“WHERE in my comments you posted with dates etc are there any contradictions?? Where is
the “dishonestly”??” – kathy
oh, i see. your direct comments are here. October 15, 2014 at 8:35 am
you should read the quotes to see the problem.
like here you say,
“You aren’t making sense.. yes, I said I didn’t ask which you believed to be the most true, I asked which you believed had the most evidence.” – Kathy, October 14, 22014 at 4:43pm (open conversation part 3)
And
“Nope, sorry William, this isn’t going to work.. my question doesn’t even ask which religion you think is “divine”. And I just don’t believe you aren’t comprehending my question.” – Kathy, July 30, 2014 (Letter to kathy part 3)
saying that you arent asking about truth, but about evidence.
Compared to:
“it’s a simple question that requires a simple answer.. which religion has the most evidence aka credentials to support it’s truth or claimed truth?” – Kathy, july 9, 2014 at 2:00pm (letter to kathy)
And these:
All of this is EVIDENCE that CORROBORATES the claimed truth of the Bible and
the existence of God.” – Kathy, july 9, 2014 at 10:04pm (letter to kathy)
“Yes, while I do claim that you all are ignorant of the reality that evidence for Christianity IS complelling, that’s NOT the ignorance I’m accusing you all of presently.. THAT ignorance would be for deliberately ignoring/ refusing to acknowledge the unopposed FACT that Christianity has the most evidence for it’s truth. You’re getting your ignorances mixed up kc.. which, knowing liberals as I do, that’s perfectly understandable. :(“ – Kathy, july 9, 2014 at 5:31pm (letter to Kathy)
where you’re asking about the bible’s truth. again, if not truth, then why do you say truth? and if not truth of it’s divine claims, then in what way do you mean true?
and really, it’s was pretty dumb to even say you weren’t talking about truth at all, even if we pretend you never specifically mentioned “truth” because asking which had more credentials wouldnt make any sense unless you were talking about its truth.
pretty sad kathy. you cant even fess up to your mistake after it’s been pointed out to you in this way, using your own words. so much pride, kathy. I hope jesus forgives you.
OMG, Kathy! The “trinity” is a made-up doctrine that was not even mentioned until the late second century, It was not taught by the early Christians and the word cannot be found anywhere in the bible.
It wasn’t until the late second century that Theophilus of Antioch in his Apology to Autolycus used the word trinity (Greek, trias) and said it included god, his word, and his wisdom. In the third century, Tertullian, a Latin theologian, wrote a treatise in which he definitely described the “trinity” as including the father, son, and spirit.
Over the next several years, church fathers (Hippolytus of Rome, Origen, Novatian) began to include and expand on the theology. Finally, Gregory (c. 213-c.270), a bishop in Asia Minor, wrote a Declaration of Faith which treated the Trinity as standard theological vocabulary. About a century later, in 325, the First Council of Nicaea established the doctrine as orthodoxy and made it a part of the Nicene Creed.
Although many Christian apologists believe the core aspect of the trinity is interwoven in scripture, other scholars believe the original Hebrew language does not denote a “uni-plural” god and it is not until the Greek scriptures (NT) that the idea of the trinity develops.
There is no proof OR evidence that the Genesis 3:22 is referring to the “the trinity.”
That crap about Big Daddy, Junior and the Holy Spook wasn’t even manufactured until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, anybody with a brain in their head knows that – sorry, forgot for a second to whom I was talking —
I went back and reread all those comments William posted. I see you are playing a subtle little word game.
You aren’t asking which any of us believes is true, just which one has the most evidence to support it’s truth. If you don’t understand how those two things are inextricably linked you have deficient comprehension skills. However, I suspect that you do know how those two things are inextricably linked.
What you fail to realize is that by prefacing all your questions about “evidence” as to which one offers the most COMPELLING evidence we are all going to answer ‘none’. If it were so COMPELLING we’d be compelled. And we aren’t.
“Kathy, interpretations are what you do when you are translating something. If you are sitting down all day copying one page of hebrew to another page of hebrew there is no need for interpretation. If you decide to change one hebrew word to another hebrew word that is a change. Early rabinic sources called these “scribal emendations”.
Dave, the KJV has been translated to the NIV. Both are in English. The need for the NIV was because the KJV was hard to understand in today’s English. Words were changed.
And it wasn’t to be deceptive or hide anything… it was to help understand the true meaning.
