Jesus Hates...

[BashfulAnthony]

author=Shaker link=topic=10523.msg533543#msg533543 date=1435467486]
  ... a sentence precisely one word too long.

Correct. Should have been: "I think."  Try it sometime!!

[Hope]

Looks like you've fully exposed yourself Hope, we're all waiting now; oh, for this evidence of yours.

No, I haven't exposed myself at all.  All you've done is confirm - yet again - just how one-dimensional you are.  For me, life is far more than just science.  Its about reality, which includes science but isn't exclusively science.

[Hope]

So what was going through God's 'mind' when he so easily destroyed the earth in Noah & The Ark story??
AAHHH They're only pawns in a massive chess game I'm playing solo ??

You need to ask a different question, Nick.  Since that particular story comes in a part of he Bible that is increasingly regarded as theological treatise rather than historical record, you need to ask what the theological purpose of the story was.   

[jeremyp]

Hope is in 'LA LA' land just like anyone else who suggests they have evidence to support the existence of the deity etc!

No more than those who suggest that the lack of scientific evidence - as opposed to evidence as a whole - are in any better position to judge.

Give us some of this fabled "evidence as a whole". 

We both know you don't have it, so forget about the usual charade you pull where you claim to have presented it already.

Actually, do you even know what evidence is?

[ippy]

Looks like you've fully exposed yourself Hope, we're all waiting now; oh, for this evidence of yours.

No, I haven't exposed myself at all.  All you've done is confirm - yet again - just how one-dimensional you are.  For me, life is far more than just science.  Its about reality, which includes science but isn't exclusively science.

Might be a good time to stop digging.

ippy

[Hope]

I believe that Hope really thinks he has verifiable evidence for all of his stuff, looks like he's slipped up on that post

ippy

FIFY, ippy.  As I and others have regularly pointed out, with life being so much more mere science (amazing and instructive though that element of it is), I don't profess to have, nor need evidence that only answers to science.  It is the likes of yourself who are so hung up on the primacy of science that you have blinded yourself to the majestic nature of reality. 

Since you, along with Shaker, seem to have a problem with a stuck record, I won't hold your failure to understand that reality against you.  I'll just keeping praying that some time the record gets shaken loose and that the scales on your mental and spiritual faculties go the same way.

Might be a good time to stop digging.

I enjoy trying to help people get out of difficulties, and sometimes digging plays its part, ippy.  Try it.

[Hope]

Give us some of this fabled "evidence as a whole".

Actually, do you even know what evidence is?

To answer your second question first; yes I do.  The Oxford Dictionary defines it as

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

.

As you will notice, this definition doesn't require 'evidence' to fulfill scientific requirements, suggesting that those who believe that it does are the ones who don't understand the term in its totality.

Consequently, some of the 'fabled evidence' you like to deride consists of documentary evidence which you can decide to believe or not; experience - both personal and communal; perhaps even medical - after all, those who don't believe in miracles believe in something equally illogical/irrational, spontaneous healing - something for which there is never any so-called 'scientific' evidence other than the existence of a person who has been healed from a condition that medical science has no answer to.

[Shaker]

Since you, along with Shaker, seem to have a problem with a stuck record

... a stuck record, on the strength of some recent posts, presumably being pointing out when you're employing logical fallacies and other forms of sloppy thinking.

If this happens often enough to constitute a stuck record, it looks to me as though the solution is apparent and readily available.

[jeremyp]

The Oxford Dictionary defines it as...

So, no, you don't know what evidence is.  Otherwise you would have framed it in your own words instead of copying out a dictionary definition.

As you will notice, this definition doesn't require 'evidence' to fulfill scientific requirements, suggesting that those who believe that it does are the ones who don't understand the term in its totality.

The thing is, Hope, I don't qualify the word with "scientific", it's you that does that.  i just ask for evidence that can be verified independently of the people who are claiming it exists. If I can't, in principle, verify some claim you put before me, it worthless as evidence. 

Consequently, some of the 'fabled evidence' you like to deride consists of documentary evidence which you can decide to believe or not;

All documents fall into that category.  That is why historians have built up a methodology to assign some sort of probability that they are true.  I'm afraid your documents in the Bible don't score very well by historical criteria.

