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.
Finding Truth 
Let’s take these one at a time:
fulfilled prophecies — There is no good detailed prophecy that supports the Bible. The Virgin Birth prophecy in Isaiah 7 is not about Jesus, but about a kid in Isaiah 8. Matthew uses tons of “prophecies” that aren’t prophecies at all when you look at them in the OT. Tyre was not fulfilled the way Ezekiel prophesied. The others that people claim usually only seem to work out when twisting the text into all kinds of things it never really meant.
martyrs — So what? The only martyrs that might actually serve as evidence for Jesus being the actual son of God would have to be martyrs who had known him. But we have no historical evidence to suggest that this happened. And even if it did, it’s no different than those who gave their lives for Jim Jones.
accurate details verified by outside sources — Like what? Does it require a miracle to accurately record contemporary events? If so, I guess every reporter and historian today is being inspired by God. The earliest historical sources that reference Jesus or Christianity are ones like Josephus and Tacitus. And those only show us that there were Christians in the first century. Well guess what? No one is questioning that. And it has nothing to do with how accurate their beliefs were. Furthermore, some details, like the census in Luke 2, there being no Darius the Mede, Belshazzar being the son of Nabonidus instead of Nebuchadnezzar, etc all show that the Bible has many problems in this area too.
archaeological evidence — Again, does it take a miracle to accurately record historical events? Nope. But this also doesn’t change the Bible’s problems in this area, like its descriptions of David and Solomon’s kingdoms, the lack of evidence for a global flood, the lack of evidence for the Exodus, lack of evidence for the 10 plagues, lack of evidence for the conquest of Canaan, etc.
multiple witnesses/authors teaching the same doctrine — you do know that the Bible was assembled by committee, right? Do you think they would have selected widely divergent texts? Furthermore, the ones in the Bible aren’t as compatible as you might think. From doctrinal points to factual details, they often vary.
Kathy, it’s understandable that you may not have been aware of these issues initially. But after all these weeks of interacting with us and having us give you numerous examples, it’s lazy and ignorant to continue positing the same old crap as though it doesn’t stink anymore. It stunk at the beginning, but we were too polite to rub your nose in it. It’s past that point now, though. Grow up and research this stuff on your own instead of continuing to parade your ignorance. It’s insulting to see someone insist that their worldview is the only correct one when they obviously have done little to no research on its veracity.
READ SOME BOOKS!!!
LikeLike
“I think the question you might be presented with on that day (if you get any questions at all).. would be, what evidence do you have to NOT believe the claims?/em>” – I’ve said it before, and it has been ignored, as usual, but I don’t mind repeating – my evidence is the fact that there IS no evidence for believing.
On day, you will cease to live, as we all will, and you will never know that “that day” never came. I suppose that some comfort could be taken in that delusion, but considering all of the hoops you would have to jump through between now and then, it seems simpler to skip the delusion and embrace reality.
LikeLike
The problem, Kathy, is that you believe “fulfilled prophecies, hundreds if not thousands? of martyrs, accurate details verified by outside sources, archeological evidence that verifies details, multiple witnesses/ authors teaching the same doctrine” are evidence.
We don’t.
Each of these has already been discussed ad nauseam on this blog … and each one has been discounted.
LikeLike
People have been dying while waiting for “that day” for over 2000 years, and the gospels tell us that the man himself prophesied that “that day” would come while some of those to whom he spoke, still lived – yet another failed prophecy.
LikeLike
“Nate, I know of no compelling evidence for the existence of vampires.. sigh…/em>” – And I know of no compelling evidence for the existence of Yeshua.. sigh…
LikeLike
Arch — Kathy is a spitfire. If she ever does come around and realizes she’s been duped to the max, the Christian community had better look out. 😈
LikeLike
Nate,
“fulfilled prophecies — There is no good detailed prophecy that supports the Bible. The Virgin Birth prophecy in Isaiah 7 is not about Jesus, but about a kid in Isaiah 8. Matthew uses tons of “prophecies” that aren’t prophecies at all when you look at them in the OT. Tyre was not fulfilled the way Ezekiel prophesied. The others that people claim usually only seem to work out when twisting the text into all kinds of things it never really meant.”
