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
“You cannot be objective enough to recognize that your God might be a figment of your imagination.” – That’s because a bunch of Bronze Age priest, who knew so little about the world they lived in, that they didn’t know the camel wasn’t even domesticated in the 22nd century, when they told of Abraham having them, told her that he was real – so he MUST be – I mean, just because they were wrong about the camels, and about the existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Joseph, Moses and Joshua, Noah and his flood, the creation of the universe and the origin of humans, couldn’t mean they were wrong about that TOO, could it?
LikeLike
“Your New Testament heroes are ALL Liberals that you so rail against!”
Not just Liberals, arch—Marxists:
“And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” Acts 2:44-45 (NASB)
“…and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.” (Acts 4:32)
“For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.” (Acts 4:34-35)
“And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.” (Acts 11:29)
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” ~Karl Marx
“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” ~Jesus
LikeLike
For Kathy’s god so loved the world —
(Yet another video blatantly purloined from the illustrious Mzzzz NeuroNotes!)
LikeLike
Well said —
(This one stolen from someone else ENTIRELY!)
LikeLike
I found Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason in mp3 (and ogg) format, available for free and legal download.
LikeLike
ratamachue0 — that was so nice of you, but a fruitless endeavor because Kathy will never, I repeat, NEVER, click on the link. She’s already discounted Paine’s writing, along with every other resource that might take her out of her comfy cocoon. The Bible is her source of TRUTH and all else be damned (or at least the authors).
LikeLike
Kathy,
… 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
No, Kathy. We DO provide the evidence … you just won’t accept it. In your mind, it’s all propaganda.
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 …
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?
First let’s agree on the definition of revelation, as used in the bible: Communication of knowledge to man by a divine or supernatural agency
Now let’s look at the example of Paul, who claimed to have received a revelation from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:12). Disregarding the fact that all his “revelation” consisted of was a disembodied entity telling him to continue his journey to Damascus, we’ll accept the fact that a “disciple in Damascus” (who also had a vision/revelation) told to go to the gentiles and “open their eyes so they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so they may receive forgiveness of sins …” (Acts 16:18).
Now, what Paine is saying is that once Paul told someone about his revelation and that someone told someone else (and so on), it CEASES to be a true revelation. It becomes hearsay.
Consider this: where do we learn about Paul’s adventure? In Acts! A book that was written by someone else! Who is to say that the author of Acts didn’t embellish the “revelation”? Especially when you consider that Paul himself only briefly mentions it. (Read Galatians 1:2 and 1 Corinthians 15:8.)
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.
Yes, the “gospel stories” (which were based on Paul’s “revelation”) DID get passed around. How else do you think the people learned about Jesus and his role as “savior”? Keep in mind, however, these were not written versions of the gospels. It was all word-of-mouth circulation. It wasn’t until 50-70 years after Jesus died that anything was put into writing.
I know in your mind you will disregard all of this. But it you would, for a moment, use your “discernment” (Def: The trait of judging wisely and objectively), you will see that Paine is right.
LikeLike
Arch,
“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 –“ ”
You keeps saying we have “no idea”.. I dont’ think you know what that means.. because we most certainly DO have ideas.. and evidence that support the authors accepted by Christians. There is no other, more compelling, evidence that indicates anyone else.
Cite the evidence if you disagree… that’s how it works Arch.
LikeLike
Ruth,
” I understand you can’t or don’t have time to read them all. But something? Anything?”
I’m trying! I’m still waiting for some examples of ANY books that show objectivity.. otherwise it’s the same old propaganda.
I’ll read more examples of Paine’s book(s).. post them.. anyone? Since Nate, who touted the book can’t seem to do so.. I would really like, I’m actually HOPING to see some examples of what Nate has claimed about the book.. I WANT to read the other side of the argument.. but I’d like it to be from someone I feel is objective and honest.. or can at least give compelling arguments… not a lot to ask.
Paine’s argument that we aren’t obligated to accept the Bible because of the process of the delivery of the information is extremely faulty. It’s how all of our information about history comes to us.. it was nothing more than a blatant excuse.
LikeLike
Ruth, cont.
“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.”
Ruth, I’ve never said that.. where did I say that?? What I DO say is that you aren’t applying OBJECTIVITY.
“Now, you are here to argue for the existence of God, yet you have not successfully done so.”
I disagree. And my evidence is that you nor anyone else has come up with a better possible explanation. Evolution isn’t an alternative explanation.. it does not disprove God in any way.. and since macro evolution hasn’t been proven, it doesn’t disprove the Bible.
” 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?”
Again, where have I expected anyone to believe based on my personal experiences? I’ve always argued from a standpoint of reason and logic.
LikeLike
Ruth, cont..
“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?”
Again, you are demonstrating your refusal to acknowledge Who God is. Try looking at the universe.. it really does display how powerful and complex He is. The Creator of all of that and us might just be more complex than “God needing blood to satisfy His anger..”
An analogy I can come up with.. not as good as I would like but.. you are like the people way back when who probably laughed at the first person who said we should cover our mouths when we cough. They just didn’t understand the idea and complexity of germs.. things that they couldn’t see with their own eyes. Look at the universe and grasp that it might all be more complex than you can grasp. The Creator of all might be more complex.. just because YOU can’t understand the concept of sin.. you shouldn’t then make an assumption that that’s the way it is.. you are a limited finite and sorry but ignorant, as we all are, human being. The Creator of the universe is much more complex than you can ever understand.
