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 
Apologies. Here’s the Pew Poll link.
LikeLike
“oh sure Arch, throw that in my face” – It’s not as messy as a pie —
LikeLike
@hayden
Intentionally causing emotional distress in youngsters is abusive and indefensible—and we both know it. If your children came home distraught from school every day, I suspect you’d go down there to find out what’s going on and demand immediate changes.
LikeLike
Thanks Ron, that actually makes me feel better about my nation.
LikeLike
@Ron
I’m missing why you think I would disagree with what you just said. What are you seeing in my replies that I am not seeing?
LikeLike
He probably doesn’t know how to take you Hayden, you must admit, you’re an acquired taste.
LikeLike
NATE! They’re picking on me!
LikeLike
“I’ve seen him go through pure hell because of bigots like Kathy and Mike.”
I try my best what can I say? Maybe he had it coming? Happy now? Feed your own bigotry? And yeah I am flippant about it because this is one of the times (though not isolated) when you just display yourself to be a total out and out fool. I’ve weighed in on some suspect studies you referred to regarding parenting but I have not said a thing about Homosexuality or even homosexual marriage and up to this point you have not known squat so take a bow…you just proved you own neuronet is malfunctioning in logic.
If you must know my only qualms with homosexual marriage is that marriage has historically been a church institution. If seculars want unions let them come up with their own name/word but I think anybody should be able to designate whoever they wish for legal privilege. Frankly however I am not going to bust a gut over it anyway because Heterosexuals have done a fine job in degrading the institution anyway. So sorry Mike is not militant on the issue. bzzzz wrong again.
I’d have no issue showing homosexuality as a sin in the Bible either But I know more heterosexuals messed up with sex than I do homosexuals all together but I don’t see anyone lobbying to make adultery illegal so frankly I find a lot of people getting on gays just a little bit too sanctimonious. So would your friend be going through hell with “Mike”? Nope you are just a blatant fool making accusations when you have no idea how I see or treat Homosexuals.
Goodness its not like that makes them instant atheists. So they are likely to be vast improvements over most of you …. 🙂 🙂 and therefore worthy of some respect.
LikeLike
Ron said:
“The main opposition is in the conservative evangelical sector. Kathy and her homophobic ilk are part of a dying breed.”
Not “homophobic” Ron.. just choosing to obey God over pleasing you.
You “comfort” yourself with the polls that show that my “ilk” are a dying breed.. well, you ignore
my valid points that along with my “ilk” will go humanity.. (it’s a scientific reality). You / liberals won’t be celebrating in this country when God turns His back on us for turning our backs on Him. With the number of unborn that are killed every day.. especially for “profit”.. and supporting same sex marriage, and taking prayer out of schools and any mention of God in relation to this country, God will punish this country. He made the US the greatest country in history because we were founded by people who loved and worshiped Him and continued to do so until just recently. The liberal agenda has changed that and they won’t stop until God is removed completely. So, yeah, go ahead and celebrate. But you’re celebrating disaster whether you acknowledge it or not.
You know, there is no mention of the US in the prophecy of the end times. It’s pretty clear why. Obama will get his wish.. we’ll cease to be a super power. Every great country thought they were invincible.. and every one perished. We’re going down that same road. Just look up EMP.. that’s one very easy way to literally destroy this country.. causing the death of most of the population. Our enemies can do this with a single nuclear weapon. We have no system set up to prevent it from happening. God won’t continue to protect this nation if we continue to turn our backs on Him.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/life-after-an-emp-attack-no-power-no-food-no-transportation-no-banking-and-no-internet
LikeLike
“taking prayer out of schools” – First Amendment, Kathy – separation of Church and State – what this country was founded on, remember? Prayer doesn’t belong in schools, it belongs in churches and private homes. Why should Buddhist, or Hindu or Muslim or Jewish kids be subjected to Christian prayers?
LikeLike
OR, here’s a plan, Kathy – we put prayer back into schools, and five times each day, all the little kiddies can take out their prayer rugs, put on their beanies, bow their faces to the ground in the direction of Mecca, and pray to Allah. Or they could all pray to Vishnu, or Ganesh! How would you like that? You wouldn’t like that at all, though, would you Kathy? It would have to be YOUR god – well guess what, those other people believe in their god just as strongly as you believe in yours.
You are designing your entire life around what a bunch of unknown old men, 3000 years ago, claimed to be true, and you can’t see why we think there’s problem with that.
