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 
“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.”
The way I interpreted your comment, Portal, was that Christianity was no more responsible for the Inquisition, than atheism was for the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge, and that’s just not true – Christianity WAS responsible for the Inquisition, and Atheism was not for the Khmer Rouge atrocities.
LikeLike
Arch’s comment:
““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" "
Arch, you are having troubling understanding my article.. that's ok, let me try to help..
If OJ Simpson were to run for president, according to your "reasoning" that you seem to be asserting here, we can't use any of the information that has been revealed to us since the murder of his wife, in making our decision on whether to vote for him.. because.. it's just not a proven "fact" that he murdered his wife.. and if we did take that into consideration, that would make us racists!.. and hateful!! And so goes liberal "wisdom" aka IGNORANCE… exactly what I'm trying to warn readers about.
LikeLike
Arch said:
“The way I interpreted your comment, Portal, was that Christianity was no more responsible for the Inquisition, than atheism was for the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge, and that’s just not true – Christianity WAS responsible for the Inquisition, and Atheism was not for the Khmer Rouge atrocities.”
ooops.. wrong again Arch. Christianity is not responsible in any way for the Inquisition. The people who ordered it and carried it out are responsible.. Jesus had NOTHING to do with it. And if you were aware of the actual teachings of Jesus, you’d know this.
LikeLike
@Kathy,
Did you read this comment of mine?
LikeLike
Arch,
Jesus never taught that people should kill others. He taught that people should go the extra mile to Love others, and love even those that are cruel.
Jesus in the Christian faith is considered to be the Son of God. He is considered to be the centre and the focus point of the faith. He is considered to be The Word made Flesh.
So anything done in the name of Christendom, no matter by who (Pope, pastor, Padre or Deacon ect.) that goes against the teachings of Christ, is not a accurate representation of Christianity in that moment.
LikeLike
William & Howie, great job on the allegory. 🙂
LikeLike
“This also fits better with John 18:28, which points out that the Jews had not yet eaten the Passover meal. There was only one of those each year, despite the Feast of Unleavened Bread lasting 7 days. This is an extremely important point, and it clearly indicates that the Passover seder had not yet been eaten.”
This is false. A conflated passover feast would have had TWO Major meals. The second was the Chagigah offering and that would have been eaten before the high sabbath. Some scholars have Identified this meal with the Chagigah and for VERY good reason given the context.
First we have already seen that the feast of the unleavened bread and the passover were conflated in common usage so that passover could refer to the 7 day festival and we have even seen the first day of unleavened bread being described as the passover. theres a total conflation of the terms even in Josephus at the time. If your objection is to the term eating of the festival well thats in the OT as well
Darby – 2 Chronicles 30:22
And Hezekiah spoke consolingly to all the Levites that had understanding in the good knowledge of Jehovah; and they ate the feast-offerings the seven days, sacrificing peace-offerings, and extolling Jehovah the God of their fathers.
TO argue that the concept of the passover being conflated does not extend to the actual meals is weak as it surely would be. SO since John refers to the whole time period being the passover (in keeping wit the convention of the time) then a major meal to be eaten it would be eating the passover as well.
Second In fact the Chagigah offering is more likely of the two because of the law of purity being alluded to. Its unlikely that going in to see Herod they would have been exposed to a dead body so most of the defilement would have been of the kind that by law would last only till the evening. Since the sabbath was eaten beyond the evening they would have been ceremonially clean. Only encountering a dead body would be an issue and even then that would disqualify them for both.
SO I am afraid once again you have no sure poof of a contradiction or error. all you will left with is begging that a meal being ate during the conflated passover feast could not be referred to as eating the passover feast even though John in particular identifies the passover as the entire feast.
So yes the claim of a clear contradiction has yet again crumbled whether you like it or not.
LikeLike
“a guy remembers, 35 years after the fact, what day the Passover fell on. Sure, I can believe that.”
Unless you think I might have presumed that you are any less dimwitted than two days ago why would I care what you believe Arch? You believe in the white fairy everything out of nothing and that was of no consequence to me either – well except for the laughter.
LikeLike
“Arch, you are having troubling understanding my article.. that’s ok, let me try to help..” – oh, I understand exactly what you’re saying, Kathy, possibly better than you do. You’re saying that you reserve the right to judge anyone you don’t like, simply on the basis of innuendo – no actual evidence required. But what it does, is it points out your utter disregard for evidence that doesn’t meet your needs, and leave the door open for you to have made your decisions regarding Christianity on exactly the same quality of evidence.
