I may live to regret this, but I’ve decided to extend this never-ending conversation once again.
Kathy, this time, it would be a nice change of pace if you would actually address what William has repeatedly been saying to you:
I have. Not saying i’m perfect at it or that I’m right, but the “evidences” you listed arent real evidences. And since you refuse to look at things that are counter to your current beliefs, how can you honestly speak to me about evidences?
here’s all I’ve seen you provide:
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.
About that last point, if the Bible had been written by 1500 people scattered across the globe, who didn’t know one another, and they did it in 40 days, then you’d really have something incredible. But 40-ish people, all familiar with the Jewish god, and writing over a long period of time with the previous writings as reference, is not that impressive.
Finding Truth 
William,
“kathy, that’s sort of the point. The mormons have as much evidence for their book as you do for yours – which is why we havent seen any yet.
Nan isn’t a mormon, so she doesn’t think there’s good evidence for it either, she’s pointing out that mormons defend their faith in the same way you’re defending yours.”
William, read this sentence of YOURS.. slooooowly.. “Nan isn’t a mormon, so she doesn’t think there’s good evidence for it either,”
Note the adjective “GOOD”.. in “good evidence”. You do realize that you’ve acknowledged that evidence exists for both. This is where you are stumbling really badly William. All I’m asking is for a comparison of the evidence.. whether it’s “bad” or “good” or anywhere in between.
But you clearly don’t want to do this.. which is completely understandable.
LikeLike
Kathy, did you read the passages that Laurie provided?
I think she’s showing where in Acts 15 and 21, the apostles said among other things, not to eat meat offered to idols.
She even provided passages in Rev 2 that showed where god condemned those that tricked others into eating meats offered to idols.
She showed you those passages to illustrate her point that paul, in 1 Cor 8, is tricking others into eating foods offered to idols, despite the earlier apostle’s teachings that said otherwise.
sort of like serpent in the garden of eden telling eve “you shall not surely die…” despite what god had said…
her comments were specific and included specific scriptures. If you’d like to debate her, you may want o start by addressing those scriptures she gave.
LikeLike
Arch, it’s so funny, I just realized that your list of your own self projection. Those are all the words that YOU and the majority of liberals fail to understand.. I hope you don’t mind if I “borrow” it….. thanks.
LikeLike
KathyNow concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.
9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
New King James Version (NKJV)
Please read this text again, and take note that not only does he say if your conscience isn’t weak you can eat it, but he also places the supposed person in an idols temple eating.
Paul may think that an idol is nothing, but the rest of scriptures clearly doesn’t agree, as it is clearly stated to obstain from it
LikeLike
“Note the adjective “GOOD”.. in “good evidence”. You do realize that you’ve acknowledged that evidence exists for both. This is where you are stumbling really badly William. All I’m asking is for a comparison of the evidence.. whether it’s “bad” or “good” or anywhere in between.
But you clearly don’t want to do this.. which is completely understandable.” – kathy
let me clarify, you’ve been using “evidence” very liberally. You present old books and dying people as your evidence. Mormons do too.
several have already explained why these aren’t evidences for the validity of your book, but you continue to say that they are. Instead of arguing over terms, and since there is a difference between good and bad evidences anyways, and seeing as how you think these types of things qualify as evidences, nan and I and others are saying, and have been saying that many other religions, such as Mormonism, boasts the same level of “evidence” and you do for your religion – in a further attempt to show you how bad your evidences are as well as how bad you even think they are when applied to other religions.
so you didnt catch me slipping up, admitting there were evidences for the religions. And even if there were, it only appears to be evidence for the particular religion if you ignore the mountains of evidence that they’re all false.
furthermore, you keep saying “but Christianity has better evidence,” or something like that, yet you never, ever, back it up with anything beyond your claims.
LikeLike
I’m sorry Ruth, I have tried to respond with links 5 times or more, and my posts are not coming through.
Try googling parasha shelach stick gathering.
Vbm-Torah.org is one, and text.rcarabbis.org is another
LikeLike
“All I’m asking is for a comparison of the evidence*.. whether it’s ‘bad’ or ‘good’ or anywhere in between.”
In both instances, their Book is the only evidence they have:
• Moroni – no evidence
• Adam/Eve – no evidence
• Noah – no evidence
• Abraham – no evidence\
• Isaac – no evidence
• Jacob/Israel – no evidence
• Joseph – no evidence
• Moses – no evidence
• Joshua – no evidence
• New Testament authors – no evidence
*(see list below):
Words that Kathy Doesn’t Understand
1. Objectivity
2. Proof
3. Fact
4. Evidence
5. Compelling
6. Debate
7. Truth
8. Hearsay
9. Analogy
10. Obfuscate
LikeLike
Hello? Testing testing….
LikeLike
“I hope you don’t mind if I ‘borrow’ it….. thanks.” – Borrow it? You LIVE it!
LikeLike
Idol meat – Ummm, yummy! What do you think the temple priests lived on, table scraps?
LikeLike
No, Kathy, I’m not “factually wrong.” Williams said it perfectly: I’m simply “pointing out that mormons defend their faith in the same way you’re defending yours.”
THEY believe their book contains “truth.” YOU believe the bible is “truth.” YOUR evidence is no better than THEIR evidence, no matter how much you may argue to the contrary.
Besides, as William has said, the “evidence” you have presented so far is full of holes. Who is “confused? in stubborn denial? just plain ignorant?” I’ll give you three guesses and the first two don’t count.
And I never even stated that the Gospels were all first hand accounts.. post my words if you disagree. What I stated was that they were either first hand accounts or received from someone who was a witness.