And I and millions of Christians disagree. We’ve gone over Tyre, so I have a reference for how you apply objectivity. About 99% of the prophecy is not in dispute.. and amazingly against the odds.. what you use to argue against it’s fulfillment is based on ONE word, that YOU ADD to the prophesy. This isn’t objective, Nate, this is you, “twisting” to fit your desired outcome.
Here’s a list of recent fulfilled prophecies…
http://therefinersfire.org/recent_prophecy.htm
LikeLike
Actually, Nate, the Ancient Norse of which you speak have a prophecy far more accurate than most of those in the Bible:
LikeLike
Nate, cont..
“martyrs — So what? The only martyrs that might actually serve as evidence for Jesus being the actual son of God would have to be martyrs who had known him. But we have no historical evidence to suggest that this happened. And even if it did, it’s no different than those who gave their lives for Jim Jones.”
And again, this reminds me of how the Mormonism attempts to diminish the value of Jesus’ death on the cross by claiming that it isn’t enough to get us into Heaven. It can only be described as pure evil to try and do this.. and that’s exactly what Mormonism is.
And you are desperate to do the same with those who testified with their very lives, you need to trivialize it, diminish it, cancel it some of the most valuable testimony for the truth of the Bible. But, as I’ve already explained, Nate, no rational person will fall for it. Our lives are the most valuable possession we have.. everyone understands this. There is no greater personal testimony. That there ARE some who are not mentally stable or are driven by hate and evil who also “sacrifice” their lives.. doesn’t invalidate the thousands of Christians who gave their lives peacefully, without harming others.. but others harming them because they refused to be silence about what Jesus did for us.
This is all very clear and very compelling and it’s what enemies of God must attack and discredit however they can.. you are either being used or you are one of the enemies Nate (or both). I don’t care how “dramatic” that probably sounds, the fact remains that it’s the truth. You’ve never answered my direct question that I’ve brought up several times now,.. how you justify attempting to lead people away from God while having ZERO empirical evidence to support your claim that He doesn’t exist. The damage you could be doing to others is beyond measure.
LikeLike
“hundreds if not thousands? of martyrs, accurate details verified by outside sources”
Name them and provide the sources, please.
“archeological evidence that verifies details”
What archeological evidence? Please list sources.
“multiple witnesses”
Names, please, and source of information —
“authors teaching the same doctrine..”
Are we talking about all of those anonymous ones, whose credentials can'[t be verified, and who disagree on most of the story?
LikeLike
“So, you are claiming there is no compelling evidence for the truth of the Bible?/em>” – He’s trying to get you to understand how WE feel
What is YOUR evidence that there ARE no vampires?
LikeLike
“atheists fail to acknowledge God as their “Master”/em>” – you would be correct in assuming that I decline to acknowledge an imaginary being as my “Master” – true, I’ve got a couple of imaginary Mistresses, as well as one that inflates, but no imaginary master.
LikeLike
bwahahaha!!!! Is the inflatable’s name, ‘Bianca’??
I like this line – “I didn’t have an imaginary friend when I was little, I don’t need one now!” Works for me.
LikeLike
“What is YOUR evidence that there ARE no vampires?”
The lack of compelling evidence for their existence.
LikeLike
Neuro, I can tell you right now, she quit reading right after “Critical thinking — “
LikeLike
““atheists fail to acknowledge God as their “Master”/em>” – you would be correct in assuming that I decline to acknowledge an imaginary being as my “Master” – true, I’ve got a couple of imaginary Mistresses, as well as one that inflates, but no imaginary master.”
Yes, I got it Arch.. no One will be “master” over you!