LikeLike
“Atheism has no central doctrine,”
Oh Pish posh Port you have bought into their kool aid. I have yet to to meet an atheist that was defined solely as not believing in God as they like to lie. Atheisms central doctrine and belief system is materialism.
LikeLike
“The people who ordered it and carried it out are responsible.. Jesus had NOTHING to do with it.” – that would be because, if he ever existed, your Jesus was dead, but then Jesus never had a lot to do with Christianity anyway.
LikeLike
Jesus had NOTHING to do with it. And if you were aware of the actual teachings of Jesus, you’d know this.
“But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.” ~Jesus (Luke 19:27)
LikeLike
“So anything done in the name of Christendom, no matter by who (Pope, pastor, Padre or Deacon ect.) that goes against the teachings of Christ, is not a accurate representation of Christianity in that moment.”
Isn’t it written in the Gospels, Portal, that Yeshua tells Peter, the first Pope, that whatever he binds or looses on earth, will be bound or loosed in heaven? I would interpret that to mean, “Whatever you decide to do, Pete, I got your back!”
LikeLike
Arch, you said:
““Arch, you are having troubling understanding my article.. that’s ok, let me try to help..” – oh, I understand exactly what you’re saying, Kathy, possibly better than you do. You’re saying that you reserve the right to judge anyone you don’t like, simply on the basis of innuendo – no actual evidence required. ”
Ok Arch, here comes ANOTHER direct request.. let’s see if you answer THIS one.. I’d like you to quote my EXACT words that support this accusation.
You perfectly exhibit the delusions and utter confusion going on in the liberal mind. You all have no clue how to process words objectively.. objectivity is a foreign concept you all fail to grasp.
And now I’ll elaborate on why I just made this statement.. see, this is where liberal ALWAYS stops because you can’t back up their accusations. Arrogantly assuming their assessments are good enough “evidence”.
Arch, you ARE right that I most definitely DO reserve the right to judge others.. ESPECIALLY when it’s the possible leader of our country.. do I need to explain WHY considering what we’re STUCK with today and what he’s done to this country??? Your poor liberal indoctrinated mind can’t grasp that we ALL have this right… and further, we’d better USE this right.
Believe it or not but judging is NECESSARY in life.. really! And further it’s NOT a sin to judge!.. really again! It’s a sin to judge hypocritically. But for our own well being we MUST make judgments about people who can affect our lives. Now, you, being a liberal and all, make hypocritical judgments of me and my reasons for wanting to judge Obama… and of course, being a liberal and all, that would be because I don’t like him!.. and that would be, of course, because, um.. he’s black? (if not, you’d be the very first liberal to not make that incredibly ignorant assumption). But see Arch, you and all liberals, once again, make this ignorant assumption based on ZERO evidence.. the “evidence” is concocted right out of your narrow thinking mind. And how do I know this? Because you will FAIL miserably when I ask you to produce the evidence that I am unfairly judging Obama because I “don’t like him”. So.. there you go.. another DIRECT request… I’d like my EXACT words that support your claim Arch, and I won’t let this one slip away like I did the last one, that you NEVER answered.
It’s YOUR narrow mindset that is what will destroy this country.. but hey.. at least Obama’s ego won’t be hurt because people questioned him! Because that’s what REALLY matters!
LikeLike
“Once AGAIN.. 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.. all very COMPELLING evidence for the truth of the Bible.”
Kathy Kathy….Don’t you get it. If They present a contradiction its a fact despite any other data presented but if you present a prophecy they can brush it away with a few claims like
if a people want a nation they are bound to get it despite minor setbacks like umm… I dunno……… the Holocaust.
or well yeah that city was scraped into the city but its not the right city its the city on the island out at sea that shares a border with a city several miles up the coast not the water around it (ROFL…..I cant help but literally laugh at that bit again).
or true there are no city walls around Israel cities like Ezekiel said there wouldn’t be but theres a fence So THERE unfulfilled prophecy 🙂 🙂
or yeah theres a foreign occupied place in Gaza like Isaiah 11 suggest but Jesus has come back yet so THAR AGAIN….lol
There are no standards set to validate anything its whatever they claim and if you are lucky a link to another skeptic that agrees with them as alleged evidence.