“If the twenty reasons I gave earlier did not exist and this passage from Deuteronomy was the only problem in the Bible I would still be a Christian. Even though it is troubling it would not be enough on it’s own to persuade me. It IS troubling though and I feel like you are trying to distract from it by focusing on the other, more subtle, references.”
It’s not troubling Dave, if you apply the surrounding and overall context of the Bible. You didn’t answer my question.. what other parts of the song supports your interpretation? The entire context of the song is about ONE God.. so your interpretation is not supported by the context, mine is.. the evangelical interpretation.
“You are trying to create a situation where my theory would not stand a chance. Either (A) They were never polytheistic and there are no traces, or (B) they were once polytheistic but they would have completely covered their tracks and left no traces. Bob Seidensticker is a Christian apologist with Cross Examined and he agrees with most of what I’ve said in this article including the old dating for the songs of moses.
If you want to point to the context of the old testament I would remind you that there are many examples of the Israelites going to worship Baal, Asherah and some other gods. If they knew that these were false gods why would they have gone and worshiped them?”
I’m not claiming that there was worship of multiple false gods before God revealed Himself to Abraham. And I’m not claiming that the Israelites never worshiped false gods afterwards. This is stated all throughout the OT. What I am denying is that there was an intentional deception by the priests way back in history to change to monotheism for personal gain.. or for any reason. There is no evidence for this and there is a multitude of witnessing and writings to support the God of the Bible as claimed from the time of Abraham.
“Ok, so, just as I asked earlier for other examples in the Bible of “multiple gods” that supports your claim /interpretation… and which now you dismiss those examples as meaning “false gods”, …again, I ask.. what other scripture in the Bible supports your interpretation of this. – Kathy
Ok what? Ok it looks troubling? I gave one other example from Deut. that was also changed. The other references are subtle and are sidetracking us from this passage. Can we just admit this passage is troubling?”
great, now that we have all Kathy’s word games cleared up,
please, someone get her to answer, “Kathy, can your pastor make good on his claim to prove the god of the bible exists by making fire rain down from the heavens and burn his sacrifice?”
and kathy, maybe ruth is right, maybe it’s because you constantly misuse words that we’re not answering your questions to your satisfaction.
for instance, i’m not a liberal, yet you seem to keep lumping me in that category.
but I find no evidence compelling for any religion. I find none of them to be true in their divine claims – i see quite the opposite.
do you argue with your god when he doesnt answer your questions? because you know, most christians just say that no answer is really a “no” answer. if you do that, why is it hard to understand this answer about your question, “I find none compelling, just as I find no red to be green or no tree to be mammalian.
what gets me is that you act as if it would be impossible for people thousands of years ago to make mistakes while correcting problems or editing text – but then you act as if it’s preposterous to expect a perfect god to write a book without error.
it’s the game Kathy always plays to keep everyone going, I can’t tell you how many times she’s written, “please show me in my exact words where I said“X”, and of course, the person will show her exactly in her own words were she said “X”, and then she will say, “oh, you prideful dishonest liberal with no objectivity, clearly what I meant was “Y”, stupid liberals.”
KATHY, I bet if you get Felon Keller to actually perform that great miracle, everyone here would most likely fall to their knees and worship the holy trinity. and bonus, they will admit you were right all along about liberals. so, be a sweetheart and go make that happen for us, will you. LOL
kay~ms said
February 15, 2009 at Sunday, February 15, 2009
Yes, you addressed them but I had further questions that I was hoping you would answer… the first point being that I didn’t understand your point about using the words “believe (or not) because”… you either know something as fact or you choose / decide to believe one way or the other… we don’t have any “facts” as to whether God exists or doesn’t exist… so in turn you / we must make a choice..and that choice is “because”… I don’t get your reasoning / point…
if anyone needs further proof that Kathy is just playing silly word games, and what she is doing here is what she does everywhere, wasting all of our damn time:
kay~ms said
February 15, 2009 at Sunday, February 15, 2009
Lawman.. your explanation doesn’t work… I’m not asking for “even more” explanation… I’m just asking for SPECIFIC, clear answers to my questions… either answer them or prove that they are invalid… OR give up because you don’t have an answer…
Resting one’s case means that you have nothing further…right? In this situation it means you can no longer argue my points, you don’t have an answer.
I’m still waiting for you to explain to me how you can justify your insistance that there is no God when there is no proof??