Kathy, I’m not going back over 5,049 comments (Kathy, Kathy 2, Kathy 3) to post your words. However, even if you didn’t say it in so many words, you intimated it at every turn. Besides, it’s a common belief among conservative believers that the accounts are from independent eye-witnesses. Your added “received from someone who was a witness” is nothing but CYA.
You wrote to Laurie: “I think 1 Corinthians 8 explains the context that shows Paul is not going against Jesus’ teachings. And I would think the same is true of the other seeming contradictions.”
Kathy, there is no “context” to show Paul went against Jesus’ teachings. He flat out went against not only Jesus’ teachings (Matthew 5:19), but the command of God “himself” (Deuteronomy 27:26) when he abolished the Law (which included restrictions against eating things offered to idols). In fact, he even told the Jews they were under a “curse” if they followed the law (Galatians 3:10). Paul was a sheep in wolves’ clothing. There is nothing in his writings that propagates the teachings of Jesus (except maybe his discourse on love).
LikeLike
Ruth,
I have attempted to answer you over, and over, and over, and It’s not going through!
Argh!!!!!
To make this short, Sifra and sifre are midrash (commentary) on leviticus, numbers, and Deuteronomy. Sanh, is short for sanhedrin, and the number is a reference to the talmud.
LikeLike
Laurie,
If your comment has three or more links it automatically goes into moderation. I suspect you have several comments hung up in there. Nate will release them when he’s back around. He must be taking the weekend off. 🙂 Who in the world could blame him?
LikeLike
Three of the major collections of midrash halakhah are Sifra – va commentary on the book of Leviticus, and two collections both known as Sifre – one on the book of Numbers and the other on the book of Deuteronomy. The word “sifra” simply means “book” in Aramaic. the midrash, as well as the Sifgra and Sifre, are nothing more than opinions. Opinions are like rectums, everyone has one.
LikeLike
Well to be perfectly honest, arch, I don’t think any of them would convince me that Yahweh is a real god. But always enjoy learning new things. Religion now fascinates me in a way it never did before. Not because I believe there is a god or gods but because people believe this.
I am aware of midrash but hadn’t been aware of Sifra. When I googled this earlier I did find out the Sandh. was short for Sanhedrin, which I had already deduced. I just couldn’t find any access to whatever text it was referring to; only commentary about it. You know, commentary on the commentary.
LikeLike
From a guest blogger on Mak’s site, whom I found amusing:
LikeLike
William,
“let me clarify, you’ve been using “evidence” very liberally. You present old books and dying people as your evidence. Mormons do too.”
Never denied this. I deny that the evidence Mormons have is nothing by comparison to what the Bible has. Again, William, it really shouldn’t be that complicated, just list THE evidence, don’t tell me it’s not “good” evidence or that I’m using “evidence” “liberally”.. these are excuses.
Just list the evidence so I can show how you and Nan are factually wrong.
LikeLike
The first 20 times I replied with 2 links, and the next 10 with one, then a bunch with none, and they would not go through. That’s when I said “testing” , and after that went through my next attempt did not.
So I kinda gave up.
See if this one works
http://text.rcarabbis.org/parashat-shelach-the-mysterious-case-of-the-shabbat-wood-gatherer-by-yaakov-bieler/
LikeLike
Laurie,
Right in what Paul is explaining is that some ARE sinning by eating food sacrificed to idols, but also, some are not. And that is because they understand/ have the knowledge that it’s not about the physical aspect of eating the food to a non existent god, food that God created for us to eat, it’s about what is in their hearts, what they are thinking while eating God’s food. If people are eating food sacrificed to idols and believing in those gods or believing that they are doing something wrong, then they ARE doing something wrong.
This is similar to Jesus explaining how the Pharisees followed all the laws on the outside but not in their hearts. Jesus did away with those strict laws and rules. He wanted us to focus on our motivation in doing God’s will. Paul is completely in line with what Jesus taught. He is expanding on Jesus’ message.
LikeLike
Nan,
“However, even if you didn’t say it in so many words, you intimated it at every turn.”
And that’s precisely the liberal’s problem.. lack of objectivity. What I SAID and what you heard due to your prejudging/bias and lack of objectivity are two entirely different things. I can’t help any of you until you learn how to apply honest objectivity.
LikeLike
Kathy, don’t you think we see through you by now? Any “evidence” that we might list would be categorically DENIED by you as being fallacious, not based on “truth,” and certainly not God-favoring.
It would be a an exercise in futility because any attempt by us to give you what you ask for is immediately discounted as being “liberal.”
LikeLike
Kathy, the way you fling around the words “objectivity,” and “liberal” would make any ignorant person think you knew what they meant.
LikeLike
Yahusha did not do away with the law. Separate out all 13 of Paul’s books and read the words of mashiach again. If he did away with the law, then he is the false prophet of Deuteronomy 13.
Many will say to me in that day “lord lord, did we not prophecy in your name and cast out demons in your name”, and he will say to them “depart from me you who commit lawlessness”
This word is anomina and it means to teach the negation of the law.
Christians are the ones using his name and teaching the law was done away with.
The law is perfect and unchanging
LikeLike
“Paul is completely in line with what Jesus taught. He is expanding on Jesus’ message.” I am not touchin’ that with a nine-foot Hungarian, much less a ten-foot Pole!
Laurie – all yours – oy! —
LikeLike
Laurie, I’m not claiming that Jesus did away with the law…but He often explained that it wasn’t about the law.. like working on the Sabbath…. it is about God’s love.
I don’t fully understand your beliefs.. do you accept the Gospels or no?
LikeLike