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 
That’s right, and somehow it’s ok if we make judgments like this when it comes to the doctrines of Islam, but once we make it with Christianity – oh yes now we are just sinners who want to avoid what is obviously true. And yes, it is obvious, but please do ignore all those things that just don’t seem quite right (says the Christian).
LikeLike
Ryan,
If your both implying that Kathy is a Pharisee, then I think that’s rough. Like I’ve mentioned before, I sometimes feel Kathy gets ganged up on.
My comment about those highly politicized is in relation to the law – American law. Many of these hyper-politicized “Christians” view American law and their involvement with it as sacred. Almost as sacred as the Bible. They feel so strongly about anti-abortion/anti-gay laws and social programs that if Jesus were to walk the Earth today and tell them, “whoever is without sin cast the first stone” they’d likely not recognize that it were Jesus and want to stone him. They claim to follow Jesus but their political ideals and aspirations tell a different story.
LikeLike
Ruth,
thanks for the context 🙂 I’d still say though that people with that sort of mindset might instead think they are pushing for these laws or fighting other laws because they believe the Bible teaches against or in support of specific laws.
it does puzzle me that people would lobby against gun reforms based on stating that its their god given right for self protection, yet Jesus taught to turn the other cheek and love your enemy. So yeah, I think I see some of where you are coming from 🙂
LikeLike
I hear what you’re saying Ryan, but I still disagree. I realize that Kathy doesn’t hold the same doctrines as the Pharisees, but in the Bible they’re portrayed as having a very specific idea of what God wanted, and nothing Jesus could do to the contrary would ever change their minds. That’s the similarity I’m pointing to. I agree that Kathy truly believes what she’s saying, but instead of her beliefs coming from evidence, they come from her upbringing and environment. She then takes the evidence and works it in wherever she can to bolster the beliefs she already holds.
I’m sure it sounds harsh to analyze her this way, but I don’t mean for it to. I think she’s given plenty of examples of operating this way. While the rest of us point out specifics, she only speaks generally. Instead of addressing those specific points, she latches onto side issues. When we answer one of her questions and it’s not the answer she wants, she continues to claim that we never answered it.
LikeLike
Although, there is a distinction between protecting your family and yourself, and not responding “eye for an eye” I think you could still love your enemy and be pro guns. Personally I’m not a fan of guns. seriously thank God the Australian Government made those reforms after the Port Arthur massacre!! I also believe there should be a clear separation between church and state. Perhaps that makes me liberal 😉
LikeLike
Ryan,
The political environment her is quite polarized. I long for a more moderate climate. I neither consider myself conservative nor liberal. My point was simply that people do get so caught up in what the believe is right or wrong that they forget compassion. I did not mean to imply that anyone who has an opinion – even a strong opinion – fit that description.
LikeLike
Nate,
I do find Kathy’s “please give a religion with better evidence” question something that pops up quite often.
Kathy,
I would be interested to read more about the evidence. Personally many of my beliefs are faith based, in that I believe them not necessarily because I have all the answers to my questions. I honestly can’t say that I can prove God exists. I’d love to learn more though, you may have an insight I have not considered.
LikeLike
Ruth,
Although, I am a fan of video games like splinter cell, rainbow six, and Cod, all which feature extensive use of violence and guns, so I guess some people might conclude that I contradict myself there 🙂 Never would really want to own a gun, I think they cause more harm than anything. I’ll stick to defending against head crabs as Gordon Freeman anyday
LikeLike
And kudos again Ryan for being the nicest guy here. In the words of Chris Hardwick, “you win the internet!”
LikeLike
Ryan,
I’ll defend the Second Amendment right of the people to bear arms. Heck, I’ve got a gun. I got it when I got divorced for the purpose of self-protection. And target practice is fun. I enjoy it. BUT I do not believe that just anyone does have the right to have a gun just because they want one. While the Second Amendment does say that the government shall not impede the rights of the people to bear arms it is for a specific purpose – for the people to have a well-trained militia. I don’t know anyone who has a gun who belongs to a militia. People jump up and down here about their right to own a gun, but how many of them really believe they could take on our government with it? Are they going to spring for some tanks and fighter jets, too?
I’ve been properly trained on the safety and operation of said gun. Many who have guns don’t have the foggiest idea what they’re doing. I believe (contrary to popular gun-advocate groups) that one should be required to demonstrate that they are both mentally competent and that they are skilled in using a gun prior to obtaining any kind of carrying permit.
LikeLike
Nate, I was trying to think of something clever or ironic to say…nothings coming so I’ll just say thanks 🙂
LikeLike
Sidebar with Ryan – sorry, Nate. 🙂
LikeLike
Ruth, Wow, that’s intense
some friends and I went to a firing range in the city before we took our trip to the states in 2012-2013 (had new years over there). Some of my friends wanted to go shooting in Texas, but it never happened, instead we bought walkie talkies, hired two SUVs and drove through Texas. did no shooting, and I’m thankful for that, since our “practice” in Adelaide unnerved me. Got an appreciation to how powerful guns can be though.
A friend from school used to go shooting when he was younger with his family. I think that’s actually more rare in Australia. I didn’t hear a lot of it anyway. Farmers own guns, farmers and a few gun enthusiasts, that and bikies…
we don’t really have any militias at least not any I’m aware of. I’m sure they exist somewhere. I think one difference might be that Australians are too apathetic to care whether their government is going to go all “big brother” on them 🙂 seriously though, really different culture I think. That’s what I briefly experienced, as I’ve written before, each state in the U.s that we went through seemed like a different country in itself, some states seem worlds apart in their culture.