LikeLike
Nope. Don’t hate anything. That’s an emotion the religious like to nurture.
I detest religion and consider it a bane of humanity. But hate?
No, Hayden. Hate is a characteristic so noticeable in your god, Yahweh. He can keep it and shove it where the sun he created don’t shine, my boy.
But I will extend the offer to you, Hayden , as I have to Mike and Kathy:
Offer a single piece of verifiable evidence to back your god-claims/Jesus of Nazareth- claims and I am willing to reconsider my standpoint unreservedly.
You have my word.
LikeLike
Hayden: “@Zoe,
” Tears of joy? Sure. Why not? It’s an incredible relief for them. Does that mean it can’t be abusive?”
I believe it CAN be abusive. Sure. I have never been a fan of guilt and fear as tools of the church. It’s just not what God told me to preach so I’d love to see the mainstream ditch it for something healthier.
Zoe: I agree. It can be abusive.
When it comes to what God told you to preach, do you think God is telling “the mainstream” the same thing but they are not listening? What would “healthier” look and sound like?
LikeLike
People can’t help the way they feel. But this is a great example of God’s wisdom and why we should obey Him. We get tempted and we have unhealthy desires.. all of us.. some more than others, and we’ve got to look to God to help us, we’ve got to obey His commands..
People/ Christians who do not give in to the aggressive liberal/ anti God agenda aren’t doing so because of “hate”.. it’s because it is clearly against God’s will and it’s clearly destructive to humanity. Liberals make accusations of “hate” because it’s all you have to “argue” with.. you all need that “card”.. like so many others. You don’t truly care about the harm it’s causing.
I could keep going and post more of what you’ve said, but let’s leave it at this. People/non-Christians are not under any obligation to follow your Bible’s teaching. Yet you want to keep and make laws that are religious in nature. And you say you don’t want a theocracy? You want to make laws that adhere to your religious text’s teachings and rules. YOU are a Christian and are free to follow those teachings. People who are not Christians are not under it’s authority.
LikeLike
If you must know my only qualms with homosexual marriage is that marriage has historically been a church institution. If seculars want unions let them come up with their own name/word but I think anybody should be able to designate whoever they wish for legal privilege. Frankly however I am not going to bust a gut over it anyway because Heterosexuals have done a fine job in degrading the institution anyway. So sorry Mike is not militant on the issue. bzzzz wrong again.
I’d have no issue showing homosexuality as a sin in the Bible either But I know more heterosexuals messed up with sex than I do homosexuals all together but I don’t see anyone lobbying to make adultery illegal so frankly I find a lot of people getting on gays just a little bit too sanctimonious. So would your friend be going through hell with “Mike”? Nope you are just a blatant fool making accusations when you have no idea how I see or treat Homosexuals.
@ Mike,
I agree with this. I’m glad you’re not militant about homosexuality. It seems unnecessary for many of the reasons you point out here. And I also agree that the union between homosexual partners need not be “marriage” necessarily but offer all the same benefits and legalese as marriage. Frankly, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, but that’s an entirely different debate.
Historically, in the U.S. marriage has been a church institution. It carries with it religious connotations, yes. Yet, there are untold numbers who have civil ceremonies that have no religious basis whatsoever. We wouldn’t say they were any less married and I doubt they feel any less married.
I wholly disagree with forcing ministers who are religiously opposed to same-sex marriage to perform ceremonies. I’m not sure why anyone would want a minister who feels that way to perform their ceremony anyway. I also wholly understand that you can point to homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. It’s there. That’s what it says. But I applaud your ability to recognize that people who are not Christians are not obligated to follow it’s rules. AND I applaud your ability to recognize the hypocrisy involved when there are so many other sexual sins, according to the Bible, that are swept under the rug as if they are somehow acceptable because they happen with heterosexual partners.
LikeLike
Sorry, I haven’t read any of the new comments since Friday afternoon, but I wanted to comment a bit further on something that mike and I were discussing regarding the day of Jesus’ crucifixion in the book of John.
The temptation of those who disagree with me to start responding to this before reading it through may ne high, so I ask that you read the entire post before commenting.
If we start from chapter 13 and read through chapter 19, I think, and want to show that John is indeed talking about the day before the actual Passover feast – which is contrary to the other gospel accounts.
JOHN13:1 It was just before the Passover Festival. Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.