LikeLike
Arch,
““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?”
Nope.. I believe Ruth is the most objective of all who are here.. which would also mean she’s the most intelligent.. (sorry Arch).. but even though I feel she’s the most objective, that doesn’t mean I feel she is objective overall. (sorry Ruth).
LikeLike
“Your New Testament heroes are ALL Liberals that you so rail against!”
Sigh.. like I’ve never heard that before.. um yes, it’s “occurred” to me.. and it’s just more desperation by liberals.. Jesus would NEVER adhere to the liberal beliefs of today. The comparison is absurd.
LikeLike
“Not just Liberals, arch—Marxists:
“And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” Acts 2:44-45 (NASB)
“…and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.” (Acts 4:32)”
More common liberal confusion..
The govt. isn’t involved in any way.. unlike Marxism.
LikeLike
““From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” ~Karl Marx”
That’s evil using scripture as a cover.
You / liberals are so naïve. Even when we have actual history to prove how
erroneous your beliefs are.
LikeLike
“Cite the evidence if you disagree… that’s how it works Arch.” – apparently, you still haven’t figured out “how it works” – see, you just disagreed with me: “we most certainly DO have ideas.. and evidence that support the authors accepted by Christians. There is no other, more compelling, evidence that indicates anyone else.” – and although that statement is a little difficult to follow, still, you didn’t seem to bring that evidence with you to support your disagreement! THAT’S how it works, Kathy. Yet you expect ME to provide evidence to refute your claim of “ideas” and un-produced “evidence.”
This is the way this whole so-called debate has gone for the past six weeks – you make unsubstantiated statements, then when asked for evidence proclaim that you PROVIDED evidence, which, just like now, you haven’t!
The issue was how many hands the Yeshua story passed through before pseudo-Mark got around to writing it down, 45 years later – I said you had no idea how many, you said you do, and evidence to support that idea – THAT was the time to produce it. You still can, I’m going to be here for awhile.
This is what I meant when I said you need to learn the principles of debate —
LikeLike
““If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” ~Jesus”
Except, you all know Marx isn’t saying to follow Jesus. His/ communists/ progressives/ liberals agenda is to “follow” government.. for govt. to replace God.
LikeLike
“you didn’t seem to bring that evidence with you to support your disagreement! THAT’S how it works, Kathy. Yet you expect ME to provide evidence to refute your claim of “ideas” and un-produced “evidence.”
I did’nt post the evidence because the consensus among believers and non believers / historians is that those are the authors. It’s the most accepted view. Yes, now you’ll ask for my proof of that but you know as does most everyone that that’s the truth.. so that’s why I ask YOU to provide the evidence that goes against the consensus.
LikeLike
“I’ve always argued from a standpoint of reason and logic.” I truly wish that WordPress supported a 60-point or larger font, so I could follow your statement with a page-sized HA! You don’t know the meaning of the words!
Ruth, when will you learn? If it disagrees with Kathy – whatever it may be – it isn’t objective —
LikeLike
“people way back when who probably laughed at the first person who said we should cover our mouths when we cough. They just didn’t understand the idea and complexity of germs.. things that they couldn’t see with their own eyes.” – Interesting you should use that analogy, Kathy, because those same people, not understanding that diseases were caused by tiny organisms, concluded that if they couldn’t see a specific cause and effect, then obviously it was magic – god did it! God decided, in his mysterious way, who would get sick and who would not, it was entirely the will of god. Then the microscope was invented by men who said to themselves, “I don’t think it happens that way, ” and the rest is medical history.
Four invisible forces keep the universe running (relatively) smoothly, Kathy – the Strong Force,
the Weak Force, Electromagnetism and Gravity, and in ways we’re working to understand, quantum mechanics – not some magical boogyman.
Just because we can’t fully explain how all of that works – just like those people “way back when” couldn’t explain how disease spread – doesn’t mean “goddidit!”
Thank you for providing me with that excellent analogy, I couldn’t have done it without you! Hugs!
LikeLike
50/50 chance Arch that you are a created being with a Creator. Can’t get more logical than that.. I’m using MATH. And you can’t disprove this statistic.
LikeLike
“I believe Ruth is the most objective of all who are here.. which would also mean she’s the most intelligent.. (sorry Arch)” – Allow me to translate that folks, into English, from Kathy-ese – “I believe Ruth agrees with me more than all who are here.. which would also mean she’s the most intelligent.. (sorry Arch)” – If that’s intelligence (sorry, Ruth), I’ll stay as I am.
LikeLike
Nan,
I suspect you’re right, though I didn’t do it for her. I wanted to listen myself, and mp3 is more convenient (especially because I can have play continue with the screen off on my Android phone), so I searched for my own benefit, and shared for anyone else who might be interested (like me). 🙂
LikeLike
Hello everyone but Kathy,
Kathy said,
I think she’s talking about the authors of the gospels. I’m pretty sure this is demonstrably false, but I have neither the time nor the hope that Kathy would accept evidence demonstrating such… but any of you people who have more patience for this than I do should feel free to demonstrate/cite.
LikeLike
Kathy, re 50/50, I don’t think you understand how probability works.
LikeLike