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
William,
“has anyone died for santa’s elves?
I’m still not sure of the point of this statement… but now i am curious, are there santa’s elves martyrs? ”
That wasn’t the point William. Meditate on it some more.
LikeLike
“Christians have the Bible, that has not been disprove and has much evidence to support it’s Truth.” – clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about, a significant portion of both the Old and New Testaments have been disproven – where have you been, it was in ALL the papers?
LikeLike
“Unicorns haven’t been disproven” – William, no one need disprove anything for which there is no evidence.
“Take the weekend off, reread all three threads before coming back. seriously.” – if it’s not IN the Bible, or at least confirms the Bible, forget it, she won’t read it, objectivity is not high on her list of priorities, except for others.
LikeLike
Kathy,
For once, you’re totally correct. It really doesn’t matter to atheists that … “He died for you or gave you your life.” Why? Because they don’t believe such a god exists!
BTW, regarding the examples I offered from The Age of Reason … You wrote that you “pointed out the fault with the authors thinking.” Really? You did that? Do you really believe the following is pointing out the fault with the author’s thinking?
What Paine wrote has nothing to do with the fact “the words can’t be trusted” or that “God’s power ends.” He’s saying that even if an individual has a revelation (it need not be “supernatural”) that once the person has shared his revelation with someone else and then that someone else shares it with someone else and then that person shares it with someone else …and so on, it ceases to be revelation except to the person who originally received it.
Can you truly not see the point he is making? He’s not lacking objectivity. He’s simply making a statement that’s true in every circumstance. It just happens that it also includes the bible. And the fact that Jesus himself never wrote anything, then whatever was said about him was based on hearsay. That’s a fact.
BTW, I still strongly suggest you read “What God Wants.”
LikeLike
“It might not make sense to you/ liberals why I wouldn’t want to read a book full of bias towards your beliefs.” – She’s right, Guys, she only wants to read books full of bias toward HER beliefs! Shame on you!
LikeLike
“It’s been so busy that every time I think I might chime in, and try to irritate Nate and Arch a bit” – We understand, Laurie – it’s the thought that counts —
LikeLike
Thanks Arch!
LikeLike
Nan,
“What Paine wrote has nothing to do with the fact “the words can’t be trusted” or that “God’s power ends.” He’s saying that even if an individual has a revelation (it need not be “supernatural”) that once the person has shared his revelation with someone else and then that someone else shares it with someone else and then that person shares it with someone else …and so on, it ceases to be revelation except to the person who originally received it.
Can you truly not see the point he is making? He’s not lacking objectivity. He’s simply making a statement that’s true in every circumstance. It just happens that it also includes the bible.”
What exactly is “true” Nan? No, I don’t get the point he’s making.. there actually is no point being made. Either the revelation is true or it isn’t. What he stated has no bearing on that.
“And the fact that Jesus himself never wrote anything, then whatever was said about him was based on hearsay. That’s a fact.”
Again, so?? What is your point here exactly?? I guess this means you accept nothing unless it’s written by the person it’s about?
The “argument” that the authors were just men or that they were not 1st hand witnesses means nothing.. it’s just the usual desperation of people who need to believe God doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
Arch,
““It might not make sense to you/ liberals why I wouldn’t want to read a book full of bias towards your beliefs.” – She’s right, Guys, she only wants to read books full of bias toward HER beliefs! Shame on you!”
Again, Arch.. my Book has supportive evidence.. your books don’t.
LikeLike
Dedicated to Kathy, from Ruth, and Nan, and the gang:
(courtesy of NeuroNotes, from whom it was blatantly stolen)
LikeLike
“No, I don’t get the point he’s making.. there actually is no point being made.” – Trust me, it never occurred to me for a moment, that you would.
“Either the revelation is true or it isn’t. What he stated has no bearing on that. – What IF the revelation were true? How accurate would it be by the time it was passed to the fiftieth person? The hundredth?
LikeLike
Kathy,
You’re hopeless. (I suppose you would say the same about most of us on this blog.)
Nevertheless, it seems that no matter what we say or how we say it, it’s all wrong. We’re too “liberal.” We’re “not objective.” We don’t have “supportive evidence” (and you do, of course). Our arguments “mean nothing.” We’re “desperate” to believe God does’t exist.
