100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
the fundamentalist and the atheist struggle at its best. wonderful way to start a saturday morning. It's all your fault...where were YOU???? LOL Good morning~~~~~~ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the fundamentalist and the atheist struggle at its best. wonderful way to start a saturday morning. I am not an atheist. Good try though.  I wish I could answer some of your question, not with the intent to convert you (that would be to much of a waste of time), but at least I would give you a more informed view. However, in this environment is not the best. an environment where you are called viper just because you don't believe the same as others, or I'm called delusional just because I'm a christian. Not a good environment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the fundamentalist and the atheist struggle at its best. wonderful way to start a saturday morning. It's all your fault...where were YOU???? LOL Good morning~~~~~~ working all night long to make a decent living. good morning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the fundamentalist and the atheist struggle at its best. wonderful way to start a saturday morning. I am not an atheist. Good try though. I wish I could answer some of your question, not with the intent to convert you (that would be to much of a waste of time), but at least I would give you a more informed view. However, in this environment is not the best. an environment where you are called viper just because you don't believe the same as others, or I'm called delusional just because I'm a christian. Not a good environment. I could not agree with you more. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Sat 08/09/08 05:47 AM
|
|
Oh and Eljay, it’s an "isolated incident"? Come on now. What about your famous "virgin Mary" Why would it be so important for Mary to be considered a "virgin"? Because it implies that god had some kind of role in knocking her up. It would have been yucky and "unholy" for her to become pregnant in the traditional manner. My guess is it wasn't Joseph. It was another man who impregnated her and it may have been rape. Joseph probably knew what would happen if this got out and became common knowledge. A stoning more than likely. So the two of them concocted this story to spare Mary's life and get out of dodge before those crazy villagers got wind of it. It was considered "important" for Mary to be a virgin because it was prophised she would be thousands of years previous to this. It was stated first that the saviour would be born to a virgin. It is one of the 3,000+ fullfilled prophecies of the Old Testiment which told of the coming of Jesus. But seriously - is this something that you are unfamiliar with? Just not buying it. At least not from a logical perspective. Tell me with a straight face that Mary was a "virgin". By definition of virgin, let’s just say a person who has not been intimate with one of the opposite sex. Do you think this was actually the case? Not to mention, why would it be “bad” or “unholy” if a man had actually impregnated Mary? Isn’t that the way it’s normally done? You have had sex before correct? I don’t want to jump to conclusions here. Mary was a virgin. Your "not buying it" has no bearing on it's validity. Please don't confuse this with the "perpetuality of virginity" as described in Catholicism though - I don't buy into that. Mary had other children after Jesus - and that would have ended the "virginity" status at that point. I wouldn't say that you are jumping to conclusions - but I am curious as to how much you are limiting God. Do you think that the God of scripture - who fashioned Adam from the earth, and Eve from his rib - incapable of impregnating a virgin by mere thought? 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. 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. You are incorrect. I am simply questioning the bible as many of us are here on this thread. Of course I am limited to my educational background, life experience and any other research on the topic I may have done. Are you implying that you aren’t in some respect? I simply disagree with your views. I have brought forth my information to the table and you are free to debate any of us who disagree with you. Never once have I limited god. I told you I do not believe in a virgin birth, or humans being made from ribs. I do believe in Jesus. He was a man. I have stated this repeatedly. I’m not sure what you are misunderstanding at this point. I also feel that Mary had sexual intercourse with someone in order to become pregnant. Why would that be so awful anyway? Why would the "son of god" need to somehow be created through non traditional means? Tell me why that is evil or bad? I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me - or offering a different perspective. I would prefer that they at least have read the book before the jump into dicussions about it though - expecially when they profess to disbelieve what is explaned in it. The bible discusses specifically about the virgin birth - in both the Old Testament and the New. If Jesus HAD to have been born of a man having sex rather than to a virgin - then the entire New Testatament would be a contradiction to the whole. Joseph also came to the same conclusion that you did - that Mary had had sexual relations, and this matter was resolved by God. As to your last question - the "son of God" had to be born of a virgin because it was prophesized to be so - thousands of years before the event. Had he not been born of a virgin - he would have never been recognized as the "son of God" - and rightfully so. Not to be mean spirited - but if you had read the book - this would have been an obvious response to the question. It is referenced numerous times. This is not a slight - it is only going to be to your advantage to have the experience of reading it - for it will legitimise your opinion about it - otherwise, the opinions you are express are either ill informed, or someone elses. When you speak of reincarnation and how it is interpreted in Wicca - it is clearly demonstrated that you've put some study into this - even if casually - so too with your responses on evolution. If you wish to involve yourself in biblical discussions - why is not the effort put into the bible as you have in these other things? That is essentially the point that I'm getting at. Whether you chose to or not - only you can justify to yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. ****************************** GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation. (Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.) 5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. funny he said it was >>very good<< and not "perfect", why make it just "very good" if he is capable of making everything "perfect"? 5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. T: that was after the fall, after man had sinned supposedly. cant count that. thats not a change in god but man if were talking strictly bible. But he failed. His creation Man was not "good" after all. Therefore God is not perfect. BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD PEOPLE!  