Low Probability that god raised someone from the dead

[floo]

If the deity is able to raise someone from the dead, why doesn't it get its finger out and do something useful like feeding the starving for instance?

I do find your blinkered thinking sad, Floo.  As I've said before, humanity was made to be God's agents in this world.  They have God-given brains, skills, limbs, etc. which they use to act on God's behalf.  That is what my wife and I were doing whilst working in Nepal during the 1990s, what I do when I'm teaching, or debating over how best to get something done at TWAM, or the railway.

Having someone killed in a horrific way, just to have them resurrected three days later appears to be the work of the sickest psycho ever, if it actually happened, which is highly unlikely!

I find your understanding of history to be sadly lacking.  So, here is a quick reminder.  Traditionally, when one did something wrong, death or exclusion (which often resulted in death) were the standard punishments especially in nomadic societies.

Societies then moved to a half-way position whereby if you did something wrong that wasn't beyond a certain level of evil, you were allowed to live but had to sacrifice an animal - a scapegoat.  In some cases, you would ritualistically transfer your guilt onto that sheep or goat and it would be led out from the camp or settlement ( and its familial flock/herd) and left to fend for itself. In other cases, having transferred your guilt to it, the animal would be slaughtered and the blood used to indicate that you were forgiven.  In some parts of the world this continues to this day.  By allowing himself, in the form of Jesus, to be killed (sacrificed) in the way he was and then rising from the grave showed that God had made all that bloodshed irrelevent. I accept that you don't believe this, but it doesn't mean that it didn't happen, and that humans who have lived since that event have had the opportunity to benefit from it should they so wish (something you clearly don't)

Hope I think your thinking is equally blinkered. How anyone can see anything good in the idea of the deity sacrificing his supposed 'son' in such a terrible way, beggars belief. It is a very sick concept. If humanity really needed saving, an omnipotent deity could surely have come up with a much less bloodthirsty way of achieving it!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the deity is able to raise someone from the dead, why doesn't it get its finger out and do something useful like feeding the starving for instance?

I do find your blinkered thinking sad, Floo.  As I've said before, humanity was made to be God's agents in this world.  They have God-given brains, skills, limbs, etc. which they use to act on God's behalf.  That is what my wife and I were doing whilst working in Nepal during the 1990s, what I do when I'm teaching, or debating over how best to get something done at TWAM, or the railway.

Having someone killed in a horrific way, just to have them resurrected three days later appears to be the work of the sickest psycho ever, if it actually happened, which is highly unlikely!

I find your understanding of history to be sadly lacking.  So, here is a quick reminder.  Traditionally, when one did something wrong, death or exclusion (which often resulted in death) were the standard punishments especially in nomadic societies.

Societies then moved to a half-way position whereby if you did something wrong that wasn't beyond a certain level of evil, you were allowed to live but had to sacrifice an animal - a scapegoat.  In some cases, you would ritualistically transfer your guilt onto that sheep or goat and it would be led out from the camp or settlement ( and its familial flock/herd) and left to fend for itself. In other cases, having transferred your guilt to it, the animal would be slaughtered and the blood used to indicate that you were forgiven.  In some parts of the world this continues to this day.  By allowing himself, in the form of Jesus, to be killed (sacrificed) in the way he was and then rising from the grave showed that God had made all that bloodshed irrelevent. I accept that you don't believe this, but it doesn't mean that it didn't happen, and that humans who have lived since that event have had the opportunity to benefit from it should they so wish (something you clearly don't)

Hope I think your thinking is equally blinkered. How anyone can see anything good in the idea of the deity sacrificing his supposed 'son' in such a terrible way, beggars belief. It is a very sick concept. If humanity really needed saving, an omnipotent deity could surely have come up with a much less bloodthirsty way of achieving it!

Murder is always ''bloodthirsty'' Floo unless you are suggesting that the authorities could have been more ''Agatha Christie'' about it. That would make you look completely shallow. In any case I believe it was the Romans and not God who came up with crucifixion.

