Well, after breaking 2000 comments on the previous thread, I think it’s time to move to a new one. Feel free to continue the conversation here.
Also, I want to make a note about future posts. The tone on this blog for the last month or so has been decidedly different than what it used to be. While that’s definitely made things interesting, I’d like to move back to a tone more in line with the way things used to be. So going forward, I want the comments on all new posts to remain civil. We can all make our points, and I expect to see a wide range of opinions. But I don’t want to get into name-calling and bashing when we can’t all agree on particular issues. Let’s try to stay focused on the points and not get side-tracked with personal stuff. Let’s also keep each comment substantive so we don’t rack up so many comments in such a short period of time that it’s hard for everyone to keep track.
If you don’t feel like you can participate within those guidelines, then feel free to continue posting within this thread (and any future “Kathy” threads, if they’re needed), because I won’t be enforcing any guidelines here. But if you want to comment on any other posts, you’ll need to abide by the rules I just laid out. Otherwise, your comment will be subject to deletion, and after a warning, you might find yourself banned from at least that thread, if not the entire blog.
If there are any questions, let me know.
Thanks
Finding Truth 
Kathy,
you said,
“then that is also the case for every other religion – thereby making this moot.”
Yes, it is also the case for every other religion.. that it “CAN” be evidence for their religion’s truth.
So, sorry, it’s not “moot”. The point is that Christianity has the only real evidence, including the compelling evidence of Christian martyrdom, to support it’s Truth.” – kathy
so if you’re saying that martyrdom is compelling evidence, at least you’re agreeing that it is compelling evidence for every religion, but then you back track on that and say that christianity has the only real evidence…
I’d like to get out of this circle and get you to show how christianity has the only real evidence. If we all agree that every religion has martyrs, and if you want to continue to say that that is somehow evidence for their truth, then martyrdom is counted as evidence for each religion….
1) Now, if you’re saying the christian martyrs are different in a more compelling way, you should explain that and provide evidence for it.
2) If you’re saying that christinaity has other, and better, evidence that the other religions do not, then please provide that.
Can you do this?
LikeLike
William,
I really wish this stuff was as simple as math, but it doesn’t seem that way to me. What we have are writings that can be interpreted in many different ways. Writings like the bible, or any holy scripture for that matter, are not math problems, and that is why these discussions are endless. Metaphor and many other interpretive techniques can be employed whenever things become too sticky, and for all we know the writers may have wanted to be metaphorical when they wrote.
Now where I would agree with you is that there are times where the interpretations get to be so much of a stretch that they just feel like they’ve gone too far – stretches that would not be accepted by historians in regular historical documents which were not meant to be religiously persuasive. But even then I believe subjectivity is still involved unlike in math problems.
LikeLike
This is quite funny.
Mount Precipice.
Scroll down ’til you see the plaque.
Really, you have to love god belief. There are none so credulous and keen to part with their money and sanity.
http://mountprecipice.blogspot.com/
LikeLike
http://www.israel21c.org/travel/top-10-christian-sites-at-the-sea-of-galilee/
‘More than 60 percent of the 3.4 million tourists who visited Israel last year were Christian…’
I am surprised they don’t have a bloke in a long white robe greeting these half-baked credulous Wallies as they step off the plane.
“Who wants to see where Jesus ate his last meal? Okay, only 25 dollars a head.”
LikeLike
“It was not His time to die and He supernaurally escaped”
I’d like to have seen that. But the plaque says he jumped off!
LikeLike
Howie, I guess I agree with you. My analogy may have been too simplistic to accurately reflect the reality of it – at least all of it.
But when we see a contradiction in the genealogies, for example, believers will say that Luke really meant through Mary, not joseph – despite what the passage says.
So, why couldn’t we do that with 2+2=18? maybe there’s numbers or variables there that we cannot see? We just dont have a view if the entire equation, but we can be sure the answer is 18 – because, hey, 2+2 is such an obvious error that it would have been caught, therefore we can be sure 18 is the right answer…
some of the “explanations” that are given to resolve many of the issues in the bible seem just a ludicrous – and I really think that the “emperor’s new clothes affect” is what keeps them going – not reason.