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? If she is incorrect in some respect, why don’t you explain the fallacy in her thinking? Or are you limited by your educational background?  Because I know when Abra (our resident Mathematition) responds - it will increase the chance of her believing it. If I do - it increases the chances she will ignore it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wouldee, eljay,and spider as well as feral and morning song are steeped in religiosity Krimsa, there are literally millions of theology books and lexicons and concordances they or other's use to prove their 6000 yr old traditions, these debates raised here have been going on for centuries by better minds than mine and Abra's and or the others here. The results? no different than this one. To " argue" or "debate" religion is futile because it is a >>>"FAITH"<<< based belief. Take away all the >>>extra-biblical<<< propaganda and assumtions,the current inability to understand as clearly as the original hebrews and early aramaic speaking believers of the languages then spoken, and what you have is just words. A compilation of stories and sayings that only could really be understood by those who were present at the time spoken if you hold the stories true. If you read and come to the conclusion they are not true (at least for now in this time of your life} then move on. If you want to search the "faith" of the believers then you really do have to do it from within. you actually have to put aside your >>dis-belief<< - in order find if it is true or not. Otherwise it is like one trying to explain to another what a piece of fruit or other food taste like that they themselves have not tasted, and that may be the "exact opposite" of what you may find to be true for yourself in tasting the same food(s). I like clams - some others hate clams or are even allergic to them and cant eat them. I am not reccomending that you do - nor am i saying not to do - I am merely stating that if one really wants to know if >something<, "anything" is really what it says it is - then one has to have >>>"expieriencial"<<<< contact with it or stand away and speak of it only in a hypothetical sense at most. If that is all you want is Hypothetical answers then continue on "Ad Ifinitum" - but you will find yourself still not knowing whether it is sound or unsound for you - or worthy of putting your >>>>>>>FAITH<<<<<<<<< into it or not. Faith is the key word here! all else is "mans doing" trying to explain why one should have this faith. read the gospels and all of jesus words - leave out the rest - if they donot move you to believe, then move on, dear lady. sincerely - tribo Boy O Boy do I agree with you here. I agree with all you said...and to add that it does no good to debate. The only way people will know is by living life & experiencing it firsthand. Discussion & debate do nothing for the spirit man. It's about the experience. God's word is tried & true no matter how mankind feels about it. Christian faith is not blind...it knows where it's going...for sure.  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. 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 I seek to have a better understanding of the bible and the information found within. You seem to feel it is inappropriate for anyone to question these scriptures. I have not been arrogant. I have simply brought these issues to light (or a few of them) as many others have as well. You continue to attempt to belittle, name call, throw tantrums and in your egotistical nonsensical ramblings, have us all believe that you have some level of profound connection with god. All I see is a bitter person who likes to put others down. You may correct me if I’m wrong. Once again, you do not know me. You have no right to presume that you do. nah nah nah nah naaah naah... so there  LOL Your hysterical...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh and Eljay, it’s an "isolated incident"? Come on now. What about your famous "virgin Mary" Why would it be so important for Mary to be considered a "virgin"? Because it implies that god had some kind of role in knocking her up. It would have been yucky and "unholy" for her to become pregnant in the traditional manner. My guess is it wasn't Joseph. It was another man who impregnated her and it may have been rape. Joseph probably knew what would happen if this got out and became common knowledge. A stoning more than likely. So the two of them concocted this story to spare Mary's life and get out of dodge before those crazy villagers got wind of it. It was considered "important" for Mary to be a virgin because it was prophised she would be thousands of years previous to this. It was stated first that the saviour would be born to a virgin. It is one of the 3,000+ fullfilled prophecies of the Old Testiment which told of the coming of Jesus. But seriously - is this something that you are unfamiliar with? Just not buying it. At least not from a logical perspective. Tell me with a straight face that Mary was a "virgin". By definition of virgin, let’s just say a person who has not been intimate with one of the opposite sex. Do you think this was actually the case? Not to mention, why would it be “bad” or “unholy” if a man had actually impregnated Mary? Isn’t that the way it’s normally done? You have had sex before correct? I don’t want to jump to conclusions here. Mary was a virgin. Your "not buying it" has no bearing on it's validity. Please don't confuse this with the "perpetuality of virginity" as described in Catholicism though - I don't buy into that. Mary had other children after Jesus - and that would have ended the "virginity" status at that point. I wouldn't say that you are jumping to conclusions - but I am curious as to how much you are limiting God. Do you think that the God of scripture - who fashioned Adam from the earth, and Eve from his rib - incapable of impregnating a virgin by mere thought? 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. 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. You are incorrect. I am simply questioning the bible as many of us are here on this thread. Of course I am limited to my educational background, life experience and any other research on the topic I may have done. Are you implying that you aren’t in some respect? I simply disagree with your views. I have brought forth my information to the table and you are free to debate any of us who disagree with you. Never once have I limited god. I told you I do not believe in a virgin birth, or humans being made from ribs. I do believe in Jesus. He was a man. I have stated this repeatedly. I’m not sure what you are misunderstanding at this point. I also feel that Mary had sexual intercourse with someone in order to become pregnant. Why would that be so awful anyway? Why would the "son of god" need to somehow be created through non traditional means? Tell me why that is evil or bad? I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me - or offering a different perspective. I would prefer that they at least have read the book before the jump into dicussions about it though - expecially when the preofees to disbelieve what is explaned in it. The bible discusses specifically about the virgin birth - in both the Old Testament and the New. If Jesus HAD to have been born of a man having