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
Ruth, you said, in response to my STILL unanswered question..
“I’ll just refer to my last answer to this question:
1) The accounts themselves, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, are spurious.
2) The spurious nature of the accounts themselves are reason enough to doubt the claims that they were even martyred.
3) The only thing I have any primary evidence for is the fact that all the disciples are dead.
4) To say that tradition holds any claim is tantamount to saying ‘legend has it’.
5) Legends grow and abound in every facet of history.
6) I have no reason to believe that legend has not infiltrated the history of the church.”
How does that answer THIS..
“why do you believe only a “few” of Jesus’ disciples were martyred? What is your evidence to support this belief that counters my point that it was MOST LIKELY that MOST were martyred because they were leading the way in spreading the Gospel. ”
Answer: IT DOESN’T. Your blatant dishonesty continues Ruth.
So, AGAIN, nothing else you say means anything.. because you lack objectivity.
LikeLike
Ruth, cont..
“BUT I don’t know what this has to do with the price of tea in China here. This isn’t the issue we have been discussing.”
It all ties in together.. I’ve proven over and over that deliberate ignorance knows no boundaries. You all DO think alike whether it’s about failed political policies or God.. it’s all due to pride and ego.
If you don’t hold the same views about immigration it’s because you’ve lived it.. so you KNOW the truth.. just like Obama is living it.. and NOW understands why Bush did what he did on all these issues that he’s now stuck having to back track on.. it stems from the arrogance liberals have in thinking they “know” what is best… when they are the most clueless of all.
“Because you have no evidence and you’re rhetoric didn’t magically become evidence you’ve decided to go on a tirade here as if everybody here thinks exactly the same way about everything.”
What don’t I have evidence for Ruth?? Please be specific.
LikeLike
It may be the word, “spurious” that’s throwing her, Ruth – after all, it has more than one syllable.
LikeLike
“What don’t I have evidence for Ruth?? Please be specific“:
1. The existence of a god named Yahweh
2. The existence of ANY god or gods
3. The existence of Yeshua, his life, death and resurrection
That should do for starters —
LikeLike
Gosh, I only hope that was specific enough —
LikeLike
Kathy,
You said:
What don’t I have evidence for Ruth?? Please be specific.
Well, really you haven’t provided any evidence for any of your claims in this thread. But specifically, and I asked you this in the last thread, your evidence of the martyrdom of any of the apostles. I’m not asking you what you think is more LIKELY. I’m not asking you for your reasoning. I’m asking you what your evidence is to back up that claim. Where is it?
I outlined mine. I even gave links to the claims from the Catholic Church. In essence it boils down to (paraphrasing) ‘We don’t know what really happened to theses apostles, but tradition says they were martyred’. Tradition is rife with legend and myth.
LikeLike
Now, Kathy, be objective and tell the truth for once. You don’t know what happened to the disciples.
LikeLike
How does that answer THIS..
“why do you believe only a “few” of Jesus’ disciples were martyred? What is your evidence to support this belief that counters my point that it was MOST LIKELY that MOST were martyred because they were leading the way in spreading the Gospel. ”
*emphasis mine
How does it not answer that question? The Church admits they don’t really know what happened to the apostles.
You do keep pointing this out but it doesn’t make it a good point. It’s your belief that it was MOST LIKELY that MOST were martyred. A belief does not a point-in-fact make. You simply cannot admit that this is not as strong a point as you thought. I don’t think your being very objective, Kathy. Therefore nothing you say means anything.
LikeLike
Just in case, arch:
spurious
[ ˈspyo͝orēəs ]
adjective
1. not being what it purports to be; false or fake:
“separating authentic and spurious claims”
synonyms: bogus · fake · false · counterfeit · forged · fraudulent · sham ·
2. (of a line of reasoning) apparently but not actually valid:
“this spurious reasoning results in nonsense”
LikeLike
Kathy,
Even if your (weak) claim were true, that “most of” the disciples were “most likely” martyred:
1. In your own words, “This is speculation.. it’s supposition.. it’s not a valid argument for what is actually the case (either way).”