Daniel Dennett’s are a dime a dozen it seems… I guess if you grow a long grey beard, have writing skills, and a scientific mind… then you and your ‘theories’ are given credence… all you have to do is “branch off” from someone else’s previous theory… it’s ridiculous. And the best part of all… they get to walk around with their inflated egos…
kay~ms said
March 2, 2009 at Monday, March 2, 2009
You didn’t actually say that Rev. Smith reminded you of yourself? True.. but that is the impression that was made… among others…. That is another thing that the ‘intellectual’ Liberal likes to do ( and at least one Republican that I know of )… leave quotes and remarks that allude to their ’superior’ intellegence (directly and indirectly) and ‘flawless’ character without coming out and actually saying it… that way if anyone calls them out on it they can say… ” I didn’t actually say that “…. several people, actually, just about every Liberal that I’ve argued with here likes to do that… at least I have the conviction to just come out and PLAINLY say it when I feel like I’ve made the better point(s)… instead of trying to “sneak” in the last word by using someone else’s (words) to say that they’ve won. It’s not very convincing for one… just another tactic that is transparent and obvious…
Semantic disputes can result in the logical fallacy of equivocation. In politics, for example, semantic disputes can involve the meaning of words such as liberal, democrat, conservative, republican, progressive, free, welfare or socialist.[1]
Finding Truth 
“WHERE in my comments you posted with dates etc are there any contradictions?? Where is
the “dishonestly”??” – kathy
oh, i see. your direct comments are here. October 15, 2014 at 8:35 am
you should read the quotes to see the problem.
like here you say,
“You aren’t making sense.. yes, I said I didn’t ask which you believed to be the most true, I asked which you believed had the most evidence.” – Kathy, October 14, 22014 at 4:43pm (open conversation part 3)
And
“Nope, sorry William, this isn’t going to work.. my question doesn’t even ask which religion you think is “divine”. And I just don’t believe you aren’t comprehending my question.” – Kathy, July 30, 2014 (Letter to kathy part 3)
saying that you arent asking about truth, but about evidence.
Compared to:
“it’s a simple question that requires a simple answer.. which religion has the most evidence aka credentials to support it’s truth or claimed truth?” – Kathy, july 9, 2014 at 2:00pm (letter to kathy)
And these:
All of this is EVIDENCE that CORROBORATES the claimed truth of the Bible and
the existence of God.” – Kathy, july 9, 2014 at 10:04pm (letter to kathy)
“Yes, while I do claim that you all are ignorant of the reality that evidence for Christianity IS complelling, that’s NOT the ignorance I’m accusing you all of presently.. THAT ignorance would be for deliberately ignoring/ refusing to acknowledge the unopposed FACT that Christianity has the most evidence for it’s truth. You’re getting your ignorances mixed up kc.. which, knowing liberals as I do, that’s perfectly understandable. :(“ – Kathy, july 9, 2014 at 5:31pm (letter to Kathy)
where you’re asking about the bible’s truth. again, if not truth, then why do you say truth? and if not truth of it’s divine claims, then in what way do you mean true?
and really, it’s was pretty dumb to even say you weren’t talking about truth at all, even if we pretend you never specifically mentioned “truth” because asking which had more credentials wouldnt make any sense unless you were talking about its truth.
pretty sad kathy. you cant even fess up to your mistake after it’s been pointed out to you in this way, using your own words. so much pride, kathy. I hope jesus forgives you.
LikeLike
OMG, Kathy! The “trinity” is a made-up doctrine that was not even mentioned until the late second century, It was not taught by the early Christians and the word cannot be found anywhere in the bible.
It wasn’t until the late second century that Theophilus of Antioch in his Apology to Autolycus used the word trinity (Greek, trias) and said it included god, his word, and his wisdom. In the third century, Tertullian, a Latin theologian, wrote a treatise in which he definitely described the “trinity” as including the father, son, and spirit.
Over the next several years, church fathers (Hippolytus of Rome, Origen, Novatian) began to include and expand on the theology. Finally, Gregory (c. 213-c.270), a bishop in Asia Minor, wrote a Declaration of Faith which treated the Trinity as standard theological vocabulary. About a century later, in 325, the First Council of Nicaea established the doctrine as orthodoxy and made it a part of the Nicene Creed.
