Uncategorized

Kathy Part 3

Nate

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

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

1,249 thoughts on “Kathy Part 3”

  1. Evidence does not take the form of subjective feelings, even very strong feelings.

    A Christian’s feelings of religious fervor, while very important to that individual, do not constitute proof that that Christian’s religion makes truthful claims. This is probably one of the hardest ideas for Christians to understand, since their religion is absolutely filled top to bottom with this overwhelming adoration of feelings; I know when I was a fundagelical, I was taught that my feelings validated my religion (though obviously a lack of feelings did not invalidate it, duh). I strongly suspect that teaching continues today.

    Like

  2. Arch,
    http://www.academia.edu/2065314/_The_Domestication_of_the_Camel_Biological_Archaeological_and_Inscriptional_Evidence_from_Mesopotamia_Egypt_Israel_and_Arabia_and_Literary_Evidence_from_the_Hebrew_Bible_in_Ugarit_Forschungen_42_2010_Munster_Ugarit-Verlag_2011_331-384

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4800

    These are on camels. Can’t read the new 50 posts right now but will be back later. Don’t skim my articles please, read them from top to bottom. The first one is quite lengthy, but I’m sure you can handle it.

    Like

  3. A philosophical argument is not evidence for a factual claim.

    When a Christian has only a philosophical argument to back up a belief in religion, then that person has no evidence. But oh, so many Christians adore inventing these contorted arguments that they think are slam-dunk proofs for their religion. Usually these are appeals to ignorance and circular logic–“we don’t know X: therefore Jesus,” or “the Bible says the Bible is true so the Bible must be true because the Bible never lies and the Bible said X and the Bible must be true and, and, and….”

    Like

  4. A piece of evidence is observable and it doesn’t matter who is doing the observing.

    A Muslim should be able to measure a fact and come up with the same measurement that a Christian comes up with – or an atheist, or a pagan. It’s that simple. Nobody has to buy into Christianity to observe a Christian’s evidence. If a Christian even starts going there, then that’s an indication that Christian doesn’t really have evidence and is admitting that only people with the same biases s/he has could buy into the claim. That’s the exact opposite of evidence.

    Like

  5. Evidence for a real-world claim will involve real-world observable facts.

    This one really trips up a lot of Christians, but it just means that we match demands for evidence and what forms of evidence are acceptable to the claim being made. If someone is claiming that their god is purely metaphorical or that Hell is just a metaphorical construct (which some Christians do think, and yeah, it baffles me too), then obviously I wouldn’t worry quite so much about physical evidence. But if someone claims, for example, that prayer heals cancer, then you absolutely bet I will require some evidence that the prayers in question actually physically heal cancer in a way that can be testable and observable before I accept that claim. If someone claims that there is some supernatural realm I should fear going to after death if I don’t fall into line with their religion, then that is a claim I will need to see credibly, objectively verified before I’ll take the threat seriously. This condition is true for other things besides religion, obviously; Bigfoot sightings come to mind immediately here–if someone claims that an ape-like hominid exists in the Southern United States, then we need to see some actual real-world proof of that existence before we add Bigfoot exhibits to the Smithsonian.

    Like

  6. The more startling the claim, the more numerous and certain the observable facts around it should be.

    I’ll just say this: claims don’t get a lot more startling than “a big invisible wizard who always existed made every single thing in the entire cosmos and cares very deeply about where people stick their genitals, but nobody can see him or tell he’s there.” But that’s not to say that Christianity isn’t loaded with others just about as startling. Creationism, incidentally, suffers hugely here; it makes the rather daring claim that the backbone of all of biological and astronomical science is flat-out wrong, but cannot find more observable facts to support that claim than some weak, distorted chicanery about bacteria propellers and whatnot. That’s not exactly compelling.