Meanwhile theres been not a drop of evidence for any thing they claim in regard to the bible but they are insisting not merely as they pretend that they want evidence from you but rather evidence that THEY WILL accept
But who on this blog doesn’t know that they would accept none regardless – even while they accept things as rational with ZERO impirical evidence to back it up – like Arch accepting everything from nothing fairy tales Krauss pushes and Nate stating that the concept is interesting and begs for it to be considered.
Hypocrites every last one. Why bother with them. Take a few days break and the air will smell fresher
LikeLike
“Isn’t it written in the Gospels, Portal, that Yeshua tells Peter, the first Pope, that whatever he binds or looses on earth, will be bound or loosed in heaven? I would interpret that to mean, “Whatever you decide to do, Pete, I got your back!”
ROFL…..go back to school Arch . Peter was never a pope and whatever he decided to do was not acceptable. Popes are to be infallible but Peter gets criticized by lowly Paul
Galatians 2:11 (KJV)
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
ooops…another Arch claim gets blown up
LikeLike
“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” – you allow these slipshod evidential standards when judging Obama, yet not when judging W, whom you use as part of your Avatar. You condemn Obama and defend Bush – which of the two could I most readily infer that you like, and which, you don’t?
And I’m still waiting for your evidence that there’s a god, and if so, that he/she/it is the god of the Bible. “And I’ll keep asking this question in case you forget to answer..”
LikeLike
The List of Popes
See also POPE, PAPAL ELECTIONS, ELECTION OF THE POPE.
1. St. Peter (32-67)
LikeLike
In the Journal of the Association of Medicine and Psychiatry it states: “Because of these affective, behavioral, and cognitive symptoms, patients are frequently misdiagnosed.”
ROFL.HAHAHAHA See Kathy?
Prime example
Here you have sheer hypocrisy, stupidity and double talk to suit themselves to the point where its comical
Here is Nuero citing a “study” about characters many of which atheists consider mythical as proof that the religion of their mythical selves were connected being mentally ill. 🙂 🙂
What a hack. So for he purpose of associating these figure with being mentally ill they are umm temporarily assumed to be real historical figures (well at least for the length of the “study” …..ROFL)
Besides that barf of silliness Wouldn’t an intelligent person figure out that less than 200 years ago most everyone was a theist and that almost every founder of science was?
No – because that would break the Neuro narrative and suggest the opposite – that theists rather than being deluded and prone to be mentally ill were instead pioneers and highly intelligent.
Oh No!!! 🙂
LikeLike
“The List of Popes
See also POPE, PAPAL ELECTIONS, ELECTION OF THE POPE.”
Oh look . Call the press. Arch has found a lost manuscript of the BIble online. LOL
LikeLike
Arch,
you allow these slipshod evidential standards when judging Obama, yet not when judging W, whom you use as part of your Avatar. You condemn Obama and defend Bush – which of the two could I most readily infer that you like, and which, you don’t?”
I know of no evidence that Bush was lying.. yes, you posted a BOOK as your “proof” but didn’t even give the source.. so I just ignored it. Give your source, if I’m going to read all of that, I’d prefer the LEAST edited liberal version.. I just assume it’s not from an objective/ honest non liberal source.
And when Katrina happened I was disgusted with Bush. Bush is far from perfect but he’s infinitely more honest and honorable and moral than Obama. I did catch the part where you claimed that the reason Bush wanted to go into Iraq was because of the oil profits.. who made the profits Arch? Who got the oil? Iraq KEPT their oil and their country, all they lost was a mass murderer.. yeah, Bush was such an “evil” president for doing that.
You / liberals fail to understand that we are dependent on foreign oil.. if we don’t have access to it, or the price sky rockets, our economy and country will crumble. These are the things Bush and Cheney were thinking about.. along with a golden opportunity to get rid of a monster who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and started the war over Kuwait.. he was a menace to the world and Bush/ Cheney capitalized on the opportunity to take him out because of his repeated defiance of the resolutions. If Bush HADN’T taken him out, he would have been criticized for not taking action when he could have. Just like his dad was criticized for not taking out Hussein when he had the chance.