[floo]

If the deity is able to raise someone from the dead, why doesn't it get its finger out and do something useful like feeding the starving for instance?

I do find your blinkered thinking sad, Floo.  As I've said before, humanity was made to be God's agents in this world.  They have God-given brains, skills, limbs, etc. which they use to act on God's behalf.  That is what my wife and I were doing whilst working in Nepal during the 1990s, what I do when I'm teaching, or debating over how best to get something done at TWAM, or the railway.

Having someone killed in a horrific way, just to have them resurrected three days later appears to be the work of the sickest psycho ever, if it actually happened, which is highly unlikely!

I find your understanding of history to be sadly lacking.  So, here is a quick reminder.  Traditionally, when one did something wrong, death or exclusion (which often resulted in death) were the standard punishments especially in nomadic societies.

Societies then moved to a half-way position whereby if you did something wrong that wasn't beyond a certain level of evil, you were allowed to live but had to sacrifice an animal - a scapegoat.  In some cases, you would ritualistically transfer your guilt onto that sheep or goat and it would be led out from the camp or settlement ( and its familial flock/herd) and left to fend for itself. In other cases, having transferred your guilt to it, the animal would be slaughtered and the blood used to indicate that you were forgiven.  In some parts of the world this continues to this day.  By allowing himself, in the form of Jesus, to be killed (sacrificed) in the way he was and then rising from the grave showed that God had made all that bloodshed irrelevent. I accept that you don't believe this, but it doesn't mean that it didn't happen, and that humans who have lived since that event have had the opportunity to benefit from it should they so wish (something you clearly don't)

Hope I think your thinking is equally blinkered. How anyone can see anything good in the idea of the deity sacrificing his supposed 'son' in such a terrible way, beggars belief. It is a very sick concept. If humanity really needed saving, an omnipotent deity could surely have come up with a much less bloodthirsty way of achieving it!

Murder is always ''bloodthirsty'' Floo unless you are suggesting that the authorities could have been more ''Agatha Christie'' about it. That would make you look completely shallow. In any case I believe it was the Romans and not God who came up with crucifixion.

Precisely, nothing to do with any deity or 'saving' humanity!

[Hope]

Hope I think your thinking is equally blinkered. How anyone can see anything good in the idea of the deity sacrificing his supposed 'son' in such a terrible way, beggars belief. It is a very sick concept. If humanity really needed saving, an omnipotent deity could surely have come up with a much less bloodthirsty way of achieving it!

Whilst crucifixion is a brutal form of death penalty, it is remarkably low on the 'bloodthirsty' scale.  I'd put beheading or being hung, drawn and quartered far higher on any such scale of bloodthirstiness. 

Your post also highlights the fact that, as someone who lives in a society that has been based on no longer needing animal sacrifice for sins as a result of the very event you are talking about for centuries, you have no idea just how vile the processes of animal sacrifice are.  Fot the second three+ years of our time in Nepal, we lived within 150 yards of the main Hindu temple in Pokhara.  At the peak animal sacrifice periods, the noise, stench and quantity of blood running down the open drains was phenomenol.  It is only once you have experienced that that one realises how comparatively low on any scale of bloodthirstiness crucifixion comes. That's not to say that it wasn't a horrendous form of punishment; it was.

[Hope]

Precisely, nothing to do with any deity or 'saving' humanity!

The form of execution may have been human, but - within a context whereby animal sacrifice was the norm - the idea of some form of sacrifice on a once for all basis makes sense.  That it was God who chose to be that sacrifice makes even more sense when one remembers that he had made humanity to be in relationship with him, but that that relationship had been damaged, makes even more sense.

As a parent, I am sure that you understand the idea that - when the relationship between parent and child is damaged - 'sacrifice' has to be made on both sides in order for it to be re-established.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the deity is able to raise someone from the dead, why doesn't it get its finger out and do something useful like feeding the starving for instance?

