Low Probability that god raised someone from the dead

[ippy]

Another drubbing Hope, no need to worry about the brownie points there's no one there to award them or take em away; well there's no evidence to indicate there is.

ippy

[jeremyp]

that reminds me, earlier you were pretending to believe that finding a verse in the OT means you have found a statement of Christian doctrine.

Nope.  I'm pretty sure that a lot of the OT contradicts Christian doctrine.

In response to this I asked you whether you think Christian doctrine forbids us to eat pork.

Didn't see that.  Why do you ignore the laws about clean and unclean animals?

[jeremyp]

As for "Hope couldn't outline a dog turd if Rover shat it on his sketch pad",

I was pretty pleased about that.  I will be recycling it in other contexts (not involving this board).

I have yet to see you or anyone else come up with a rational alternative to what I have said.

The rational alternative is that the OT, the NT and Christian doctrine are all the works of men and your god is fiction.

[cyberman]

that reminds me, earlier you were pretending to believe that finding a verse in the OT means you have found a statement of Christian doctrine.

Nope.  I'm pretty sure that a lot of the OT contradicts Christian doctrine.

In response to this I asked you whether you think Christian doctrine forbids us to eat pork.

Didn't see that.  Why do you ignore the laws about clean and unclean animals?

Mostly because I am not Jewish

[jeremyp]

Well, there is documentary evidence

Just as there is documentary evidence that Harry Potter defeated Lord Voldemort.  Would Sirius Black (for example) have given his life for a lie?

but of course you and others here regard that as flawed because it supports an understanding of the universe that you don't agree with.

An understanding of the Universe in which a dead body can break the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  That isn't really an understanding of the Universe, it's a fairy story.

[jeremyp]

Hope and others provide evidence that some here do not regard as evidence because of the limited view of the universe that they hold.

No, because it cannot be verified.

By the way, it is you with your superstitious bollocks^* that has a limited view of the Universe.

^*Not a reference to your actual bollocks.

[jeremyp]

Mostly because I am not Jewish

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law.  It's amusing that Christians don't think the law applies to them.

[cyberman]

Mostly because I am not Jewish

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law.  It's amusing that Christians don't think the law applies to them.

Jesus was Jewish. I'm not. The Law doesn't apply to me - why should it?

[jeremyp]

Mostly because I am not Jewish

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law.  It's amusing that Christians don't think the law applies to them.

Jesus was Jewish. I'm not. The Law doesn't apply to me - why should it?

So all that stuff about abominating gays doesn't apply to you?  I wish you'd tell all the other Christians that.

[cyberman]

So all that stuff about abominating gays doesn't apply to you?

Of course not

So all that stuff about abominating gays doesn't apply to you?  I wish you'd tell all the other Christians that.

What makes you think I don't? (Well, not all of them, obviously!)

[jeremyp]

What makes you think I don't? (Well, not all of them, obviously!)

A lot of them don't seem to have got the message.

[cyberman]

What makes you think I don't? (Well, not all of them, obviously!)

A lot of them don't seem to have got the message.

No! Sadly me banging on about it doesn't seem to have done the trick.

[Shaker]

That's religion for you.

[Hope]

Another drubbing Hope, no need to worry about the brownie points there's no one there to award them or take em away; well there's no evidence to indicate there is.

ippy

Sorry if you feel you've had a drubbing, ippy. 

[Hope]

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law.  It's amusing that Christians don't think the law applies to them.

That's right, jeremy, he didn't come to abolish it; he came to fulfil (complete) it.  As such, it no longer applies to Christians as the law was the foundation of the relationship between God and the Jews.  Christians have a different relationship with God - hence the New Testament (Covenant).  As I'm sure you'll agree new covenants supersede old ones.

So all that stuff about abominating gays doesn't apply to you?  I wish you'd tell all the other Christians that.

Where, within the New Covenant, is there anything about 'abominating gays', jeremy?  I accept that there are a small number of so-called Christians who seem to have added this practice to their Bibles - eg Westboro Baptist - but I think you'll find that, even in the past, very few abominated the individual, abominating the behaviour instead. 

This approach is, in part, why so many of the efforts to rehabilitate prisoners run by Christian groups have a higher than average success rate - the person remains of value; the behaviour is what is questioned.

[Leonard James]

Where, within the New Covenant, is there anything about 'abominating gays', jeremy?  I accept that there are a small number of so-called Christians who seem to have added this practice to their Bibles - eg Westboro Baptist - but I think you'll find that, even in the past, very few abominated the individual, abominating the behaviour instead. 

So where in the NT does it say that we should abominate the behaviour?

[ippy]

Another drubbing Hope, no need to worry about the brownie points there's no one there to award them or take em away; well there's no evidence to indicate there is.

ippy

Sorry if you feel you've had a drubbing, ippy.

I can understand your reluctance to accept that you've had another drubbing Hope, they're becoming a rather frequent occurrence for you just lately, I can appreciate this difficulty of yours.

ippy
 

[Andy]

You conveniently forget that to NOT believe something is the default position.

