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 
ratamacue0L Responded via your blog contact page.
LikeLike
Thanks, Nan. 🙂
LikeLike
Apparently you didn’t understand her comment, Nan – she’s making a “very real and concerted effort to re-examine” her approach to converting us – she’s realizing that her way isn’t working – but that’s the only thing she’s re-examining.
LikeLike
“I also think Arch’s request for some actual research into Hinduism would be profitable.” – if she does anything at all, and I highly doubt that she will, considering her obvious disdain for actual research, my guess is that she’ll find some Christian website that contrasts the two, and simply copy/paste – “research” complete!
LikeLike
yeah, and i almost wouldn’t blame her – if she were consistent.
If someone thought that religion was illogical and didn’t waste their time with it is one thing, but saying that all religion besides one is illogical, while never citing any real evidence for that one, is where it becomes a bit dishonest.
…especially if you criticize those who don’t believe in your one religion for not researching it enough…
LikeLike
Kathy,
Re: your August 5, 2014 at 12:37 am comment:
“Ratamacue” (or “ratamacue” or “ratamacue0”), please.
First you address mine, then I’ll consider addressing yours.
From my August 4, 2014 at 11:22 pm comment, to which you were replying, here is an important part you did not address:
Hypocrisy is an stiffer accusation than bias. So let’s have it.
(I don’t much care for the accusation of “ignorance” either, nor others that you’ve made repeatedly, but “hypocrite” is the bigger fish to fry at the moment.)
LikeLike
I noticed we dropped from 292 to 291 “amazing people,” so I suspect our Kathy may have gone to India to study Hinduism first hand.
LikeLike
Ruth,
I appreciate your comment, I believe you were sincere.. but I’m sorry Ruth, I don’t believe you have objectivity. Your story can’t have any meaningful impact for me, it’s not a conscious choice I’m making.. I just can’t trust your “experience” as being objective.. objectivity is CRITICAL in all of these (or any) issues of debate… and since you failed, AGAIN, to answer my direct questions about our martyrdom debate that I presented in my last comment to you, I’m only left to continue believing that you lack objectivity.
You took the time to share your story, that was intended to convince me of your “objective” experience.. while ignoring the questions I had presented to you, repeatedly, that I’ve explained repeatedly, will help me determine for myself if you are objective. Simple easy questions. These are the kinds of actions that tell me all I need to know.
You’ll probably respond with “I did answer”.. but you haven’t answered why you believe that “few” disciples were martyred instead of most. I gave you my reasoning for why I believe that most were martyred.. but you don’t want to do the same to back up your belief. This proves to me that you lack objectivity. So any claims of “unbiased” judgments you’ve made, that require objectivity, are claims I can’t “trust” as being objective. You’ve only convinced me of your lack of objectivity, Ruth.
And telling me that it doesn’t matter if they were martyred or not is not the issue at hand.. at this point it’s become about determining if you have any objectivity. And it’s the same with Nate.. that he is completely ignoring the question I’ve posed to him for weeks, and that he’s avoided for weeks now.. and now actually refusing to answer my question all together is enough to tell me that he also lacks objectivity and honesty. There’s no point in debating with people who can’t be honest, who only care about honesty when it goes their way.. if it goes the other way, farther than their ego can “handle”..honesty is not quite as important anymore.
This blog is NOT about “FINDING TRUTH”. It’s about.. well, I really am not sure what it’s about.. the goal seems to be to get people to become atheists or stay atheists. And, as I’ve asked and not gotten any answers to this either.. why would anyone want to do this if you don’t even have any proof? The damage you could be causing is unmeasurable. There isn’t even any compelling evidence that God doesn’t exist. There’s NO PROOF that the authors of the Bible were lying. And there’s MUCH evidence that they were telling the truth. It’s one thing to question, but again, when Nate tried to “evangelize” me away from God.. it really did give me a bad feeling. And that Nate isn’t defending/ explaining/ answering these sincere, pertinent questions presents sincere questions of if it really is about “finding truth”. That has been extremely disappointing. I’m left STILL searching for those ever elusive liberal/ atheist people who are TRULY searching for the Truth.. so I can help them FIND THE TRUTH.. that they are TRULY seeking.
LikeLike
.”. at this point it’s become about determining if you have any objectivity. And it’s the same with Nate.. that he is completely ignoring the question I’ve posed to him for weeks, and that he’s avoided for weeks now.. ” – kathy
Kathy, i’m calling your integrity into question that you would say this when you’ve been guilty of the same thing.
what’s worse is that you’re not even really correct. both nate and ruth have admitted that they think there were chrsitian martyrs, they’ve just shown you evidence of conflicting accounts and expressed their opinions that while there were some martyrs, there were also embellished or fictitious stories of martyrdom as well – illustrating that your grand evidence of what people believed, isnt as iron clad as you’ve been led to believe.
it looks like you have no desire to have an honest or productive discussion as you simply ignore the comments that you dont want to see, and do your darnedest (pardon the language) to reside on these tangential issues, insisting upon discussions centered around christian martyrs or which religion has the most credentials of being true (with the clarification that you werent asking which was true in its claim of divine origins – whatever that means).
one of the odd things is that you rely so much on martyrdom, yet your bible doesnt point those out as evidences, but speaks on the gospel, the resurrection, and the natural world (essentially faith) as convincing people.
really, if you’re not going to provide anything new, and if you’re going to ignore questions presented to you, what’s the point in having a discussion?