sex rather than to a virgin - then the entire New Testatament would be a contradiction to the whole. Joseph also came to the same conclusion that you did - that Mary had had sexual relations, and this matter was resolved by God. As to your last question - the "son of God" had to be born of a virgin because it was prophesized to be so - thousands of years before the event. Had he not been born of a virgin - he would have never been recognized as the "son of God" - and rightfully so. Not to be mean spirited - but if you had read the book - this would have been an obvious response to the question. It is referenced numerous times. This is not a slight - it is only going to be to your advantage to have the experience of reading it - for it will legitimise your opinion about it - otherwise, the opinions you are express are either ill informed, or someone elses. When you speak of reincarnation and how it is interpreted in Wicca - it is clearly demonstrated that you've put some study into this - even if casually - so too with your responses on evolution. If you wish to involve yourself in biblical discussions - why is not the effort put into the bible as you have in these other things? That is essentially the point that I'm getting at. Whether you chose to or not - only you can justify to yourself. Well if you do not mind us questioning these inconsistencies and contradictions found in the bible, shouldn't you be able to debate them with me? Clear the air? Set my head straight so to speak? Have you read the bible? I've asked you that twice now and you sidestep the issue. If you say you have, from ear to ear, then assuredly you would be able to enlighten me or properly explained some of the problems set forth by the others here? If you have not read it in its entirety, fair enough. You probably should not go around chastising others for research you yourself have yet to complete. Which is it then sir? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh and Eljay, it’s an "isolated incident"? Come on now. What about your famous "virgin Mary" Why would it be so important for Mary to be considered a "virgin"? Because it implies that god had some kind of role in knocking her up. It would have been yucky and "unholy" for her to become pregnant in the traditional manner. My guess is it wasn't Joseph. It was another man who impregnated her and it may have been rape. Joseph probably knew what would happen if this got out and became common knowledge. A stoning more than likely. So the two of them concocted this story to spare Mary's life and get out of dodge before those crazy villagers got wind of it. It was considered "important" for Mary to be a virgin because it was prophised she would be thousands of years previous to this. It was stated first that the saviour would be born to a virgin. It is one of the 3,000+ fullfilled prophecies of the Old Testiment which told of the coming of Jesus. But seriously - is this something that you are unfamiliar with? Just not buying it. At least not from a logical perspective. Tell me with a straight face that Mary was a "virgin". By definition of virgin, let’s just say a person who has not been intimate with one of the opposite sex. Do you think this was actually the case? Not to mention, why would it be “bad” or “unholy” if a man had actually impregnated Mary? Isn’t that the way it’s normally done? You have had sex before correct? I don’t want to jump to conclusions here. Mary was a virgin. Your "not buying it" has no bearing on it's validity. Please don't confuse this with the "perpetuality of virginity" as described in Catholicism though - I don't buy into that. Mary had other children after Jesus - and that would have ended the "virginity" status at that point. I wouldn't say that you are jumping to conclusions - but I am curious as to how much you are limiting God. Do you think that the God of scripture - who fashioned Adam from the earth, and Eve from his rib - incapable of impregnating a virgin by mere thought? 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. 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. You are incorrect. I am simply questioning the bible as many of us are here on this thread. Of course I am limited to my educational background, life experience and any other research on the topic I may have done. Are you implying that you aren’t in some respect? I simply disagree with your views. I have brought forth my information to the table and you are free to debate any of us who disagree with you. Never once have I limited god. I told you I do not believe in a virgin birth, or humans being made from ribs. I do believe in Jesus. He was a man. I have stated this repeatedly. I’m not sure what you are misunderstanding at this point. I also feel that Mary had sexual intercourse with someone in order to become pregnant. Why would that be so awful anyway? Why would the "son of god" need to somehow be created through non traditional means? Tell me why that is evil or bad? I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me - or offering a different perspective. I would prefer that they at least have read the book before the jump into dicussions about it though - expecially when the preofees to disbelieve what is explaned in it. The bible discusses specifically about the virgin birth - in both the Old Testament and the New. If Jesus HAD to have been born of a man having sex rather than to a virgin - then the entire New Testatament would be a contradiction to the whole. Joseph also came to the same conclusion that you did - that Mary had had sexual relations, and this matter was resolved by God. As to your last question - the "son of God" had to be born of a virgin because it was prophesized to be so - thousands of years before the event. Had he not been born of a virgin - he would have never been recognized as the "son of God" - and rightfully so. Not to be mean spirited - but if you had read the book - this would have been an obvious response to the question. It is referenced numerous times. This is not a slight - it is only going to be to your advantage to have the experience of reading it - for it will legitimise your opinion about it - otherwise, the opinions you are express are either ill informed, or someone elses. When you speak of reincarnation and how it is interpreted in Wicca - it is clearly demonstrated that you've put some study into this - even if casually - so too with your responses on evolution. If you wish to involve yourself in biblical discussions - why is not the effort put into the bible as you have in these other things? That is essentially the point that I'm getting at. Whether you chose to or not - only you can justify to yourself. Eljay... they completely rebel against the power of God to do the impossible. This mixing all these other "imaginations" with the pure word of God only causes confusion & doubt. That's why these words of God are so important for people to know & understand... The secret things belong to God but the things revealed belong to us. Only God can reveal the hidden things in our own heart to us. It's called resurrection power. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one is rebelling. We ask that you explain it. You I am done with due to your marginal behavior, name calling and rudeness.
