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. Kathy,
    Laurie, just bring up the points that you feel prove me wrong.. and we can debate them.

    Prove you wrong about about what?

    Like

  2. William, cont..

    “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;”

    William, I shall fulfill your request..

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

    I don’t know what you are trying to say here.. and I don’t know.

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

    Good question.. when you have a reasonable/ logical answer please share it.

    “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?”

    Yes, it is saying that no Creator is a possibility also. My point is that reason and evidence don’t favor this possibility.

    “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?”

    I don’t have the specific answers to these questions.. I believe Jesus does know all that the Father knows and that the Trinity always existed.

    “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…”

    I don’t have to show it William… the compelling evidence is already out there.. for anyone to read and accept.. OR give a more reasonable explanation, which, I’ll just point out yet again, no one has.

    “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?”

    Yes, I have. I’ve pointed out the compelling evidence many times now.

    Like

  3. Hmm… I’m sure that isn’t going to make sense to you Brandon. I’m sorry, I’m so tired, and am becoming incoherent. Scratch that, and I’ll try to answer all your questions tomorrow!

    Like

  5. “Yes, I have. I’ve pointed out the compelling evidence many times now.” – no, you haven’t Kathy, and you haven’t expressed your explanation for this, either:

    1. It is possible for something to exist which does not have a creator.
    2. The universe exists.
    3. It is possible that the universe does not have a creator.”

    Like

  6. Arch,

    What are you talking about? My 50/50 odds acknowledge the possibility. Although those are the odds for an atheist.. for those who process evidence objectively, believers, the odds go way up for the possibility of a Creator.

    Like

  8. “…for those who process evidence objectively, believers…” – Oh, Kathy, ANOTHER oxymoron? “Objective believers?” REALLY?

    Like

  9. “…or whatever you REAL name is!” – Well, we sure don’t know whether yours is Laurie or not! I can’t believe I was about to hack off half a pound of foreskin, just on your say-so, you presented your case so well —

    Like

  11. I think that if everyone on the board were to be completely candid with you Kathy, they would admit that they are tired of playing your cat and mouse games.

    You answer only the questions you want to answer, and those with bias and total lack of objectivity, both qualities you claim to prize so highly, and ignore the ones you haven’t answers for.

    You ask questions that many of us answer, which you later swear we haven’t. I’m almost running out of words to describe you and your unprofessional “debating” attempts.

    We have grown-up theists here now, who know how to intelligently discuss, as well as debate. If I thought it would do any good, I’d almost suggest you leave for a bit, get a brain transplant, then come back and see us. Otherwise, you’re just wasting your time – and ours.

    Like

  13. Laurie

    September 10, 2014 at 1:32 pm

    “It’s not the same thing Nate. You believe we came from monkeys, and I believe we were created as humans. I believe monkeys were always monkeys, and are still monkeys.”

    We agree on this Laurie! The idea that we evolved from pond scum is truly comical. Yet atheists choose to believe that over a Creator. David Limbaugh was right when he said that it
    takes more faith to believe in existence as an accident than to believe in a Creator.

    Like

  14. Laurie,

    “Kathy,

    I also think you should read “The Age of Reason”, but not because I hope you’ll change your mind, because I think every believer should be able to make a defense for what they believe. You don’t have to have all the answers. People who believe in evolution don’t have all the answers, but they have enough to feel confident that time will prove them right. Elias Boudinot wrote a book called “The Age of Revelation” to counter Paine, and it is also worth a read. I’m sure you won’t agree 100% with either one, but it will certainly help you to make a defense for what you believe.”

    Laurie, I do have a defense for what I believe.. I’ve given it on every one of these posts.
    I’ve been begging them to put forth some of his arguments/ reasoning.. no one has so far.
    I believe this way is even better than me reading the book myself.. they can select what they feel are the best points of the book and present them to me.. I don’t see any need to read the book if others have and can present the points to me here.

    Like

  15. Nate,

    “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 am really hoping you can address this.. because as I read it, I don’t see how you can assume objectivity because his source is the Bible. This makes no sense to me.. you frequently source the Bible and I know you are not applying objectivity in most if not all of those instances. I would really like to resolve this point.. especially since it will vindicate my claim that Paine’s book is most likely not objective and therefore an indoctrination tool and / or a money making tool… and therefore, a waste of time.