Although many Christian apologists believe the core aspect of the trinity is interwoven in scripture, other scholars believe the original Hebrew language does not denote a “uni-plural” god and it is not until the Greek scriptures (NT) that the idea of the trinity develops.
There is no proof OR evidence that the Genesis 3:22 is referring to the “the trinity.”
LikeLike
“The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.. the Trinity.”
That crap about Big Daddy, Junior and the Holy Spook wasn’t even manufactured until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, anybody with a brain in their head knows that – sorry, forgot for a second to whom I was talking —
LikeLike
Kathy,
I went back and reread all those comments William posted. I see you are playing a subtle little word game.
You aren’t asking which any of us believes is true, just which one has the most evidence to support it’s truth. If you don’t understand how those two things are inextricably linked you have deficient comprehension skills. However, I suspect that you do know how those two things are inextricably linked.
What you fail to realize is that by prefacing all your questions about “evidence” as to which one offers the most COMPELLING evidence we are all going to answer ‘none’. If it were so COMPELLING we’d be compelled. And we aren’t.
LikeLike
Kathy has never actually read the bible.
LikeLike
“The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.. the Trinity.” – kathy
the son and spirit werent mentioned until the NT. The OT had plenty of references to other gods. do you even read your bible?
LikeLike
Dave
“Kathy, interpretations are what you do when you are translating something. If you are sitting down all day copying one page of hebrew to another page of hebrew there is no need for interpretation. If you decide to change one hebrew word to another hebrew word that is a change. Early rabinic sources called these “scribal emendations”.
Dave, the KJV has been translated to the NIV. Both are in English. The need for the NIV was because the KJV was hard to understand in today’s English. Words were changed.
And it wasn’t to be deceptive or hide anything… it was to help understand the true meaning.
“If the twenty reasons I gave earlier did not exist and this passage from Deuteronomy was the only problem in the Bible I would still be a Christian. Even though it is troubling it would not be enough on it’s own to persuade me. It IS troubling though and I feel like you are trying to distract from it by focusing on the other, more subtle, references.”
It’s not troubling Dave, if you apply the surrounding and overall context of the Bible. You didn’t answer my question.. what other parts of the song supports your interpretation? The entire context of the song is about ONE God.. so your interpretation is not supported by the context, mine is.. the evangelical interpretation.
“You are trying to create a situation where my theory would not stand a chance. Either (A) They were never polytheistic and there are no traces, or (B) they were once polytheistic but they would have completely covered their tracks and left no traces. Bob Seidensticker is a Christian apologist with Cross Examined and he agrees with most of what I’ve said in this article including the old dating for the songs of moses.
If you want to point to the context of the old testament I would remind you that there are many examples of the Israelites going to worship Baal, Asherah and some other gods. If they knew that these were false gods why would they have gone and worshiped them?”
I’m not claiming that there was worship of multiple false gods before God revealed Himself to Abraham. And I’m not claiming that the Israelites never worshiped false gods afterwards. This is stated all throughout the OT. What I am denying is that there was an intentional deception by the priests way back in history to change to monotheism for personal gain.. or for any reason. There is no evidence for this and there is a multitude of witnessing and writings to support the God of the Bible as claimed from the time of Abraham.
“Ok, so, just as I asked earlier for other examples in the Bible of “multiple gods” that supports your claim /interpretation… and which now you dismiss those examples as meaning “false gods”, …again, I ask.. what other scripture in the Bible supports your interpretation of this. – Kathy
Ok what? Ok it looks troubling? I gave one other example from Deut. that was also changed. The other references are subtle and are sidetracking us from this passage. Can we just admit this passage is troubling?”
Again, I refer you to this:
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/sons-of-israel-or-sons-of-god-in-deuteronomy-328
LikeLike
great, now that we have all Kathy’s word games cleared up,
please, someone get her to answer,
“Kathy, can your pastor make good on his claim to prove the god of the bible exists by making fire rain down from the heavens and burn his sacrifice?”
LikeLike
just like the many translations of the buybull, there are many translations to Kathy’s comments. both equally bullshit.
LikeLike
and kathy, maybe ruth is right, maybe it’s because you constantly misuse words that we’re not answering your questions to your satisfaction.
for instance, i’m not a liberal, yet you seem to keep lumping me in that category.
but I find no evidence compelling for any religion. I find none of them to be true in their divine claims – i see quite the opposite.
do you argue with your god when he doesnt answer your questions? because you know, most christians just say that no answer is really a “no” answer. if you do that, why is it hard to understand this answer about your question, “I find none compelling, just as I find no red to be green or no tree to be mammalian.
