After breaking 1000 comments on the previous thread, I felt it was a good time to start another.
As a reminder, here are some of the most recent outstanding questions for Kathy:
From Laurie:
You said you answered my questions, and wish more questions were asked. Here are some questions that were not addressed.
Matt 23:8 read first
Philemon 1:10
1 Corinthians 4:14-17
1 Corinthians 12:27
2 Timothy 1:11
1 Timothy 2:7
Ephesians 4:11,12Why is it that messiah says not to be called rabbi or father, but Paul it’s not obedient to this command?
Matt 10:7,8
1 Timothy 5:17,18
1 Corinthians 9:11,12Messiah says here that he had given freely, go and freely give. Again, Paul is disobedient.
Matt 18:15
Galatians 2:11-14
Messiah said that if you have a problem with your brother, you should deal with it privately. Here Paul lashes out at Peter “before them all”.
Matt 9:10-12
2 Thessalonians 3:6,7
Yahusha said in the passage above that he came to call the sinner to repentance, not the righteous. Why would Paul want to separate from those that actually need him?
From William:
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.
In addition to these, I’d like to ask something of both Kathy and Laurie (Matt or Hayden or portal001 (Ryan) can chime in as well):
The Bible defines God as being all-loving, all-merciful, fair, just, etc. It can also be read as promising an eternity in Hell for those who don’t serve him correctly. As a believer, how do you square those two statements?
Finding Truth 
“Arch’s self projection list” – you know, I saw the same routine on PeeWee Herman’s “Peewee’s Playhouse,” only it went like, “I know you are, but what am I?” Then there’s the playground defense, “I’m rubber and you’re glue –!” Have you NO originality, Kathy? I guess that’s what happens when you’re not raised to think for yourself.
LikeLike
Eternal torment is not a concept that can be found in the Tanakh. According to Yahusha, there is no new law, no new commandment, but the same law that was from the beginning.
This is a great subject and there is a lot to say. I am on the road right now, but will post on this subject tomorrow!
LikeLike
Hey Arch.. did you see the definition of “evidence” that I posted? Here, let me just post my whole comment again..
Arch’s self projection list:
Words that Kathy (Arch) Doesn’t Understand
1. Objectivity
2. Proof
3. Fact
4. Evidence
5. Compelling
6. Debate
7. Truth
8. Hearsay
9. Analogy
10. Obfuscate
11. Logical
12. Context
13. Circular Reasoning
ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Arch.. it’s not me.. it’s you.
LikeLike
Nate,
If you were objective, wouldn’t you ALSO post the questions that I posed to Laurie that still haven’t been answered? Especially since I asked those before she asked hers?
LikeLike
Interestingly, a short time ago, someone – likely Nan or Laurie – suggested a website, Paul’s Contradictions of Jesus
On it, the author notes:
However, the Acts Seminar, held at the Weststar Institute over a period of ten years, concluded that Acts was written in the early decades of the second century, and the Jerusalem Council was reputedly held in 48 CE – neither James nor Paul could possibly have still been alive – how can we trust hearsay information 60 – 70 years old?
I also found it interesting that circumcised Jews would not sit at the same table with uncircumised converts that Paul had recruited – what a difference a foreskin makes! How in the hell did this phony-baloney religion ever get off the ground? What kind of god makes people cut off body parts?
LikeLike
Sorry Kathy, didn’t mean to overlook anything. I thought your questions to Laurie had been answered. Feel free to repost anything you don’t think has been addressed.
LikeLike
Thanks Laurie. I agree that the OT doesn’t talk about eternal torment, but Jesus talks about it a lot in the gospels. I’ll be interested to hear your other thoughts on it.
LikeLike
Oh, Kathy, Kathy, Kathy —
“The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place” – if this is your idea of evidence, no wonder you arrive at conclusions that you do. A broken window is only evidence that a lateral force was applied to the glass that was greater then the tensile strength of the glass. As usual, your definition implies agency, where, without additional evidence, there is none, as in, “The Universe exists, therefore goddidit!” You may not be the brightest bulb on the tree, that’s genetics, but at least try not to be the dimmest.