Eljay, is at least polite. Do you mind! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh and Eljay, it’s an "isolated incident"? Come on now. What about your famous "virgin Mary" Why would it be so important for Mary to be considered a "virgin"? Because it implies that god had some kind of role in knocking her up. It would have been yucky and "unholy" for her to become pregnant in the traditional manner. My guess is it wasn't Joseph. It was another man who impregnated her and it may have been rape. Joseph probably knew what would happen if this got out and became common knowledge. A stoning more than likely. So the two of them concocted this story to spare Mary's life and get out of dodge before those crazy villagers got wind of it. It was considered "important" for Mary to be a virgin because it was prophised she would be thousands of years previous to this. It was stated first that the saviour would be born to a virgin. It is one of the 3,000+ fullfilled prophecies of the Old Testiment which told of the coming of Jesus. But seriously - is this something that you are unfamiliar with? Just not buying it. At least not from a logical perspective. Tell me with a straight face that Mary was a "virgin". By definition of virgin, let’s just say a person who has not been intimate with one of the opposite sex. Do you think this was actually the case? Not to mention, why would it be “bad” or “unholy” if a man had actually impregnated Mary? Isn’t that the way it’s normally done? You have had sex before correct? I don’t want to jump to conclusions here. Mary was a virgin. Your "not buying it" has no bearing on it's validity. Please don't confuse this with the "perpetuality of virginity" as described in Catholicism though - I don't buy into that. Mary had other children after Jesus - and that would have ended the "virginity" status at that point. I wouldn't say that you are jumping to conclusions - but I am curious as to how much you are limiting God. Do you think that the God of scripture - who fashioned Adam from the earth, and Eve from his rib - incapable of impregnating a virgin by mere thought? 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. 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. You are incorrect. I am simply questioning the bible as many of us are here on this thread. Of course I am limited to my educational background, life experience and any other research on the topic I may have done. Are you implying that you aren’t in some respect? I simply disagree with your views. I have brought forth my information to the table and you are free to debate any of us who disagree with you. Never once have I limited god. I told you I do not believe in a virgin birth, or humans being made from ribs. I do believe in Jesus. He was a man. I have stated this repeatedly. I’m not sure what you are misunderstanding at this point. I also feel that Mary had sexual intercourse with someone in order to become pregnant. Why would that be so awful anyway? Why would the "son of god" need to somehow be created through non traditional means? Tell me why that is evil or bad? I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me - or offering a different perspective. I would prefer that they at least have read the book before the jump into dicussions about it though - expecially when the preofees to disbelieve what is explaned in it. The bible discusses specifically about the virgin birth - in both the Old Testament and the New. If Jesus HAD to have been born of a man having sex rather than to a virgin - then the entire New Testatament would be a contradiction to the whole. Joseph also came to the same conclusion that you did - that Mary had had sexual relations, and this matter was resolved by God. As to your last question - the "son of God" had to be born of a virgin because it was prophesized to be so - thousands of years before the event. Had he not been born of a virgin - he would have never been recognized as the "son of God" - and rightfully so. Not to be mean spirited - but if you had read the book - this would have been an obvious response to the question. It is referenced numerous times. This is not a slight - it is only going to be to your advantage to have the experience of reading it - for it will legitimise your opinion about it - otherwise, the opinions you are express are either ill informed, or someone elses. When you speak of reincarnation and how it is interpreted in Wicca - it is clearly demonstrated that you've put some study into this - even if casually - so too with your responses on evolution. If you wish to involve yourself in biblical discussions - why is not the effort put into the bible as you have in these other things? That is essentially the point that I'm getting at. Whether you chose to or not - only you can justify to yourself. Well if you do not mind us questioning these inconsistencies and contradictions found in the bible, shouldn't you be able to debate them with me? Clear the air? Set my head straight so to speak? Have you read the bible? I've asked you that twice now and you sidestep the issue. If you say you have, from ear to ear, then assuredly you would be able to enlighten me or properly explained some of the problems set forth by the others here? If you have not read it in its entirety, fair enough. You probably should not go around chastising others for research you yourself have yet to complete. Which is it then sir? Yes - I have read it ear to ear - the New Testament at least twice. I'm fairly strait forward about what I discuss here, and I rarely touch upon subjects that I know little about - other than Darwinism - which I have no desire to bother with, I had enough of that nonsense crammed down my throat as a youth - being held hostage by a grade. I don't mind responding to the questions and percieved contradictions - but it is often better when one executes the exegesis for themselves - else they are relying on my exegesis. The only time I get into depth concerning these topics is when one professes to claim they know what I think or do as a Christian - which is in opposition to what I think and do in my life. Otherwise - much is lost when the responses are given to someone who has formulated an opinion about a topic without the experience of examining the occurance of it eveywhere in the text. An example of this is Tribo refutting Jeannies percieved contradictions. Here - Tribo is not a professed Christian - but he has at least read the scriptures, and understands the basics of what is being said. I'm not saying that you need to read the entire bible before you enter into discussions about it - but you would be better served to ask where in scripture your percieved conflicts are resolved - rather than hold the expectation of some one else to determine the exegesis for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Sat 08/09/08 06:01 AM