2 The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus.
So it starts off, “before the Passover festival (some translations say “feast”), but before I go any further I wanted to address some apologetics that I’ve seen on this, which say that the only thing “before the Passover feast or festival was Jesus knowing that his hour had come, and then in vs 2, the supper he eats or had eaten was the actual Passover feast. So “before the Passover, jesus knew his hour was coming, then he eats the Passover and Judas is going to betray Jesus…
I think that version conflicts with the obvious context. If I were to say this, “that before thanksgiving, mike’s care takers realized that he was on playground unattended again. After dinner, they kept him distracted with a laser pointer until bed time… Would that make sense I was talking about thanksgiving dinner in both places?
I think the context is pretty clear in leading us to believe all of the events transpiring were before the Passover feast/festival. And if not, where is the indication of a break between vs 1 and vs 2? The supper was simply called “supper” and it did not speify that it was the Passover supper.
Furthermore, Chapter 13 through 19 is a continuous conversation and series of events and Chapter 18:28 reuterates that the Passover had not been eaten yet:
28 Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.
It makes no sense to say that they hadn’t eaten the Passover, when they had eaten the Passover. Zero. Even if the entire FOUB was also known as the Passover, you wouldn’t say that you wanted to make sure you were clean to eat the Passover when you had already eaten the Passover feast, and were really talking about the first day of FOUB. Everything so far in John points to all of these events taking place before the Passover.
And then again we come to John 19:14
14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon
Mike has said that because of the nuances of the greek language, verse 14 should have been translated differently. I cannot speak in too much detail regarding that position except to say the translators were indeed greek scholars and they translated it this way, not mike’s way.
Mike, is there a translation that gives it the way you claim it should have been translated? Can you provide that to back up your assertion? Otherwise, despite your two semesters of unaccredited greek in seminary school, I think we’re better off trusting actual greek scholars.
John is in conflict with the other gospels, this is the only reason that mike says John isn’t really talking about the Passover, when it clearly is. Mike is forced to say this in order to ignore the contradiction. Mike is trying to suggest the context of john must be iognored and viewed in the light of the context of the other gospels – but such interpretations does not erase John’s context or the words he used – again, what contradiction cannot be “resolved” in such a way?
If mike can show that the supper in verse 2 was indeed the Passover feast, and provide a reputable (or any) translation of John 19:14 that supports his claim, then he may have something, although it still wouldn’t be ironclad.
He has also stated that the day of preparation was only in reference to a Sabbath, but this isn’t entirely true. The greek word used in those passages is “Paraskeue” –
1. a making ready, preparation, equipping
2. that which is prepared, equipment
3. in the NT in a Jewish sense, the day of preparation
a. the day on which the Jews made necessary preparation to celebrate a sabbath or a feast
b. – http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/paraskeue.html
In the context of John, everything points to the day of preparation of the Passover – which the jews had to be clean in order to observe.
it’s going to take me a while to catch up through all the comments. If I’ve missed anyone’s direct questions to me, it may be easier you just repost them…
LikeLike
“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” ~Mark Twain
This represents bible believing Christians. You have zero verifiable evidence and yet — you follow like mindless sheep.
I was there once, and when parts of your frontal lobes come back online you realize that you were nothing more than a pawn for the religious authorities who got filthy rich off of your sheephood. If and/or when you ever come to realize you were a used for filthy lucre’s, you will go through deep grief (if you have a conscience) knowing you contributed to bringing much pain and suffering to others, whether it was in action and/or in words.
“Religion: It’s given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.” ~Jon Stewart
I’m not against spirituality — or the belief in a creator. I’m against authoritarian organized religion that has one goal — to take hold of your mind and in the process divide humanity into Us and Them. People willing to die for their authoritarian war gods and in action and words bring much harm to others all based on one thing —- > Faith. Those under the spell of authoritarian organized religion, in particular, fundamental/evangelical religions, become puppets and the religious hierarchy are pulling their strings.
Misquoting Jesus: Scribes Who Altered Scripture and Readers Who May Never Know
LikeLike
RE: “we have unhealthy desires” – who makes that decision, as to what is, is not, “healthy”? Old men who have been dead for three thousand years?
LikeLike
Kathy, you said:
“they compare becuase people gave their lives for their beliefs.
how do they differ?”
And you said this RIGHT AFTER saying this:
“let;s discuss the bible, pros and cons, as honestly as we both can. surely, we can agree to that.”
That’s right. what’s the issue? You say that martyrdom is evidence that christianity is truly from god, and I’m asking how when many other religions also have martyrs. I think it’s a fair question.