It may not be the most perfect analogy, but still feel like it’s valid to a degree, even though i can understand your contentions with it.
LikeLike
Haha! TB’s own words betray him. Here they are once again for everyone’s reading enjoyment:
“In ancient days you were considered dead when you were lifeless. People got buried who were not modern clinically dead all the time.”
All you have to do to prove your Jesus fellow rose from the dead is to produce him in the flesh. You can’t, and you KNOW that you can’t. And your inability to heal the sick through prayer presents further evidence that your claims are baseless. Case Closed. The END!
LikeLike
“If somewhere within the Bible, I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn’t question what I’m reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and understand it.” ~Pastor Peter LaRuffa
Hear him utter these words at the very beginning of this video:
LikeLike
Yeah William, I don’t think we disagree all that much. I think it’s only a matter of degree. I think the problem I see with bible interpretations is that we are dealing with language rather than numbers, and even if numbers are mentioned they are not used as equations trying to solve a math problem.
Interestingly enough though, which would actually cause me to lean a little more toward your viewpoint, is that in “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Gleason Archer concedes that there are some actual discrepancies in numbers between passages of Kings versus Chronicles (which have parallel passages talking about the same things). His doesn’t quite concede errancy though, but claims that these are issues due to copyist errors and that the originals have the correct numbers. This to me goes too far. One thing I try to do when I take on a belief is try and figure out if I could sell it to someone else with a straight face, and claiming the bible to be inerrant when the books we actually have are admittedly in error just doesn’t fly. When I was a Christian I declared holy scriptures of other religions as false by showing errors in them and never gave any benefit of the doubt that those originals were inerrant. Of course a viewpoint of others is to concede that the bible is errant but that in it’s spiritual statements it is correct, but then to me I don’t see a reason to hold it’s words as higher than the words of other religious texts.
LikeLike
William,
I understand what you meant now, thanks 🙂
LikeLike
Arch said:
““Their conviction is evidence.. however powerful it may be.. it’s STILL evidence.” – once again, evidence only of their conviction, not that any given event happened.”
It’s compelling evidence towards the Truth of the Bible/ God’s existence.
““the archaeological evidence that supports the details/ historical documentation in the Bible..” – I’ve given you a number of prominent archaeologists who maintain that there is no evidence that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, or Moses ever existed, and we know the four who told Yeshua’s story, never met him. What’s left that makes any difference?”
Lack of evidence isn’t proof of anything except lack of evidence. And it’s not true that all the Gospel authors didn’t know Jesus, but even if it were true, this also means NOTHING.
““It makes no sense that we are anything OTHER than CREATED beings.. with a Creator.” – It makes every sense that we evolved naturally on this planet and NO sense that there’s a magic spirit out there somewhere manipulating events.”
It is pure ignorance by you to try and pass off “– It makes every sense that we evolved naturally on this planet ..” as an answer to our origins.. because it doesn’t answer that question in any way. It argues AGAINST the logic of our existence.
““I know of NOTHING that gives us a more rational explanation that the Bible.” – sadly, I believe that – you need to expand your horizons.”
SADLY.. you are blind to your own hypocrisy and ignorance, Arch.
You’ve FAILED over and over to provide a better explanation.
“The Truth of Christianity isn’t in the same category as the ‘truth’ of Arch being superman.. it’s a silly comparison.” – Again, you’re right – I DO have a better chance of being Superman, than Christianity has of being true!”
Said the man with the childlike mind who has no discernment or reasoning skills.. and probably never will.
LikeLike
William, you said:
“so if you’re saying that martyrdom is compelling evidence, at least you’re agreeing that it is compelling evidence for every religion, but then you back track on that and say that christianity has the only real evidence…”
Do you understand the word “CAN”? As in “CAN be compelling evidence (in other religions)… that’s NOT an acknowledgment that all other martyrdom IS the same. Can’t keep wasting my time explaining this basic stuff to you William..
