Mary

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If God, therefore magic I don't see how it is any more dangerous to a rational view of the world than the universe either being an uncaused effect or an uncaused cause.

Perhaps you'd like to justify your thesis.

The short version runs approximately as follows:

My methodology for understanding the world and sorting the true from the false has a number of factors built into it as factory standard which make it self-correcting. We've never come up with anything even remotely as consistently accurate and successful at delivering reliable results literally every single day.

I have exactly what you have Shaker, but I wouldn't say that that was the be all and end all.
Science doesn't rule that resurrection is impossible i'm afraid. Stop trying to own it and confuse it with philosophical naturalism.

That a resurrection or two threaten to overturn science, reason and logic is ''slippery slope'' fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given that it is undeniable that the resurrection has also been an embarrassment since the start it is a wonder it hasn't been supressed by the church or at least the church as portrayed by antitheists.

Why would the resurrection be an embarrassment?  Obviously the death of somebody claiming to be the Messiah would be an embarrassment, but that just gives us a possible motive for the invention of the resurrection.

That would only be a problem for a rabbinical Judaist surely, I don't think there were many of them though. It would be an embarrassment since dead men don't get up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't expect to see any resurrections ever and there may never be any again although if it's right that life is merely due to the configuration of matter a resurrection strikes me as a technological possibility.

In that case expect to be head-hunted by any number of biology departments: provide the method and you'll make a killing.

I may not though prepared to accept that it is impossible since square circles are the sort of things which are impossible and this isn't in that category.

I suspect that square circles and the resurrection of 2/3 day dead bodies in antiquity are similar - in that both are impossibilities.

http://biologos.org/blog/motivated-belief-john-polkinghorne-on-the-resurrection-part-3

[Hope]

Why would the resurrection be an embarrassment?  Obviously the death of somebody claiming to be the Messiah would be an embarrassment, but that just gives us a possible motive for the invention of the resurrection.

Yet, that possible motive would lie with those Jews who were responsible for his death - the Jewish leaders.  It wouldn't have been a motive for the disciples - especially as they had scattered to the four winds by the time he was crucified.  It was only after a woman had seen the risen Christ that they understood the need to get together again.

[Shaker]

http://biologos.org/blog/motivated-belief-john-polkinghorne-on-the-resurrection-part-3

And ... ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

http://biologos.org/blog/motivated-belief-john-polkinghorne-on-the-resurrection-part-3

And ... ?

http://biologos.org/blog/motivated-belief-john-polkinghorne-on-the-resurrection-part-4

[Shaker]

And ... ?

[jeremyp]

Why would the resurrection be an embarrassment?  Obviously the death of somebody claiming to be the Messiah would be an embarrassment, but that just gives us a possible motive for the invention of the resurrection.

Yet, that possible motive would lie with those Jews who were responsible for his death - the Jewish leaders.

Why would the people who wanted him dead spread a rumour that he was alive again?

 

It wouldn't have been a motive for the disciples

Of course it would.

especially as they had scattered to the four winds by the time he was crucified.  It was only after a woman had seen the risen Christ that they understood the need to get together again.

According to the resurrection story they or someone after them invented.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why would the resurrection be an embarrassment?  Obviously the death of somebody claiming to be the Messiah would be an embarrassment, but that just gives us a possible motive for the invention of the resurrection.

Yet, that possible motive would lie with those Jews who were responsible for his death - the Jewish leaders.

Why would the people who wanted him dead spread a rumour that he was alive again?

 

It wouldn't have been a motive for the disciples

Of course it would.

especially as they had scattered to the four winds by the time he was crucified.  It was only after a woman had seen the risen Christ that they understood the need to get together again.

According to the resurrection story they or someone after them invented.

And why do you say it was invented Jeremy?

[Shaker]

I have exactly what you have Shaker, but I wouldn't say that that was the be all and end all.
Science doesn't rule that resurrection is impossible i'm afraid. Stop trying to own it and confuse it with philosophical naturalism.

That a resurrection or two threaten to overturn science, reason and logic is ''slippery slope'' fallacy.

Gordon's #326 has already provided the appropriate and accurate rejoinder to this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have exactly what you have Shaker, but I wouldn't say that that was the be all and end all.
Science doesn't rule that resurrection is impossible i'm afraid. Stop trying to own it and confuse it with philosophical naturalism.

That a resurrection or two threaten to overturn science, reason and logic is ''slippery slope'' fallacy.