LikeLike
http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/hollywood-liberalism-knows-no-boundries-exhibit-1-the-movie-doubt/#comment-46572
oh, arch, lol
LikeLike
Kathy is antisemantic
LikeLike
Kathy is antisemantic
I disagree. She’s all about the semantics.
LikeLike
“Kathy is antisemantic” paul
it’s okay, so was jesus…
ur, no, I’m thinking hitler. sorry.
LikeLike
…a pun by the way – in case anyone begins to correct me.
LikeLike
kathy,
what gets me is that you act as if it would be impossible for people thousands of years ago to make mistakes while correcting problems or editing text – but then you act as if it’s preposterous to expect a perfect god to write a book without error.
how do you explain this?
LikeLike
it’s the game Kathy always plays to keep everyone going, I can’t tell you how many times she’s written,
“please show me in my exact words where I said “X”, and of course, the person will show her exactly in her own words were she said “X”, and then she will say, “oh, you prideful dishonest liberal with no objectivity, clearly what I meant was “Y”, stupid liberals.”
LikeLike
let’s ask Kathy the real question, can her pastor prove god by making fire rain from the sky like he claims
LikeLike
se·man·tic
/səˈman(t)ik/
adjective
adjective: semantic
relating to meaning in language or logic.
LikeLike
KATHY, I bet if you get Felon Keller to actually perform that great miracle, everyone here would most likely fall to their knees and worship the holy trinity. and bonus, they will admit you were right all along about liberals. so, be a sweetheart and go make that happen for us, will you. LOL
LikeLike
as usual Kathy cowards out,
LikeLike
antisemantics
kay~ms said
February 15, 2009 at Sunday, February 15, 2009
Yes, you addressed them but I had further questions that I was hoping you would answer… the first point being that I didn’t understand your point about using the words “believe (or not) because”… you either know something as fact or you choose / decide to believe one way or the other… we don’t have any “facts” as to whether God exists or doesn’t exist… so in turn you / we must make a choice..and that choice is “because”… I don’t get your reasoning / point…
if anyone needs further proof that Kathy is just playing silly word games, and what she is doing here is what she does everywhere, wasting all of our damn time:
http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/the-case-of-the-missing-link-where-are-darwins-predicted-fossils/
LikeLike
kay~ms said
February 15, 2009 at Sunday, February 15, 2009
Lawman.. your explanation doesn’t work… I’m not asking for “even more” explanation… I’m just asking for SPECIFIC, clear answers to my questions… either answer them or prove that they are invalid… OR give up because you don’t have an answer…
Resting one’s case means that you have nothing further…right? In this situation it means you can no longer argue my points, you don’t have an answer.
I’m still waiting for you to explain to me how you can justify your insistance that there is no God when there is no proof??
Daniel Dennett’s are a dime a dozen it seems… I guess if you grow a long grey beard, have writing skills, and a scientific mind… then you and your ‘theories’ are given credence… all you have to do is “branch off” from someone else’s previous theory… it’s ridiculous. And the best part of all… they get to walk around with their inflated egos…
LikeLike
kay~ms said
March 2, 2009 at Monday, March 2, 2009
You didn’t actually say that Rev. Smith reminded you of yourself? True.. but that is the impression that was made… among others…. That is another thing that the ‘intellectual’ Liberal likes to do ( and at least one Republican that I know of )… leave quotes and remarks that allude to their ’superior’ intellegence (directly and indirectly) and ‘flawless’ character without coming out and actually saying it… that way if anyone calls them out on it they can say… ” I didn’t actually say that “…. several people, actually, just about every Liberal that I’ve argued with here likes to do that… at least I have the conviction to just come out and PLAINLY say it when I feel like I’ve made the better point(s)… instead of trying to “sneak” in the last word by using someone else’s (words) to say that they’ve won. It’s not very convincing for one… just another tactic that is transparent and obvious…
listen to this dumb bitch!
LikeLike
Just in case you aren’t familiar with the terminology, Kathy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute
Particularly poignant is this phrase:
Semantic disputes can result in the logical fallacy of equivocation. In politics, for example, semantic disputes can involve the meaning of words such as liberal, democrat, conservative, republican, progressive, free, welfare or socialist.[1]
LikeLike