“1) Now, if you’re saying the christian martyrs are different in a more compelling way, you should explain that and provide evidence for it.
2) If you’re saying that christinaity has other, and better, evidence that the other religions do not, then please provide that.
Can you do this?”
I did do this. You’re using desperation tactics.. because you were unable to debate my actual points long ago. Until this changes, I’m not going to bother responding to any more of your comments.
LikeLike
We’ve gone to the trouble of defining the rest of the words so let’s define compelling:
com·pel·ling
adjective \kəm-ˈpe-liŋ\
: very interesting : able to capture and hold your attention
: capable of causing someone to believe or agree
: strong and forceful : causing you to feel that you must do something
Martyrdom isn’t compelling evidence to me. It’s evidence that the people believed something strongly enough to die for it, but it doesn’t compel me to share their beliefs regardless of how smart, educated, dedicated, devoted, etc. they might have been.
Martyrdom is obviously compelling evidence to you, Kathy. But what is compelling to one might not be to another. Compelling is subjective.
LikeLike
“Lack of evidence isn’t proof of anything except lack of evidence. – extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence, not lack of evidence – you’ve proven nothing, except that you are as gullible as those you claim martyred themselves for a fairy tale.
LikeLike
“Martyrdom isn’t compelling evidence to me. It’s evidence that the people believed something strongly enough to die for it, but it doesn’t compel me to share their beliefs regardless of how smart, educated, dedicated, devoted, etc. they might have been.”
To claim that MANY respected, intelligent, educated people who have given their lives over
the last 2000 years to testify to the Truth of the Bible doesn’t compel you to consider that Truth as a real possibility is disingenuous in my opinion. If it weren’t Christianity and instead some other subject that people were dying for, given the same specifics, I believe you would acknowledge that it would compel you to consider it’s truth. I don’t believe that anyone isn’t compelled when all the factors that Christianity has are involved in martyrdom. It’s bias that is preventing you from admitting this.
It’s just not reasonable to claim that a rational intelligent person giving their very life doesn’t compel you to believe in what they’re dying for. There is no other more powerful testimony a person can give.
I know you don’t agree, but I just don’t believe you are applying objectivity. What you are claiming isn’t a natural/ rational response.
LikeLike
To claim that MANY respected, intelligent, educated people who have given their lives over
the last 2000 years to testify to the Truth of the Bible doesn’t compel you to consider that Truth as a real possibility is disingenuous in my opinion.
I didn’t say that it didn’t compel me to consider it. I have. I just don’t find it compelling for the truth of the Bible or God. I find it compelling for the truth of their beliefs and devotion to it. I’m giving you a perfectly rational response. I’ve dug into the evidence for the martyrdom of the apostles. I don’t find it compelling. It’s sparse, and some of it contradictory. It doesn’t convince me. Beyond that, since the martyrs that followed didn’t have first hand knowledge of Jesus or the resurrection I don’t find their martyrdom for it particularly compelling evidence of it’s truth. I find it compelling evidence of their belief that it was true.
LikeLike
Further, as I believe has been pointed out here repeatedly, “…MANY respected, intelligent, educated people” would only be Argumentum ad populum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
LikeLike
““Lack of evidence isn’t proof of anything except lack of evidence. – extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence, not lack of evidence – you’ve proven nothing, except that you are as gullible as those you claim martyred themselves for a fairy tale.”
You’re the gullible one, Arch. You are an indoctrinated liberal. You think evolution is the answer to our existence.. extremely narrow, inside the box, thinking. Just how those delusional destructive “progressives” pushing their agenda in the media want you to think.
And there IS extraordinary evidence of God’s existence.. again, nothing else compares.. which you clearly agree by your LACK of evidence to the contrary.. you just don’t have the integrity to admit it.
