Mary was not a "virgin". She had to have sex with someone. I don’t know who it was but I don’t think it was Joseph however. My theory is she was sexually assaulted but she might have confessed this to Joseph because she was a young girl and she was frightened of what these villagers would do to her if they found out she had been raped. Stoning most likley in public. I am not confusing anything. She had sex and Jesus was the result. Jesus was a man. Jesus more than likely had descendants of his own also. I am not limiting god. I am simply stating that there is no way he got Mary pregnant telekinetically. So are you suggesting that god had sex with Mary? There are also no ribs forming human beings. That is just a fictitious account from the bible.

Yes Krimsa was the only one in the entire thread who actually stuck to the rules.

She used only the Bible to show that it contradicts itself, and she succeeded with sound arguments that could not be refuted by using the same rules.

A toast to Krimsa!

Perhaps Adam and Eve died metaphorically to their complete Heaven on Earth when they became self-conscious. Perhaps eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil marked the beginning of the Human Condition. A condition inherantly riddled with perception of good and bad.

Actually - you are limiting God. You are using the limited experience of your life, and the facts and knowledge you have gleened - through others - from the education system that you were exposed to - just like every one here has. You have determined for yourself that the God of Scriptures was incapable of forming Jesus in the womb of Mary - which by the way - is another biblical concept - without the help of a man having had sexual relations with her, consensual or otherwise. This show a serious lack of understanding the God of scripture.

You would be better served to simply claim that Jesus didn't exist. For to claim that God was incapable of forming life in the womb of a virgin, but somehow create a human out of dust, as in the case of Adam, or out of a rib as in the case of Eve, is a demondstration of not comprehending the power of God.

But he failed. His creation Man was not "good" after all. Therefore God is not perfect.

BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD PEOPLE!

Ok - since no one has asked yet, I will.

Why did god create a whole world, a whole environment in which human was to 'lord' over and then put a TREE in it garded by angels that man could not touch?

Sounds like it's either a contradiction or a test. But why would god create such a test? Why would god create such a tree?

Of couse speaking of Angels, wouldn't that be considered another species? Yes, perhaps from another worldly dimension, but another species anyway. So why would this planet be the only one to be worthy of any godly creations? And if that is erroneous, then why was man the only creation in need of saving?

So many questions, but so difficult to get to them all.

Here's a suggestion. Since Quicksteper and Feral seem to have a direct line to god, maybe we pose our questions to them and have them, both, ask god for a reply and see how he responds to both of them. To make it fair we should have a blind, someone who believes in god but who has never heard god speak to him/her. The three could ask the question we pose of god and then come back and each of them tell us what god said. Of course we would have to ask god to abide by certain rules, specifically we must ask that god not reference the bible in any way, but rather speak his own words.

There now! Finally a chance for those who speak to god to get some answers to REAL questions, and not just the one they think he should answer.

What do you all think?

You are victimizing yourself with the fallacy of the shifting middle. Maybe there's a Mathematician on the threads somewhere who can help you out with this. Abra - do you know anyone capable of explaining this to Jeannie?

NOW THAT ONES UP FOR DEBATE!!!

Quikstop, you are behaving in a terrible manner. Shame on you! Show some decorum for goodness sake! Just awful.

T: - now this may be a problem R, what your asking is for god to not use his own supposed words? would it not hold that if these are his words that he could do no other than to speak them? or are you saying for him to say the same thing in a different way? which really would amount to the same thing? doesn't make sense to me?

OOPS! Don't look now...but you're violating the no insult rules...AGAIN! So much for being the self proclaimed moderator...physician heal thyself. LOL

abra:

The argument from the believer was that they did die eventually. The argument being that they would have never died had they not eaten the fruit.

But that's not what the verse says,...