Not to mention that a document being fiction is always more probable than a dead man actually coming back to life.

experience - both personal and communal;

It's impossible to tell if an experience inside somebody's head has any relationship to real external phenomena.  I could go round and ask lots of Christians about their experiences and I guess if they all have the same ones, we might be on to something.  However, people of other religions have experiences of their gods which suggests to me that they are all internal.  If Christianity had arisen totally independently in two places, these experiences would count for something.  But it didn't and they don't.

perhaps even medical

Medical evidence tells us that two day old corpses do not come back to life.

after all, those who don't believe in miracles believe in something equally illogical/irrational, spontaneous healing - something for which there is never any so-called 'scientific' evidence other than the existence of a person who has been healed from a condition that medical science has no answer to.

Are you talking about the fact that the body has its own self repair mechanisms?  There is plenty of scientific evidence that people get better from things. 

[Nearly Sane]

Give us some of this fabled "evidence as a whole".

Actually, do you even know what evidence is?

To answer your second question first; yes I do.  The Oxford Dictionary defines it as

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

.

As you will notice, this definition doesn't require 'evidence' to fulfill scientific requirements, suggesting that those who believe that it does are the ones who don't understand the term in its totality.

Consequently, some of the 'fabled evidence' you like to deride consists of documentary evidence which you can decide to believe or not; experience - both personal and communal; perhaps even medical - after all, those who don't believe in miracles believe in something equally illogical/irrational, spontaneous healing - something for which there is never any so-called 'scientific' evidence other than the existence of a person who has been healed from a condition that medical science has no answer to.

one notices none of that covers supernatural claims, as none of history as a method does. But then despite you being asked multiple times nothing on that so far.

Care to even try or once again as you have done so many times run away and ignore the question. I think it is at least 50 or so times you have done that.

[ippy]

like I said Hope it's time to stop digging.

ippy

[BashfulAnthony]

like I said Hope it's time to stop digging.

ippy

How pathetic is this?  It's like some tatty kangaroo court. 

[cyberman]

Unbelief must always be the default position until verifiable proof is put forward.

Whaddya mean "must"?! What are you gonna do about it if someone doesn't comply with your little fatwa?

[L.A.]

So what was going through God's 'mind' when he so easily destroyed the earth in Noah & The Ark story??

He'd got bored with the dinosaurs?

[BashfulAnthony]

Hope is in 'LA LA' land just like anyone else who suggests they have evidence to support the existence of the deity etc!

No more than those who suggest that the lack of scientific evidence - as opposed to evidence as a whole - are in any better position to judge.

Looks like you've fully exposed yourself Hope, we're all waiting now; oh, for this evidence of yours.

ippy

Good job there was nobody else around!   

[floo]

So what was going through God's 'mind' when he so easily destroyed the earth in Noah & The Ark story??

He'd got bored with the dinosaurs?

Does anyone really know what goes on in the mind of a psycho like the Biblical deity?

[BashfulAnthony]

So what was going through God's 'mind' when he so easily destroyed the earth in Noah & The Ark story??

He'd got bored with the dinosaurs?

Does anyone really know what goes on in the mind of a psycho like the Biblical deity?

Imo, it is impossible to say what goes on in your mind, imo.. Though, imo, it is not is a great deal, imo.

[Hope]

So what was going through God's 'mind' when he so easily destroyed the earth in Noah & The Ark story??

He'd got bored with the dinosaurs?

Does anyone really know what goes on in the mind of a psycho like the Biblical deity?

Well, we would have to have evidence that the deity you are referring to is 1) a psycho [something that you have yet to manage] and 2) that a human could ever fully understand their own mind, let alone that particular deity - in fact, any deity.

[floo]

So what was going through God's 'mind' when he so easily destroyed the earth in Noah & The Ark story??

He'd got bored with the dinosaurs?

Does anyone really know what goes on in the mind of a psycho like the Biblical deity?

Well, we would have to have evidence that the deity you are referring to is 1) a psycho [something that you have yet to manage] and 2) that a human could ever fully understand their own mind, let alone that particular deity - in fact, any deity.

The Biblical deity is an evil psycho if what is attributed to it is true. A human behaving in the same way would certainly be described as such, wouldn't they?

[Hope]

The Biblical deity is an evil psycho if what is attributed to it is true. A human behaving in the same way would certainly be described as such, wouldn't they?

Yes, Floo; the same old stuck record of a claim - made so many times that I have losty count of them - but never supported by any evidence - even dodgy evidence.

Regarding the second question, I suppose one might describe a human being who cared for others so much that they were willing to die to protect them, who offered such protection as a gift without repayment required and who disciplined those he (used in the real English grammar sense of the term) loved as a psycho - but I think one would have to be a psycho oneself to do so.

