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 
Arch,
““No, you haven’t Arch.” – that’s a bald-faced lie, Kathy, you even mentioned what I had written about Josephus in one of your own comments, but by your words, “some old historian,” it was clear you hadn’t read the comment. I would at least check, if I were you, before you lie.”
You call that “evidence”? It’s the SAME thing.. you gave “evidence” of something that was nothing but heresay.. just like what you were questioning!
““why don’t you just give me a crash course here.. in your own words please..” – because I’m not doing your work for you.”
Wow.. good 2nd grade comeback… that I’m sure everyone expected. …very convincing Arch!
LikeLike
“His biography was written AFTER the Gospels.” – but unlike your Yeshua, all of the Gospel writers wrote while Apollonius was still alive! How difficult would it have been to had attributed some of the details of his life, to that of Yeshua (if he ever existed), or indeed, to use the events of Apollonius’ life to create a fictional Jewish character and call him the promised Messiah? After all, the temple had been destroyed again, and the Jews needed a hero.
“Where is his religion now?” – the Greeks, of which Apallonius was one, needed no such Messiah, and Apollonius never professed to be one, nor did he indicate he had any intention of beginning a religion.
LikeLike
“you gave “evidence” of something that was nothing but heresay..” – of COURSE it’s nothing but hearsay, just like your own contention that they were all martyred, except I can recognize hearsay from truth, or in your words, TRUTH, whereas you seem not to be able to do, or you would realize that your four Gospels are nothing but exactly that. Yet you call them, “COMPELLING EVIDENCE!”
You know what, Kathy – I think it wise that Howie, William, Ruth and I refrain from posting to you until next Saturday, when your Hinduism report is due, in order to give you more time to study – until then —
LikeLike
Kathy,
A few high/lowlights here…
On August 2, 2014 at 2:19 pm, you said (to KC):
This bit was a glimmer of hope among the darkness that is your characterization of us nonbelievers.
For me, my “lack of full understanding” of how to reconcile the idea of a good God with an infinite punisher for finite crimes wasn’t enough to convince me that Yahweh isn’t real, either — it was just a part — a part — of what got me to ask the question in the first place.
Now before that, you said,
The harshest conceivable punishment for not believing on bad evidence*. Got it.
And this redemption is done by bloodshed — first of animals, then later of the “God-man” — because…? God made up a rule for no particular reason? Or some reason that he didn’t bother to explain in his long, contorted message to us?
(Then came the first part I posted, followed by…)
It’s a shame that you’ve been beaten so thoroughly into submission by those who claim to speak for the god you think you serve, that you’re readily willing to condemn us in his name, and unwilling to question whether those claims really are from a deity at all.
Much more to be said…we’ll see if I bother.
* No, I am not substantiating the claim (that there is only “bad evidence” to believe) in this particular comment. But I think it would be patently obvious to most reasonable observers that Kathy has not presented compelling evidence here.
LikeLike
Crap, I screwed up the quoting. Nate, can you add a closing tag after the first quoted paragraph?
LikeLike
Rata..
“Now before that, you said,
“Turning your back on your Creator who loved you so much that He gave His Son to save you.. that deserves harsh punishment.”
The harshest conceivable punishment for not believing on bad evidence*. Got it.”
It’s enough evidence to give God an honest chance.. without judging Him.
“Seek and you shall find”.. it’s not all about the evidence. It’s about what you seek, what you desire. I find that atheists don’t desire God.. and therefore, they aren’t going to find Him.
Even though there’s evidence that our Creator gave the ultimate sacrifice for us, atheists don’t seem to care, they just prefer to believe that God isn’t real.. so they can go on living to please themselves. That’s pretty harsh. Especially since there isn’t any evidence or even a good argument for God’s non existence. If there were, maybe God’s punishment wouldn’t be “fair”.. but that’s not the case. The very science that atheists LOVE to use to argue God doesn’t exist, actually tells us that our existence is illogical. Which really leaves us with only one “rational” answer.. a Creator.
“And this redemption is done by bloodshed — first of animals, then later of the “God-man” — because…? God made up a rule for no particular reason? Or some reason that he didn’t bother to explain in his long, contorted message to us?”
