Uncategorized

Kathy Part 5

Nate

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 4:11,12

Why 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 9:11,12

Messiah 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?

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

954 thoughts on “Kathy Part 5”

  1. 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.

    Sorry, I don’t think I was clear in that sentence, I’ll try again

    so for example, a man pulls a rabbit from a hat because he has worked to manipulate and set it there. There is little trust involved, at least a trust that pertains to a faith.

    Faith in God is not the same as pulling a rabbit from a hat. They are different, calling them the same thing does not make them so.

    Neither is a belief in fairies, unicorns or any other construct people might use to downplay a persons faith in God.

    Like

  2. “To me Magic involves tricks,”
    Then that’s where we differ – to me, magic involves breaking physical laws. Brain cells die beyond recovery after six minutes – three days and they’re oatmeal, etc.

    Like

  3. “Resurrection to me requires faith.”
    Resurrection requires magic – belief in resurrection requires faith.

    Like

  6. Nan,

    “The point of the bolded “pagan political emperor” is to show that he really didn’t care one way or the other so he came up with a compromise to appease both sides. ”

    How does “pagan political emperor” argue that he didn’t care one way or the other?? This shows how badly you lack of objectivity Nan. You make extremely naïve and biased assumptions. Again, you didn’t answer my question… why would he have so many Bishops involved if he wasn’t after the truth?

    “Re: your comment — ” … this IS supported by scripture..” Please provide the chapter(s) and verse(s), Kathy.”

    See Portal’s comment @ 9:39 am yesterday.

    Like

  7. Nan,

    “To me, the idea of a “GOD” defies common sense. Think about it. You can’t see him/her/it/they. You can’t hear him/her/it/they. You can’t touch him/her/it/they. You can’t smell him/her/it/they. The ONLY thing that makes any god (Christian or otherwise) real for anyone is simply a belief that it is so.”

    Same with “love”… And do you ever think that maybe God doesn’t WANT you to have tangible evidence of Him? Seriously Nan… YOU think about it. You are looking from such a narrow perspective.

    Like

  8. Arch,

    ““That is only fair.. but again, I would just like a little assurance that it’s objective.”

    So are you saying that the Limbaugh book is “objective” and “unbiased”?”

    What reason do I have to believe that he’s not being objective? I could find out that he’s
    not fully objective 100% of the time, but even then, I’m pretty sure his measure won’t even compare to that of atheists. This is just based on my experience. I’ll gladly take the chance with David Limbaugh over an atheist… the odds are much much better.

    Like

  9. Nate,

    “Any time someone has suggested a book for me to read, I read it.
    It’s only after that that I’m able to determine if it was objective or not. Presumably, those who suggested the book thought it was objective, but that doesn’t mean I would come to the same conclusion.
    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. You may not agree with him at the end, but it would be hard to say he’s not objective.”

    Nate, I honestly dont’ want to waste the time to read a book that I feel is biased, as it is, I’ll probably attempt to read the book just to resolve the issue and because you were so willing to read my recommendation.

    But, you say you believe Paine is objective because he uses the Bible as his source.. and THAT makes me question your judgment.. because there is such disagreement about what the Bible is stating.. about the correct context. So, if he is using the Bible, my question would be if he’s applying HIS “context” or THE context.. just as I question your interpretations.

    As for the book suggestion about how we can get something from nothing.. that no one has been able to give even a hint about how exactly that works… those who’ve actually read the book.. that one I definitely won’t waste my time with.

    If you can give me links to excerpts to his book and also Ehrman’s .. I’ll read those.

    Like

  10. Portal,
    Thanks for your answer.. certainly apologetics come with bias.. but if you have your “bias, lack of objectivity, radar” on, then you can discern which information or opinions are objective. But I do see what you mean.. thanks again.. and I really liked your comments from yesterday, I referred Nan back to them today.. You can’t help but hope something will click with these guys.. 🙂

    Like

  11. Kathy,

    That is only fair.. but again, I would just like a little assurance that it’s objective.

    Don’t you think you’d be more likely to discern truth if you treated sources from all sides of an issue with skepticism, to counter-act potential biases?

    Like

  12. @Kathy,

    you said,

    “That is only fair.. but again, I would just like a little assurance that it’s objective. One of those books, neither you or anyone else could give a basic idea/ description of how to get something from nothing.. it was pointless to read something when those who had read it couldn’t even give an overview.. and the other, I had asked for examples of what makes that book “the one” but I didn’t get any except for one from Nan I think, and it proved me right.. the bias was evident. I don’t think you gave any examples.. just how to get it for free.” – kathy

    I think the age of reason is mostly objective, although i also think some of his issues were maybe a stretch – but I find much of apologetics to be a stretch – as well as the majority of what you say… but he does make solid points. If you remain unconvinced by Paine, then that’s okay – it was not a waste for you.

    By reading it you would have come to better understanding of some of the issues and you’ll be better able to address those points if anyone ever brings them up around you.