LikeLike
@ Kathy,
I am not surprised that you would take my last comment and basically just throw it back in my face. You cannot treat the people who disagree with you like human beings. At.All. Thank you for being predictable.
I’ve answered the question several times.
I don’t know what happened to most of the disciples. I would not bet any amount on it either way because I don’t have any amount of certainty. And I’m a gambling woman. But I don’t play the slots and I don’t play Russian Roulette.
I’ll bite and play the game your way. Let’s just say that Christianity has the most evidence. It has some relics, it has some actual historical figures, and the Bible records some actual historical events and places.
All the disciples and ten thousand more were martyred.
All this is evidence that people believed that they saw a resurrected Jesus.
LikeLike
Paul records having seen the resurrected Jesus in a vision. A vision. You know, like a dream.
LikeLike
Kathy,
The reason no one will talk to you isn’t because you’re some great debater, it’s because you have this asinine viewpoint that if anyone dare think anything differently than you they are not objective. Yet you have proven over and over again the with you Christianity gets the benefit of the doubt on the flimsiest of evidence. Giving “benefit of the doubt” is the antithesis of objectivity. Objectivity is looking at evidence neutrally, without any bias. You cannot do this.
LikeLike
Here you go, Kathy!
Here is the Jewish view of martyrdom:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/788008/jewish/What-is-the-Jewish-View-on-Martyrdom.htm
And here is a link to 34 pages of Jewish martyrs. Names, circumstances, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_martyrs
For the record: none of these people died for Christianity. Just their faith.
LikeLike
Kathy,
“This blog is NOT about “FINDING TRUTH”. It’s about.. well, I really am not sure what it’s about.. the goal seems to be to get people to become atheists or stay atheists.” – kathy
well, not to over simplify things, but this may be becuase the author of this blog thinks that atheism is truth. And when he thought christianity was truth, he tried to get people to become christians – as is evidenced by his earliest posts on this blog if you care to look.
“And, as I’ve asked and not gotten any answers to this either.. why would anyone want to do this if you don’t even have any proof? The damage you could be causing is unmeasurable. There isn’t even any compelling evidence that God doesn’t exist.” – kathy
proof of what? Do you believe in the tea kettle orbiting the sun? why not, since you cant prove that it’s not there?
Do you believe that you’ll be condemned to hell by Allah for your rejection? why not, can you disprove allah?
what about thor?
what if dracula was real? isnt it safer to were a crucifix and keep garlic in your pockets just in case?
if you spill salt, do you throw some over the shoulder?
dont step on cracks – you wouldnt want to be guilty of breaking your mother’s back.
and what about heaven. The bible says that we were made a little lower than they. The bible says that angels were cast out of heaven for rejection. And if our freewill keeps us sinning, wouldnt only be a matter of time before you sinned in heaven like the angels and were cast out (if he cast them out why not you)?
Can you disprove that this wont happen?
or maybe, it’s becuase there’s proof of god that we dont believe in him. Maybe it’s the very same reasons we dont believe in any other god, or bigfoot, or vampires – lack of evidence (that elusive thing we keep asking you for).
there isnt any compelling evidence that your god does exist.
disprove our position. wouldnt it be sad if you spent all this time, doing your best, only to realize that it wasnt the right god you were worshiping after it was too late?
doesnt it bother you that you’re reduced to pleading, “but you cant disprove my god?” wouldnt you prefer that you had something real and tangible to point to that wasnt shared by every other religion? Something like the holes is jesus’ body? something like Gideons (is that right?) fleece and the dew? something like Elijah’s alter in front of the prophets of baal? something more than believers and “arent you afraid you’re wrong?”
you should read “the emperor’s new clothes.”
Your question would make more sense to me it were simply your god or atheism. I might bite if that were the case – but it’s not. There our hundreds if not thousands of variants for christianity alone.
There thousands of religions in the world and why not toss in the non-religions too.
Even if one could objectively and fairly wade through all of those and decide on the bible – then you’d have have to wade through all the different types and hope you make it through your search to the right one before you die.
LikeLike
“All this is evidence that people believed that they saw a resurrected Jesus.” – it’s not even that, Ruth, it’s evidence that four anonymous authors, whose credentials and veracity can never be checked, REPORTED, 45 – 75 years later, that some people believed they saw a resurrected Jesus 45 – 75 years earlier. I think those can safely be lumped with the Elvis and Sasquatch sightings, at least with Sassy, there were footprints.
LikeLike
I agree with arch. Most of the martyrs wouldn’t have been able to see jesus. they were convicted, and they fervently believed, but they did so on faith alone, without firsthand knowledge.
and the bible is just a collection of claims that men have made- that is the only indisputable thing about the bible.