Sorry, this is incorrect. The Bible DOES explain this. If you honestly searched for the answers, you’d find them. God didn’t “make up a rule”.. it’s just how it is.. we cannot spend eternity with a HOLY God in a sinful state. Sin requires atonement in order for us to remain in fellowship with God. Sin creates a “debt” that requires payment. That’s just how it is with a Holy God.
http://www.debtfreeadventure.com/sin-debt-and-the-payment-for-sin/
“It’s a shame that you’ve been beaten so thoroughly into submission by those who claim to speak for the god you think you serve, that you’re readily willing to condemn us in his name, and unwilling to question whether those claims really are from a deity at all.”
Sorry, wrong again. No one influenced my beliefs. It’s what makes the MOST SENSE.
Disagree? FINE.. just give an explanation that makes MORE SENSE. No one has been able to so far.. yet, in spite of that, you all attack Christianity with complete hypocrisy and ignorance.
LikeLike
I’ve run out of stamina and haven’t read all the comments – so sorry if I’m covering old ground.
Kathy, I really dont care if martyrdom was key in spreading christianity or not. My personal opinion is that christians were martyred (like those of many religions) but that it was spread by true believers. I suspect the persecution actually ensured that only the very devout stayed devout during those times, but likely swayed the less faithful to leave when it suited survival and I dont blame them.
But I want to now say, “so what?” Everyone has already pointed that belief in something doesn’t automatically make that something true. It bolsters your faith, which is fine, but it does not seem convincing to me of anything other then the individual’s devotion.
So
1) in regard to martyrdom, again, what makes christian martyrdom superior to the martyrs of the other religions?
2) You’re wanting everyone to say which religion they think has the most credentials for being true, and then added the clarification that you werent referring to “divine truth.” So, if you are not meaning “true in a religion’s claims of divine origin,” in what way do you mean “true?”
3) do you have any new evidence or points or questions to present?
It seems pointless to continue if there’s nothing new. To me, our conversations look like this:
Kathy: christianity has factual evidence.
ME: what evidence?
Kathy: Martyrs and believers, prophecies and archaeology.
Me: yes, but many other religions have the same. (I’ve even given examples for all points)
Kathy: but the difference is that christianity is true and other religions are lies.
Me: Can you show evidence of this?
Kathy: Yes and I have.
ME: I must have missed it, can you show it again.
Kathy: Martyrs and believers, prophecies and archaeology.
Me: yes, but many other religions have the same.
Kathy: the evidence is the difference.
Me: what evidence? how do you know Christianity is superior?
Kathy: christianity has factual evidence.
me: what evidence?
Kathy: Martyrs and believers, prophecies and archaeology.
I feel like we’re going in circles. Again, if I have missed any other points from you, it was not intentional – could you re-post it?
I dont think there’s any point in arguing further about martyrs, unless you can actually show how christian martyrs possess some tangible evidence that actually proves their different from other religious martyrs.
I have listed 3 questions above, can you respond to any of them or do you have any questions for me?
LikeLike
I feel like we’re going in circles.
Yes, we definitely passed that tree before. A lot of times. I don’t think we’re going in the right direction. Maybe it’s that way?
LikeLike
LikeLike
I’m strongly considering not doing a “Kathy Part 4” — thoughts?
LikeLike
LOL, but these previous 3 have been so productive…
LikeLike
Nate,
“Same song, second verse, could get better, but it’s gonna get worse. ” ~unknown
LikeLike
I can’t speak for anyone else, but if she doesn’t come demonstrate a willingness to open her mind by OBJECTIVELY examining other religions,as will be evidenced by whether or not she comes back Saturday with an essay of Hinduism, I’m done with her.
LikeLike
Okay, I figured that might be the consensus. I’m not going to close the comments down any time soon, but if we start getting close to 1000 again, I’ll start asking everyone to make their “closing arguments” so we can wind it down. Unless, of course, it suddenly starts to go somewhere…
LikeLike
Ruth, in case you missed my last comments to you, here they are again…
Ruth, you said:
“Yes, I did post the evidence. Did you even read the post that had the links in it. It gave a summation of each one of the Apostles for which I posted and the source was linked to it. I’m not sure why you asked for that and didn’t even read it.”
Ruth, I asked for an explanation in your words.. not links of which you gave samples that did NOT in any way provide a valid argument that the disciples weren’t martyred.