|
|
QS Wrote: His compassion wasn't wasted on people who were too proud to believe His good works or rebelled against His will & His words. Are all those who question one's view perceived as "too proud" and rebellious? Those with questions must handle the wording of their posts w/ kid gloves, so as not to rattle the cages of those with unshakable convictions? Might I suggest that "pride" is exactly the place from which these very judgments come? ...and this remark comes from someone who calls themselves a...???? What did you say you believe in again? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QS Wrote: His compassion wasn't wasted on people who were too proud to believe His good works or rebelled against His will & His words. Are all those who question one's view perceived as "too proud" and rebellious? Those with questions must handle the wording of their posts w/ kid gloves, so as not to rattle the cages of those with unshakable convictions? Might I suggest that "pride" is exactly the place from which these very judgments come? ...and this remark comes from someone who calls themselves a...???? What did you say you believe in again? You nailed quickstop there to a T (pardon the biblical terminology) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh and Eljay, it’s an "isolated incident"? Come on now. What about your famous "virgin Mary" Why would it be so important for Mary to be considered a "virgin"? Because it implies that god had some kind of role in knocking her up. It would have been yucky and "unholy" for her to become pregnant in the traditional manner. My guess is it wasn't Joseph. It was another man who impregnated her and it may have been rape. Joseph probably knew what would happen if this got out and became common knowledge. A stoning more than likely. So the two of them concocted this story to spare Mary's life and get out of dodge before those crazy villagers got wind of it. It was considered "important" for Mary to be a virgin because it was prophised she would be thousands of years previous to this. It was stated first that the saviour would be born to a virgin. It is one of the 3,000+ fullfilled prophecies of the Old Testiment which told of the coming of Jesus. But seriously - is this something that you are unfamiliar with? Just not buying it. At least not from a logical perspective. Tell me with a straight face that Mary was a "virgin". By definition of virgin, let’s just say a person who has not been intimate with one of the opposite sex. Do you think this was actually the case? Not to mention, why would it be “bad” or “unholy” if a man had actually impregnated Mary? Isn’t that the way it’s normally done? You have had sex before correct? I don’t want to jump to conclusions here. Mary was a virgin. Your "not buying it" has no bearing on it's validity. Please don't confuse this with the "perpetuality of virginity" as described in Catholicism though - I don't buy into that. Mary had other children after Jesus - and that would have ended the "virginity" status at that point. I wouldn't say that you are jumping to conclusions - but I am curious as to how much you are limiting God. Do you think that the God of scripture - who fashioned Adam from the earth, and Eve from his rib - incapable of impregnating a virgin by mere thought? 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. 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. You are incorrect. I am simply questioning the bible as many of us are here on this thread. Of course I am limited to my educational background, life experience and any other research on the topic I may have done. Are you implying that you aren’t in some respect? I simply disagree with your views. I have brought forth my information to the table and you are free to debate any of us who disagree with you. Never once have I limited god. I told you I do not believe in a virgin birth, or humans being made from ribs. I do believe in Jesus. He was a man. I have stated this repeatedly. I’m not sure what you are misunderstanding at this point. I also feel that Mary had sexual intercourse with someone in order to become pregnant. Why would that be so awful anyway? Why would the "son of god" need to somehow be created through non traditional means? Tell me why that is evil or bad? I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me - or offering a different perspective. I would prefer that they at least have read the book before the jump into dicussions about it though - expecially when the preofees to disbelieve what is explaned in it. The bible discusses specifically about the virgin birth - in both the Old Testament and the New. If Jesus HAD to have been born of a man having sex rather than to a virgin - then the entire New Testatament would be a contradiction to the whole. Joseph also came to the same conclusion that you did - that Mary had had sexual relations, and this matter was resolved by God. As to your last question - the "son of God" had to be born of a virgin because it was prophesized to be so - thousands of years before the event. Had he not been born of a virgin - he would have never been recognized as the "son of God" - and rightfully so. Not to be mean spirited - but if you had read the book - this would have been an obvious response to the question. It is referenced numerous times. This is not a slight - it is only going to be to your advantage to have the experience of reading it - for it will legitimise your opinion about it - otherwise, the opinions you