.”
    ~~ astrophysist, Neill Degrasse Tyson ~~

    You are missing my point to Arch. You all can’t have it both ways. These comments
    imply that scientific knowledge disproves God. And this is fundamentally FALSE.

    Like

  363. “A contradiction is much different than a fundamental teaching of evil. It depends on the specifics.. and the best place to start is with the theology.. and then the basic evidence/ credentials. The theology of Islam of exactly what the word means.. “submission” .. by force, according to the teachings. And their credentials are the word of a single person who, there is no disputing, was a pedophile and a murderer. No need to look further.”

    @ kathy,

    okay, then say the looked at the OT and saw where the israelites killed women and children, or where god killed all the first borns, etc… or where jesus condemned a fig tree to wither and die because it didnt bear fruit…?

    and “islam” does mean to submit, to the one true god… Most muslims are very peaceful and very hospitable. If you know islam, you’ll know the koran respects people of the “book” the bible, jew and christian.

    Those murderous self proclaimed muslims arent true muslims.

    And the fact that one man was told the words of allah, and that they were preserved perfectly is a miracle. How could an illiterate man rise to such power and spread the religion across the world if god want helping him? and kathy, what about the martyrs?

    Dont be a liberal, only those who submit before the true god will accept his prophet.

    Like

  364. Mike, you said:

    “But its all rather pointless to this crew though Kathy. Look at what happened when I pretty much debunked Nate’s statement that there were no fulfilled prophecies in the bible by pointing to Israel being a nation again. The honest approach would be to say okay that is one even if they said that is not enough

    Did we get that honest approach? No we had flat out denial in the face of obvious fact.”

    Yes, I’m definitely noticing this. Or, if not a flat out denial, then the point is just ignored.. obviously hoping that it won’t be brought up again. I don’t understand how searching for truth and these actions gel.. they don’t.

    Like

  365. Kathy, science is a problem for god-of-the-gaps theology. In other words, when people point to something (even the beginning of the universe) and say “since we don’t understand how that happened, God did it,” they’re using god-of-the-gaps reasoning, and that has always failed in the past.

    There are other arguments for god that science doesn’t really deal with. But the reason I just laid out above is why people like Tyson say science causes problems for the notion of God. And they’re right, when it comes to explaining the natural world.

    That may not be a position you agree with, but it’s what they mean when they use it. Does that answer your question?

    Like

  366. “What about the Canaanites?”

    They occupied the land that God had given to the Jews. This was all part of God’s
    larger plan. They were not attacked for being infidels.

    Like

  367. “Yes, I’m definitely noticing this. Or, if not a flat out denial, then the point is just ignored.. obviously hoping that it won’t be brought up again. I don’t understand how searching for truth and these actions gel.. they don’t.” – kathy

    i’m not sure how either of you honestly believe this…

    Like

  368. William,

    “do you realize that the evidences you gave are the same evidences claimed by most religions? How do you find them credible for the bible, but incredible for the other religions?”

    Yes.. many of my comments reveal my understanding of this.. and many of my comments elaborate on why their credentials fail and Christianity’s doesn’t. It’s about quality of credentials.. it’s about WEIGHING the evidence/ credentials.

    Like

  369. And their credentials are the word of a single person who, there is no disputing, was a pedophile and a murderer. No need to look further.

    Kathy, why is Mo’s character any worse than the “righteous” pedophiles and murderers found in the Bible? Moses killed an Egyptian and commanded the men to “save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” Lot banged his daughters in a cave. Abe pimped out his half-sister/wife—twice! He also impregnated her maid and then banished both her and their son Ishmael out into the desert. Jacob married two sisters and slept with their maids. David had multiple wives and concubines, and committed murder to cover up an affair. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Saul/Paul by his own admission hunted Christians prior to his “vision” on the road to Damascus.

    Like

  370. They occupied the land that God had given to the Jews. This was all part of God’s
    larger plan. They were not attacked for being infidels.

    Now wait, on a previous thread, you and Mike said the opposite. You said God was justified in slaughtering all the Canaanites (including the infants) because their culture was so horrible — for being infidels, in other words. Now you’re saying it’s because God wanted their land for the Israelites, and this is somehow less monstrous?

    Like

  371. “Yes.. many of my comments reveal my understanding of this.. and many of my comments elaborate on why their credentials fail and Christianity’s doesn’t. It’s about quality of credentials.. it’s about WEIGHING the evidence/ credentials.” – kathy

    but how can you accurately weigh them if you havent fairly measured? you’re literally just declaring it.

    and you havent shown how christianity’s credentials are better than the others…

    and if you allow that all the other religions have the same claims, why do you go around saying that everyone who doesnt believe in the god you believe in, the way you believe in him is dishonest or liberal?