    Like

  7. An honest truth claim will set up conditions for verification–and for falsification.

    If a god exists, then what can we observe in the universe around us to demonstrate that god’s existence? If a god does not exist, what differences can we see? I rarely see Christians even going here, and I’m not surprised. One thing that was a real problem for me as a Christian was realizing that I couldn’t think of a single difference between a universe-with-a-god and a universe-lacking-a-god. The universe looked exactly the same either way. Natural processes seemed to govern all of it; a god simply wasn’t necessary for any part of it to exist. And the more I thought about it, the fewer differences I could see between those two universe concepts. For that matter, I never even thought about setting up the opposite premise to examine–the “if a god does not exist” claim. I couldn’t even consider that idea.

    Like

  8. It’s so disappointing to read the myths of the ancient world and think about what the world would look like if those myths were even halfway true, isn’t it? Pillars of fire from the sky, plagues infesting countries, flying prophets, towering angels with swords, worldwide floods, you name it. Nobody had to twist just so, squint just right, and tilt their heads jusssst the right way to see such undeniable evidence back then! But now we’re down to Christians arguing themselves into a god because there is no other way anybody would ever be able to buy into the idea otherwise.

    In the end, I’d say this: there really are no compelling arguments I’ve ever heard for Christianity. I’m way past even feeling obligated to listen to every zealot who runs screaming into my line of sight claiming to have one. I’ve given Christianity more than enough of my attention and time; until something striking comes along, I don’t see any need to humor Christians who mistakenly think they have found the first real proof of their religion. I figure they’ve had a couple thousand years. If that’s not good enough, then I’d say it’s time to move on to the next big idea. A god who would condemn me for not earnestly giving my time and attention to every such cry of “wolf!” is not a god worth worshiping, but we knew that already, right?

    Like

  9. I’ll have to look at them this evening, Laurie, I have too much work to do on my acre to do it now. Considering how long I had to wait to get them, I’m sure you can wait a bit for a response.

    Like

  10. William,

    ““not according to the bible. It was the Israelite who were the aggressors in many cases.” Which cases? cite the passages please.” – Kathy

    Read the book of Joshua. It wasn’t the Israelites that were attacked. The Canaanites were living in their homes when the Israelites invaded and began slaughtering everyone, to include the women and children and in a few cases, saved the virgin girls for themselves. ”

    http://www.theology.edu/canaan.htm

    Like

  11. William cont..

    “Don’t apologize, just explain. To you, it’s as simple as “follow this book of claims because it says so,” and “reject islam because they kill people,” but then when it comes to your religion, all of a sudden killing children and stealing virgin girls is “not that simple” to criticize. Please explain.”

    Read the link above.. and also consider: There is Islam and there is Christianity.. only ONE can be True. And that would make the other a fraud. And overall, if you apply objectivity, it’s pretty clear which one is the fraud. Islam came after Christianity. Their book copies the Bible. But it perverts those parts of the Bible that are justified by a just God. It twists the message and uses it as an excuse to commit violence against “infidels”.. their teachings/beliefs are NOT in line with God’s good will and purpose. Islam is an evil distortion of God’s will.

    Attempting to equate the two religions fails miserably. They are not the same.

    Like

  12. thanks kathy, but i didnt see it mention why god would allow the israelites to keep the virgin girls alive, especially if the canaanites were so evil as your link argues.

    Also, you and the article are justifying the actions of killing women and children and stealing virgin girls, but would you accept such justifications when it comes to muslim beheadings or suicide bombings or jihad wars? “the people they killed were evil and god told them to do it” – is that good enough?

    and you know, all these explanations trying to justify the israelite’s actions may simply be people trying to justify and sugar coat deplorable events.

    But even if god really did command these actions, I had already said that it would mean that killing children and stealing virgin girls wouldnt be “evil” actions in and of themselves, because if they were, then god would have commanded evil – this cannot be the case. If this is impossible, even for god, for god to commit evil, then these actions are at worst neutral, and could only be assigned “evil” or “good” based upon god’s feelings at the time.