    Like

  16. @Nan:
    Paul states directly that Jesus appeared to him just as he appeared to the other apostles (1 Cor 15:8) and that Christ sent him to proclaim the gospel (1 Cor 1:17). Paul also constantly refers to himself as apostle which means messenger who is sent, for example, “Paul an apostle – sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father” (Gal 1:1). That is what Paul claimed, so you are saying that you believe Paul was lying. That’s fine and dandy, but what is your reason for believing that Paul is lying? An assertion of preaching “mystery” religion or an offhand quote from a liberal theologian is not a crystal clear argument. I’m looking for a crystal clear argument, not an assertion.

    @Laurie:
    So, I can see the Law issue is pretty big for you. Do you follow the Law? Do you stone gay men? Are women ceremonially unclean while on their menstrual periods? Do you celebrate Yom Kippur at the Temple and send a scapegoat into the desert? Do you give the Lord any burnt offerings at the Temple? I’m guessing that you do none of these. Why not then? Do you not belong to YHWH? And, what did the Messiah do here on Earth? What does the Messiah fulfilling the Law mean?

    This paragraph is reserved for your arguments that I consider weak. To start, the ‘Benjamin wolf prophecy’ (Gen 49:27) is far too vague to have any persuasiveness. Next, the passage in Matthew 24 is way out of context to be referring to Paul. It starts with someone claiming “Look! Here is the Messiah!” Then, Jesus warns, “So, if they say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look! He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matt 24:26-27). The passage is referring to people claiming the Messiah has returned on Earth. There have been plenty of false messiahs over the ages, but Paul never claimed to be the messiah, so this passage does not refer to Paul. Lastly, my favorite: Balaam. Peter tells us that Balaam was a false prophet (2 Pet 2:15) then in the same epistle commends Paul as “our beloved brother Paul [who] wrote to you according to the wisdom given him” (2 Pet 3:15-16). The point here is that Peter condemns Balaam and acknowledges Paul. This means either Peter is lying or Balaam has no relation to Paul. Is Peter lying? I think not.

    Lastly, you say Paul misquotes scripture, but I need you to be more specific. Spell it out for me like exactly what he got wrong in terms of words/meanings and why it’s a big deal. For example, if something is slightly edited, why should that be a big deal? Was that not the standard practice in the first century, for example? I need a crystal clear argument for this, not something vague or something that reflects modern chauvinism about ancient quoting practices.
    -Brandon

    Like

  17. Kathy promises: “Whatever I haven’t answered.,. I’ll answer right now.. ask away..”

    OK…

    On Sep. 8, 2014 at 12:50 am, you wrote:

    As I’ve stated before, the mathematical odds make all of these examples extremely compelling. And you have NO argument against that.. math is based on logic.

    1. On Sep. 8 (1:08 am), I asked you to quantify those odds and show your calculations. William (8:56 am) and Howie (9:00 am) asked you to do likewise.

    For clarity, the probability of:

    – flipping heads or tails in a fair coin toss is 50% (1/2)
    – rolling any number from one to six on a fair die is roughly 17% (1/6)
    – getting a Royal Flush in 5-card poker is 0.000154% (1/649,739)
    – winning the Powerball grand prize is 0.0000005707% (1/175,223,510)

    What is the numerical probability in favor of your argument, Kathy? And how did you derive it?

    2. On Sep. 7 at 11:34 pm you wrote:

    …yet, that VERY science argues AGAINST the logic of our existence. Existence and science are not compatible! Yet, we are here.

    On Sep. 8 (7:47 am), Ruth asked:

    Do you have a source for that? Do you have evidence of this claim?

    To which you replied (Sep. 8, 2:35 pm):

    My evidence is my claim.. that you are FREE to argue against. But it’s clear that you cannot, so instead you ask for “evidence”.

    Claims alone (i.e. claims unsupported by evidence) do NOT constitute evidence, Kathy. This is basic logic 101. Furthermore, the onus of providing evidence rests with the person making the claim, and not the other way around.

    So I’ll repeat Ruth’s requests: Do you have a source for that? Do you have evidence to support your claim besides your bald assertions?

    And if not, then kindly stop making claims you can’t substantiate.