LikeLike
Arch said:
“– I’ve said it before, and it has been ignored, as usual, but I don’t mind repeating – my evidence is the fact that there IS no evidence for believing.”
And this yet again shows that you have no clue what “evidence” is. Even though I’ve posted the definition several times I believe.
If there weren’t compelling evidence Arch, Christianity would have died out long ago. People over the last 2 thousand years have suffered a lot for something you claim has “no evidence”. Arch, you just don’t know how to process information objectively.. or you CHOOSE not to.. take your pick.. 🙂
On day, you will cease to live, as we all will, and you will never know that “that day” never came. I suppose that some comfort could be taken in that delusion, but considering all of the hoops you would have to jump through between now and then, it seems simpler to skip the delusion and embrace reality.”
And I’m sure you are aware of my end of that “one day”.. where YOU will see the truth.. and I will get to know that you WILL see the truth.. And I don’t deny that it is a challenge to not allow my pride and ego to “celebrate” that you will realize this truth. But all I have to do is follow through and then I know there is no celebrating to be had.
Yes, I guess it’s kind of a bummer that you can’t at least know you’ll get the “satisfaction” of us believers finally knowing the “truth”.
LikeLike
“Is the inflatable’s name, ‘Bianca’??/em>” – I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend to institutionalize me.
LikeLike
“
Remember that, next time you ask me to prove there’s no god.
LikeLike
“Yes, I got it Arch.. no One will be “master” over you!</em" – No Odins, no Zeuses, no Mazdas, no Yahwehs, no Amurrus, no unicorns, no Leprechauns, no fairies, no gnomes, no Hobbits, no trolls, and no other imaginary entities.
LikeLike
“Yes, I got it Arch.. no One will be ‘master’ over you!</em"
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
~~ Delos B. McGowan ~~
LikeLike
“And this yet again shows that you have no clue what ‘evidence’ is.”
Oh, I know exactly what evidence is, after all, I have YOUR definition:
<blockquote"We should be able to, and we MUST make our choices based on ALL of the available information not just the proven facts… yet many of my accusers ( Democratic liberals) have insisted that I am wrong for bringing up even factual information on the basis that it leads to conclusions that have not been proven….NO… I DON’T THINK SO… IWILL consider circumstantial evidence when making my decision"
LikeLike
“First, you are correct that the Passover itself is not spoken of as a Sabbath, and I misspoke in my comment.”
Thats not accurate Nate. Be honest with yourself for a change. Over 50% of your verses had to do with preparation day. You did not misspeak it was your argument that they were conclusive of your point. You CLEARLY thought the passover was a sabbath even putting your own note in the text because you swore the high day sabbath proved your point and in your words rendered my view “ridiculous”. Now that that has been proven to be nonsense you are of course shifting gears. I appreciate the more humble tone but not at the price of honesty.
“However, it seems to me that John is saying that Passover itself fell on a Sabbath Day that year. Again, it says this in John 19:14:
It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.”
You seem to be making things up as you go along Nate. There is nothing in that verse that says the passover fell on the sabbath. Nada. Since the day after the passover was a sabbath according to the torah it has no merit. Even in the traditional Friday interpretation – the passover would fall on the Thursday Jewish evening (for those who don’t know the Jewish day goes from sunset to sunset). You can’t just invoke something to fit your thesis.
“In your comment, you said that this really just meant it was the day of preparation for the Sabbath during Passover week. But there seem to be some problems with this view, as the Pulpit Commentary points out:”
Well two big problem with how you quoted that Nate. First off you just cleaned skipped over the fact that the commentary cited scholars NOT in support of the view you are claiming -sliced it right out of your quote – so obviously there is not agreement on the “problems”.
B) Singular commentaries are hardly conclusive anyway. Should I cite one that agree with me and state therefore there are unexplainable problems with your view? You know I could.
