Low Probability that god raised someone from the dead

[Leonard James]

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!

Sadly, Dicky, there are many of the faithful still in the same boat, although nowadays they are outed more easily, as the news shows very often.

[cyberman]

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

A lot?

In any case, it's a bit of a leap. Is there any actual evidence that he was gay?

[Dicky Underpants]

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

A lot?

In any case, it's a bit of a leap. Is there any actual evidence that he was gay?

No definitive evidence, but it's a fair extrapolation, given his virulent denunciation of homosexual acts, in a manner that is quite hysterical. Closet gays have often been known to act in this "over-protesting" manner (read the plays of Arthur Miller). There are a number of clues in Paul's writings, and given how zealous he was for the Jewish law and his confessed inability to live up to it, it is quite probable that some homosexual component in his nature was giving him particular grief. Read Bishop John Shelby Spong's views - they seem fairly persuasive to me (a very interesting tome is "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism".

[cyberman]

given how zealous he was for the Jewish law and his confessed inability to live up to it, it is quite probable that some homosexual component in his nature was giving him particular grief.

You must mean possible, not probable.

[Hope]

The thread might just as well state 'Low Probability that god adheres to probability theory'.  They are both as daft a statement as each other.

[Hope]

No definitive evidence, but it's a fair extrapolation, given his virulent denunciation of homosexual acts, in a manner that is quite hysterical.

If you want to take this approach, can you explain why he was even more 'hysterical' when it comes to husbands mistreated their wives (or vice versa); or slaveowners mistreating their slaves; Jews telling non-jews that they had to follow Jewish law if they wanted to be Christians?

There are a number of clues in Paul's writings ...

Such as ...? 

and given how zealous he was for the Jewish law and his confessed inability to live up to it, it is quite probable that some homosexual component in his nature was giving him particular grief.

What makes you think that he had picked on this particular law which, in terms of its Scriptural coverage for the Jews, is pretty limited.  As I have already pointed out, he gets far more exercised over several other aspects of the law.

Read Bishop John Shelby Spong's views - they seem fairly persuasive to me (a very interesting tome is "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism".

I've read a number of Spong's books and articles over the years and find them rather tame. Can't say that they get anywhere near 'persuasive' unless one is pretty gullible; if anything, they are pretty second-rate.

[Dicky Underpants]

No definitive evidence, but it's a fair extrapolation, given his virulent denunciation of homosexual acts, in a manner that is quite hysterical.

If you want to take this approach, can you explain why he was even more 'hysterical' when it comes to husbands mistreated their wives (or vice versa); or slaveowners mistreating their slaves; Jews telling non-jews that they had to follow Jewish law if they wanted to be Christians?

As far as I'm concerned, Romans 1 is about the most 'hysterical' chapter in all Paul's writings (those that most intelligent scholars think he actually wrote). If you can't distinguish between the tone of the latter and - for  instance - 1Corinthians 13, then I pity you.

Read Bishop John Shelby Spong's views - they seem fairly persuasive to me (a very interesting tome is "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism".

I've read a number of Spong's books and articles over the years and find them rather tame. Can't say that they get anywhere near 'persuasive' unless one is pretty gullible; if anything, they are pretty second-rate.

As Bernard Shaw said "The lower mind cannot understand the higher mind". Spong certainly beats most of your effusions on here into a cocked hat. If you think he's so second rate, perhaps you might offer your views in a scholarly Christian publication, rather than adopting such a high-and-mighty tone here. I don't take an uncritical view of his writings, by the way - after all, I don't claim to be a Christian. But for someone like you to start throwing the word "gullible" about to describe those who don't agree with you, just about takes the biscuit. After all, you believe in a literal Resurrection, don't you? Something Spong is certainly not so asinine as to accept.

[Dicky Underpants]

and given how zealous he was for the Jewish law and his confessed inability to live up to it, it is quite probable that some homosexual component in his nature was giving him particular grief.

What makes you think that he had picked on this particular law which, in terms of its Scriptural coverage for the Jews, is pretty limited.  As I have already pointed out, he gets far more exercised over several other aspects of the law.

The very fact that he chose to mention it at all, and in such a hysterical manner, should really give you pause for thought.