You say that muslim martyrs dont count because many of them also killed people. Sure, in today’s times we recognize this as evil, but in light of your OT, where god commanded the slaughter of entire cities and nations, why should it be disqualified?
But even if it should be disqualified, what about the tibetan monks, and others, who have been peaceful martyrs? You say that christian martyrs are more compelling, and I’d like to know why?
LikeLike
I think the CDC has a little something to say about that now. But those same old men said we should be eating pork, fish without scales, and shrimp for health reasons. We do all of those things now. Well, not everybody, but…you know what I mean.
LikeLike
Kathy, you said:
“Sorry, not the same thing. Islam is a false religion.. it’s evident by it’s own teachings and lack of compelling evidence for it’s truth. Those people have no excuse for murdering others “in the name of their god”.
Attempting to compare that with the events surrounding our Creator and how He established Himself with His creation is a fail.”
what teachings of islam show that’s it’s false and where is it’s evidence lacking?
Have you or mike read the koran?
Have you or mike read the koran while researching the original arabic? If not, then how can mike dismiss it, when he’s so vocal about opinions in the bible not really counting unless the person has formed said opinion through researching the original languages?
LikeLike
Kathy, you said:
“I didn’t say Bill (keller) is 100% right about “everything”.. he’s 100% right that the Bible is the final authority.. and he’s 100% right on all the major issues he addresses.”
how can we know that the bible is any type of authority, and especially the final authority?
Come on, the prophesies are vague if they’re even prophecies at all, and the “fulfillments” havent been exact. so while they may be compelling to you, it should be easy to understand why they are not to me – and it’s not that I just dont want to believe them it’s that I want to be convinced by them, and i just dont find them convincing.
and martyrs? see a few previous comments as to why I dont think they serves as evidence for the divine.
LikeLike
Kathy, you said:
“More liberal confusion.. Christians aren’t the ones trying to change our Constitution, that would be liberals, who want to limit religions freedom.. all you have to do is look at the Hobby Lobby case.. and how Obama/”progressives”/liberals are trying to force people to go AGAINST their religious beliefs.
…It’s liberals who want to violate the Constitution and force people to go AGAINST their religious beliefs and follow liberal beliefs instead.”
Okay, so i’m not a liberal afterall. Although, some people who claim to be conservatives and devout chrsitains are this way – but that’s mainly because they haven’t read the constitution they claim to hold so dear.
The 1st amendment protects all religions, yet many would try to curb non-christian activity and place limitations on it that do not exist on Christianity. So, a muslim could become president according the 1st Amendment.
But you are correct, many atheists try to say that no one should pray around them, but I disagree. we have the freedom of speech and expression. So the religious can pray all they like. Muslims can make their calls to prayer, and christians can bow their heads or gaze up to the sky and say whatever they like – and the non-religious are free to say anti-religious things.
This republic was set up to preserve all rights, as long as one person’s rights do not infringe upon or harm the rights of another.
In this way, i am conservative, but I do not align with all of what the modern day political conservatives think or stand for, nor do i align with the modern day political liberals – I am me.
regarding marriage, just because it has been brought up already, but marriage began before the bible. I know we can argue weather man or god invented it, but i dont care. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. While I think it’s stupid to change definitions, I can see where homosexuals would want equal rights and recognition for their partners. A different name for union would probably have been agreed on, had the political conservatives not resisted providing those equal rights.
regardless, it really doenst matter to me who’s married or who isnt. according the bible, anyone who marries after getting a divorce for reasons that were not related to infidelity, have not right to be married either – but you don’t see the political conservatives up in arms over that…
but again, i these more political topics are tangents off of the real debate here, and that is whether the bible is from god or man…
LikeLike
Neuro – thanks for the Ehrman video, at an hour and a half, I’ll have to watch it in segments, but I WILL watch it.
LikeLike
“researching the original languages”
Good point, William.. Even so — there are no original manuscripts in the NT because none exist to date. If “the creator” wrote the bible, why would he/she/it/they allow for it to be the most misunderstood book in the history of human civilization? Again, people are not reading translations of the originals books of the NT because there are no originals. Bible believing Christians are reading and studying copies made many centuries later. These thousands of copies are all different from one another. As distinguished biblical scholars have noted, what does it mean to say that god inspired the words of the texts if we don’t even have the original words? Why would such an all knowing god not see to it that the original words were preserved?
@Arch — my pleasure.
LikeLike