It clearly says,... "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

That means that they would die the same day they ate it.

tribo:

they were wrong or stupid, one of the two or both - the death did take place as i wrote JB - it was a spiritual death that happened as soon as they ate, gods spirit left them, they had turned into soulish creatures only, that is why they felt shame not because they were naked, because they knew that they were always naked, but their soulish nature with out gods spirit allowed them to see or experience there new found lustful soulish nature that we now all posses. Anyone who is christian and argues against this i will debate to death!!

Let me get this straight. Because I said that you were behaving shamefully, I am "name calling"? What about you referring to the non-Christians as a "pack of vipers". Now that's name calling as far as my understanding of the definition.

Here we go again...round & round with your trying to lord it over people. It's ok for you to throw barbs & not others? I think it's you who needs the instructions girlie.

Just post what you are for & stop this nonsense with people you disagree with. I overlook many things said & don't address people personally...I suggest you do the same.

Oh my. So there is absolutely no reason in your not so humble opinion that we should ever seek to gain a better understanding of a topic, discuss a hypothesis, point out a potential error in logic, nor share any personal insight we may have? This does nothing for the spirit of men according to you?

I don’t think of it in those terms. I never will. What about the spirit of all? What of humanity? Should it have no voice? Should it simply take everything at face value and be fearful of questioning preordained doctrine? Should we reinvent language and insist that the bible conform to our personal desires/beliefs as we see fit? If you choose to negate my views, wouldn’t I have absolute authority to question your own?

You do not know me, or I you. You have no right to imply you have any understanding of what my life experience entails. You do not know what pain I have endured, or the joys. You, my friend, have made sure you have jumped from your own aircraft with a closed parachute. I just hope you wake up before you splatter. Good luck with that.

Why would the "son of god" need to somehow be created through non traditional means? Tell me why that is evil or bad?

tribo......the text say that "when mary approached elizabeth she was filled with the holy ghost"

ok.....the perception of this text could be taken many ways, not just ONE......

it is a fact she is filled, and mary is approching her......this in no way is to say that mary approaching was the act that filled her, and this in no way says she was not already filled, nor does it say that all others are not filled as well, and even lends more to god being JUST AND FAIR, so who then can be given unto UNEQUALLY?

this also does not say that there are not two spirits as mentioned all thru text......

it does not matter at all as for doctrine sake, but when something is worshipped as the voice of god, as a holy spirit is so professed to be, and this be already active, since childbirth in all, then this certainally would tend to persuade one was lacking, insteatd of showing how god is already within, and if it was said the kingdom of heaven was within, then how can it be that good as god come from the outside somewhere, as to be filled can easily mean it was from within, and grew, along side another spirit, the sprit of god alike, both growing up together, so both coming to a fullness, and when the two have become completed, creating all wisdom within any one being, the spirit of god gobble up the holy spirit and it be disolved, not seeing any more one man as holy and another as not holy.........

did not moses staff turn to a snake, and EAT the snake of the pharoahs men, moses representing god and pharoah satan, but indeed it was said that god hardend pharoahs heart, so it was god that made pharoah say NO.........then how is pharoah to blame, as who can resist the will of god as it was spoken?

did not god tell peter to kill and eat, and not to see as holy and unholy any longer, as was not it custom to not eat such things previously?

how could god tell to do different now?

is he changing his mind, or is god just the truth in each, answering back the half-truth of all the mind say as a holy spirit, as the law, and it was written in text as two sides of a coin, as the tail side the serpent, and the head side as god.........so when peter heard and wrote, he was simply stating first what his MIND told him, a holy spirit, and then what his HEART told him, the spirit of god.........

ideas, ideas, ideas, lol.........

If you really want understanding you have to understand what God's word says. If you are going to resist it you will never be able to agree with it...for the sake of the experience in KNOWING it actually works. Your own posts reveal your resistance to God by the way you slander & twist His words.

It doesn't matter that I know you or not. You jumped into the fray with much arrogance toward those you don't know & I was just having fun with it. If you're gonna dish it out be able to take it.

I know! I know! You don't do anything wrong...it's always the other guy...Right? LOL LOL

the fundamentalist and the atheist struggle at its best. wonderful way to start a saturday morning.