Was Jesus gay?

[Hope]

There's a bit in it where Jesus gets executed and comes alive again. I don't think plausibility is Luke's major concern.

The problem is that you have no idea what a deity is plausibly able to do, jeremy.  All you have is your undertanding of the physical world which may well lack the breadth and reality of the divine.

[Shaker]

The problem is that you have no idea what a deity is plausibly able to do, jeremy. All you have is your undertanding of the physical world which may well lack the breadth and reality of the divine.

As writers of fiction have known since the year dot, when you create entities utterly divorced from any demands of reason, logic, fact and evidence you can simply say that they can do absolutely anything. You can assert till the cows come home that they can do this and can do that, safe in the knowledge that you'll never be called upon to provide a scrap of evidence for these fantastical claims - it's always someone else, somewhere else, a long time ago, after you're dead. There's always some excuse.

[Hope]

I don't think Floo would be required to apologise, because much of what she says comes from her own experiences in life.

Whilst I appreciate that a lot of what she says is related to her youthful experiences, not everything is.  There are times - such as the idea that a 1st Century AD child of 13 becoming pregnant must require sexual abuse of that child, or the idea that Mary was not married at the time -when her assertions and accusations are disproved by anthropological and social history documentation.  It is that side of the posting practice that several of us believe needs to be apologized for.

A deity would understand that and rise above it, however people who hurt others and gave God a bad name, might find it was them that needed to apologise.

Jesus goes further than that and suggests that God may not recognise their claim to be his followers.

[Hope]

As writers of fiction have known since the year dot, when you create entities utterly divorced from any demands of reason, logic, fact and evidence you can simply say that they can do absolutely anything. You can assert till the cows come home that they can do this and can do that, safe in the knowledge that you'll never be called upon to provide a scrap of evidence for these fantastical claims - it's always someone else, somewhere else, a long time ago, after you're dead. There's always some excuse.

Sorry, Shaker, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that there isn't a spiritual realm.  Your inistence that there isn't such a realm is no less divorced from reason, logic, fact and evidence as that which you are accusing others of.

[Shaker]

Sorry, Shaker, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that there isn't a spiritual realm.

Is that going to be your final invocation of the negative proof fallacy for 2015 or can we expect you to squeeze in one or two more tomorrow? In the annals of your thrashing the bollocks off that particular fallacy (often, going back a very long time) that really has to be one of the most blitheringly witless instances of it even by your non-existent standards of critical thinking, and that's saying something. You really do mark yourself out as utterly incapable of rational thought, of learning from correction with regard to aberrant thinking. Astonishing. 

Your inistence that there isn't such a realm is no less divorced from reason, logic, fact and evidence as that which you are accusing others of.

What an utterly feeble attempt at shifting the burden of proof. I mean, really, utterly piss poor.

[floo]

Sorry, Shaker, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that there isn't a spiritual realm.  Your inistence that there isn't such a realm is no less divorced from reason, logic, fact and evidence as that which you are accusing others of.

If the Biblical deity exists and is nothing like the psychopath described in the Bible why doesn't it set the record straight, which it hasn't? Jesus was not the deity, just a mere human with charisma, but faults and failings too! 

[Hope]

Is that going to be your final invocation of the negative proof fallacy for 2015 or can we expect you to squeeze in one or two more tomorrow? In the annals of your thrashing the bollocks off that particular fallacy (often, going back a very long time) that really has to be one of the most blitheringly witless instances of it even by your non-existent standards of critical thinking, and that's saying something. You really do mark yourself out as utterly incapable of rational thought, of learning from correction with regard to aberrant thinking. Astonishing.  What an utterly feeble attempt at shifting the burden of proof. I mean, really, utterly piss poor.

Hi Shakes, Here's your challenges for the next year. 

1) Produce reference to a scientific document, that has been peer-reviewed or otherwise validated, that shows that your belief that the physical realm is all there is, is valid?

2) Produce reference to a scientific document of the equivalent status of something like the Theory of Gravity that in any way deals with the spiritual realm.