[BashfulAnthony]

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

A lot?

In any case, it's a bit of a leap. Is there any actual evidence that he was gay?

No definitive evidence, but it's a fair extrapolation, given his virulent denunciation of homosexual acts, in a manner that is quite hysterical. Closet gays have often been known to act in this "over-protesting" manner (read the plays of Arthur Miller). There are a number of clues in Paul's writings, and given how zealous he was for the Jewish law and his confessed inability to live up to it, it is quite probable that some homosexual component in his nature was giving him particular grief. Read Bishop John Shelby Spong's views - they seem fairly persuasive to me (a very interesting tome is "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism".

That's all you needed to say.  The rest of your post is pure, unevidenced, conjecture:  and pretty worthless.

[cyberman]

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

A lot?

In any case, it's a bit of a leap. Is there any actual evidence that he was gay?

No definitive evidence, but it's a fair extrapolation, given his virulent denunciation of homosexual acts, in a manner that is quite hysterical. Closet gays have often been known to act in this "over-protesting" manner (read the plays of Arthur Miller). There are a number of clues in Paul's writings, and given how zealous he was for the Jewish law and his confessed inability to live up to it, it is quite probable that some homosexual component in his nature was giving him particular grief. Read Bishop John Shelby Spong's views - they seem fairly persuasive to me (a very interesting tome is "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism".

That's all you needed to say.  The rest of your post is pure, unevidenced, conjecture:  and pretty worthless.

Interesting that he has such a deeply held belief based upon his interpretation of something he read in the Bible. I imagine he would encourage others to base their beliefs upon similar evidence (after all, he's not a hypocrite or anything!)

[Alien]

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?

If you claim that Jesus rose from the dead, then it is for YOU to provide the evidence. The alternative view that it did not happen the the default position.
Because you never provide sufficient evidence (anecdotal evidence for a miracle is never sufficient) then the default position remains intact, and it is ONLY sensible to conclude that he did not rise from the dead.

Well, there is documentary evidence - 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.

Your default position may be to NOT believe something, but was it always so?  Is it the default position for everyone?

This is the default position for ALL people that use reason and logic. This is just the rule.

Well, there is documentary evidence

Anecdotal evidence is never enough for miracle claims.

This is demonstrably wrong. See #77.

I suspect you will dismiss all the anecdotal claims the miracles performed by sai baba, and I also suspect you do not take seriously all the documented cases of alien abduction.

Don't you read what people post. Do a quick Google on Sai Baba and you will find videos demonstrating him to be a fraudster, including showing how he did his stuff. That is one good reason for dismissing his claims.

Perhaps you could retain that information ready for the next time you are tempted to waffle on about him.

[Alien]

Mostly because I am not Jewish

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law...

How about completing the quote?

Hint: the next word is "but...".

[jeremyp]

Mostly because I am not Jewish

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law...

How about completing the quote?

Hint: the next word is "but...".

If there is a law and something Jesus did (we are never told exactly what fulfilling the law means) means that you no longer have to obey the law, then that law has been abolished.  It is no longer in force.  That is what abolition means.

[Alien]

Mostly because I am not Jewish

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law...

How about completing the quote?

Hint: the next word is "but...".

If there is a law and something Jesus did (we are never told exactly what fulfilling the law means) means that you no longer have to obey the law, then that law has been abolished.  It is no longer in force.  That is what abolition means.

How about completing the quote?

[jeremyp]

Mostly because I am not Jewish

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law...

How about completing the quote?

Hint: the next word is "but...".

If there is a law and something Jesus did (we are never told exactly what fulfilling the law means) means that you no longer have to obey the law, then that law has been abolished.  It is no longer in force.  That is what abolition means.

How about completing the quote?

How about not deflecting from the point.

[jakswan]

For this to be a good argument (that God raised Jesus from the dead), the probability of it being true needs to be higher than the probability of it not being true, i.e. >50%. On occasions people here have said that there are infinite number of possible other explanations for what is recorded in the NT (the empty tomb, etc.). That may be the case, but it is irrelevant. If the probability of those individual other explanations total less than 50%, it means that the probability of God having raised Jesus from the dead is greater than 50%. The percentages I quoted as examples, i.e. 12.5%, 6.25%, 3.125% and so on were part of a sequence where, though infinitely long, only total 25%, thus showing that it is possible to have an infinite number of other possible explanations, yet still have a total of less than 50%.