    Like

  19. Sore loser? To you?? That has to be the funniest thing I’ve ever heard.

    “Whatever I haven’t answered.,. I’ll answer right now.. ask away..” – I have no questions for you, mindless answers are irrelevant – I can go to any apologetic website and get the same kind of pap, except better organized and more intelligible.

    Like

  20. “David Limbaugh was right when he said that it takes more faith to believe in existence as an accident than to believe in a Creator.”
    What a stupid statement. The same could be said of a rainbow before Humankind invented the prism. Humans are the animals that find answers.

    BTW, is he any relation to Rush?

    Like

  21. “I don’t see any need to read the book if others have and can present the points to me here.” – I agree, in your case it would be a waste of time.

    Like

  23. “This makes no sense to me..” – very little does. “Money-making tool”? You don’t even know who Thomas Paine was, do you? I said it in the very first thread, and nothing has since changed my mind – doorknob.

    Like

  24. Kathy, you’re operating under some misconceptions about Thomas Paine and The Age of Reason, which really shows how little you looked into it.

    Paine didn’t publish his book “just to make money” — it’s doubtful that it helped him financially at all. Paine is not some random guy living today, he was one of our founding fathers. He wrote the pamphlet “Common Sense,” which helped inspire the Revolution. When he published The Age of Reason, he did some of it at his own expense. He and those who helped him publish it were prosecuted on more than one occasion, and spent some time in prison as well.

    Actually, it’s said that he wrote the first part because he was upset that many in the French Revolution were turning toward atheism. Paine was a deist — he very much believed in a benevolent Creator, and he argues for such in his book. However, he sees that the god described in the Bible (especially the OT) is anything but benevolent.

    For a fundamentalist Christian like you, the points he makes in his book (especially the 2nd and 3rd parts) would probably be a surprise.

    You’re right that my statement about Paine being objective because he uses the Bible isn’t exactly right. That’s certainly not the only criteria to use in determining objectivity. What I was trying to say is that Paine does not just use “what if” arguments or refer to sources that you might find questionable. He uses the Bible and compares it with other parts of the Bible. So his source material is something that you believe is beyond reproach. You probably won’t find his arguments persuasive, which will probably earn him the label “unobjective” from you — but you won’t be able to discount his evidence, since it all comes from the Bible.

    But look, at this point, do what you want. I don’t expect you to read it, and even if you did, I don’t expect that you would actually consider it. So I won’t waste my time quoting passages of it to you, or providing you with links to it (again!). If you’re interested in reading it, it’s just a simple Google or Amazon search away.

    Like

  25. @ kathy,

    quit being an idiot.

    you said,

    “I don’t know what else I can do.”

    you could read the book, you ignorant wretch.

    and no one’s been able to argue your points successfully? What? are you that stupid or that dishonest?

    It the real world, it’s been you who continually says some of the dumbest stuff i’ve ever read, and it’s you who hasnt successfully argued your points or refuted those of others – and that’s IF you even bother to address them… The majority of points you ignore – even after two of these threads began with them in the heading.

    If you’re gonna lie, at least be smarter about it. If you missed them out of stupidity, then aIl I can say is that I hope your caretakers know you’re spending so much time on the internet.

    And based on an earlier comment of yours, are you saying that you don’t think Rush Limbaugh is biased at all? I mean, if you really think he isnt and if you really insisnt on diving into another tangential and irrelevant issue like this, then I can provdie quotes of his to illustrate. Our time would be better spend if you stuck to addressing the points instead of getting lost in analogies. But since you obviously failed to recognize the basic point, let me spell it out for you the clearest way i know how:

    You said you didnt want to read the age of reason because it may be biased and nonobjective. You recommended a book for everyone here to read, written by Rush. My point was that I though Rush was biased and nonobjective, yet I am not refusing to read his book. The point was that even if I find the man biased, his book still may not be complete rubbish, and that I couldnt know for sure until I read it – the point to you is that even if you think some of the points from the age of reason you’ve heard are biased and unobjective, you still cant judge the whole book or speak intelligently or honestly on it if you dont read it. It’s free. It’s short and it has bible in it.

    evidently you’re really into making excuses and being lazy. You’re free to be what you like, you’re just not convincing anyone. And if you’re not even really trying, why stick around and make so much noise?

    but you did finally address something of what I requested…. sort of. I’ll address that next.

    Like

Comments are closed.