2. I would add that in light of the late, spurious and contradictory nature of the primary sources alleging their martyrdom, and Christian bias (as evidenced by e.g. the “great commission”, which describes their intent to proselytize), I think we have good reason to doubt the claims in their entirety–even more reason to reject the claims than we have to accept them.
3. It’s not a sturdy foundation on which one should build his/her life. Even if it were as “sure” as other events in ancient history, none of those other events demand our assent, nor do we base our lives on them, nor do they become foundational aspects of our worldviews.
I know you can’t imagine it, but if you’re wrong about whether Christianity’s true, then what a waste of your life. You think you’ve got another (eternal) life coming to you after this one, which is supposedly more important than this one–but you don’t know that with any appreciable degree of certainty (your feelings to the contrary notwithstanding). Living out these beliefs in the way that you are doing costs you time and money (e.g. in church and tithing), and relationships (say with unbelievers like us), and other missed opportunities. Those are all costs to you in this life–the only one you really know you have.
Besides the false dichotomy that it sets up, in light of the above, it seems to me that Pascal’s Wager actually works better as an argument against Christianity than for it.
(…It’s pretty late here now. I hope the above is all coherent.)
LikeLike
I found this interesting, from an article suggested to me by NeuroNotes, I Was Traumatized by Christian Dogma: I Won’t Do the Same to My Child I can only hope that Kathy can see herself in this man’s experience.
LikeLike
Ruth,
“Now, Kathy, be objective and tell the truth for once. You don’t know what happened to the disciples.”
Now Ruth, I never claimed to “know” what happened to the disciples.
“How does it not answer that question? The Church admits they don’t really know what happened to the apostles.
You do keep pointing this out but it doesn’t make it a good point. It’s your belief that it was MOST LIKELY that MOST were martyred. A belief does not a point-in-fact make. You simply cannot admit that this is not as strong a point as you thought. I don’t think your being very objective, Kathy. Therefore nothing you say means anything.”
And I never asked what the Church “knows” either. You’re still dodging Ruth.. don’t think anyone is oblivious to this fact.. except maybe you?
The reason I keep “pointing this out” is because you keep FAILING to answer it..
your “evidence” that supposedly answers my question is NOT evidence that they most likely were “NOT” martyred.. it’s only evidence that SOME of their fates were in question.. none of your “evidence” even suggests that they weren’t martyred.. it ONLY questions the details of their martyrdom; when, where and how. You FAIL to grasp that all the stories DO say they were martyred.. and you know why? Because they didn’t overlook the OBVIOUS.. that they WERE most likely martyred.
You failed again Ruth to give valid evidence or argument that they most likely were not martyred.
“What don’t I have evidence for Ruth?? Please be specific”
“Well, really you haven’t provided any evidence for any of your claims in this thread.”
Not true.. you just don’t understand the meaning of evidence.. maybe you could post the definition of that word? And please don’t say you already did.. that would just make it worse Ruth.
” But specifically, and I asked you this in the last thread, your evidence of the martyrdom of any of the apostles.”
Again, I gave evidence and an excellent compelling argument for why they were most likely martyred.. I think you mean, I’ve given no proof.. right? The reason I haven’t given any proof Ruth, is because I never claimed to have proof.
“I’m not asking you what you think is more LIKELY. I’m not asking you for your reasoning. I’m asking you what your evidence is to back up that claim. Where is it?”
Again, I gave plenty of evidence.. the legends are VERY compelling evidence that they were martyred. Yes, I know you’ll “argue” that they are conflicting.. but again, that doesn’t argue against their martyrdom.. only the details of the martyrdoms.
“I outlined mine. I even gave links to the claims from the Catholic Church.”
Which don’t answer my apparently “complex” question.
“In essence it boils down to (paraphrasing) ‘We don’t know what really happened to theses apostles, but tradition says they were martyred’. Tradition is rife with legend and myth.”
And tradition can ALSO be true! I bet you never even entertained that possibility huh?
Again, Ruth, it’s not rocket science.. when you process aka discern all the information, it is MOST LIKELY that the disciples WERE martyred. You have not given me any evidence or even a valid argument to the contrary. ;(
LikeLike
Thanks for posting that link from Neuro, Arch.