After reading your comment I STILL don’t know what exactly is your reasons for not believing the disciples were martyred. Especially when I pointed out AGAIN.. how it’s much more likely and REASONABLE to believe that they were martyred.. given the history of Christianity that is undisputed/ documented.
I can see how you might question the way some of them died since there are conflicting stores of SOME of them.. but that again, doesn’t prove that they weren’t martyred.. which again is the most likely outcome for all of Jesus’ disciples.. who, if it weren’t for them, Christianity wouldn’t be the largest faith today.. it would have died out like all the others before it.. and after it.. all those that didn’t kill people for not following it, that is..
“I already gave you my conclusion. I’m skeptical that all these apostles were martyred.”
Skeptical of HOW they were martyred would be an objective belief.. but I don’t think that is true of them being martyred… you’ve given no evidence to support this.
” I have no proof that they were or weren’t and there are certainly conflicting traditions about this. Tradition can most assuredly be exaggerated.”
Yes it can.. so? Again, how does that prove they weren’t martyred?
“It would be quite biased of me to just accept tradition because that is what I want to be true.”
It’s biased to dismiss their martyrdom without evidence to the contrary. You/ we HAVE evidence that they were martyred.. even if SOME of it is conflicting.. this is often the NORM of events that happened so long ago. Again, you’ve given no reason to believe that the disciples WEREN’T martyred.. only how SOME of them were martyred.
Ruth, cont..
“” I didn’t have any hope of swaying her from her belief that they were martyred, but I did hope that she might be able to see that another might come to a skeptical conclusion on the matter without being dishonest.”
I also hoped that she might see that her case for insisting that the apostles martyrdom be compelling evidence to everyone else might not be as strong as she had once thought it to be.”
And I hope that YOU might see that you aren’t applying objectivity. My question, I believe, proves that you aren’t. Logic and common sense says that they most likely WERE martyred.. and also that their martyrdom was a powerful component of the spread of the faith of Christianity. “you get what you pay for”… this couldn’t be more true with Christian martyrdom.. it’s the MOST expensive testimony.. and it is the MOST powerful testimony.. again, it’s WHY the faith is so strong today. Not all Christians were martyred.. but thousands if not millions risked their lives for the faith.
Your and Nate’s attempts to diminish this powerful testimony shows your lack of objectivity.. aka honesty.
You may genuinely believe your arguments.. but that won’t excuse you.. it just means you are deliberately ignoring the truth on a deeper level.”
LikeLike
Ruth cont..
Again, to reiterate..
I saw no valid evidence that the disciples weren’t martyred.. only that there is confusion about the details. So, I don’t understand yours and Nate’s and others here, the dismissal of the value of martyrdom.. particularly of the disciples.
And also, Nate..
Before you shut down this thread.. could you please consider answering my question about which religion has the most evidence to support it’s “truth”/Truth? Yes, these “Kathy” posts are long, lots of comments.. yet no valid response by you to this question in all of it… you did at one time answer “Buddhism” but never followed through with how the evidence for it’s claims are greater than the evidence for Christianity. I believe you even acknowledged it wasn’t a valid answer.
So, still waiting / hoping you can answer my question.. with all the honesty and objectivity you are able to apply. Thanks.
LikeLike
“So, still waiting / hoping you can answer my question.. with all the honesty and objectivity you are able to apply. Thanks.” – kathy
Hi Kathy, you may not have had the time to get to the other questions to you yet, buT i wanted to go ahead and remind you to do the same and answer those questions posed to you with all honestly and objectivity.
Please remember, you’re wanting nate to go to the trouble to list evidence showing the buddhism is better than christianity, when you know he’s not a buddhist and does not think people should be buddhists.
On the other hand, you’re a christian, and so far the evidence i’ve see you post can be and often is cited for every religion, so can you show where christianity is superior, since you actually believe in it and think that everyone should believe in it too?
LikeLike
Kathy,
I didn’t miss your comments. I said in my last comment to you that I’m not interested in discussing it further. I’ve told you that I get why this could be compelling evidence to you but that it’s your insistence that it be compelling to everyone that I take issue with it. I’ll outline it again, but I’m not going to keep going in these endless circles with you saying the same things over and over, providing no evidence – just your “common sense” reasoning – and questioning the character of anyone who doesn’t agree with you. I get to decide how I waste my time and it won’t be on that.