are express are either ill informed, or someone elses. When you speak of reincarnation and how it is interpreted in Wicca - it is clearly demonstrated that you've put some study into this - even if casually - so too with your responses on evolution. If you wish to involve yourself in biblical discussions - why is not the effort put into the bible as you have in these other things? That is essentially the point that I'm getting at. Whether you chose to or not - only you can justify to yourself. Well if you do not mind us questioning these inconsistencies and contradictions found in the bible, shouldn't you be able to debate them with me? Clear the air? Set my head straight so to speak? Have you read the bible? I've asked you that twice now and you sidestep the issue. If you say you have, from ear to ear, then assuredly you would be able to enlighten me or properly explained some of the problems set forth by the others here? If you have not read it in its entirety, fair enough. You probably should not go around chastising others for research you yourself have yet to complete. Which is it then sir? Yes - I have read it ear to ear - the New Testament at least twice. I'm fairly strait forward about what I discuss here, and I rarely touch upon subjects that I know little about - other than Darwinism - which I have no desire to bother with, I had enough of that nonsense crammed down my throat as a youth - being held hostage by a grade. I don't mind responding to the questions and percieved contradictions - but it is often better when one executes the exegesis for themselves - else they are relying on my exegesis. The only time I get into depth concerning these topics is when one professes to claim they know what I think or do as a Christian - which is in opposition to what I think and do in my life. Otherwise - much is lost when the responses are given to someone who has formulated an opinion about a topic without the experience of examining the occurance of it eveywhere in the text. An example of this is Tribo refutting Jeannies percieved contradictions. Here - Tribo is not a professed Christian - but he has at least read the scriptures, and understands the basics of what is being said. I'm not saying that you need to read the entire bible before you enter into discussions about it - but you would be better served to ask where in scripture your percieved conflicts are resolved - rather than hold the expectation of some one else to determine the exegesis for you. I can respect that you have read the book from ear to ear, however it just seems that in this case, you would be able to better help someone like myself, or any of us on this thread who according to your analysis, are so underexposed and quick to question the mystical workings of the bible. That is the presumption you are making here Eljay and it is not entirely fair. It is a mistake often made but generally you hear it espoused more from the mouths of the fundamentalists. I won’t go so far as to accuse you of that of course. Darwinism and anthropogenesis were subjects of great interest to me while in school. That is in direct contrast to you. I excelled in this level of academia. I also studied cultural and physical anthropology. So we are both scholars, we just enjoyed different subjects. I don’t feel that is any reason to heap blame on someone as being a "non believer". Can we not learn from each others strengths or perceived weaknesses? If my level of understanding of the scripture was so terribly lacking, as you would seem to indicate, how then would I be able to bring forth these arguments and debate them? I don't agree with you that these inconsistencies and contradictions are merely "perceived". Not after days of this and more and more evidence to support the reality of our claims. It’s simply too much now for backtracking and hiding your head in the sand. You are mistaken in that I expect any fundamentalist here to "explain the bible to me". I ask and then I question. The problem seems to always arise when I question and don’t merely "accept". I’m just not hardwired for that. Sorry. I guess I need to apologize for this but it feels like I should not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would buy that the bible is all about symbolism and metaphors. If people would just leave it at that, I would be less apt to fight them on every little detail. Its when they start talking about ribs becoming people and the earth and stars and galaxy being made in a week and virgin births like its all a historically accurate account of events that I start getting really short tempered. Ooo the remake of War of the Worlds is on. Think Im gonna watch that. Night all. WOW! Just pointing out how mean spirited you are. Just a reminder that when you want to point fingers you got some pointing back at you. LOL QuikStepper, I see absolutely NOTHING "mean spirited" about the quoted post above you. Who ever wrote that was simply expressing her opinion of the unreasonable Biblical accounts mentioned and people who insist that they are "Historical." It gives a good feeling for their reasons for getting short tempered, and just a better understanding of where the person is coming from. And yet you can't see the flavor of your own mean spirited posts... interesting. Perhaps you should look at your own posts as if someone else had actually written them to you and make a judgment about them from that perspective and see what kind of feeling you get from them. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel. 5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. ************************ GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel. Genesis 11 1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. Score one for Bible inconsistencies if no body can argue this point!! I won! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Sat 08/09/08 06:53 AM
|
|