LikeLike
FYI:
At the turn of the millennium, two forces comprised Judaism, the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Sadducees were Kathy’s beloved conservatives of the time; they were of the wealthy class, represented their own in their dealings with Rome, and were in the majority as members of the religious organization, the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees were more like Liberal Democrats of today – though fewer in number, they usually had the support of the common people, and often, though greater in number by far, the Sadducees had to compromise with the Pharisees because of their popular support.
The Sadducees believed only in the written word – all of the hearsay information that went into the New Testament, wouldn’t have made it with the Sadducees. They were extremely self-sufficient to the point of denying God’s involvement in everyday life as well as the existence of a spiritual world, i.e., angels and demons. Further, they denied any afterlife, holding that the soul perished at death, and therefore denying any penalty or reward after the earthly life. As a unit, they ceased to exist in 70 CE, with the Roman destruction of the Temple.
Nearly exact opposites, the Pharisees believed that God controlled all things, yet decisions made by individuals also contributed to the course of a person’s life. They also believed in the existence of angels and demons, as well as in the resurrection of the dead and an afterlife, with appropriate reward and punishment on an individual basis. On the down-side (to some) they tended to treat traditions as having equal authority as Scripture.
LikeLike
Arch,
” if this is your idea of evidence, no wonder you arrive at conclusions that you do. A broken window is only evidence that a lateral force was applied to the glass that was greater then the tensile strength of the glass. ”
So, you’re arguing that a broken window could not be evidence that a burglary had taken place?
You’re disagreeing with a leading dictionary website?
And did you read the 2nd sentence of the definition?
Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
This is a concept no atheist seems to grasp.. the idea of weighing evidence. None of you
would be qualified to serve on a jury.
Sorry Arch, no amount of denial or personal attacks is going to change the definition of
evidence. And same for the compelling evidence for the Truth of the Bible… yours and everyone else’s denial won’t change it or make it go away.
LikeLike
The Bible defines God as being all-loving, all-merciful, fair, just, etc. It can also be read as promising an eternity in Hell for those who don’t serve him correctly. As a believer, how do you square those two statements?
I could easily give the ‘church’ answer to this question, it wouldn’t be anything you haven’t heard before and found lacking.
I’m struggling a bit right now personally in my belief so my gut answers are going to be tempered by that.
As a parent, a squad leader in the Army and in general adult, I understand rules, rewards and punishments. I can be in a position of authority, but merciful and yet still have standards I have to enforce. To the point, I just had to assist with paperwork kicking one of my squad members out of the Army for good. This soldier had been given many many chances by myself and others in higher positions for his transgressions, however he had finally crossed a line to where there was nothing I or anyone else could do for him.
I think this is a fair example, this soldier had been shown mercy time after time, yet still ended up getting kicked out of the service.
Symbolically I would suggest God could be the same way. Offer us Mercy time after time, but at the end of the day have hard lines that cannot be crossed.
Thanks for offering me the chance to chime in and share my views, I look forward to continuing the conversation.
LikeLike
Nate,
“Sorry Kathy, didn’t mean to overlook anything. I thought your questions to Laurie had been answered. Feel free to repost anything you don’t think has been addressed.”
Nope, she keeps avoiding my direct questions.
She hasn’t answered why Jesus’ sacrifice isn’t enough to pay for our sins. She hasn’t explained why Jesus had to suffer and die. Why couldn’t animal sacrifices suffice?
She hasn’t answered any of my questions.. she’s only given me information about Jewish practices…and that’s not answering my questions. She says that Jesus’ sacrifice was symbolism for the sacrificial lamb. This makes no sense. Surely God could have come up with a better way to symbolize His message without His Son having to suffer??
She’s not answering these sincere questions.
LikeLike
Here’s your entire statement:
“A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.”