Do you repeat the same things over and over again in hopes that we will, at some point, agree with you? Or, more likely, is it because you know you have nothing to stand on except a book that someone, somewhere along the way, claims to have been “inspired by God” (even though it was written over a period of several thousand years and by 40+ individuals)?
Actually, I have heard that repetition has been know to persuade people. In fact, I very recently read an article entitled, “How To Convince Someone to Change His Mind” and it said “the more you repeat your argument the more convincing it will become.”
Is it working, Kathy?
LikeLike
“Again, Arch.. my Book has supportive evidence.. your books don’t.” – the very foundations of your book have been eroded, both by lack of evidence for it, and actual evidence against it, and you know what your hero, himself, was said to have said about a house built on a poor foundation.
There is no evidence that the Patriarchs ever existed, nor Moses, nor Joseph, Nor Joshua. The five books of Moses were not written by Moses, but by four separate groups, widely spaced by distance and time, and pieced together even later by a fifth party. The flood story was stolen from the Sumarian “Epic of Gillgamesh.” “Moses, the Lawgiver” was an imaginary character, drawn from the Amurrite ruler and historical lawgiver, Hammurrabi. The Gospel writers never met Yeshua. You’re left with a shell of exaggerated history, and that, not of a “divine” nature. You would know this if you weren’t afraid to read anything that doesn’t confirm your bias.
I don’t think of you as a bad person, Kathy, but your responses have made you a joke, a laughing stock. You have nothing left to say, that anyone is willing to take seriously. The wise thing to do would be to withdraw before you waste any more time, and consider reading some outside sources – actual criticisms of the Bible – by reputable scholars, then come back with new thoughts and new ideas, we’ve heard your entire current repertoire.
LikeLike
Arch,
““Either the revelation is true or it isn’t. What he stated has no bearing on that. – What IF the revelation were true? How accurate would it be by the time it was passed to the fiftieth person? The hundredth?”
What revelations are you referring to that were passed around? The Gospels weren’t “passed around” before they were recorded. The authors are either first hand witnesses or they got their information from 1st hand witnesses.
LikeLike
Nan,
“Actually, I have heard that repetition has been know to persuade people. In fact, I very recently read an article entitled, “How To Convince Someone to Change His Mind” and it said “the more you repeat your argument the more convincing it will become.”
Is it working, Kathy?”
You tell me Nan.. you’re the ones who keep making accusations about my issues too but the difference is that you all don’t provide any evidence to support the accusations.. mean while, you give me the evidence I need to prove your lack of objectivity is in fact true.. you never answered my question Nan.. I really want to know what exactly Paine’s and your point was.. as I explained, it didn’t make sense at all to me, but instead of following through and explaining it, you make accusations against me.. avoiding THE point all together. Why does it matter that a revelation that gets passed around is not (technically) a revelation to anyone other than the original receiver? What bearing does that have on it’s truth?
Paine said: “It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.”
We aren’t “obligated” to do anything.. again, that’s a free will thing. It’s the way God wants it. If Paine and the rest of you feel this is a “valid” excuse to dismiss the Gospels that’s your prerogative.. but I’ll just point out again, that I’d like to be there when you tell God that you weren’t “obligated” to believe it based on Paine’s “reasoning” “. That even though God can give revelations, you weren’t “obliged” to believe that He could also make sure that they were recorded accurately.
What is Paine talking about specifically? Which revelation(s)? Again, the Gospels didn’t get passed around between several or hundreds of people.. they are based on first hand accounts.
LikeLike
Ruth,
“Christians have the Bible, that has not been disprove and has much evidence to support it’s Truth.
There has been a lot of evidence that disproves the Bible you just refuse to look at it. “Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil.” The only things your interested in looking at are evidences that confirm your bias. You’ve proven that over and over again by refusing to read resources offered to you and claiming their bias without ever investigating it for yourself.”
Hilarious.. Ruth, I’m HERE.. I’m practically BEGGING Nate to give me examples.. this is the way I choose to “investigate”.. should I give you book recommendations and if you don’t read them then I can say the same about you? More examples of your lack of objectivity. Or just a basic lack of understanding of what “discernment” is.. I don’t have the time or the desire to read leftist atheist propaganda. and that’s basically what most of it is.. all I’ve been asking is for examples that show this is NOT one of those books. If you applied objectivity and honesty, you’d understand this.