    Like

  372. Oh wow … it’s been so peaceful the last few posts! The positive vibes are coming right off my monitor. 😉 Hoping it continues …

    Like

  373. Kathy, just a point worth noting since you seem to keep falsely repeating it:

    Religions don’t have credentials. People have credentials. Religions have followers.

    Like

  374. “William,

    me: “A contradiction is much different than a fundamental teaching of evil. It depends on the specifics.. and the best place to start is with the theology.. and then the basic evidence/ credentials. The theology of Islam of exactly what the word means.. “submission” .. by force, according to the teachings.”

    you: “okay, then say the looked at the OT and saw where the israelites killed women and children, or where god killed all the first borns, etc… or where jesus condemned a fig tree to wither and die because it didnt bear fruit…?”

    This is not the theology of Christianity.. it’s a story of the events of how God revealed Himself to humanity. It’s part of His overall PLAN in doing this. His chosen people had to be established. They had to OBEY God, which was essential for God’s plan.. their land had to be established. Those people who were not following God, who were in the WAY of God’s plan, occupiers of the land God gave to the Jews.. and also people who would lead the Jews AWAY from God to follow their false gods.. they had to be dealt with in order to fulfill God’s overall plan.. that started with God and His chosen people, who would bring God to the rest of the world.

    This could all be explained a lot better, I’m sure, which it IS explained IN THE BIBLE.. but all of this is very very different than what Muhammad commanded which was simple to kill those who didn’t “submit”.

    “and “islam” does mean to submit, to the one true god… Most muslims are very peaceful and very hospitable. If you know islam, you’ll know the koran respects people of the “book” the bible, jew and christian.”

    Oh William.. you are pushing liberal propaganda.. this just isn’t true. If you knew ALL of the Koran, the Jews are “pigs”, “dogs” etc and need to be killed. There is zero “respect” for Jews and Christians. You might find a few passages that claim “acceptance” or respect.. but there are many many MORE passages that state the very OPPOSITE! Muhammad was a false prophet who used the Bible as a template for his “sacred” scripture.. he didn’t understand the core teachings of the Bible, erroneously thinking that those passages of God commanding the killings of others made it “ok” for him to duplicate those same “commands” of God.. he never recognized the difference.. and his teachings are fundamentally based on HATE, intolerance and violence.

    ‘”Those murderous self proclaimed muslims arent true muslims. ”

    Those murderous Muslims ARE following Muhammad’s teachings! Any Muslims
    who are peaceful are REJECTING some of Muhammad’s teachings. Something Christians do not have to do.. ALL of His teachings are of peace and love.

    Like

  375. Kathy, do you think Muslims don’t have answers for everything you’re bringing up?

    You claimed that all of Jesus’ teachings are about peace and love, but they aren’t. We didn’t get any teachings about Hell until Jesus. He said he came to bring a sword, not peace. He told his disciples to buy a sword, even if they had to sell their cloak to get one. He said he came to turn father against brother, etc.

    Now as a Christian, I know you have answers for all of those passages. Do you think Muslims can’t do the same thing?

    This is where you seem to keep missing William’s point. It would be very easy for a Muslim to look at the problems in Christianity and say that they don’t match up to how God would do things, but you believe that looking through Christianity more deeply answers those problems. So why shouldn’t you put forth the same effort in understanding Islam?

    Like

  376. Points I will address later today/ tonight..

    Nate said:
    “Kathy, science is a problem for god-of-the-gaps theology. In other words, when people point to something (even the beginning of the universe) and say “since we don’t understand how that happened, God did it,” they’re using god-of-the-gaps reasoning, and that has always failed in the past.

    There are other arguments for god that science doesn’t really deal with. But the reason I just laid out above is why people like Tyson say science causes problems for the notion of God. And they’re right, when it comes to explaining the natural world.

    That may not be a position you agree with, but it’s what they mean when they use it. Does that answer your question?”

    and..


    me: They occupied the land that God had given to the Jews. This was all part of God’s
    larger plan. They were not attacked for being infidels.

    Now wait, on a previous thread, you and Mike said the opposite. You said God was justified in slaughtering all the Canaanites (including the infants) because their culture was so horrible — for being infidels, in other words. Now you’re saying it’s because God wanted their land for the Israelites, and this is somehow less monstrous?”

    Ron said:

    “me: And their credentials are the word of a single person who, there is no disputing, was a pedophile and a murderer. No need to look further.”

    Kathy, why is Mo’s character any worse than the “righteous” pedophiles and murderers found in the Bible? Moses killed an Egyptian and commanded the men to “save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” Lot banged his daughters in a cave. Abe pimped out his half-sister/wife—twice! He also impregnated her maid and then banished both her and their son Ishmael out into the desert. Jacob married two sisters and slept with their maids. David had multiple wives and concubines, and committed murder to cover up an affair. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Saul/Paul by his own admission hunted Christians prior to his “vision” on the road to Damascus.