    I dont think that’s the case, but you may.

    But if nothing else, we agree that in the case of the israelites and the canaanites, that it was the israelites that were the aggressors, and Joshua shows – so we agree somewhere.

    Like

  13. “There is Islam and there is Christianity.. only ONE can be True.” – kathy

    or neither, which is my opinion.

    You keep wanting us to select the best out of a bad bunch. Which is the best rotten apple? Which is the prettiest roach? Which is the tastiest vomit.

    I’m not trying to be rude, but christianity is not true by default. Christainity has no more credentials for having a divine origin than anything else.

    “.. their teachings/beliefs are NOT in line with God’s good will and purpose. ” – kathy

    how would you know? are you merely taking the bible’s word for it?

    How do you know the bible is god’s word is it only,

    1) martyrs, even though every religion and many non-religions have them.

    2) our very existence – which no one knows how that started, but even if you must land on god(s), you must go back to that book of claims to get to jesus.

    3) there were miracles, but as it turns out, those dont happen today, and end up being more claims by the same men who claim they speak for god.

    4) the fulfilled prophecies we’ve discussed weren’t really prophecies at all, or had to be viewed so figuratively that it’s difficult to show anything precise about them other than location (maybe) in order to claim they’re actually fulfilled.

    5) 40 authors taking 1500 years to write the bible. But there’s nothing miraculous about men writing books, editing books, and being inspired to write a book or letter after reading an older book.

    and if you know it because you recognize, through your own reason and logic that the teachings in the bible are good, then why do we need the bible if our own reason and logic can determine what is good and what is not?

    Like

  14. and back to the canaanites, does it make sense to you that people would really know who the one true god was, but decided to worship rocks and wood sculptures anyways?

    instead of sending the israelites to kill them, why not kill them all in their sleep?

    or why not just appear to them and tell them to stop worshiping idols?

    nothing about these stories makes sense or adds up – if you’re being objective and really thinking about it.

    it’s when you have an object to prove, like the bible, that you resort to saying killing babies and stealing virgin girls was okay. If that’s not barbaric, then how can you say killing adults is?

    Like

  15. Kathy,

    The same reasons you just gave for choosing Christianity over Islam could be given to choose Judaism over Christianity. Christianity came after Judaism, borrowed its texts, and twisted its message to say that there was a trinity instead of just one god.

    Even Deurteronomy 13:1-5 warns against someone like Jesus coming:

    If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil[a] from your midst.

    You seem very selective in the way you apply evidence, Kathy. Commands of genocide are only bad in Islam… borrowing and twisting texts is only bad for Islam…

    Like

  16. “What is your evidence for this claim William? It’s in their very book to spread Islam by force. Muslims in western countries might not support that openly but again, it’s in their very holy book.. it’s what their prophet demands.”

    THIS, William, is what’s in HER “very holy book” —

    Numbers 15:35 “And the Lord said unto Moses, The man [who had been gathering sticks on the Sabbath] shall surely be put to death: All the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.”

    Numbers 31 – Kathy’s god tells Moses to take his armies against the Midianites – they take all of the women, children and other livestock. But Moses upset, and 31:17, orders his men to go among the defenseless captives and kill all of the male children and the women who aren’t virgins.

    Then there’s the 6th Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill” – however:

    Leviticus 20:1 – “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

    Leviticus 20:9 – For every one who curseth his father or mother shall surely be put to death….”

    Leviticus 20:10 – And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife…the adulter and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

    Leviticus 20:11 – father’s wife, death to both!

    Lwviticus 20:12 – daughter-in-law? Death to both!

    Leviticus 20:13 – Man lying with man – death to both!

    Leviticus 20:14 – a man with his wife and her mother? Burn ’em all!

    Leviticus 20:15 – a man and a beast form a romantic attachment – both die!

    Leviticus 20:16 – equal-opportunity executioner, women get the same deal!