    After listing to much of Limbaugh, i dont think he’s objective and I find him incredible biased, but I will also put his book on my list. I may not care for the man, but that doesnt mean that he doesnt make good points in his book, and how could I say he doesnt if i dont read it?

    But is this book you suggested “the one?” By placing such restrictions and qualifications on a book before you read it actually screams biased and dishonest. You’re judging a book based upon a review – a review that has said the book was good… It looks like you’re trying to fond reasons to not read it.

    Then dont if you dont want to, but without reading it, you cant speak intelligently or honestly on its contents. It’s a short read – just read it if you want to know its value.

    and something from nothing? I think we’ve covered this, but i’ll do it again and request that you address or acknowledge each of these;

    first, i dont know and i dont know that something came from nothing.

    second, if our very existence means we had a creator, then why doesnt god’s existence mean he had a creator?

    and third, if an exception can be made for god, in that he doesnt need a creator, then isnt that really saying that “existence” doesnt necessarily imply a creator?

    fourth, If god was the creator and was not created, did he create jesus and the spirit or were they always around too? If they were also always there and were not created, then how is god the father superior and how does he know things jesus does not? can you answer these?

    and finally, if god was the creator and if you could prove that he didnt have a creator, you’d still have to show how your god is that creator and the bible is his book…

    you havent done this yet, you havent shown any of that, so then how can you criticize anyone else for not explaining how “something came from nothing?”

    Like

  13. “I honestly dont’ want to waste the time to read a book that I feel is biased” – kathy

    no one does, but to make such a judgement (say a book is biased) before you’ve read the thing may mean that you’re biased.

    and you’re right about context. It’s important to get the context right. And when criticizing someone for taking something out of context, it’s best to show them they’re wrong by providing the correct context.

    whouldnt you agree?

    Like

  14. “You make extremely naïve and biased assumptions” – kathy

    yeah, it’s best not to do that…. or criticizes others for doing what you’re guilty of…

    Like

  15. the devil only used Scripture as well to try and tempt Jesus. Paine using Scripture doesn’t necessarily validate the position he had…

    I have some questions about this. Anyone jump in here with an answer, it’s not necessarily just for Ryan.

    Jesus was the god-man, right? He, according to the scriptures themselves, was intimately familiar with scripture. In fact, he was the incarnation of scripture – the word made flesh. If in his earthly ministry he was aware that he was the I AM, how could the devil tempt Jesus with scripture? Could Jesus, in his perfection, while possibly subject to temptation, really be fooled by promises he knew couldn’t be delivered? Those “gifts” that Satan supposedly promised Jesus weren’t even Satan’s to give. Wouldn’t Jesus have been all too aware of that? Making temptation impossible?

    Like

  16. @Portal,

    you said,

    “Faith in God is not the same as pulling a rabbit from a hat. They are different, calling them the same thing does not make them so.

    Neither is a belief in fairies, unicorns or any other construct people might use to downplay a persons faith in God.”

    I can get why you said that, but why is it the case that they’re not the same?

    is it because you see god as real and the others as false or pretend?

    Now, is your faith in the god the same as your faith in your father or mother? Or as in other loved ones, etc?

    Which relationship is more tangible?

    Could someone have just as much a relationship with Anne Frank and one could with Jesus?

    And some people believe in magic and fictitious creatures, how is their faith in those things less that someone else’s faith in a god or gods?

    Like

  17. Ruth, I agree, i always thought that those “temptations” were pretty easy… Plus, jesus knew what was up. His “faith” couldnt be the same as ours, since he had first hand knowledge of god and heaven and hell, etc… He knew…

    but, a believer believes the bible… it says he was tempted, then by god (uhh, the devil) he was tempted.

    Of course if people present this question because of nate’s comment regarding Thomas Paine’s objectivity, then maybe they’ll be more satisfied to know that thomas paine tries to refute the bible with the bible. IN Volume 2 of his age of reason, he uses lots of scripture – certainly that would be a more objective approach than simply saying , “but nuh-uh.”

    and again, no one can comment honestly on the age of reason until they’ve read it.

    Like

  18. ..and again, no one can comment honestly on the age of reason until they’ve read it.

    Oh, no, I totally agree. And it’s a free download. So even if you didn’t read the whole thing, it doesn’t cost anything to download it and read a bit of it to see whether it’s worth one’s time or not.

    Like

  24. Yesterday morning was SO Kathy-Free – what a difference a day makes – 24 little hours —

    “See Portal’s comment @ 9:39 am yesterday.”
    See what she did there Nan? Instead of employing a little courtesy, and answering your question, she wants to make you go back and search out Portal’s comment, if you want the answer.

    Like

  25. “And do you ever think that maybe God doesn’t WANT you to have tangible evidence of Him?”
    And yet you say he expects love and obedience – one definition of insanity, is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result next time. He should have learned his strategy doesn’t work, when he decided to drown everybody in his fictitious flood, but noooooooo —

    Do you even listen to yourself, Kathy?

    Like

Comments are closed.