You may wish to post your responses on the thread I have started especially for this - http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11391.new#new

[floo]

Hi Shakes, Here's your challenges for the next year. 

1) Produce reference to a scientific document, that has been peer-reviewed or otherwise validated, that shows that your belief that the physical realm is all there is, is valid?

2) Produce reference to a scientific document of the equivalent status of something like the Theory of Gravity that in any way deals with the spiritual realm.

You may wish to post your responses on the thread I have started especially for this - http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11391.new#new

And your challenge is to prove anything attributed to Jesus and the deity had any TRUTH!

[Gordon]

Sorry, Shaker, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that there isn't a spiritual realm.

You are in danger, Hope, of wearing out the negative proof fallacy.

[Hope]

If the Biblical deity exists and is nothing like the psychopath described in the Bible why doesn't it set the record straight, which it hasn't!

Floo, as I'm sure you'll agree, it can be difficult to 'set the record straight' when what is being claimed by the likes of yourself is nothing more than hearsay with no viable evidence to support it.

[Hope]

You are in danger, Hope, of wearing out the negative proof fallacy.

OK, Gordon, perhaps you will produce the evidence that you use to inform your opinion on the spiritual realm.  You can use the thread I've started for the purpose.

[Shaker]

You are in danger, Hope, of wearing out the negative proof fallacy.

Goodness only knows he's made it threadbare enough this year.

[Shaker]

Floo, as I'm sure you'll agree, it can be difficult to 'set the record straight' when what is being claimed by the likes of yourself is nothing more than hearsay with no viable evidence to support it.

You're about as much use with irony as you are with rational thought.

[Hope]

You're about as much use with irony as you are with rational thought.

Well, at least I do both better than you seem to manage.

[Aruntraveller]

Well, at least I do both better than you seem to manage.

Do you have peer reviewed evidence to support that assertion?

[Shaker]

Well, at least I do both better than you seem to manage.

R & E's Fallacymeister-in-chief better at rational thought?

Really? How does that work, then?

[Shaker]

Dpo you have peer reviewed evidence to support that assertion?

Very good 

[Hope]

R & E's Fallacymeister-in-chief better at rational thought?

Really? How does that work, then?

By reading your posts which are often factually incorrect, despite your claiming to be fact- centric

[Hope]

Do you have peer reviewed evidence to support that assertion?

Well, there are posts of mine on this and other boards that my peers have stated are correct.

And before you ask me to provide links to those, remember that Shakes made an assertion (one he has made on a number of occasions) so the burden of prove lies on his shoulders - a burden that he has so far failed to deliver on.

[Shaker]

By reading your posts which are often factually incorrect, despite your claiming to be fact- centric

Name some.

[Shaker]

Well, there are posts of mine on this and other boards that my peers have stated are correct.

Best laugh I've had in quite some time.

[Aruntraveller]

Well, there are posts of mine on this and other boards that my peers have stated are correct.

Doesn't really cut the mustard as there are an equal if not greater number of posters who have stated you are incorrect. And in either case that is purely an appeal to 'argumentum ad populum' and not really admissable.

No what we need is a rigorous study of your entire output on message boards to establish if indeed your claims about the understanding and use of both irony and rational thought are true and then they need to be quantified and judged. Furthermore we then need to measure them against Shakers use and understanding of those two attributes and compare and contrast your abilities.

Goodness me that should keep the board busy for the next 12 months.

Happy New Year!

[Gordon]

OK, Gordon, perhaps you will produce the evidence that you use to inform your opinion on the spiritual realm.  You can use the thread I've started for the purpose.

So, I take it you've posted details of definitive and validated spiritual evidence there to start the ball rolling?

[floo]

Floo, as I'm sure you'll agree, it can be difficult to 'set the record straight' when what is being claimed by the likes of yourself is nothing more than hearsay with no viable evidence to support it.

So you are claiming the Bible is hearsay with no viable evidence to support it? WOW!

[floo]

Well, there are posts of mine on this and other boards that my peers have stated are correct.


And that of course means they are!