Ruth, I asked for an explanation in your words.. not links of which you gave samples that did NOT in any way provide a valid argument that the disciples weren’t martyred.
You asked me for the evidence that supported my explanation. That was the purpose of all those links. I never said it was provided evidence that the disciples weren’t martyred. But it certainly doesn’t provide any evidence that they were, either. So applying objectivity here I would say, based on the actual evidence we have that we don’t know what happened to the disciples. I’m not going to just believe because tradition says so. Various religions have “traditions”. They are all embellishments and exaggerations of anything that might truly resemble a fact. I have no reason to think that this “tradition” is any different. We don’t have enough actual evidence to draw a conclusion about the martyrdom of many of the disciples. I didn’t post the rest of them. I only did a few because I didn’t really know how much of it you’d actually read. I didn’t want to waste my time. It appears I have as you have missed the point entirely and are still insisting that I’m dishonest for not just taking the word of the word of the word of people who lived 2000 years ago to attest for this when you won’t accept that as evidence for any other religion.
After reading your comment I STILL don’t know what exactly is your reasons for not believing the disciples were martyred. Especially when I pointed out AGAIN.. how it’s much more likely and REASONABLE to believe that they were martyred.. given the history of Christianity that is undisputed/ documented.
I don’t know what happened to many of the disciples. That’s precisely the point. I never once said that they weren’t martyred because I have no evidence of how they died. You keep pointing out things based on your biased opinion toward belief – not evidence.
” I have no proof that they were or weren’t and there are certainly conflicting traditions about this. Tradition can most assuredly be exaggerated.”
Yes it can.. so? Again, how does that prove they weren’t martyred?
Will you please read that again. My lead sentence says I have no proof that they were or were not martyred.
It’s biased to dismiss their martyrdom without evidence to the contrary. You/ we HAVE evidence that they were martyred.. even if SOME of it is conflicting.. this is often the NORM of events that happened so long ago. Again, you’ve given no reason to believe that the disciples WEREN’T martyred.. only how SOME of them were martyred.
It’s biased to insist that they were martyred when you have no evidence to prove that they were. We don’t have evidence that they were martyred. We have evidence that they died. Because who lives 2000 years? Concluding anything without good evidence is the NORM of anything. Ever. Concluding that it is unknown is the NORM for things we don’t know.
And I hope that YOU might see that you aren’t applying objectivity. My question, I believe, proves that you aren’t.
And I hope you might see that you are as biased as they come. I believe your comment:
“It’s enough evidence to give God an honest chance.. without judging Him”
proves that you are. You have suggested that no matter how tiny the fragment of evidence, and in fact lack thereof, that God just is. “That’s just how it is” I believe is how you phrased it.
You may genuinely believe your arguments.. but that won’t excuse you.. it just means you are deliberately ignoring the truth on a deeper level.”
That won’t excuse me from what? I’ve evidently been genuinely convinced I was a Christian and now genuinely believe the contrary and I was damned either way.
Again, it wasn’t my intent to get you to agree with me that the disciples weren’t martyred. It was my intent to show you that there are those of us who have considered this and don’t find it compelling. If you were at all objective you would be able to see how someone could come to a different conclusion than you instead of just continuing to call them dishonest.
This is the last comment I’m making about it.
LikeLike
William, yes, I’ll answer your questions.. but I want to wait until mine are answered.. I don’t want them to get lost/ buried… in keeping with the claims of this blog… “finding truth”.. I think these questions are especially applicable.
LikeLike
I know I said that was going to be my last comment but I need to make a correction:
Again, it wasn’t my intent to get you to agree with me that the disciples weren’t martyred
It wasn’t my intent to persuade you that the disciples weren’t martyred. I don’t know if they were or they weren’t.
Lastly, and I meant to write this in my previous comment, even if they were all martyred that doesn’t prove the truth of the gospel. To you your terminology: they may have genuinely believed that Jesus was resurrected but that doesn’t make it true.
LikeLike
…in your time, kathy, but your questions have been answered and answered….
LikeLike
I agree with William. I appreciate the nice tone of your comment to me, Kathy, but I’ve said all I’m going to say about “which religion has better evidence.” I’m sorry if you feel that I didn’t answer it satisfactorily, but I’ve said all I can about it.