“So, you’re arguing that a broken window could not be evidence that a burglary had taken place?” – I’m arguing that without additional evidence (remember that word?) the list of things that could have broken a window would be so long that Nat would have to initiate “Kathy VI” just to list them all – differences in air pressure between inside and out, a baseball, a rock, a bird, I could go on and on, but only one of the myriad would be that it was evidence of a burglary, and to speculate otherwise would be to assign agency where there is none, just as you have with the creation of the universe and the origin of life.
Speaking of unanswered questions, you still haven’t answered mine – ANY of them for that matter, but that’s no surprise – but specifically, the one I asked about why you stay – you’re not convincing anyone, you’re making enemies, you’re actually embarrassing other Christians and you can’t even defend yourself in a debate – you’ve taken to ignoring questions you know you don’t have the wherewithall to answer. What are you gaining by staying and wasting your time? Is it because you don’t have a real life?
LikeLike
The apostle Paul and God’s law..
http://www.biblestudy.org/apostlepaul/what-did-paul-teach-about-the-law-of-god.html
LikeLike
“Why couldn’t animal sacrifices suffice?” – because animals aren’t as yummy at communion – remember, it’s white wine with sea food and red wine with human —
LikeLike
@archaeopteryx1
Fewer in number than the Lib Dems? I don’t think physics could possibly support such a claim 😛
LikeLike
” I’m arguing that without additional evidence (remember that word?) the list of things that could have broken a window would be so long that Nat would have to initiate “Kathy VI” just to list them all ..”
And this is what is known as “obfuscation.”
What we are arguing is the DEFINITION of evidence. And you’ve just acknowledged
what you’ve denied for months now.. the broken window IS evidence.. and when you combine that with missing items etc.. it becomes evidence of a ROBBERY.
How is this different than what I’ve been arguing all this time?? It’s not.
I’ve presented a LIST of evidence that supportes the Truth of the Bible, YET, this whole time you’ve tried to deny any evidence ever existed.. period. You were wrong Arch.. along with William and Nate and others.
I’m the only one who is taking the NEXT LOGICAL step.. which is “WEIGHING” the evidence, just as the dictionary described. And while I’m doing this, you all continue to deny any evidence even exists.
Atheist fear and desperation is truly sad to witness.
LikeLike
This series is just so great Nate. I’m looking forward to enjoying them late into my retirement years.
LikeLike
I’m going through Nathan’s series on prophecy and slowly studying/working my thoughts out on them but for some reason am drawn back to check on this series. Too bad it seems I’m the only one actually answering the direct questions he asked.
Kathy, your thoughts on the issue of God’s mercy/forgiveness and eternal damnation?
LikeLike
“and when you combine that with missing items etc..” – there was no mention of missing items – by itself, a broken window is evidence only that the window is no longer intact.
“I’ve presented a LIST of evidence that supportes the Truth of the Bible, YET, this whole time you’ve tried to deny any evidence ever existed”
By your own definition, “Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.” – suffice to say, I’ve examined what you jokingly (I hope) refer to as “evidence,” and find it wanting, irrelevant and inapplicable.
“Atheist fear and desperation is truly sad to witness.” – I can’t even imagine having anything to fear from a fairy tale.
LikeLike
Oh, I know Howie. Don’t worry, I figure we can end it when we’ve had as many episodes as the Simpsons 🙂
LikeLike
Can you imagine, Nate, how much longer this would be if Blacksman had stayed?
LikeLike
Hey Matt,
Thanks for weighing in on my question.
I think this is a good example. Let’s push it just a bit, though.
Let’s say you’re the head decision maker on this soldier’s fate, and you get to pick his punishment. You’re known as a fair and reasonable individual. Do you see yourself ever deciding that the firing squad is the appropriate punishment for him?
LikeLike
Oh no, Arch. I don’t particularly like to think of that… 👿
LikeLike
Your broken window Kathy, is evidence only that the widow is broken, just as your martyrs are evidence only for how deeply they believed what they chose to die for, NOT that it was true, only that they believed it was.
LikeLike