The main tenet of Christian doctrine?

Reminds me of the doctor who had a blocked toilet.
He phoned his plumber
He said 'put two aspirin down it. Wait. And if its not better in the morning , let me know!'

It was something to do with constipation Elegran . And the fact that he had to disappear for forty days and forty nights. [I just love Mike Harding; whenever he goes on tour I always seem to miss him by being in the wrong place at the wrong time].

Yes that is the joke I remember. The old ones do wear well.

I don't remember jokes and I certainly can't tell them but that is one of only two jokes that I can remember [the other one being about a tapeworm and a mars bar].

Well... this thread has obviously wandered a long way from it's OP!

feetlebaum Wandering discussions are one of the joys of Gransnet?

Oh well, back to the main tenets....even as a kid I always looked for rational explanations for biblical miracles. Here are some I came up with:

Raising the dead: He recognised a deep coma when he saw one.

Water into wine: a touch of mass hypnotism. (OR he invented red cordial)

Virgin birth: If Mary up the street had thought of THAT one, her Mum might not have been quite so furious when she got onto trouble.

Loaves and Fishes: when one person takes out the food they've brought, everyone does the same.

Walking on water: A hidden bit of reef.

Moses and the 10 commandments: He was so pissed off with the lot of them he took off on his own for a break. When he calmed down, he decided to write down a few rules, with a bit of godly drama to help them swallow it all.

Resurrection: not quite dead in the first place.

Casting out demons: another bit of hynotism and/or psychiatry to settle down psychotic people.

Of course, my real belief is that all this stuff was written long after the life of Christ - who knows what embellishments were added? Or what political imperatives were involved?

Think about the Norman invasion - for centuries kids were taught it was a good thing and helped civilise the country. Modern historians had a re-think, looked at the evidence, and realised it was a dreadful thing, and created utter misery for the population for about 2 centuries.

These things are almost always written by people with their own agenda.

I don't understand why anyone can think the Gospels were written a long time after (no disagreement with that) and therefore not to be trusted BUT still accept that there is something in the accounts AND then re-interpret the events. There is no evidence at all for the Gospel according to Joan! BTW, when I was an undergraduate 50 years ago we spent a term on the Anglo Saxons and I don't remember ever being told the Norman Conquest was a good thing. Come to think of it, I don't think anyone ever said any historic event was unarguably a good thing.

I can think of many historic events which were unarguably good things - abolition of slavery? Married women's property rights? Votes for women? Legalising homosexual acts? Introduction of the NHS and pensions? Making marital rape a crime?

I see no point in arguing about the finer points of the bible -either you believe it or you don't. It is like discussing how many angels could dance on the point of a needle.

Did they ever solve that question? Perhaps it's the sort of burning topic GRANSNET should be debating?

Greatnan right again!

Digressing again - re Thomas Aquinas and angels dancing on pins etc - "Knowledge of Angels" by Jill Paton Walsh is a superb story with lots of insights into that sort of theology.

I didn't say I didn't think some events were unmitigated good (or bad) news. I said I can't remember anyone telling us one or the other. The idea was to get us investigating the evidence and making an argument. You know, bald statement followed by 'Discuss'.

Sometimes the point of asking a question is to facilitate the thinking process in the meditative philosophical sense, not to arrive at a scientifically sound answer.

Some of us like that kind of thing.

jeni! stop trivializing!

Well, Lilygran, somebody has told you now - me!
Patallus, I trust we are reaching the standards required for philosophical discussion, but I am not sure I like the idea of being told to 'Discuss' something now I am no longer a student!
I have noticed that some people raise an ethical issue but fail to give us their own views on it, which seems something of a cop-out to me

Anyway, I've never heard of the gospel according to Joan, at least that's how I read it and was proper puzzled until the new penny finally dropped.
Proper daft that's me today!

I was talking about what happened hundreds of years ago when I was first at university. I wouldn't dream of inviting Greatnan or any other GNetters to 'discuss' any proposition! Not sure what the first sentence of Greatnan's last post means, though.

Good grief were you at uni at the time of Christ?

greatnan it's no worse than giving instruction in proper grammar, surely.

Lilygran well done you, regardless of my own personal beliefs, I'm impressed that you hold your end up. I don't think anyone with a faith, in whatever religion, would want to get into some sort of forensic analyis of their beliefs. It's unwinnable because a faith is just that, a belief.. Easier in this case to prove a negative methinks.

joan "Raising the dead: He recognised a deep coma when he saw one."

Darn clever to do it that quicky though! "Take up your bed and walk" - and up he got. Today's doctors would be green with envy!

He was dead and stinking.

No! They only tried to stop him saying he would be stinking. Not that he was. It says nothing about wether he was or not when he emerged.
I'm not taking sides,I just don't know.
What I'm doing is pointing out a fact.

"The idea was to get us investigating the evidence and making an argument. You know, bald statement followed by 'Discuss'"

Lilygran - the above comment which you made earlier led me to believe that you were, in fact, asking us to discuss. I am sorry if I misinterpreted it.

You also said that nobody had ever said that any historic event was unarguably a good thing. I pointed out a few that were.