No one is rebelling. We ask that you explain it. You I am done with due to your marginal behavior, name calling and rudeness. I know what others are saying & rejected that stuff a loooong time ago but you don't hear anything you don't want to. That's the truth not an insult. You should admit that instead of taking what you want & mixing it with unscriptural things & calling it God's word. (BTW,the only thing nailed around here is that you can't take a joke. I think someone needs a sense of humor too. LOL Hysterical... hehehe) Adding stuff to what God is saying is like mixing apples & oranges. That's what I see alot of. Cherry picking what God says & add it to other "imaginations." It doesn't matter because God's word does not change. That's something those here don't get so they go on tirades about how mean Christians are for telling it like it is. LOL We KNOW what we believe in & don't move from it. We also know that we don't have to know everything about God to know His word is true from the things we DO experience. From Virgin birth... tree of life...garden of eden... the death & resurrection of Christ...and so on.. God's omni everything... it's ALL good...even what's meant for evil...is all for our good. Try to wrap your head around that one please... You can debate till the cows come home but that will never get to you the full knowledge of God Himself. Only He can do that for you & you have to ask HIM & Him alone...not this board or anyone's twisted views of what God says...or anything else human for that matter. ...and for your own sake...use the manuel...see for yourself that it's true. God bless...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 08/09/08 08:00 AM
|
|
Quickstop what manual are you referencing? How to install my car stereo? Now that, you might be able to help me with.
I think the only reason we don’t laugh with you and more at you is because you are rude, egotistical, condescending and a little bit frightening. Your affect on this forum is somewhat questionable also. I will let it rest there as I don’t want to mirror your bad behavior. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh and Eljay, it’s an "isolated incident"? Come on now. What about your famous "virgin Mary" Why would it be so important for Mary to be considered a "virgin"? Because it implies that god had some kind of role in knocking her up. It would have been yucky and "unholy" for her to become pregnant in the traditional manner. My guess is it wasn't Joseph. It was another man who impregnated her and it may have been rape. Joseph probably knew what would happen if this got out and became common knowledge. A stoning more than likely. So the two of them concocted this story to spare Mary's life and get out of dodge before those crazy villagers got wind of it. It was considered "important" for Mary to be a virgin because it was prophised she would be thousands of years previous to this. It was stated first that the saviour would be born to a virgin. It is one of the 3,000+ fullfilled prophecies of the Old Testiment which told of the coming of Jesus. But seriously - is this something that you are unfamiliar with? Just not buying it. At least not from a logical perspective. Tell me with a straight face that Mary was a "virgin". By definition of virgin, let’s just say a person who has not been intimate with one of the opposite sex. Do you think this was actually the case? Not to mention, why would it be “bad” or “unholy” if a man had actually impregnated Mary? Isn’t that the way it’s normally done? You have had sex before correct? I don’t want to jump to conclusions here. Mary was a virgin. Your "not buying it" has no bearing on it's validity. Please don't confuse this with the "perpetuality of virginity" as described in Catholicism though - I don't buy into that. Mary had other children after Jesus - and that would have ended the "virginity" status at that point. I wouldn't say that you are jumping to conclusions - but I am curious as to how much you are limiting God. Do you think that the God of scripture - who fashioned Adam from the earth, and Eve from his rib - incapable of impregnating a virgin by mere thought? 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. 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. You are incorrect. I am simply questioning the bible as many of us are here on this thread. Of course I am limited to my educational background, life experience and any other research on the topic I may have done. Are you implying that you aren’t in some respect? I simply disagree with your views. I have brought forth my information to the table and you are free to debate any of us who disagree with you. Never once have I limited god. I told you I do not believe in a virgin birth, or humans being made from ribs. I do believe in Jesus. He was a man. I have stated this repeatedly. I’m not sure what you are misunderstanding at this point. I also feel that Mary had sexual intercourse with someone in order to become pregnant. Why would that be so awful anyway? Why would the "son of god" need to somehow be created through non traditional means? Tell me why that is evil or bad? I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me - or offering a different perspective. I would prefer that they at least have read the book before the jump into dicussions about it though - expecially when the preofees to disbelieve what is explaned in it. The bible discusses specifically about the virgin birth - in both the Old Testament and the New. If Jesus HAD to have been born of a man having sex rather than to a virgin - then the entire New Testatament would be a contradiction to the whole. Joseph also came to the same conclusion that you did - that Mary had had sexual relations, and this matter was resolved by God. As to your last question - the "son of God" had to be born of a virgin because it was prophesized to be so - thousands of years before the event. Had he not been born of a virgin - he would have never been recognized as the "son of God" - and rightfully so. Not to be mean spirited - but if you had read the book - this would have been an obvious response to the question. It is referenced numerous times. This is not a slight - it is only going to be to your advantage to have the experience of reading it - for it will legitimise your opinion about it - otherwise, the opinions you are express are either ill informed, or someone elses. When you speak of reincarnation and how it is interpreted in Wicca - it