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 
Kathy,
Nobody here thinks your previous arguments are worth discussing. That has already been established. I’m not trying to be rude, I know you feel these argument hold a lot of weight, but even the Christians here don’t seem to agree. Let’s discuss archeological evidence for and against the book of Daniel. There is plenty of that!
LikeLike
“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”.” – kathy
kathy, it’s a stupid assertion based on nothing more than your claim, which you even say that yourself.
Science doesn’t back up your claim, and science doesn’t argue against the logic of our existence.
There is nothing to talk about here. Science makes no statement or claim regarding the logic of existance and if you’re just going to “claim” any old thing that you think may support your world view, then why have a discussion?
you’re clearly not interested in an honest dialogue and have admitted to just making things up (eg, “My evidence is my claim..”)
LikeLike
My evidence is my claim.. that you are FREE to argue against.
Okay…science does not argue against our very existence.
My evidence is my claim. Do I need anything else? I guess not.
LikeLike
Ruth,
“Kathy, show us peer reviewed articles written by scholars which confirms ALL 5 Claims above as EVIDENCE of your Christian God. This shouldn’t be hard for you to do. If you can’t, then this post should be over and let’s all move on.”
The scholars don’t disagree on the existence of this evidence Ruth.. and if it’s not evidence for God, what is it evidence for??
Again, please refer to the definition of evidence.
Well, I didn’t make this statement. KC did. But there are, in fact, scholars who disagree on the existence of this evidence. That is why we’re having this conversation.
LikeLike
My evidence is my claim.. that you are FREE to argue against.
Going back to this particular statement: this is why this back and forth with you, in particular, is pointless. You really do think that all you have to do is claim something and it’s evidence.
LikeLike
My evidence is “look, it’s not there.”
If kathy says that science makes a claim that our very existence is illogical, then she should show it.
LikeLike
“The scholars don’t disagree on the existence of this evidence Ruth.. and if it’s not evidence for God, what is it evidence for??” – kathy
it’s like your window, kathy, it’s evidence of existence. If you think there’s evdnece that supports a specific cause, then provide it.
Muslims say it was allah. You say it was the bible god, others say it was something else…. anyone can say anything, but do you have evidence of the burglary other than a broken window?
LikeLike
Nate,
“Kathy, you aren’t laying out evidence, you’re just making sweeping generalizations.
So let’s look at something specific.
Biblical accuracy in regards to historical people, places and
events.”
Nate, the martyrs are not a “sweeping generalization”. You are trying to “generalize” my
specific examples of evidence.
And here’s the problem with your examples in arguing against the fact that the
Bible is accurate in regards to historical people places and events.
AGAIN, Nate, it’s about the numbers.. the odds. You ignore this critical factor of
this debate.. just as you ignore the critical factor of evidence in general.
By comparison.. your examples are fringe.. they are insignificant when you consider
how much the Bible got right. And you fail to consider that if the Bible got most of it
right, then there’s a VERY GOOD argument to be made that you are not applying objectivity to
those few things you claim are contradictory. You already know I don’t trust your judgment. I KNOW you have a bias and that you don’t apply objectivity if it contradicts your chosen beliefs.
The father/ son argument has an explanation that I know Mike has given you several times.. there are explanations for all of these.. I could take the time to analyze as much as you, these specific examples, but all I have to compel me to do so is your claims.. and again, I know that you lack objectivity. So, I feel it would be a huge waste of time. If I believed you were honest and objective in finding the truth, I’d definitely have a good reason to invest the time.
The one example we did debate, Tyre, also supports my claims.. along with your refusal to answer my question about Christianity having the most evidence.
With Tyre, you hold onto one word that you insert INTO the prophesy (“all”).. as your sole argument. And as I’ve explained over and over, 99% of the prophecy has been fulfilled against the odds, this is not in contention.. in your LACK of objectivity, you IGNORE all of that and instead focus on that one thing. You COULD be wrong Nate.. and since most of the prophecy is not in contention.. the odds are that you ARE wrong.. that it is you who lacks objectivity.
I have no reason to believe that the rest of your examples wouldn’t be the same. There are possible explanations but you reject them. And, the numbers / odds are AGAINST you.. since most of the Bible is NOT in contention in regards to historical details.. it’s amazing how accurate the Bible is due to the numbers/ odds.. when you read page after page of names and other details, if it was all a lie, it would be very hard to get all that right. Those thousands of details in themselves IS EVIDENCE for the truth of the Bible.. that was the reason for being so detailed. But again, you IGNORE this.. and instead focus on the fringe, few things that you can hold onto with desperation.
The odds are against you Nate, when arguing the truth of the Bible. The Bible beats the odds over and over.
LikeLike
So once again, Kathy avoids talking specifics…
I’m sure that’s very convincing to anyone watching from the sidelines, Kathy. And as for Tyre, you might want to check out the series I’m doing on it right now:
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/an-examination-of-ezekiels-prophecy-of-tyre-part-1/
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/an-examination-of-ezekiels-prophecy-of-tyre-part-2/
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/an-examination-of-ezekiels-prophecy-of-tyre-part-3/
LikeLike
William,
“kathy, it’s a stupid assertion based on nothing more than your claim, which you even say that yourself.
Science doesn’t back up your claim, and science doesn’t argue against the logic of our existence.
There is nothing to talk about here. Science makes no statement or claim regarding the logic of existance and if you’re just going to “claim” any old thing that you think may support your world view, then why have a discussion?
you’re clearly not interested in an honest dialogue and have admitted to just making things up (eg, “My evidence is my claim..”)”
William,
My claim is evidence because there is no argument against it.