    William said:

    ““me: Yes.. many of my comments reveal my understanding of this.. and many of my comments elaborate on why their credentials fail and Christianity’s doesn’t. It’s about quality of credentials.. it’s about WEIGHING the evidence/ credentials.” – kathy

    but how can you accurately weigh them if you havent fairly measured? you’re literally just declaring it.

    and you havent shown how christianity’s credentials are better than the others…

    and if you allow that all the other religions have the same claims, why do you go around saying that everyone who doesnt believe in the god you believe in, the way you believe in him is dishonest or liberal?”

    Ron said:


    Kathy, just a point worth noting since you seem to keep falsely repeating it:

    Religions don’t have credentials. People have credentials. Religions have followers.”

    I can answer that right now.. says WHO Ron?

    Like

  377. Hayden said:

    ” @Kathy “…The fictitious god of Islam is a god of violence and hate based on the lies of Muhammad.”

    Now normally I would be calm and rational with you on this topic. Unfortunately I have Muslim friends so that is not an option as you just slandered them, being your brothers and sisters, and our God. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR DAMN MIND?!

    The terrorist hate mongers you equate to the teachings of Allah are no more following the Muslim teachings than the Ku Klux Klan are Christian!”

    Hayden, no, I’m fully in my mind.. it’s you and all liberals who get really really confused here..
    due to your liberal brainwashing desire to be “politically correct”..

    I said NOTHING about Muslims.. if you read my comment again, it specifically addresses the Muslim god and Muhammad. No liberal is going to successfully silence people’s right to criticize and question ANY religion’s theology. Just as liberals so FREELY criticize Christianity!

    And you are 100% wrong.. the terrorists ARE following the teachings of Islam! The KKK are NOT following the teachings of Christianity.. there’s a FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE.

    Like

  378. “Portal, you said:

    “Kathy,

    1. are all the evils and destruction of the world caused by liberals?

    2. Who exactly are you referring to when you write liberals?

    3. who was tearing America apart before the liberals came?”

    1) Liberals are a MAJOR influence in world destruction.

    2) I’m referring to anyone who goes against the moral teachings of the Bible.

    3) Liberal minded people.. who, again went against the teachings of the Bible, were
    always around.. liberal ideology is the “evil” that balances out the “good”.. in this
    fallen world, there must be balance.. not sure why, but this is obvious. Liberals are fulfilling
    this requirement. If the delusional didn’t exist, our world would be very close to perfect.. and that would be like Heaven.. which it is not the time for Heaven yet.

    and just to note,

    those who flew two planes full of people into the Twin Towers were definitely not liberals.

    So perhaps liberals aren’t the cause of all evils”

    The terrorists have the same liberal mindset.. they aren’t motivated by love and peace but forcing their beliefs onto the world. They don’t respect the rights of others.. just like liberals.

    Like

  379. There’s really not a difference. The KKK and terrorists both believe they’re following their respective religions. Maybe they’re following correctly, maybe they aren’t. But the point remains that just as it would be incorrect to judge all of Christianity by the KKKs actions, it’s incorrect to judge all of Islam by the terrorists’ actions.

    Like

  380. You have some very misguided notions about what “liberal” means. No one else uses the term that way, and I think you’d be well served to pick another word for this group you’re describing. Why not just go with the term “evil”? I think that would cause a lot less confusion.

    Like

  381. Kathy, RE: “Sorry Arch, the Christian God never commanded us to kill all the infidels. There is a huge difference between the two religions.” – what would you say was the population, men, women and little children, of the world at the time of the flood? How many Canaanites did he command us to kill? How many Amalikites? How many bellies did he order us to rip open so that we could abort the fetus? Have you added those up? I have those figures somewhere, but I was hoping you might have your own set, as part of your “compelling evidence” collection —

    Like

  382. RE: “So, by your reasoning, I should learn all about Satanism, as much as I have Christianity before I dismiss it?” – I thought you said you were objective, if so, then yes.

    Like

  383. No, it doesn’t.

    Ah, yes it does. From Oxford:

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/credential>credential

    – a qualification, achievement, quality, or aspect of a person’s background, especially when used to indicate their suitability for something

    – a document proving a person’s identity or qualifications

    – a letter of introduction given by a government to an ambassador before a new posting

    Other dictionaries grant similar definitions. While you’re entitled to your own opinions, you’re not entitled to make up your own facts and definitions.

    And I concur with Nate. The world contains liberal Christians and conservative atheists, and everything in between. So how about setting down that label gun of yours and conversing with us as real human beings, instead of just blasting away at caricatures of what you think we are? You did say you were objective, right?

    Like