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?  Your default position may be to NOT believe something, but was it always so?  Is it the default position for everyone?

As far as classical/standard logic is concerned, it's either use non-belief as the default position or don't use logic. To believe things off the bat by default is to run into inevitable contradictions, which violates the law of non-contradiction.

[jeremyp]

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law.  It's amusing that Christians don't think the law applies to them.

That's right, jeremy, he didn't come to abolish it; he came to fulfil (complete) it.  As such, it no longer applies to Christians

Another word for a law that no longer applies is "abolished".

[Hope]

Another word for a law that no longer applies is "abolished".

Only if it no longer applies to anyone.  Unfortunately, imo, most Jews have not understood that the law has been fulfilled.

[Dicky Underpants]

Where, within the New Covenant, is there anything about 'abominating gays', jeremy?  I accept that there are a small number of so-called Christians who seem to have added this practice to their Bibles - eg Westboro Baptist - but I think you'll find that, even in the past, very few abominated the individual, abominating the behaviour instead. 

So where in the NT does it say that we should abominate the behaviour?

I think the general idea is expressed in Romans 1, Len (verse 27 in particular in the quoted passage below:

25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26]
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,


[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
[28]
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.


[29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
[30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
[31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[32] Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

For me, this whole chapter is one of the most obnoxious of the writings generally agreed as being definitely by Paul (there are other equally obnoxious passages in letters not generally credited to him). This was apparently the last epistle he wrote, though unfortunately it appears first in order in the NT - so that people inclined to be homophobic bigots get in the mood before they read anything more - or perhaps don't bother to read any further, since they've got enough ammunition to keep them going for quite a long while. "God hates fags - Hallelujah"

[Leonard James]

Where, within the New Covenant, is there anything about 'abominating gays', jeremy?  I accept that there are a small number of so-called Christians who seem to have added this practice to their Bibles - eg Westboro Baptist - but I think you'll find that, even in the past, very few abominated the individual, abominating the behaviour instead. 

So where in the NT does it say that we should abominate the behaviour?

I think the general idea is expressed in Romans 1, Len (verse 27 in particular in the quoted passage below:

25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26]
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,


[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
[28]
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.


[29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
[30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
[31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[32] Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

For me, this whole chapter is one of the most obnoxious of the writings generally agreed as being definitely by Paul (there are other equally obnoxious passages in letters not generally credited to him). This was apparently the last epistle he wrote, though unfortunately it appears first in order in the NT - so that people inclined to be homophobic bigots get in the mood before they read anything more - or perhaps don't bother to read any further, since they've got enough ammunition to keep them going for quite a long while. "God hates fags - Hallelujah"

I see, thank you. So it was nothing Jesus said, just Paul.

He certainly sounds more like a closet case! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where, within the New Covenant, is there anything about 'abominating gays', jeremy?  I accept that there are a small number of so-called Christians who seem to have added this practice to their Bibles - eg Westboro Baptist - but I think you'll find that, even in the past, very few abominated the individual, abominating the behaviour instead. 

So where in the NT does it say that we should abominate the behaviour?

I think the general idea is expressed in Romans 1, Len (verse 27 in particular in the quoted passage below:

25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26]
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,


[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
[28]
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.


[29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
[30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
[31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[32] Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

For me, this whole chapter is one of the most obnoxious of the writings generally agreed as being definitely by Paul (there are other equally obnoxious passages in letters not generally credited to him). This was apparently the last epistle he wrote, though unfortunately it appears first in order in the NT - so that people inclined to be homophobic bigots get in the mood before they read anything more - or perhaps don't bother to read any further, since they've got enough ammunition to keep them going for quite a long while. "God hates fags - Hallelujah"

Christianity has it's Fred Phelps'. Antitheism has it's disreputable equivalents who want the religious silenced.

[jeremyp]

Another word for a law that no longer applies is "abolished".

Only if it no longer applies to anyone.  Unfortunately, imo, most Jews have not understood that the law has been fulfilled.

What does it mean to say a law has been fulfilled?  A law is an instruction to perform or not perform certain types of behaviour.  What does it mean to fulfil that?  Why do you think that, for Christians, it means they can ignore God's laws?

[Dicky Underpants]

I see, thank you. So it was nothing Jesus said, just Paul.

He certainly sounds more like a closet case! 

I agree with that very much, Len. It has often been suggested, but the most persuasive arguments I've seen come from Bishop Shelby Spong (whom Alan Alien, naturally, thinks "a plonker"). Paul makes a lot of his "thorn in the flesh", and how he failed to keep the Jewish law, no matter how hard he tried. Being so steeped in the idea that homosexuality was an abomination, it would only be natural for him to be tortured with guilt, if he were a closet gay - with the virulent consequences we can see in his writings. He's not entirely to be blamed - admitting it to himself, let alone being openly gay in that society in those times might have led to his being stoned to death!