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 
Whatever, Mike. I have no interest in debating any of this with you. None of what I said was intended to be derogatory, so I’m sorry if it came across that way.
We disagree — so what?
LikeLike
“Again, I didn’t read the whole article..” – how very objective of you, Kathy. ADD, much?
LikeLike
@Mike
Right…..so maybe you would like to offer verifiable evidence of Yeshua’s divinity?
LikeLike
“I would not be a Christian if there were no evidence. ” mike
okay, do you have evidence that other religions do not?
how do vague biblical prophecies and lackluster fulfillment of the bible beat those of other religions or non-religions?
how do christian martyrs work as evidence for the bible, while other martyrs dont serve as good evidence for their religions?
LikeLike
…and talking about a krauss hypothesis is not evidence for the bible…
LikeLike
““Seeming” is a matter of subjective analysis (cap’n obvious?). Claiming that a text must pass some test based on a subjective evaluation of what anyone supposed it “seems” is ludicrous. ” – mike
-or, it’s how things work in reality. We could all go around saying, “this is what it says and this is what it means…” but that would be ignoring everyone’s potential for mistake or shortsightedness, or simply other’s differing points of view.
it’s ludicrous to say personal perception is ludicrous.
LikeLike
nate, since this series has split into some different topics, you could do a new posts devoted to single topics, one for like martyrs, or another for nazareth, or some other prophecy (mike could even choose)…
anyhow, just a suggestion.
LikeLike
“Whatever, Mike. I have no interest in debating any of this with you. None of what I said was intended to be derogatory, so I’m sorry if it came across that way.”
Whatever here as well Nate. Your disingenuous Christians don’t look at things objectively and don’t look at evidence but its not intended to be derogatory has been seen through looooooong ago
LikeLike
Will the last indoctrinated soul please turn out the light. 🙂
LikeLike
Does anyone know what mike is talking about?
Mike, if you list your evidnece, we’re happy to discuss it, but so far you havent given much except krauss reviews, select parts n pieces of Ezekiel “prophecies,” and …
I cant really think of anything else…
LikeLike
I know I said I was going to shut up, but I just wanted to add that I think that it’s possible to be critical of a position without being derogatory. Not that everybody has done that, mind you. Just that it is possible.
LikeLike
@Ruth
Good point. If only we were all infallible… then we could communicate just as clearly as the Bible.
LikeLike
but seriously, mike used Ezekiel 37 earlier as good example of fulfilled prophecy, but to me, he took one verse about Israel being brought back to the land after captivity.
There was no timeline.
There were other parts to the prophecy that weren’t fulfilled and mike evidently refuses (or he has thus far) to discuss the rest of Ezekiel 37 in its entirety.
If that’s the extent of his good evidence, then I’m not sure what there is to talk about.
LikeLike
“Right…..so maybe you would like to offer verifiable evidence of Yeshua’s divinity?”
And why would we start there? because in your ignorance you claim its the first rung? It isn’t. before that would be the Messiahship of Christ and before that (since its a prophetic concept) the whole area of prophecy. So far I have presented five prophecies two of which have been ignored entirely, One in which the only answer from your side was that a fence could pass for a wall (a laugher from Nate), another that because everything had not come to pass nothing had and the by now old ‘it happened because the people wanted it really really really badly even though they could NOT have made it happen.
Now if you can improve on those pathetic attempts at hand waving then be my guest. Thats if you have any time or effort left as it must be awfully tiring trying the move that mountain about what?/ 15+ miles further to help out your comrade Arch.?
Do be spiffy about it though because the only thing That even has me check in with your tired intellectually dishonest crew anymore is Kathy. If she ‘s gone then I’d be too.
two for one special how can you resist? 🙂 This time next week you could be back to only rubber stamping
LikeLike
“I just wanted to add that I think that it’s possible to be critical of a position without being derogatory. Not that everybody has done that, mind you. Just that it is possible.”
Certainly it is. Nate’s post was not an example of it though
LikeLike
As I’ve written before, I did not become a Christian until I was in my early 20’s. My parents were not religious so I had no “indoctrination.” I was adult, married, and with a child before I “found Christ.”
From that point on, I accepted anything and everything the church told me (after all, I was a complete newcomer to Christianity). I read my bible regularly and never questioned the discrepancies. I just overlooked the things that didn’t quite make sense because, after all, this was God’s word! And God was, well, God.
I know it’s difficult for you, Mike (and Kathy), to understand how or why anyone would or could become a non-believer. It’s all very cut and dried for the two of you … and at one time, it was for me as well. But things change and for a myriad of reasons, people walk away from the faith. (Suggest you visit ExChristian.net for a sampling.)
Each of us is an individual and as such, we are accountable for our own personal decisions and actions. If we choose to accept the Christian story and it is true, we are the winners. If we reject it and it turns out to be true, then most certainly we are the losers.
But if it is not true, then in the end, neither side has lost anything.
LikeLike
I’m not convinced that there are no walls in israel, but even if there werent, the lacking of walls was not the extent of that prophecy – so if we’re gonna talk prophecies, it may be more honest to address the entirety of said prophecy.
and the fence (which at least 8 miles of is a huge wall) does what a city wall would have done – keep intruders out. And israel is adding to it all the time. And if you’ll argue over the definition of a “city” and of “build” but you’re going to hold strict in regard to “wall” and not allow “fence?”