LikeLike
One should be required to demonstrate that they are both mentally competent and that they are skilled in using a gun prior to obtaining any kind of carrying permit.
I agree with that 🙂
LikeLike
• Christian martyrdom.. that’s a LONG list of “broken windows”..
As we have repeatedly told you, Kathy, martyrdom is only evidence of the degree of conviction, not the validity of the belief, no “broken windows” – fail.
• Fulfilled prophecies
Prophecies either not fulfilled at all, only partially fulfilled, some were good guesses based on prevailing conditions, while others were too vague to tell exactly what they referred to – fail.
• Biblical accuracy in regards to historical people, places and events.
Here’s an example of your “Bible accuracy”:
Still more would be the fact that reputable biblical archaeologists confirm that there is no evidence that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Joseph, Moses, or Joshua were ever historical figures – don’t ask for proof, I’ve already given it to you half a dozen times, I can’t make you read it.
Yet more would be the fact that the Gospels were not written by those whose names they carry, and certainly not by anyone who ever met Yeshua – again, I’ve already given you evidence you’ve refused to read.
The Tower of Babel fable is based on a Mesopotamian Ziggurat, and was entirely concocted. The flood story, along with Noah and his fearless crew aboard the Minnow, was plagiarized from the Sumerian “Epic of Gilgamesh,” written 200 years earlier.
Yeah, just loaded with “accuracy,” isn’t it?
• Bible consistency with many different authors over 1500 years.
First of all, the Bible is NOT consistent overall, and what little consistency there may be, comes from one author reading a previous story, and taking it from there, just as we see today from authors of comic books and TV shows.
• No proof of “lying” in the Bible.
You gotta figure that a priest, ignorant of all fields of science, sitting at a table in captivity in Babylon, in the 500’s BCE, telling us that the entire universe was created only 3500 years earlier, in just six days, HAS to know he’s lying, he just knows that no one of the time is knowledgeable enough to catch him.
The mathematical odds are that the Bible is a crock of crap.
LikeLike
Nate,
“In Daniel chapter 5, the writer says that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar are father and son 7 times. Yet we know from sources of their time that Belshazzar was actually the son of King Nabonidus, who wasn’t related to Nebuchadnezzar in any way.”
The Hebrew can mean grandfather or even ancestor. It was common to refer to an ancestor as father, which is clear from a number of other texts. Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar’s grandfather, which is in line with Jeremiah 27. The queen in Daniel was Nitocris who was Neb’s daughter and wife to Nabonidus. Belshazzar was only second in command, ruling in his father’s absence, which is why he called Daniel third.
Archeology actually backs up the scriptures quite well. There is always new discoveries being made, that shed light on the biblical text. Things that were believed to be mere fiction, are being proved historically accurate. So for a believer, time is on their side. It’s only a matter of time before the next big discovery.
LikeLike
“if Christianity is not the religion with the most evidence, then which one is it??” – You just can’t accept “None of the above,” can you, Kathy? You’ve had your answer, MANY times, and now you’re just beating a dead horse. Good luck with that.
LikeLike
Side note, looking up Chris Hardwick now, didn’t know who he was.
LikeLike
“I did leave the question with Kuba to cut down on your reading time.” – Great! Now she’ll REALLY be ticked off at me for leading you to her!
LikeLike
I guess I should have refreshed my phone, because this seems way of subject now! Sorry guys!
LikeLike
Ruth, I can agree that people should be thoroughly trained to own firearms. they are dangerous tools after all.
But maybe the 2nd amendment is worded to where the US citizens will have a right to form well organized militias and to have a right to own firearms – and not that a well organized militia has the right to arms…
I do think the american constitution’s 2nd amendment does have something to do with being another check and balance for government power (as in the revolutionary war), however, i also think no citizen has any business with rocket launchers or fully automatic weapons (already have laws against).
I do not think that every citizen should own one, nor do i think more guns are the answer, and i fully believe that guns are very dangerous and even more so in the hands of untrained morons who think they’re expert pistol-eers like we grew up watching in action movies and westerns.
but the thing is, the constitution could be amended per the constitution. What if the 2nd amendment were legally amended to abolish the 2nd amendment? Would many 2nd amendment advocates continue their support of their prized legal document if their favorite part was changed, even legally?
I know that this is way off topic, but thought i’d chime in.
sorry.
back to kathy…
LikeLike
Ark, RE: “they claim is made that the original text was inherent.” – I believe that’s “inerrant,” you author, you – I assume your publisher employs an editor, or in your case, a staff of editors –?
LikeLike
“that VERY science argues AGAINST the logic of our existence.” – I’m betting, Ruth, that she read it on Answers In Genesis.
LikeLike
The difference between us, Nate, is that I’ll read that link on Daniel, but Kathy never will, a perfect example of objectivity vs bias.
LikeLike
but the thing is, the constitution could be amended per the constitution. What if the 2nd amendment were legally amended to abolish the 2nd amendment? Would many 2nd amendment advocates continue their support of their prized legal document if their favorite part was changed, even legally?
I don’t know, William. I think probably not, but then again, I think it would be very difficult to get the 2nd amendment amended. Not the 2nd amendment, per se, but this has been part of the discussion here; that the Constitution can be and is amended frequently at the will of the people – as it should be.
LikeLike