Gordon's #326 has already provided the appropriate and accurate rejoinder to this.

I;m abit suspicious at his accuracy since he uses the big scraggy brush of PN when what's required is the fine brush of actual consideration...

It's way past your cocoa time F***off,get a goodnights sleep and come back with better stuff than you've been offering tonight....are you actually awake when you type this stuff or in the hypnopompic state?

[Shaker]

 

I think you should seek some sort of professional help. While it has always been bad and a long-standing nuisance, at the moment you seem physically incapable of posting anything without throwing philosophical naturalism pointlessly into the mix. If anybody needs a good night's sleep, of the two of us I rather think that you stand in far greater need of one than I do. Who knows: it may, just may get it out of your system. I'm not tremendously hopeful but you never know - we'll see how many times you mention it for absolutely no good reason tomorrow.

In the meantime I suppose Bashers will carry on calling atheists "obsessive" while completely ignoring your borderline pathological monomania with PN, rank, festering hypocrite that he is on this as he is with swearing.

[Sassy]

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Mary and Joseph did come together, have sex with Joseph but only after the birth of Christ.. For if they had not 'come together' then there would be no reason to write she was found with child before they came together. Joseph and Mary were already engaged when she became pregnant with Jesus.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

As you can see Mary and Joseph did have sex after the birth of Christ.

That is the passage that is always bought up, but it's not meant to show anything more than that she was a virgin when she gave birth. It's not meant to suggest anything else. Here's another example from the scriptures: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. Is this meant to suggest that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father?

You really do not know your bible do you?  I suggest you stop thinking about what you were told and actually read it, read it for yourself asking God to guide you.

[ad_orientem]

You can't understand the scriptures properly apart from the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. You should try it. The reason you don't accept Blessed Mary's perpetual virginity is because you have an heretical view of the Incarnation.

[Owlswing]

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Mary and Joseph did come together, have sex with Joseph but only after the birth of Christ.. For if they had not 'come together' then there would be no reason to write she was found with child before they came together. Joseph and Mary were already engaged when she became pregnant with Jesus.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

As you can see Mary and Joseph did have sex after the birth of Christ.

That is the passage that is always bought up, but it's not meant to show anything more than that she was a virgin when she gave birth. It's not meant to suggest anything else. Here's another example from the scriptures: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. Is this meant to suggest that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father?

You really do not know your bible do you?  I suggest you stop thinking about what you were told and actually read it, read it for yourself asking God to guide you.

I wouldn't ask YOUR god the time of day and, if I did, I would then check my watch and believe that rather than him!

Your book is 2,000 years out of date, it was a different world then - drag yourself into the 21st centiury Sass, the hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness of your god is better known now than that load of historic rubbish you call the bible!

You are entitled to your beliefs but you need to realise that more and more people are recognising it for the tosh that it is.

[Hope]

Your book is 2,000 years out of date, it was a different world then - drag yourself into the 21st centiury Sass,

Was it really, Matt?  Have you ever noticed that we still have greed, racism, murder, poverty, and a whole host of other everyday social malaises that existed then.  OK, in some ways those malaises have become more subtle in their execution here in the West, but are we really that much different as humans?

... the hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness of your god is better known now than that load of historic rubbish you call the bible!

Yes, I've heard a lot about this 'hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness', yet have never actually seen any evidential examples of it.  Perhaps you can enlighten the board.

You are entitled to your beliefs but you need to realise that more and more people are recognising it for the tosh that it is.

I think that it is something that that 'hypocritical and tyrannically vindictive' God endowed humanity with that enables you to say such a thing.  It's called freewill.  Not sure that any deity other than the Judeo-Christian one even thought to provide that.

[Owlswing]

Have you ever noticed that we still have greed, racism, murder, poverty, and a whole host of other everyday social malaises that existed then.  OK, in some ways those malaises have become more subtle in their execution here in the West, but are we really that much different as humans?

Which only goes to show just how little good Christianty has achieved in 2,000 years - S F A! (and no, I do not mean Sweet fanny Adams!)

I've heard a lot about this 'hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness', yet have never actually seen any evidential examples of it.  Perhaps you can enlighten the board.

Hypocricy - Exodus 22:18 and the Sixth Commandment.

Vindictiveness - PObey me and my rules or you will roast in Hell forever.

I think that it is something that that 'hypocritical and tyrannically vindictive' God endowed humanity with that enables you to say such a thing.  It's called freewill.  Not sure that any deity other than the Judeo-Christian one even thought to provide that.