is clearly demonstrated that you've put some study into this - even if casually - so too with your responses on evolution. If you wish to involve yourself in biblical discussions - why is not the effort put into the bible as you have in these other things? That is essentially the point that I'm getting at. Whether you chose to or not - only you can justify to yourself. Well if you do not mind us questioning these inconsistencies and contradictions found in the bible, shouldn't you be able to debate them with me? Clear the air? Set my head straight so to speak? Have you read the bible? I've asked you that twice now and you sidestep the issue. If you say you have, from ear to ear, then assuredly you would be able to enlighten me or properly explained some of the problems set forth by the others here? If you have not read it in its entirety, fair enough. You probably should not go around chastising others for research you yourself have yet to complete. Which is it then sir? Yes - I have read it ear to ear - the New Testament at least twice. I'm fairly strait forward about what I discuss here, and I rarely touch upon subjects that I know little about - other than Darwinism - which I have no desire to bother with, I had enough of that nonsense crammed down my throat as a youth - being held hostage by a grade. I don't mind responding to the questions and percieved contradictions - but it is often better when one executes the exegesis for themselves - else they are relying on my exegesis. The only time I get into depth concerning these topics is when one professes to claim they know what I think or do as a Christian - which is in opposition to what I think and do in my life. Otherwise - much is lost when the responses are given to someone who has formulated an opinion about a topic without the experience of examining the occurance of it eveywhere in the text. An example of this is Tribo refutting Jeannies percieved contradictions. Here - Tribo is not a professed Christian - but he has at least read the scriptures, and understands the basics of what is being said. I'm not saying that you need to read the entire bible before you enter into discussions about it - but you would be better served to ask where in scripture your percieved conflicts are resolved - rather than hold the expectation of some one else to determine the exegesis for you. I can respect that you have read the book from ear to ear, however it just seems that in this case, you would be able to better help someone like myself, or any of us on this thread who according to your analysis, are so underexposed and quick to question the mystical workings of the bible. That is the presumption you are making here Eljay and it is not entirely fair. It is a mistake often made but generally you hear it espoused more from the mouths of the fundamentalists. I won’t go so far as to accuse you of that of course. Darwinism and anthropogenesis were subjects of great interest to me while in school. That is in direct contrast to you. I excelled in this level of academia. I also studied cultural and physical anthropology. So we are both scholars, we just enjoyed different subjects. I don’t feel that is any reason to heap blame on someone as being a "non believer". Can we not learn from each others strengths or perceived weaknesses? If my level of understanding of the scripture was so terribly lacking, as you would seem to indicate, how then would I be able to bring forth these arguments and debate them? I don't agree with you that these inconsistencies and contradictions are merely "perceived". Not after days of this and more and more evidence to support the reality of our claims. It’s simply too much now for backtracking and hiding your head in the sand. You are mistaken in that I expect any fundamentalist here to "explain the bible to me". I ask and then I question. The problem seems to always arise when I question and don’t merely "accept". I’m just not hardwired for that. Sorry. I guess I need to apologize for this but it feels like I should not. Krimsa; I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there is a definite pattern to learning. It is quite evident to me that you are more than aware of this - and I might add that you show a great aptitude for being able to express that with confidence. An admirable trait. In my experience with education - in both ends of the classroom - in it, and in front of it - I've discovered that learning about the bible does not fall into the pattern - as unlike most subjects - there are a number of differet authors contributing to the same theme. That the "facts" of the bible are not merely stated once - but are self supported within the text, and usually by different authors - so as to corroberate what is being said. Also - the books are not linear - but literal, and many are collective, rather than contradictory. All of these facets make for a difficult time in comprehension without having a grasp of the whole - as it were. It brings to mind a statement I've often had to tell my pupils "Don't ask questions until you've been given all of the information - you'll only get confused." So I'm more than willing to adress questions and concerns - even percieved contradictions - but there may be times when my best response is to suggest an expended exegesis - which is a better way to approach an issue (or question) which can offen time be rather lengthy - and would need more of an active participation on your part to establish an understanding. My sense is that there is a sincerity on your part to understand _why_ these things are - without having to _believe_ they are. I'm okay with that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Sat 08/09/08 07:15 AM
|
|
GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel. 5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. ************************ GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel. Genesis 11 1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. Score one for Bible inconsistencies if no body can argue this point!! I won! I adressed it already in my post to Tribo. It's in the middle of page 37. Dear Lord - are there 38 pages on this thread. Why? |
|
|
|
|
