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 
Paul did start what we call tithe today. He said that he deserved wages for their spiritual benefit. Maybe he didn’t give it that title, but he did start it.
LikeLike
When I suggested you read Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason, it’s because I think he’s being objective. In fact, you should too, since the only source he uses is the bible.
Hey Nate, your comment made me think of something.
the devil only used Scripture as well to try and tempt Jesus. Paine using Scripture doesn’t necessarily validate the position he had…
LikeLike
Ryan, how do you know the devil used scripture? This is another one of those times when no one was around to hear the “conversation.”
LikeLike
Nan,
After Yahusha’s resurrection, it says that he revealed the scriptures to them starting from the beginning.
When he walked with the apostles there were many times that he would say something, and the apostles were clueless. Sometimes he gave them hints and sometimes not. It seems likely to me that when he was with them after his resurrection, he was explaining all the things that occurred, and why. Did he tell them what the adversary said to him in the wilderness? If you believe the scriptures, then yes. Either way it is speculation on your part to say no, and likewise for me if I choose to say yes.
LikeLike
“Paul didn’t know the messiah, because they never met, and Peter and James were both against Paul.”
Beside the point, Laurie – and we both know I’m nothing, if not fair – the point being that the gospels were written from 72- 100+ CE, yet Paul, Pete and Jimmy mentioned nothing of the virgin birth or any of the miracles. Their being less than bosom buds should have nothing to do with that, it simply means the stories hadn’t been fabricated yet, and clearly weren’t even in oral circulation at the time.
LikeLike
In essence, the entire bible is based on “speculation.”
LikeLike
Laurie! What did I ever do to you, you should insult me like that? First, “jackassery” (which, admittedly, I kinda like), then a SOUL?
No, while I am sorry you were hit in the head, my apology was for leaving you alone with anaivethinker. But you’re a grown woman, and a very intelligent one at that, so I suspect you’ll do just fine – all I’m saying, is watch for manipulation techniques —
LikeLike
That’s not really what I said Nan, but point taken.
LikeLike
Thanks Arch, I’ll be careful! (Rolling eyes)
LikeLike
Why don’t you like apologetics?
Hi Kathy,
when I said I wasn’t a fan of apologetics, I mean that in a general sense. I have read quite a few apologetics over the years. And I still don’t have an aversion to them.
Its just that the apologetics outlined on certain websites seem to be more formatted towards bolstering a position, while in some cases dismantling other positions that disagree with them. Some of these come across as very mechanical to me. I don’t personally find them as interesting or fluid as an open discussion. But that’s more about the nature of specific approaches to apologetics, and not an attack on apologetics as a whole.
Lets start with a definition of what apologetics is:
Reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/apologetics
I think there is a place for defending convictions. I’m not against that, I think its important. I can understand why apologetics are necessary (1 Peter 3:15).
However, I also find that in a general sense, anyone who (1) builds up an argument for a premise by (2) selecting specific information and presenting it as a case…. can do so whether they are Christian, Muslim, Deists or Atheists.
For example, some Muslim apologetics might use a form of the Cosmological argument or the argument from Irreducible complexity to build a case that Allah exists. But Christians would disagree when that Muslim apologist began to use that case to defend his premise that Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger…
Defending a conviction or premise is what apologetics involves. In this sense there are agnostic and atheist apologists, although they may not self identity to be spreading apologetics. Another point I consider though is that just because someone can build a case well does not mean their founding belief is correct. Some of the most articulate speakers in the world have convinced people to engage in causes that were based on little more than personal ambition. And conversely, even if a point is poorly made, the conviction or premise behind the point can still be true. For this reason I don’t jump onto an atheist bandwagon just because I have read arguments by atheists.
In other words, my belief in God is not based solely on how well specific individuals can build a case. Because reasoning is a human tool, like logic once learned well, it can be geared towards many different foundational positions. Otherwise, what would happen if someone presented a poorly formulated case for their faith? what if then those unsound points they made were challenged and dismantled by another apologist? Even if that particular apologist was well known and had a Dr. in front of his or her name would not be reason for me to turn away from my faith base on their poorly made points. No mere human is perfect 🙂
If I based my faith on solely reading the cases made by other people, and such a thing happened, then my faith would be on just the skill (or lack of) of particular apologists rather than God.
So instead I think its important to read what’s being said or written, rather than how its being presented. Whether its presented poorly or grandly, people who are defending their positions have already made up their mind during that time they are building a case.
For example, I would be surprised to see on a Bahá’í apologetics website, the acknowledgement that despite what Bahá’u’lláh had written or taught, many different faiths cannot be harmonised due to their distinct differences in core doctrines.
Hope that make sense. Have a nice day Kathy 🙂
LikeLike
So if a Christian makes a good point, no matter how they presented it, it seems reasonable for me to identify it to be a good point.
If an atheist expresses a good point, no matter how they presented it, it seems reasonable for me to identify it to be a good point.
If a Muslim expresses a good point, no matter how they presented it, it seems reasonable for me to identify it to be a good point.
Hope that makes sense
LikeLike
and by “good” point I mean a accurate point in reference to something. I can do this, and still disagree with other points they may have expressed, or even their overall premise they are trying to build.
LikeLike
also wasn’t intentionally putting atheist in lower case there to be disrespectful 🙂
LikeLike
A naive thinker,
After reading your comment again, I missed a couple points.
In Galatians 2 where Paul supposedly rebukes Peter, this is his excuse for why Barnabas separated from him. It is not however, the excuse given in the book of acts. Notice right before this he calls Peter, James, and John false brethren who seemed to be pillars. The first chapter of the book also contains one of his 6 lies. He says he didn’t go to Jerusalem until three years after his conversion, and that those in Judea only knew him by name.
Here is desperate in this book to show that he is not the false apostle, they are. Then he curses anyone that teaches another gospel other than his, or another Jesus.
LikeLike
“After Yahusha’s resurrection, it says that he revealed the scriptures to them starting from the beginning”
No speculation required, it the explanation requires magic.
LikeLike
again arch, I think you confusing faith with magic 🙂 the two are not the same
Here is another example of magic
LikeLike
Laurie: “That’s not really what I said Nan, but point taken.”
Did you see that, Kathy? This is how an intelligent lady debates. You don’t see Laurie screaming “Liberal liars!” and you and I both know that she is exponentially more knowledgeable about the Bible than you will ever be. Take a lesson!
LikeLike
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Arch,
In all its forms, whether illusion or not, you can see magic as it is practised, that is one of many distinct differences I think.
LikeLike
“Thanks Arch, I’ll be careful! (Rolling eyes)” – you think you’re rolling your eyes now, just wait til his smarminess starts. He and I have gone more than a few rounds.
And careful includes not standing under falling tile —
LikeLike
“I also wasn’t intentionally putting atheist in lower case there to be disrespectful 🙂”
I don’t capitalize it either, Portal.
LikeLike
One more point Arch,
To me Magic involves tricks,
Peter Walking on water through faith in God was no trick, since he was not trying to manipulate the waters itself to stay afloat, instead he was trusting rather than conjuring.
LikeLike
Resurrection requires magic. Walking on water, even in the Dead Sea, requires magic. Virgin births involve magic. Water into wine requires magic. Ain’t no magic.
LikeLike
I also think there is also a huge difference between conjuring and role-playing in a game 🙂
Resurrection to me requires faith.
LikeLike
to me the Resurrection is neither conjuring or role playing,
they are all distinctly different
LikeLike
“In all its forms, whether illusion or not, you can see magic as it is practised, that is one of many distinct differences I think.”
I do not understand what you mean by that sentence. Differences between what and what?
LikeLike