LikeLike
“Certainly it is. Nate’s post was not an example of it though” – mike
nor was yours
LikeLike
Nope. Irrespective of what you claim the New Testament is supposed to be, your faith is based solely on the divinity of Yeshua.
He is your god.
Without divinity, he is just a regular itinerant, smelly prophet.
The rest is just smoke and mirrors, and if you cannot/will not demonstrate this claim of divinity then all you have is faith and you are simply piddling in the wind.
If you do not have the integrity to present verifiable evidence for your claim then there is no reason whatsoever why anyone should take anything you say seriously at all.
LikeLike
Just in case anyone (lurkers) still does not know and since in scrolling through I saw my name in two of his posts – I stopped reading and responding to William days ago in large part because in addition to having nothing substantive to say he took to claiming that using handicapped little girls as insult material was no big deal for him to do.
So generally …beneath me and why you won’t be seeing me respond to him. In case anyone was wondering
LikeLike
@Nan
As I’ve written before, I did not become a Christian until I was in my early 20’s. My parents were not religious so I had no “indoctrination.” I was adult, married, and with a child before I “found Christ”
May I ask what caused you to become a Christian; the motivation or circumstances behind this decision?
LikeLike
“Nope. Irrespective of what you claim the New Testament is supposed to be, your faith is based solely on the divinity of Yeshua.”
Nope,,,,that claim is just you being you 🙂 -Displaying your VAST ignorance again…..He’s called Jesus Christ because his number one claim is being the Christos “anointed one” the Moshiach/Messiah Claiming Christianity is based solely on his divinity is actually quite comical on your part.
Besides which – To use the proverb – it will be a cold day in hell when an atheists gets to define what Christianity is. Theres no ice cubes there today.
Sorry premise rejected due to inadequate credentials.
LikeLike
So, one has to be a christian to define Christianity? Well, we have known this all along, and this is what the problem is.
I have no desire to define Christianity. The definition is provided in the Nicene Creed.
I am asking you to demonstrate the veracity of this claim.
Now, bearing in mind that yours is a proselytizing religion, what do you tell the non-believer to convince them of your argument?
If you cannot do this then why should anyone believe what you say?
Based on your performance on this blog alone, I would venture that everyone here would lay down any amount that you are unable to demonstrate a single claim regards the divinity of the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth.
And I reiterate, until you at least make the attempt, you are piddling in the wind.
LikeLike
Mike, you said:
““For hardcore believers, however, Christianity is true by default. To even consider that it might be false, Christianity must first be disproven to them. ”
Sorry Nate your strawmen mischaracterizations hold no weight. I would not be a Christian if there were no evidence. SO the lie that that is my or our position is just that – a lie
“That’s why when we look at something like the prophecy of Tyre, I see it as clearly being unfulfilled. ”
and we see a mainland Tyre that has been scraped into the sea and one that never will be rebuilt precisely as prophecied. You ignore that in favor of your “all” anything called “tyre” eisigesis. The fact that you see it the way you see it does not mean that we hold to no evidence and merely claim that Christianity must be disproven first. You make positive claims about contradictions that don’t hold up to scrutiny so that may be confusing you. Yes those have to have proof for them because they are positive claims about contradictions
“But the reason we see this differently is that I don’t think God would give even seeming discrepancies in his word, whereas Mike and Kathy will give it much more benefit of the doubt than I will.”
Pure Silliness. “Seeming” is a matter of subjective analysis. Claiming that a text must pass some test based on a subjective evaluation of what anyone supposed it “seems” is ludicrous. Its not us giving the benefit of the doubt it you imposing your own illogical belief system that everything must be easy and require no study because God is involved.
“John Loftus coined the phrase “outsider test for faith,” which is the idea that if people want to know if their beliefs are true, they should try to approach their religion as though coming across it for the first time.”
and People do this all the time. its why the majority claim that they believe in God even after decades of being taught materialism in schools.Its why people come from other religions and backgrounds and accept Christ. You are actually on the side of those that oppose this approach because if most people looked around them and saw the world they would see design naturally and not claim as atheist leaders that its real “designoids” that just looks designed.
Your caricature that everyone was as you are from a family that was Christian and therefore none of us have in fact come looking from the outside to begin with continues to be wrong generally and wrong in regard to me as my parents were the last to come to Christ – because I encountered Christ first – from the outside.”
I concur 100%. There is a serious lack of objectivity with all the atheists here, including/ especially the author of the blog.. which is titled “FINDING TRUTH”..
Question, Nate.. HOW do you find truth by “moving on”?? Answer: you don’t.
LikeLike
“Now, bearing in mind that yours is a proselytizing religion, what do you tell the non-believer to convince them of your argument?
If you cannot do this then why should anyone believe what you say?
I’ve told you i go to prophecy and quite a few of them agree its compelling. You don’t get a vote in what I tell honest truth seeking unbelievers because I don’t define you as one of them.
You are the one piddling in the wind if you think you speak for all unbelievers similar as you are piddling in the wind when you claim your tourism conspiracy makes peer reviewed finds all go away.
LikeLike