Every single Pagan deity, female and male, gave humanity freewill, thousands of years before your Johnny-come-lately.

Get your rose-coloured glasses and your blinkers off, your head out of the clouds and your feet back on the ground.

[Leonard James]

Your book is 2,000 years out of date, it was a different world then - drag yourself into the 21st centiury Sass,

Was it really, Matt?  Have you ever noticed that we still have greed, racism, murder, poverty, and a whole host of other everyday social malaises that existed then.  OK, in some ways those malaises have become more subtle in their execution here in the West, but are we really that much different as humans?

What is different nowadays is our scientific knowledge. and also our ability to think independently of religion or culture. Both of them are slowly releasing us from the credulousness of our forbears.

[floo]

Your book is 2,000 years out of date, it was a different world then - drag yourself into the 21st centiury Sass,

Was it really, Matt?  Have you ever noticed that we still have greed, racism, murder, poverty, and a whole host of other everyday social malaises that existed then.  OK, in some ways those malaises have become more subtle in their execution here in the West, but are we really that much different as humans?

What is different nowadays is our scientific knowledge. and also our ability to think independently of religion or culture. Both of them are slowly releasing us from the credulousness of our forbears.

Sadly though that is going to be a VERY slow process!

[ippy]

Your book is 2,000 years out of date, it was a different world then - drag yourself into the 21st centiury Sass,

Was it really, Matt?  Have you ever noticed that we still have greed, racism, murder, poverty, and a whole host of other everyday social malaises that existed then.  OK, in some ways those malaises have become more subtle in their execution here in the West, but are we really that much different as humans?

What is different nowadays is our scientific knowledge. and also our ability to think independently of religion or culture. Both of them are slowly releasing us from the credulousness of our forbears.

Sadly though that is going to be a VERY slow process!

Got some full stop ones on this forum.

ippy

[ippy]

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Mary and Joseph did come together, have sex with Joseph but only after the birth of Christ.. For if they had not 'come together' then there would be no reason to write she was found with child before they came together. Joseph and Mary were already engaged when she became pregnant with Jesus.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

As you can see Mary and Joseph did have sex after the birth of Christ.

That is the passage that is always bought up, but it's not meant to show anything more than that she was a virgin when she gave birth. It's not meant to suggest anything else. Here's another example from the scriptures: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. Is this meant to suggest that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father?

You really do not know your bible do you?  I suggest you stop thinking about what you were told and actually read it, read it for yourself asking God to guide you.

What would be the good invoking something that has about zero likelihood of actually being in existence Sass?

ippy

[Leonard James]

Got some full stop ones on this forum.

ippy

True, ippy! There none so ignorant as the willfully ignorant. 

[ippy]

Your book is 2,000 years out of date, it was a different world then - drag yourself into the 21st centiury Sass,

Was it really, Matt?  Have you ever noticed that we still have greed, racism, murder, poverty, and a whole host of other everyday social malaises that existed then.  OK, in some ways those malaises have become more subtle in their execution here in the West, but are we really that much different as humans?

... the hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness of your god is better known now than that load of historic rubbish you call the bible!

Yes, I've heard a lot about this 'hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness', yet have never actually seen any evidential examples of it.  Perhaps you can enlighten the board.

You are entitled to your beliefs but you need to realise that more and more people are recognising it for the tosh that it is.

I think that it is something that that 'hypocritical and tyrannically vindictive' God endowed humanity with that enables you to say such a thing.  It's called freewill.  Not sure that any deity other than the Judeo-Christian one even thought to provide that.

It's a good job your lot are in decline Hope, it wont go away completely there'll always be a few nutters around in this world whatever we do in our efforts to advance.

ippy

[SusanDoris]

Yes, wresting the maintstream thinking well away from religious beliefs certainly has a mighty long way to go, especially when you think of BBC Radio 4 spending a whole 30 minutes yesterday afternoon on an earnest discussion   among believers - *sigh* - on the subject of ghosts and how to communicate with them or not; and Five Live's top 40 items of the news most 'tweeted' or some such where No. 35 was about a famous 'medium' - *even deeper sighs* - some Colin Fry who has died. The presenters of this latter programme were sceptics, I'm pleased to say, but all the hype about how wonderful he was needed some sharp rebukes. 

[Nearly Sane]

Belief in ghosts and mediums is neither a tenet of being religious or unique to the religious.