And I’d like to know what the evidence is that disproves the Bible.. please give examples of this.
LikeLike
Ruth,
“There you go.. you did it again. You need to diminish what He did for you. ” ~Kathy
“I don’t need to diminish anything that anyone has done for me. I simply don’t believe that Jesus was any God or that God sent Jesus to be any kind of sacrifice for me or anyone else.”
Then why did you say that Jesus “only lost 3 days” ? Because you were talking in the CONTEXT of God being real. Yet you couldn’t / didn’t want to acknowledge the suffering He went through. Even in a “suppositional” context you still need to keep diminishing what He did.
LikeLike
Yes, Kathy, you are here and have asked for resources but what good is that if every time you are offered any resource you reject it without reading it. I understand you can’t or don’t have time to read them all. But something? Anything?
I’ve read the Bible, I’ve read The Case for Christ, I’ve read More Than a Carpenter. I’ve taken discipleship training classes out the ying yang. So to say that I haven’t done my homework and haven’t given God a fair chance is understating it drastically. Now, you are here to argue for the existence of God, yet you have not successfully done so. You have provided spurious evidence and your “own understanding” that the “Holy Spirit” has revealed to you. Do you not get it that those Holy Spirit leadings are subjective and experiential and you cannot expect others to follow based on your subjective experiences?
I reject the entire notion of your God. You have been given resources and evidence for the reasons why. I don’t understand why you continue to say the exact same things over and over again. I don’t need to diminish anything. I acknowledged that if true that what Jesus experienced was horrendous. What more do you want? Do you want me to deny what I believe to be true?
We’ll go back to evolution if we need to. I provided PRIMARY resources as evidence for evolution. No, we don’t know what started evolution, but we do know evolution happened. You can deny it if you like, but that doesn’t make it untrue. Even if you want to postulate that a god started evolution, that doesn’t get you to YAHWEH. At least I can be objective enough to say that a god is possible. You cannot be objective enough to recognize that your God might be a figment of your imagination.
LikeLike
Because you were talking in the CONTEXT of God being real. Yet you couldn’t / didn’t want to acknowledge the suffering He went through. Even in a “suppositional” context you still need to keep diminishing what He did.
This is preposterous! Laughable even. I’m supposed to feel the weight of a hypothetical situation? I’m supposed to amplify a hypothetical suffering?
LikeLike
And the CONTEXT was that of eternity. If I knew that I had spent eternity as a God and that I would get to spend the rest of eternity as a God thirty-three years and three days wouldn’t seem like that much. Even crucifixion and flogging wouldn’t seem like but a blip on the radar in comparison with eternity. The ridiculous thing is that a all-powerful God would even need to do this in the first place. An all-powerful God needs blood to satisfy his anger against sin? And when sheep and goats would no longer do he became a man himself and was satisfied with his own blood?
LikeLike
“What revelations are you referring to that were passed around? The Gospels weren’t ‘passed around’ before they were recorded. The authors are either first hand witnesses or they got their information from 1st hand witnesses.” – I call BS, Kathy, you have no idea – and don’t pretend you do – how many hands the Yeshua story passed through before those four anonymous authors independently thought to themselves over a 40-70 year period of time, “Hey, that might make a good screenplay – maybe we could get Mel Gibson to direct! We’d have to sober him up first –“
LikeLike
“Again, the Gospels didn’t get passed around between several or hundreds of people.. they are based on first hand accounts.”
Evidence, please —
LikeLike
“And I’d like to know what the evidence is that disproves the Bible.. please give examples of this.” – I’ve repeatedly given you that, you’ve continually ignored it. Must I assume you believe Ruth to be the less knowledgeable opponent, or the easier to confront?
LikeLike
[Not saying that’s so, Ruth – just asking Kathy if that’s what she believes — : )]
LikeLike
It has never even occurred to you, has it Kathy, amid all of your accusations, that the Jewish spiritual leaders – the Pharisees and the Sadducees – represented the CONSERVATIVE faction of Judaism, and that this new cult of Yeshua-adherents, who advocated doing aeay with many of the traditional Jewish religious laws, such as circumcision, Kosher eating, etc., represented a break-away group of LIBERALS —
Your New Testament heroes are ALL Liberals that you so rail against!
LikeLike