You say that science doesn’t argue against the logic of our existence..
um, you should elaborate on that.. you are doing exactly what you are simultaneously
accusing me of.
Sorry, but science is about cause and effect.. which means that 1st cause is impossible.
LikeLike
“what is the chance that a person will allow their life to be taken for a lie or a belief that has little compelling evidence? Very low.” – Upon exactly what mathematical formulae are you basing your computation?
LikeLike
“what is the chance that a person will allow their life to be taken for a lie or a belief that has little compelling evidence? Very low.”
Okay, Kathy, this hit at something we’ve argued here before. I’m not saying that martyrs for other religions makes those religions true, but the argument you presented here is just as valid an argument for other religions. It doesn’t matter what the premise of the religion is, the martyrs believe that religion to be true. So by default when you say those are false religions/lies, your are acknowledging that people will be perfectly willing to die for a lie – unless you are also acknowledging that those other religions have a lot of compelling evidence.
LikeLike
“The scholars don’t disagree on the existence of this evidence Ruth.. – What scholars, Kathy? And be specific —
“…and if it’s not evidence for God, what is it evidence for??” – since we haven’t seen any, who the hell knows?
LikeLike
“My evidence is my claim.. that you are FREE to argue against.”
Oh Boy! Another “keeper”! I jus KNOW I’ll get a chance to use THIS again —
“My evidence is my claim..” – I gotta remember that!
LikeLike
Kathy,
you said,
“My claim is evidence because there is no argument against it.”
no, there is no supporting evidence for your claim.
and you said,
“You say that science doesn’t argue against the logic of our existence..
um, you should elaborate on that.. you are doing exactly what you are simultaneously
accusing me of.”
not at all. Imagine me holding up all the scientific literature and pointing to it saying, “see, there it isnt.”
now, on the other hand, you’re saying that science does say something, namely that it claims our existence is illogical. now you should point to somthing and say, “see, there it is.”
and you said this,
:”Sorry, but science is about cause and effect.. which means that 1st cause is impossible.”
I think you’re trying to limit science… it’s also about discovery… besides is this you now stating that science disproves religion or saying that nothing had a first cause? what exactly are you trying to say?
LikeLike
I oughta be able to get a book deal out of this – Debating for Dummies!
LikeLike
I need someone to come and install this central boiler for me. I’m supposed to be educating myself on the system, so I can install it, but I keep ending up here. And what’s the point? Really… why am I here!!!
LikeLike
It really scares me, how little she knows – so THIS is where homeschooling leads —
LikeLike
@ kathy,
maybe we should back up for a moment.
maybe you’re feeling compelled to argue – with anything and everything you can think of. maybe it’s because this feels like a competition, maybe it’s pride or maybe you feel like there are answers to all this but you’re afraid to say “I dont know” so you just say stuff…
“I dont know” is not a position of weakness, but a position of honesty. not knowing, but acting as if you do, and making things up and spouting claims from hip is not a position of strength, but is a position of weakness.
It’s okay to say, “I dont know. i think you’re all wrong, but admittedly, i dont know and am not educated enough to state why you’re wrong right now. At present, it’s my faith that makes me think you’re wrong, but I’ll study up on this and get back with you all.”
this is not an insult. I am actually sharing something real with you.
LikeLike
I hope that wasn’t directed at me Arch!
LikeLike
I’m still homeschooling my girls, and my 7 year old reads at a fourth grade level. There is nothing wrong with homeschooling.
LikeLike
Ruth,
” I’m not saying that martyrs for other religions makes those religions true, but the argument you presented here is just as valid an argument for other religions. It doesn’t matter what the premise of the religion is, the martyrs believe that religion to be true. So by default when you say those are false religions/lies, your are acknowledging that people will be perfectly willing to die for a lie – unless you are also acknowledging that those other religions have a lot of compelling evidence.”
“It doesn’t matter what the premise of the religion is, the martyrs believe that religion to be true.”
Ruth, it does matter.. the specifics are key. According to your argument,
a person who was killed because they wouldn’t denounce santa claus’ existence caries the
same testimonial evidence as someone who won’t denounce Jesus.
Anyone who applies objectivity will make a reasonable assumption.. that the person who martyred themselves for santa claus was not in their right mind. Because we all KNOW due to the evidence, that santa claus does not exist, he does not deliver toys to all the children of the world on the 25th of Dec.
And this is what you don’t want to acknowledge Ruth. When you combine all the evidence along with the martyrdom, it’s much more compelling than someone who gave their life for a belief that has much less evidence by comparison… like Islam or Mormonism etc.
Again, look at a jury.. whose testimony are they more likely to believe.. someone who is a Christian or someone who claims that santa clause is real and still delivering gifts in a sleigh?
I’ve already explained this several times.. I’m not doing it any more.. all I’m doing in nearly every comment now is repeating myself.
I just have to leave you all to your, sorry, but.. deliberate ignorance.
LikeLike
So you don’t want to discuss Daniel? I just don’t understand you, but I’ll be glad to put an end to this pointless discussion.
LikeLike
Kathy,
I explained to you long ago (in part 1 or 2 I think) how making such a presupposition is precisely what I did not do when I finally asked the question of whether the bible tells Truth, just months ago. I presupposed neither the existence nor the nonexistence of any deities…
Don’t forget: it’s usually Christians who argue in favor of prepositional apologetics, and presupposing the existence of a deity–sometimes even your own particular deity–and then they (and you) strawman those who disbelieve by asserting that we did the opposite.
LikeLike
“Really… why am I here!!!” – a question Humankind has been asking itself for millennia —
Have you possibly recently received a blow to the head? That could explain it.
LikeLike