I do find your blinkered thinking sad, Floo.  As I've said before, humanity was made to be God's agents in this world.  They have God-given brains, skills, limbs, etc. which they use to act on God's behalf.  That is what my wife and I were doing whilst working in Nepal during the 1990s, what I do when I'm teaching, or debating over how best to get something done at TWAM, or the railway.

Having someone killed in a horrific way, just to have them resurrected three days later appears to be the work of the sickest psycho ever, if it actually happened, which is highly unlikely!

I find your understanding of history to be sadly lacking.  So, here is a quick reminder.  Traditionally, when one did something wrong, death or exclusion (which often resulted in death) were the standard punishments especially in nomadic societies.

Societies then moved to a half-way position whereby if you did something wrong that wasn't beyond a certain level of evil, you were allowed to live but had to sacrifice an animal - a scapegoat.  In some cases, you would ritualistically transfer your guilt onto that sheep or goat and it would be led out from the camp or settlement ( and its familial flock/herd) and left to fend for itself. In other cases, having transferred your guilt to it, the animal would be slaughtered and the blood used to indicate that you were forgiven.  In some parts of the world this continues to this day.  By allowing himself, in the form of Jesus, to be killed (sacrificed) in the way he was and then rising from the grave showed that God had made all that bloodshed irrelevent. I accept that you don't believe this, but it doesn't mean that it didn't happen, and that humans who have lived since that event have had the opportunity to benefit from it should they so wish (something you clearly don't)

Hope I think your thinking is equally blinkered. How anyone can see anything good in the idea of the deity sacrificing his supposed 'son' in such a terrible way, beggars belief. It is a very sick concept. If humanity really needed saving, an omnipotent deity could surely have come up with a much less bloodthirsty way of achieving it!

Murder is always ''bloodthirsty'' Floo unless you are suggesting that the authorities could have been more ''Agatha Christie'' about it. That would make you look completely shallow. In any case I believe it was the Romans and not God who came up with crucifixion.

Precisely, nothing to do with any deity or 'saving' humanity!

Except for the small matter of him being the one getting crucified.

[floo]

Precisely, nothing to do with any deity or 'saving' humanity!

The form of execution may have been human, but - within a context whereby animal sacrifice was the norm - the idea of some form of sacrifice on a once for all basis makes sense.  That it was God who chose to be that sacrifice makes even more sense when one remembers that he had made humanity to be in relationship with him, but that that relationship had been damaged, makes even more sense.

As a parent, I am sure that you understand the idea that - when the relationship between parent and child is damaged - 'sacrifice' has to be made on both sides in order for it to be re-established.

What sane person/entity would sacrifice their own child? If a sacrifice was needed the parent would/should sacrifice themselves! The deity supposedly created human nature so if it went pear shaped it only had itself to blame!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Precisely, nothing to do with any deity or 'saving' humanity!

The form of execution may have been human, but - within a context whereby animal sacrifice was the norm - the idea of some form of sacrifice on a once for all basis makes sense.  That it was God who chose to be that sacrifice makes even more sense when one remembers that he had made humanity to be in relationship with him, but that that relationship had been damaged, makes even more sense.

As a parent, I am sure that you understand the idea that - when the relationship between parent and child is damaged - 'sacrifice' has to be made on both sides in order for it to be re-established.

What sane person/entity would sacrifice their own child? If a sacrifice was needed the parent would/should sacrifice themselves! The deity supposedly created human nature so if it went pear shaped it only had itself to blame!

Since the father is in the son and the son in the father I would guess that it is both self sacrifice and saying goodbye to one's child as he voluntarily goes to sacrifice himself for the greater good.

[BashfulAnthony]

Precisely, nothing to do with any deity or 'saving' humanity!

The form of execution may have been human, but - within a context whereby animal sacrifice was the norm - the idea of some form of sacrifice on a once for all basis makes sense.  That it was God who chose to be that sacrifice makes even more sense when one remembers that he had made humanity to be in relationship with him, but that that relationship had been damaged, makes even more sense.