    Leviticus 20:27 – man or a woman who is a wizard? Rock ’em to sleep!

    Leviticus 21:9 – daughter of a priest sleeping around? Bitch barbecue!

    Leviticus 24:16 – he who blasphemes shall be stoned to death!

    Leviticus 24:17, repeated in 24:21 – this one is confusing, considering all of the orders for the tribe to kill those who commit the above offenses, as it would appear to create a never-ending loop: “He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.” – and the one who kills HIM, and the one who kills HIM, and the…

    This is your sweet, gentle god, Kathy – who “so loved the world –” Yeah, it’s all the Muslims who are the blood-thirsty ones!

    Like

  17. The same reasons you just gave for choosing Christianity over Islam could be given to choose Judaism over Christianity. Christianity came after Judaism, borrowed its texts, and twisted its message to say that there was a trinity instead of just one god.

    After looking at the evidence for the NT and finding it lacking and before really researching the OT and before abandoning Yahweh-belief altogether I stongly considered converting to Judaism.

    Like

  19. Nate,

    I’m not being selective. It’s right there in the passages you cite..

    “2 and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ ”

    Jesus IS the SAME God. And there is no twisting of the message.. the Trinity is supported in the OT .. http://biblestudyplanet.com/the-trinity-in-the-old-testament/

    Commands of genocide in Islam are different because their religion is false. And I say that BASED on the evidence we have. And this is always the part that you and William and Arch conveniently ignore. The evidence.

    Like

  20. Jesus is the same god to you, but to the jews and others, he looks like some dude who prays to god changes Judaism.

    “Commands of genocide in Islam are different because their religion is false. And I say that BASED on the evidence we have. And this is always the part that you and William and Arch conveniently ignore. The evidence.” – kathy

    well, it’s easy to ignore what isnt there and what you havent provided.

    and it’s just as easy to say that islam is right because it’s true and christianity is false. Regardless, it looks like you at least arent denying that killing babies and stealing virgins is bad anymore. baby steps.

    Like

  21. William,

    “thanks kathy, but i didnt see it mention why god would allow the israelites to keep the virgin girls alive, especially if the canaanites were so evil as your link argues.”

    Without researching the answer, I’ll try to guess some possible reasons.. to strengthen Israel, to build up their numbers. And virgin girls wouldn’t be devoted to their husbands (their memories) and their gods, they would be more accepting of God. You’ll probably ask about the baby girls then.. I don’t know, I’ll have to research that.. possibly baby girls were included in “virgins”. Humans can’t know God’s every reason for what He does/ commands. Just because they are virgins, that doesn’t mean the reason was a sexual one. There could be many reasons that you just aren’t interested in searching out.

    Like

  22. “There could be many reasons that you just aren’t interested in searching out.” – kathy

    have you considered that maybe there’s things you aren’t interested in searching out?

    are you trying to prove the bible right or are you trying to find the truth?

    are they one and the same to you?

    Like

  23. And virgin girls wouldn’t be devoted to their husbands (their memories) and their gods, they would be more accepting of God. You’ll probably ask about the baby girls then.. I don’t know, I’ll have to research that.. possibly baby girls were included in “virgins”.

    Male babies would be no more devoted to their parents’ gods than female “virgin” babies. Your argument has holes.

    Like

  25. Ruth,

    “And virgin girls wouldn’t be devoted to their husbands (their memories) and their gods, they would be more accepting of God. You’ll probably ask about the baby girls then.. I don’t know, I’ll have to research that.. possibly baby girls were included in “virgins”.

    Male babies would be no more devoted to their parents’ gods than female “virgin” babies. Your argument has holes.”

    I agree. That’s why I stated that we can’t know all of God’s reasons, sometimes we just have to trust Him.

    One possible explanation is that males are more obligated and compelled to fight for and with their “brothers”. If you look at the news today, you can see that it’s a popular recruiting tool.

    Like

Comments are closed.