This here: ““Evangelical Christianity employs the Stockholm Syndrome to full effect. God gains obedience and worship by reminding humans of their utter unworthiness, dangling them over hell, and then ‘saving’ them, in exchange for submission, from the very torments he threatens.”
On one hand Christianity saved me. On the other, it made me sick.
LikeLike
When people process inconclusive evidence it is quite likely that they can come to differing conclusions on a matter without being biased.
1ev·i·dence
noun \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something
I haven’t been compelled by your reasoning that your legends are true. I have no reason to believe or think that your legends are any less rife with myth than any other legends.
You have not given:
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something
I have said over and over again that the evidence is inconclusive so it’s difficult to draw a conclusion (aka that which is most likely) from a scenario in which the information is so little and also spurious(false, not dependable, not genuine in case you didn’t read the definition of that word)
Now, I have answered you question for the 20th time probably. You have yet to answer why it is more likely except to say: They preached the gospel, Christians were martyred, so therefore they must have been martyred. This is your evidence?
Kathy, I’ve never seen anyone so aggressively try to force their beliefs(and that’s all they are) on someone else. Especially when you have so little evidence and your points are weak. You have strong belief and that is all. I didn’t ask for proof. I asked for evidence which you have failed over and over to deliver. Your biased reasoning is not evidence. I don’t understand why you can’t accept that fact. Even a first-grader could grasp it.
I’ve answered this question so many times it’s becoming like a broken record now. I’m done with this conversation. Please, do yourself and me a big favor and don’t address me again. If you do address me again you won’t get a response. I’m telling you in advance. No, it is not an attempt to avoid answering your question. It’s an attempt to avoid answering for a 21st time. And it’s doing you a big favor because you don’t have even a thimble of evidence for you position.
LikeLike
Ruth said to Kathy,
I’m not a Christian anymore, but I do still rather like Proverbs.
(Proverbs 26:4-5 ESV)
We’ve been trying verse 5 for quite a while now. Maybe it’s time for verse 4?
LikeLike
2:04? Hot date, Kathy?
“You FAIL to grasp that all the stories DO say they were martyred..” – you fail to grasp that they DON’T!
“the legends are VERY compelling evidence that they were martyred.” – legends are not evidence of ANYthing! Read Louis Ginzberg’s “Legends of the Jews sometime – the legend says that in Gen 14, when Honest Abe and his 300 Ninja-shepherds were chasing the five, battle-trained Mesopotamian armies all the way from southern Israel to Dan, 100-year old Abe left his shepherds, grew to 80 feet tall (each of his steps was a furlong), and had most of the armies whipped by the time his Ninjas caught up and helped with the clean-up operation – tell me what that legend is “compelling evidence” of – other than that Bronze Age Jews had vivid imaginations —
Let’s talk about American legends – Paul Bunyon, Johnny Appleseed, Pecos Bill, John Henry – fiction? A mustard-seed of fact atop a mountain of fiction? Or “compelling evidence”? YOU tell ME —
A charming lady, who shall remain nameless, as I haven’t received express permission to reveal my source, sent me a quotation that might benefit you if you would heed it, which we know you won’t:
No, Zoe – you saved yourself.
The Army breaks you down and rebuilds you the way they want you, the Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions do the same – they teach that you’re weak, but they’re projecting their own weaknesses onto you – you’re stronger than they realize.
LikeLike
@Ruth
Kathy maintains that it was the (unproven) martyrdom of the disciples that provided “compelling evidence” to the people of the time that Christianity was true, and was responsible for its spread. Can you imagine this scenario in early Iron Age Israel – somewhere on a cul-de-sac in the suburbs of beautiful down-town Jerusalem, a Jew is saying to his wife:
“Hey Ethel, guess what? Our neighbors were murdered last week because they belonged to that new religion – what’s it called again? – oh yeah, Christianity or something like that – we need to hurry and join up, so we can get murdered too! Everybody who’s ANYbody is doing it! Whadaya say? C’mon, it’ll be fun!”
Yeah, THAT could happen —
LikeLike
Here’s another proverb for you Ratamacue, from my same, almost-anonymous source:
““Nothing limits intelligence more than ignorance; nothing fosters ignorance more than one’s own opinions; nothing strengthens opinions more than refusing to look at reality.”