LikeLike
Possibly, arch, but being objective, I wouldn’t say that they were making everything up. The problem is it’s hard to know which parts they were and which parts they weren’t. And Kathy is right about the fact that there are Christian martyrs. So somewhere along the way someone believed that a resurrected Jesus was seen.
This time in history is so replete with tales of the supernatural and miraculous that it’s hard to separate this tale from having more merit than others.
LikeLike
Kathy has also made the point that Christianity was primarily spread on the merits of these alleged martyrs and that Christianity is different because no one is under threat of immediate execution for deconverting. That hasn’t always been the case.
http://history-world.org/crusades.htm
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/womens-history/hypatia-ancient-alexandrias-great-female-scholar-10942888/?no-ist
Furthermore, my point about Jewish martyrs. There were 960,000 of them at Auschwitz. Every single one of the Jews who were killed under the Nazi regime are martyrs.
LikeLike
William, sorry to say, but you’re talking to a fence post.
LikeLike
well, yes, arch, I am. I dont think she’ll respond, however I want her to see that she’s dodging and even if she wont see that, others, who may not be speaking, will see I am trying to discuss the points with her while she wallows in stories of dead people who offer nothing to actually verify the truth of the matter.
…and we’ve all been talking to that fence post, yes?
LikeLike
“So somewhere along the way someone believed that a resurrected Jesus was seen.” – would you take that kind of evidence into a courtroom? Would you live your entire life, and jump through all of the required hoops – which includes, as you know, attempting to pass it on and convince others of its veracity, just as Kathy is doing – based on such evidence?
LikeLike
would you take that kind of evidence into a courtroom?
No, no, no. And the thing is she’s made the declaration that this would pass that test. It’s been all about the evidence. Yet, when presented with the actual evidence (or lack thereof) she switches it up to: It’s not all about the evidence. But I’m biased.
Would you live your entire life, and jump through all of the required hoops – which includes, as you know, attempting to pass it on and convince others of its veracity, just as Kathy is doing – based on such evidence?
I did. For a very long time.
LikeLike
Interesting reading, Ruth, especially about the crusades. I can never get enough knowledge – Kathy, on the other hand, seems to already have all she wants.
Mathematicians will provide a series of numbers and mathematical operations, with the idea that these will lead to a solution they refer to as, “X,” the presently unknown. Kathy, on the other hand, says, without hesitation, that not only is “X” known, but purports to know what it is, and refuses to consider any numbers or operations that don’t lead to it. Not the way logic and objectivity is carried on.
LikeLike
@ Arch,
From http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cru1.htm
Emperor Alexius asked Pope Urban II for assistance. On 1095-NOV-27, the Pope called on Europeans to go on a crusade to liberate Jerusalem from its Muslim rulers. “The first and second wave of Crusaders murdered, raped and plundered their way up the Rhine and down the Danube as they headed for Jerusalem.” 1 The “army” was primarily composed of untrained peasants with their families, with a core of trained soldiers. On the way to the Middle East, they decided that only one of their goals was to wrest control of Jerusalem from the Muslims. A secondary task was to rid the world of as many non-Christians as possible – both Muslims and Jews. The Crusaders gave the Jews two choices in their slogan: “Christ-killers, embrace the Cross or die!” 12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley alone were killed as the first Crusade passed through. Some Jewish writers refer to these events as the “first holocaust.” Once the army reached Jerusalem and broke through the city walls, they slaughtered all the inhabitants that they could find (men, women, children, newborns). After locating about 6,000 Jews holed up in the synagogue, they set the building on fire; the Jews were burned alive. The Crusaders found that about 30,000 Muslims had fled to the al Aqsa Mosque. The Muslim were also slaughtered without mercy.
The Roman Catholic church taught that going to war against the “Infidels” was an act of Christian penance. If a believer was killed during a crusade, he would bypass purgatory, and be taken directly to heaven. By eliminating what might be many millennia of torture in Purgatory, many Christians were strongly motivated to volunteer for the crusades. “After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church.”
LikeLike
@ Arch,
Here’s an interesting article from chabad.org (an Orthodox Jewish website) regarding The Crusades:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2617029/jewish/The-Bloody-Crusades.htm
In particular I found this of interest:
“In May, 1096, in a period of four weeks frenzied bands of Crusaders struck the Jewish communities of Speyer, Worms, Mainz, and Cologne. The Jews were offered the option of conversion to Christianity or death; the vast majority chose the path of Kiddush HaShem, sanctification of G‑d’s name. Rather than submit to forced conversion, in many cases Jews killed their wives and children, and then themselves. In the words of one of the Kinnos recited on Tisha B’Av: “Who can see it and not cry/As the child is slaughtered, the father recites the Shema/ Has such been seen or heard before?” Estimates of the toll taken on the Jewish communities range from 3,000 to 10,000 deaths.
These heroic martyrs have been immortalized in Jewish history as saintly people who reached the highest spiritual levels.”
If anyone were to ask me why I thought people became martyrs for causes it would be that people don’t take kindly to being coerced. There are many people who would rather die than to be forced to say they believe something. Our thoughts and beliefs are one of the few things we get to control. Many people dig their heels in, yes even to the point of death, not to be controlled.
LikeLike