Be interested to see Al show his workings.

We all know we'll see confirmation bias but it would be nice to see it openly exposed.

Did we actually get to see these workings?

[Shaker]

What do you think, jak?

[Dicky Underpants]

Interesting that he has such a deeply held belief based upon his interpretation of something he read in the Bible. I imagine he would encourage others to base their beliefs upon similar evidence (after all, he's not a hypocrite or anything!)

Not a deeply held belief - I think the scenario is plausible. As for your "something he read in the Bible" jibe: that's pretty pathetic. Many serious scholars think that some of the writings of St Paul are actually genuine: the guy actually did write them. I consider that many of his writings are the genuine article, too.  From which genuine literary effusions one is entitled to make speculations. I said my argument largely stemmed from Spong's views. Interesting that BA should take such exception, particularly since the book I mentioned is a blast against fundamentalism. Now I always thought BA was against fundamentalism. I thought he had issues with St Paul, too. But then, who knows what he believes? What he does appear to believe he certainly doesn't seem to practise. Not that he (or you) are hypocrites or anything......

[cyberman]

Not that he (or you) are hypocrites or anything......

A cowardly innuendo. If you have any reason to suspect me of hypocrisy, let me know. If not, take your innuendo and shove it up your arse.

[Alien]

Mostly because I am not Jewish

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law...

How about completing the quote?

Hint: the next word is "but...".

If there is a law and something Jesus did (we are never told exactly what fulfilling the law means) means that you no longer have to obey the law, then that law has been abolished.  It is no longer in force.  That is what abolition means.

How about completing the quote?

How about not deflecting from the point.

Since you seem to be refusing to quote the whole sentence, here it is:

Matthew 5:17 "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not that he (or you) are hypocrites or anything......

A cowardly innuendo. If you have any reason to suspect me of hypocrisy, let me know. If not, take your innuendo and shove it up your arse.

What in his end...o?

[jeremyp]

Mostly because I am not Jewish

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law...

How about completing the quote?

Hint: the next word is "but...".

If there is a law and something Jesus did (we are never told exactly what fulfilling the law means) means that you no longer have to obey the law, then that law has been abolished.  It is no longer in force.  That is what abolition means.

How about completing the quote?

How about not deflecting from the point.

Since you seem to be refusing to quote the whole sentence, here it is:

Matthew 5:17 "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Right, so how does that affect my point?   Are you going to invent a new meaning of "fulfil"?

Fulfil (verb): make it so a law no longer applies whilst pretending this is not abolition

[Sassy]

Isn't it funny that people rate the possibility of God raising someone from the dead.
Yet what is the probability that we actually exist and came out of nothing in an otherwise dead universe.


The truth is that if you know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob you would know why there is a no problem with regarding his ability to raise the dead.

The reality is whether as individuals we accept that which is taught and that which we believe individually about these things.

You cannot make the atheist belief compatible with the faith taught belief.

So the 'Low probability' is nothing more than an opinion.

[floo]

Isn't it funny that people rate the possibility of God raising someone from the dead.
Yet what is the probability that we actually exist and came out of nothing in an otherwise dead universe.


The truth is that if you know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob you would know why there is a no problem with regarding his ability to raise the dead.

The reality is whether as individuals we accept that which is taught and that which we believe individually about these things.

You cannot make the atheist belief compatible with the faith taught belief.

So the 'Low probability' is nothing more than an opinion.

  Another giggle provided by Sass!

[BashfulAnthony]

Isn't it funny that people rate the possibility of God raising someone from the dead.
Yet what is the probability that we actually exist and came out of nothing in an otherwise dead universe.


The truth is that if you know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob you would know why there is a no problem with regarding his ability to raise the dead.

The reality is whether as individuals we accept that which is taught and that which we believe individually about these things.

You cannot make the atheist belief compatible with the faith taught belief.

So the 'Low probability' is nothing more than an opinion.

  Another giggle provided by Sass!

You accuse me of "dissing" people, but you never miss an opportunity to make fun of Sassy.  You are a hypocrite.