Thanks
LikeLike
And kathy, your question is hard to answer if you wont clarify what you’re asking. Again, you had asked which religion had the most credentials for being true – but then said you werent asking which was “divinely true.”
What do you mean then? If religions claim to be divine in origin, in what way are you asking for “true” if not true in their claims of divine origin?
This may never get answered to your satisfaction if you dont clarify this.
LikeLike
Ruth,
“So applying objectivity here I would say, based on the actual evidence we have that we don’t know what happened to the disciples. I’m not going to just believe because tradition says so. ”
No where did I or do I insist that anyone believe because tradition “says so”.. No where.
The only thing I’m insisting is that you apply honest objectivity.
And that’s where the problem lies with the liberal minded I strongly believe. Either you don’t understand what objectivity is or you are unable to apply it in areas where you have strong feelings/ emotions.
I said here:
“After reading your comment I STILL don’t know what exactly is your reasons for not believing the disciples were martyred. Especially when I pointed out AGAIN.. how it’s much more likely and REASONABLE to believe that they were martyred.. given the history of Christianity that is undisputed/ documented.”
you responded:
“I don’t know what happened to many of the disciples. That’s precisely the point. I never once said that they weren’t martyred because I have no evidence of how they died. You keep pointing out things based on your biased opinion toward belief – not evidence. ”
I guess I haven’t been clear enough.. I never asked what you “know”.. I’m asking for an honest assessment. It’s pretty clear that you prefer to believe that the disciples weren’t martyred. You’ve given no acknowledgement of the likelihood that they were. That’s the point I am positing and which you have ignored over and over.. and instead you keep claiming that the evidence doesn’t give you an answer either way. If you had to bet all you had on what is most likely, which would you choose? That’s what I mean by “most likely”. But you’ve ignored this point. No where in your long response did you address this point except in the beginning when you said:
” I’ll outline it again, but I’m not going to keep going in these endless circles with you saying the same things over and over, providing no evidence – just your “common sense” reasoning – ”
Again, I’m not asking for what you “know”.. and you would “know” this if you were being objective.. I’m asking for what you believe is most likely and if you believe that it’s less likely that they were martyred, then WHY do you believe this. But, again, you’ve ignored this.. and now look.. you’ve stated this is the last comment you’re going to make on it. So, I won’t get an answer to my question.. because, I guess I didn’t make it 100% clear to someone who won’t settle for 99% clear if you can get away with it.
Sorry but bias is what I see.. I’ve laid it out, I’ve explained WHY I believe this lack of objectivity exists and you only further support that claim by refusing to comment anymore.. refusing to address a point that you NEVER addressed to begin with.
Various religions have “traditions”. They are all embellishments and exaggerations of anything that might truly resemble a fact. I have no reason to think that this “tradition” is any different.”
This comment tells me that you DO understand the concept of “reason”.. and that’s what my question is about.. does reason tell you it’s more likely the disciples were martyred or less likely? Based on my point that I put forth several times now..
“We all know that Christians were persecuted and under threat for spreading the Gospel. There’s no real reason to NOT believe that the disciples weren’t killed for doing this since they were the ones who were the most active in spreading the Gospel after Jesus’ death. That’s enough for me.. but if you want to post any evidence that supposedly argues against this belief, go ahead.. I’ll read it.”
You’ve never given me an argument that counters my claim that it’s most likely what happened to the disciples.
When you say we’re going in circles.. yep.. but not because of me, Ruth. Just read your last comment to me again.. and see if it addresses my point about which is more likely to be the case concerning the disciples being martyred.. instead all you do is talk about how I’m “insisting” you agree with me. Again, I’m “insisting”.. more like “begging” for you to apply objectivity. When I ask a question of what is “more likely” that’s what that means.. I’m trying to determine how OBJECTIVE you are. And just like Nate.. I DON’T get an answer that would show either way.. I get avoidance and games and “circles”.
LikeLike
kathy,
1) do you, or do you not have anything that shows that christiam martyrs were somehow more superior to other religious martyrs?
2) If you’re not talking about “truly divine” in your request for the most credentialed religion in being true, then in what way do you mean “true?”
3) do you have anything else to add, or any other questions to ask?
LikeLike