I must too correct you on your premise. I spent most of my time on the view that the sabbath was the sabbath of the first day of unleavened bread NOT necessarily Saturday/Friday evening
As to the the actual points you quoted that you alleged are “problems”. They are pretty weak
“To this it is replied, by Meyer, Godet, Westcott, Farrar, etc., that this use of pa?as?e?? (greek word that got mangled in my text editor) belongs to a much later period, and here it is used in the sense of the “preparation” for the Paschal meal,”
Mark rebuts that completely by specifically using the word and then defining the meaning of it.
Mark 15:42 (KJV)
42 And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, ”
Its one of the rare places in ancient texts where a word is used and then specifically defined as to its use. Reading Mark there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the word by iself means the day before the sabbath and not an alleged preparation day for the Passover meal (in fact I have seen little evidence so far that there even was such a thing)
IN order to claim it was not in usage in that way you have to DENY the reading of the text in Mark that defines it rather precisely! That’s a beyond weak approach. Its practica096lly begging. There’s then only this as a real objection
” [There is another difficulty in the former interpretation: if our Lord was crucified on the first day of unleavened bread and after the Paschal meal, there would be a second preparation of the Passover on that day week”
Which frankly again is no point at all because the definite article is not even used in that passage. it literally could read a sabbath of the passover.So rather than bolster your point the weak objections in fact reinforce the viability that the word stand s on its own as meaning the day before a sabbath.
“It’s also interesting to note that in John, there’s no record of the disciples asking Jesus about how they should prepare for the Passover. ”
Its actually quite boring because its well known John was written to cover things not yet covered by the synoptics so what purpose would it be to cover that all over again? It goes against the purpose of the book. John doesn’t mention all to of things the synoptic mentions so citing silence is no real point.
“I really don’t see a satisfactory way to explain this issue, and that’s why the tone you use when you discuss it is so puzzling to me.”
Its puzzling to me that your tone is always one of accusing the text of contradiction even when you are totally unaware of things such as when a sabbath actually was and was not. You don’t think thats a “tone”? lol
” At the very least, these passages are difficult and confusing.”
Whats difficult and confusing is that THE CULTURE conflated the two things into one in a way that was not called for with the passover and the unleavened bread not being clearly defined IN THE CULTURE but clearly defined in the Torah. This comes back to and illustrates an issue with your weak thesis that passages must always be easy to understand. Guess what? difficulties arise many times outside of the text in that cultures often conflate or change things in ways that make it hard to understand hundreds of years later.
By the time the NT is written, these verses in order to communicate, HAVE TO reflect those conflations we find. Imagine the confusion if the NT decides to buck the cultural usage and say on the day before the first day of the feast of leaven bread. Those people who had conflated the passover with the feast would be lost and themselves claiming an inaccuracy. You ignore such things in your ever used fall back that “its god’s word so it should be easy to understand”. People and cultures have these foibles and to communicate you have to deal with those foibles not speak to them in terms someone two thousand years later would understand but not the people on the spot.
So when we analyze the culture and the words and the fact that you didn’t know that the passover was not a sabbath there’s only one thing really left of your claims.
LikeLike
Good Morning 🙂
Ruth,
I’m glad you gleamed that off my comments 🙂
Arch,
Atheism has no central doctrine, so the point I was trying to make was that atheism could not be blamed for Khmer Rouge. Since just because someone doesn’t believe in God, it doesn’t follow that they should then torture and socially engineer genocides…Otherwise atheism would be an ideology, not a lack of belief.
Ron,
Thanks for your questions
I believe that Jesus is who He said He was in The Bible.
I find His teachings, his message of love and service outlined in the NT to be inspired by God.
Although I need to be more consistent in following them 🙂
Thanks everyone
LikeLike
“IN order to claim it was not in usage in that way you have to DENY the reading of the text in Mark that defines it rather precisely!” – a guy remembers, 35 years after the fact, what day the Passover fell on. Sure, I can believe that.
What happened, Kathy text you to come help her dig herself out of the hole she got herself into?
LikeLike