[floo]

The Biblical deity is an evil psycho if what is attributed to it is true. A human behaving in the same way would certainly be described as such, wouldn't they?

Yes, Floo; the same old stuck record of a claim - made so many times that I have losty count of them - but never supported by any evidence - even dodgy evidence.

Regarding the second question, I suppose one might describe a human being who cared for others so much that they were willing to die to protect them, who offered such protection as a gift without repayment required and who disciplined those he (used in the real English grammar sense of the term) loved as a psycho - but I think one would have to be a psycho oneself to do so.

We are talking about the deity, not the very human Jesus, who was crucified for being a pain in the butt and for no other reason, imo.

If you have ever read the Bible without your rose coloured specs, you might realise that only a psycho would flood the whole world, if that stupid myth had any credibility. It is also supposed to have trashed Sodom and Gomorrah  because he didn't like the sexual acts going on there. Was the deity jealous as it wasn't getting enough itself?

[jjohnjil]

The Biblical deity is an evil psycho if what is attributed to it is true. A human behaving in the same way would certainly be described as such, wouldn't they?

Yes, Floo; the same old stuck record of a claim - made so many times that I have losty count of them - but never supported by any evidence - even dodgy evidence.

Regarding the second question, I suppose one might describe a human being who cared for others so much that they were willing to die to protect them, who offered such protection as a gift without repayment required and who disciplined those he (used in the real English grammar sense of the term) loved as a psycho - but I think one would have to be a psycho oneself to do so.

I have never understood this idea that Christ died to protect us.  Who was he protecting us from?  If he was God in human form, then he must have been protecting us from himself!  I genuinely cannot fathom that out.

Also, how did being crucified protect us?  And why only be dead for a couple of days?  How was that any sort of sacrifice?

We don't sacrifice things now, not even goats, so why believe this sacrifice was doing anything at all?

I think Jesus was a freedom fighter who could see that his religion was doing no good and fought for the liberty and the betterment of his fellow Jews.  This was why he was executed - if Arthur Scargill had been around in those days, he would have suffered the same fate for the same reason.

[Owlswing]

The Biblical deity is an evil psycho if what is attributed to it is true. A human behaving in the same way would certainly be described as such, wouldn't they?

Yes, Floo; the same old stuck record of a claim - made so many times that I have losty count of them - but never supported by any evidence - even dodgy evidence.

Regarding the second question, I suppose one might describe a human being who cared for others so much that they were willing to die to protect them, who offered such protection as a gift without repayment required and who disciplined those he (used in the real English grammar sense of the term) loved as a psycho - but I think one would have to be a psycho oneself to do so.

I have never understood this idea that Christ died to protect us.  Who was he protecting us from?  If he was God in human form, then he must have been protecting us from himself!  I genuinely cannot fathom that out.

Also, how did being crucified protect us?  And why only be dead for a couple of days?  How was that any sort of sacrifice?

We don't sacrifice things now, not even goats, so why believe this sacrifice was doing anything at all?

I think Jesus was a freedom fighter who could see that his religion was doing no good and fought for the liberty and the betterment of his fellow Jews.  This was why he was executed - if Arthur Scargill had been around in those days, he would have suffered the same fate for the same reason.

It is a fact that, originally, crucifiction was punishment for political crimes against the Roman Empire, hence 'INRI', he was crucified for being hailed as the King of the Jews, not what hew claimed IIRC, but it was seen by the Romans as a rallying cry for those who wanted rid of the Romans.

The Romans didn't give a shit for Judaism or for burgeoning Christianity, they only gave a shit for the Roman Empire and its continuing existence and security.

[Hope]

It is a fact that, originally, crucifiction was punishment for political crimes against the Roman Empire, hence 'INRI', he was crucified for being hailed as the King of the Jews, not what hew claimed IIRC, but it was seen by the Romans as a rallying cry for those who wanted rid of the Romans.

The Romans didn't give a shit for Judaism or for burgeoning Christianity, they only gave a shit for the Roman Empire and its continuing existence and security.

Nat, the Romans didn't seem to have any problems with Jesus until the Jewish authorities arrested him and asked that he should be executed for blasphemy.  In fact, the Romans were remarkably tolerant when it came to religious variety.

[trippymonkey]

H
You might well be 'surprised' just how tolerant so-called polytheistic religions are.

Certainly compared to 'single-godders' ?!?!!??