~~ Sheri S. Tepper ~~
LikeLike
Kathy still fails to comprehend that the burden of proof always rests with the person making the positive claim (in this instance, the claim that people were martyred for their beliefs), not the person who challenges that claim. It’s impossible to prove a negative. This is basic logic 101.
LikeLike
archaeopteryx1
August 9, 2014 at 9:31 am
No, Zoe – you saved yourself.
The Army breaks you down and rebuilds you the way they want you, the Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions do the same – they teach that you’re weak, but they’re projecting their own weaknesses onto you – you’re stronger than they realize.
True Arch and it does take years to rewire. In an paradoxical way though I saved myself from hell by believing those around me knew what they were talking about and I’m grateful that I had a brain that kept hanging on though when I look back I wonder by how much, if you know what I mean. It was a crazy complicated salvation for me and for the most part, though a relief, a crazy complicated deconversion. It was its own salvation.
I especially relate to this part of your comment -> ” […] they teach that you’re weak, but they’re projecting their own weaknesses onto you – you’re stronger than they realize.”
And they knew it, that’s why it was a bit of a battle. One preacher said to me, ‘No wonder the men in your church don’t like you. You are intelligent, you know your Bible and you speak with clarity.’ Eeegaaads! 😉
LikeLike
Kathy wrote:
“I gave evidence and an excellent compelling argument for why they were most likely martyred.”
Kathy, if you had truly given an “excellent compelling argument,” the discussion would have been done long ago.
Your “arguments,” “evidence.” and “objectivity” suck. Give it up, why don’t you?
LikeLike
I am shocked how many comments this blog receives. I started reading the first comments on this post but didn’t have the patience to read all six hundred.
In one of the first comments, Kathy asks which religion has the most evidence to prove its veracity. My answer would be: the Mormons. Mormons have written testimony of eleven men who state they saw the Golden Plates of Moroni. There is ample evidence that these eleven men really did exist and that their written statements were truly written by them. These eleven men lived less than 200 years ago.
In comparison, Christianity has not one verifiable written testimony by a witness to the Resurrection. Not one. We have no proof that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by two of the original Twelve. Tradition ascribes it to the two disciples some two hundred years later. Mark was allegedly written by John Mark, Peter’s companion, who even if he did write this Gospel, was not an eyewitness. Luke was a companion of Paul, so even if Luke the doctor did write the Gospel of Luke, neither he nor Paul were eyewitnesses. Bottom line: we have no statement written by any known person, living during the lifetime of Jesus, that testifies to being a witness of the Resurrection.
Some Christians will then point to the Apostle Paul as being a witness of the Resurrected Jesus. But if you read Paul’s account in I Corinthians and “Luke’s” three accounts in the Book of Acts, the following statements are made: Paul only saw a bright light and heard a voice. Paul himself states in Acts chapter 26 that it was a “vision”. He never states that he saw a resurrected body with nail-pierced hands and feet. The Emperor Constantine had a similar vision in which Christ appeared to him and talked to him, but does that mean he really saw the resurrected body of Jesus??
So Mormonism has MUCH more evidence, therefore based on your assertion, Kathy, you should become a Mormon. But I doubt that you will. I doubt that you will because like most thinking, educated people, even if FIVE THOUSAND Mormons signed statements that they saw the angel Moroni and gazed upon the Golden Tablets, you would not believe it. Why? You would not believe it because it is a silly, supernatural invention of ignorant nineteenth century religious fanatics. But this “silly” supernatural Mormon story has a lot more legal “evidence” than your first century Christian supernatural story.
There is no evidence for the Resurrection. The only evidence for the Resurrected Jesus is subjective feelings, intuition, and “experiences” by his followers. The problem is, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims have the very same subjective feelings, intuition, and experiences. Does that prove these religions true?
LikeLike
@Zoe – “No wonder the men in your church don’t like you” – he took a survey? That doesn’t sound like part of a minister’s job description.
LikeLike
VERY well said, Gary M – not that we haven’t said most of it before – trust me, she won’t listen to you any more than she has any of the rest of us, but at least you’ve answered her question. You Liberal, you —
LikeLike