You all are so easily manipulated and brainwashed.. you believe everything the liberals with media access feed you.. and like good sheep you repeat it on blogs etc. spreading it to all the other liberals. And because liberals lack objectivity, you believe all of it because who cares if it’s true or not? It’s what you WANT to hear.. again, truth is never really important in the big picture.
LikeLike
Arch, cont.
me: “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” –
you: you allow these slipshod evidential standards when judging Obama, yet not when judging W, whom you use as part of your Avatar. ”
Considering circumstantial evidence when deciding who to vote for is “slipshod”? Again, you fail to understand the meaning of evidence. Juries consider circumstantial evidence, sometimes it’s all they have. When Hilary was up against Obama, did you consider circumstantial evidence then? If you did, and you DID, you were either a racist or a misogynist.. according to YOUR “reasoning”.
Why do I have to keep explaining this fundamental basic stuff to liberals??
LikeLike
“if I’m going to read all of that” – you either will, or you won’t. If you don’t, then this subject is closed.
“I did catch the part where you claimed that the reason Bush wanted to go into Iraq was because of the oil profits.. who made the profits Arch?” – Why do you think that Dick Cheney, head of Halliburton, an oil field services company, was chosen as Bush’s Vice-President? Amazing how Halliburton, an oil field services company, once we were firmly ensconced in Iraq, suddenly provided transportation services, security services, and a number of others, at US Government expense – Cheney was taking care of his own. I don’t know exactly what deals were arranged between American oil interests, and neither do you – the idea was never to take over the oil fields, but to put deals in place to manage them.
“all they lost was a mass murderer.. – at the cost of how many lives? It’s not the job of this country to hunt down the world’s mass murderers – we went into Iraq on the pretense that Saddam had WMD’s and ties to al Qaeda, and Bush and his cronies had been told by experts in several fields, that neither was true, long before he went. And to go, he went before the UN for permission, as he was required by law to do, but when the UN denied that, he did an end run around them. He had the permission of Congress only because of his lies about WMD’s and ties to al Qaeda.
“You / liberals fail to understand that we are dependent on foreign oil.. if we don’t have access to it, or the price sky rockets, our economy and country will crumble. These are the things Bush and Cheney were thinking about..” – how many American and Iraqi lives did that cost?
Saddam knew which side of his bread the butter was on, he ran a secular Iraq, meaning that all religions were free to exist – now, the country is no longer secular, the war with Iraq turned the country into a Muslim theocracy, was that what you wanted? Was that worth killing Saddam?
You only believe what you want to hear, I really don’t know why any of us bother with you.
LikeLike
Nate, cont..
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. ”
“Like what?” Like dates, locations, names, people… lots of details that have been verified by outside sources. Again, Nate, this IS evidence that goes towards the truth of the claims of the Bible. Your “argument” that anyone including accurate dates in their writings would have to also be inspired by God. So here I go.. YET AGAIN.. having to explain that it’s an ACCUMULATION of evidence, Nate.. did you really think I was putting forth accurate details as THE evidence? all by itself? You must have because you claimed that “reporters and historians” today would also be inspired.. when they don’t even make the claim of inspiration! Again, I’m having to explain very basic fundamental things.. why? Because you refuse to apply objectivity.
No, it doesn’t require a miracle to write down actual dates etc. but whether you like it or not, and it’s clear you don’t, it IS corroborative evidence. If they were making up the story the more details included, the more vulnerable the story is to being revealed as a lie. If the stories were written LATER, which you all claim, it’s very hard to get those details correct. Just think of all the thousands of details given in the Bible.. all vulnerable to outside sources and archaeological discoveries to prove them wrong… no one trying to deceive so many would take those chances if they were fabricating it all.
Anyone applying objectivity will see that including dates, places etc is very much compelling corroborative evidence. Just like the martyrs, you can’t take that away, even though you obviously wish you could.
LikeLike
Nate, cont…
“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.”
You keep referring to “problems” with the Bible. So far, they are only “problems” for you/ atheists with bias. Where’s the actual PROOF that disproves anything in the Bible? Again, with all those dates and other details, surely there is “proof” from outside sources or archaeological evidence if it’s all made up.
And what evidence did you expect from the plagues or those other things? That would survive for 5000 years?? Sorry, I don’t see any “problem”.. it would be a miracle if there were evidence for any of it.. it would be a miracle to find it. This is just more evidence for your lack of objectivity, Nate.
LikeLike