As a parent, I am sure that you understand the idea that - when the relationship between parent and child is damaged - 'sacrifice' has to be made on both sides in order for it to be re-established.

What sane person/entity would sacrifice their own child? If a sacrifice was needed the parent would/should sacrifice themselves! The deity supposedly created human nature so if it went pear shaped it only had itself to blame!

Rubbish!  If your child went "pear-shaped,"  it would not be your fault; at least not likely.

[floo]

Precisely, nothing to do with any deity or 'saving' humanity!

The form of execution may have been human, but - within a context whereby animal sacrifice was the norm - the idea of some form of sacrifice on a once for all basis makes sense.  That it was God who chose to be that sacrifice makes even more sense when one remembers that he had made humanity to be in relationship with him, but that that relationship had been damaged, makes even more sense.

As a parent, I am sure that you understand the idea that - when the relationship between parent and child is damaged - 'sacrifice' has to be made on both sides in order for it to be re-established.

What sane person/entity would sacrifice their own child? If a sacrifice was needed the parent would/should sacrifice themselves! The deity supposedly created human nature so if it went pear shaped it only had itself to blame!

Since the father is in the son and the son in the father I would guess that it is both self sacrifice and saying goodbye to one's child as he voluntarily goes to sacrifice himself for the greater good.

There is NO verifiable evidence to support Jesus being anything but mere human like the rest of us, certainly not a deity.

[jeremyp]

Your post also highlights the fact that, as someone who lives in a society that has been based on no longer needing animal sacrifice for sins as a result of the very event you are talking about for centuries, you have no idea just how vile the processes of animal sacrifice are.

Our society has never needed animal sacrifice for sins.  The reason people don't do it anymore is because we understand it is a pointless exercise.

Furthermore, the Jewish custom of sacrificing a lamb for Pesach was really no more vile than their ordinary methods of slaughter.

[jeremyp]

What sane person/entity would sacrifice their own child?

It wasn't really a sacrifice.  Jesus didn't stay permanently dead.  God would have known that before he started.  It's a sacrifice in the same way as me giving you a cheque for £50 and then cancelling it before you cash it is a gift.

ETA:  that last point is only true if the Christians are right, of course.  In reality Jesus was executed and stayed dead.

[Hope]

What sane person/entity would sacrifice their own child? If a sacrifice was needed the parent would/should sacrifice themselves! The deity supposedly created human nature so if it went pear shaped it only had itself to blame!

Finally, Floo has caught on.  As I - and others - have said many times before, Jesus and the Father are one, so by allowing Jesus to be killed, God the Father was allowing himself to be killed.

[Hope]

There is NO (scientifically) verifiable evidence to support Jesus being anything but mere human like the rest of us, certainly not a deity.

FIFY, Floo.  Some of us don't regard science as the be-all and end-all of life.

[Leonard James]

Finally, Floo has caught on.  As I - and others - have said many times before, Jesus and the Father are one, so by allowing Jesus to be killed, God the Father was allowing himself to be killed.

Really? So if "God" was dead and Jesus was dead, how did they arrange to come back to life again?

[floo]

What sane person/entity would sacrifice their own child? If a sacrifice was needed the parent would/should sacrifice themselves! The deity supposedly created human nature so if it went pear shaped it only had itself to blame!

Finally, Floo has caught on.  As I - and others - have said many times before, Jesus and the Father are one, so by allowing Jesus to be killed, God the Father was allowing himself to be killed.

RUBBISH Jesus was a HUMAN with faults and failings, as well as some good points, not a deity. That much is clear if any of the stuff he is supposed to have spouted was correctly reported.

[Hope]

RUBBISH Jesus was a HUMAN with faults and failings, as well as some good points, not a deity. That much is clear if any of the stuff he is supposed to have spouted was correctly reported.