LikeLike
Actually history is replete with ”rational intelligent people” dying for their beliefs.
In context, one only has to look at any war situation where many people have been prepared to die.
In religious context it is usually the promise of eternal life. This is simply an example of the power of indoctrination.
Maybe we ought to ask Nate or Ruth, whom I consider to be intelligent rational people, as former believers if would they have been prepared to die when they were believers?
A real test would be whether a person such as you, Kathy, or Mike , would be prepared to die before denying Jesus of Nazareth?
Well…..would you? Would you be prepared to die if someone held a gun to your head and threatened to end your life unless you denied Jesus of Nazareth?
How about if they held a gun to the head of one of your children?
So, would you?
LikeLike
“Further, as I believe has been pointed out here repeatedly, “…MANY respected, intelligent, educated people” would only be Argumentum ad populum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum ”
Ruth, you’re just showing, again, a lack of understanding ….
My point was that MANY respected, intelligent people martyred themselves..
this isn’t an “ad populum” argument.. I fully realize that more people didn’t martyr themselves
than did. The point is that it wasn’t just one or two who martyred themselves.. it was many, rational people.
LikeLike
Maybe we ought to ask Nate or Ruth, whom I consider to be intelligent rational people, as former believers if would they have been prepared to die when they were believers?
I’ve already attested to the fact that I would have been willing to die for my belief. There was a time when I wished for the opportunity, even, to prove my devotion. Since it has been concluded that I was never a real Christian I’m quite glad I didn’t get that opportunity because I would have surely gone to hell. I consider myself to be a sane, intelligent, (mostly) rational person. According to the train of thought that I was not a TrueBeliever, I would have been quite willing to die for a lie – even though it would have been my belief in the resurrection.
LikeLike
I fully realize that more people didn’t martyr themselves
than did. The point is that it wasn’t just one or two who martyred themselves.. it was many, rational people.
And, as I pointed out, martyrdom is not evidence that belief is true, only that one is devoted to their beliefs. This is why we’ve pointed out the martyrs of other religions. Not because we think it lends credibility to the truth of their belief, but it does lend credibility to their devotion to the belief itself.
My point about the Argumentum ad populum is an appeal to the popular belief that the apostles were martyred and the popular belief/talking point that martyrs are evidence of the truth of Christianity. That’s what most Christians believe.
LikeLike
Ark,
“Actually history is replete with ”rational intelligent people” dying for their beliefs.
In context, one only has to look at any war situation where many people have been prepared to die.”
This is true.. but it doesn’t negate my point at all.. it only bolsters it. There are lots of rational people who will die for a worthy cause.. and those dying for Christianity are no different.
And I don’t know what I would do if I was in the same position as Miriam or the father who was killed by the Boko Haram soldiers in front of his children and then they killed the son.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/nigerian-christian-teen-whose-father-brother-were-killed-by-boko-haram-stands-with-abducted-girls-119671/
Of course I’ve thought about it.. which is why it is such COMPELLING evidence.. and I don’t believe anyone who tries to claim otherwise.
LikeLike
I’m breaking in to the regularly scheduled programming to let you all know that Mike Anthony aka TBlacksman has been banned from the blog. It appeared to me that he was not honoring my request to keep things civil on other parts of the blog, and after repeated warnings, I finally blacklisted him.
Seeing as he won’t be here to defend himself any longer, I’d ask that everyone refrain from making any further derogatory comments about him or his positions. If you’d like to discuss some of his points that dealt with things of substance, feel free — just please leave off any personal commentary.
Thanks — and if anyone has any questions, please let me know. I don’t follow this thread all that closely, so if you need to reach me, you can try out the new contact page.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled diatribe, already in progress. 🙂
LikeLike
Of course I’ve thought about it.. which is why it is such COMPELLING evidence.. and I don’t believe anyone who tries to claim otherwise.
It’s compelling evidence because you’ve thought hard about it? Is that objective?
This is why I said that the nature of compelling is subjective.
LikeLike