Floo, you are fully entitled to hold such a belief; however, I and others here are equally entitled to disagree with you and to ask you for the evidence that supports your belief.  In fact, you have been asked for that evidence on a number of occasions.  Whereas, when you ask us for evidence for our belief we provide it and leave it for you to accept or reject, you have NEVER even attempted to provide any.  I know which attitude I trust more.

[floo]

RUBBISH Jesus was a HUMAN with faults and failings, as well as some good points, not a deity. That much is clear if any of the stuff he is supposed to have spouted was correctly reported.

Floo, you are fully entitled to hold such a belief; however, I and others here are equally entitled to disagree with you and to ask you for the evidence that supports your belief.  In fact, you have been asked for that evidence on a number of occasions.  Whereas, when you ask us for evidence for our belief we provide it and leave it for you to accept or reject, you have NEVER even attempted to provide any.  I know which attitude I trust more.

Hope you have been asked to supply verifiable evidence to back up your claims and have failed to do so!

[Shaker]

RUBBISH Jesus was a HUMAN with faults and failings, as well as some good points, not a deity. That much is clear if any of the stuff he is supposed to have spouted was correctly reported.

Floo, you are fully entitled to hold such a belief; however, I and others here are equally entitled to disagree with you and to ask you for the evidence that supports your belief.

You probably won't be amazed to learn that this is yet another example of your favourite fallacy, the appeal to or argument from ignorance. Men exist and conform to the laws of physics; advance a case that at least one man existed who didn't and you've just assumed the burden of proof.

[Hope]

Hope you have been asked to supply verifiable evidence to back up your claims and have failed to do so!

Floo, I and the other Christians here have been asked to supply verifiable evidence and we have done so.  OK, I accept that your definition of 'verifiable' doesn't match that of myself and others, but then - as I said to Shaker on a different thread - we are dealing with life from very different perspectives.  I do not believe that scientific verification 9of great value though it is)  is the be-all and end-all of life; you do.

On the other hand, you haven't even attempted to provide any evidence for your beliefs - whichever understanding of verifiable evidence' you happen to choose - despite being asked to provide it on numerous occasions.  All you have done is make unsupported statements (some of which illustrate how limited your understanding of, for instance the Bible, is).  As I hope you will accept, you have done this on this and other forums like this that we have shared membership of.

[jeremyp]

I and the other Christians here have been asked to supply verifiable evidence and we have done so.

Did you know that repeating a lie often enough doesn't really make it come true?

OK, I accept that your definition of 'verifiable' doesn't match that of myself and others

You mean your definition of "verifiable" doesn't make any sense.

[ippy]

Just had a quick read through the last couple of pages 7 and 8, really interesting

Love this forum it's so fascinating, intriguing and almost unbelievable, the amount of people that still go for these  irrational beliefs; J P's post 195 sums it up in a nutshell, emphasis on the nut.

ippy 

[Hope]

Love this forum it's so fascinating, intriguing and almost unbelievable, the amount of people that still go for these  irrational beliefs; J P's post 195 sums it up in a nutshell, emphasis on the nut.

I've often wondered about the irrational beliefs, ippy.  Of course, I have a very different, probably broader understanding of the term than you will have.

[Hope]

Did you know that repeating a lie often enough doesn't really make it come true?

That's what I and others have been trying to get the likes of you and Floo to appreciate.  I'm glad that you, at least, have got that - though whether getting it will make any difference we will have to wait and see.

You mean your definition of "verifiable" doesn't make any sense.

Only from a purely scientific perspective like yours.

[jeremyp]

Did you know that repeating a lie often enough doesn't really make it come true?

That's what I and others have been trying to get the likes of you and Floo to appreciate.

Wrong.  You have repeatedly claimed you have verifiable evidence without actually having it.  Your claim is a lie and it's not going to get true with repetition.

You mean your definition of "verifiable" doesn't make any sense.

Only from a purely scientific perspective like yours.

What other perspective for verifiable evidence is there?  If other people can verify a piece of evidence, it is, by definition, scientific.