Is God poison?

[kuzadd]

MDancer:

It's amazing what an arrogant ignorant ass someone can make of themselves when they try.

Only a fool or a bigot would suggest that reason and religion are incompatable.

cybercoma?:

"Reason, logic, evidence, understanding, proof... All of these things are incompatible with God and without evidence for the existence of God, there is no need for religion. Religion and reason are therefore terribly incompatible because reason and understanding has destroyed ideas that religion has held to be true. See Galileo for evidence of that."

Reason and religion are TOTALLY incompatible!

Let's recount a story, had this devout christian woman, over the weekend, telling me about Mary, mother of Jesus, and with absolute seriousness, she told me , Mary was a virgin, when she gave birth to Jesus, a virgin giving birth, immaculate conception, right?..........

Cause though she was married to Joseph, she never "did the nasty" with him, until after Jesus was born, then, she did "lay down" with her husband after jesus's birth. So inotherwords after Jesus was born , who was conceived via 'immaculate conception', she then finally had sex with her husband????

this is reasonable, or logical or rational??????

[White Doors]

This post has been reported. No need to repeat it -- you know which one I mean, if not look up the date.

I WANT to insult you, but I won't. I shouldn't need to should I?

Yes I know which one.

What was your question again?

[White Doors]

Reason, logic, evidence, understanding, proof... All of these things are incompatible with God and without evidence for the existence of God, there is no need for religion. Religion and reason are therefore terribly incompatible because reason and understanding has destroyed ideas that religion has held to be true. See Galileo for evidence of that.

logical fallacy. This would only make sense if you subscribed to the notion that science has discovered all there is to discover - which of course, is not true.

[White Doors]

Reason and religion are TOTALLY incompatible!

Let's recount a story, had this devout christian woman, over the weekend, telling me about Mary, mother of Jesus, and with absolute seriousness, she told me , Mary was a virgin, when she gave birth to Jesus, a virgin giving birth, immaculate conception, right?..........

Cause though she was married to Joseph, she never "did the nasty" with him, until after Jesus was born, then, she did "lay down" with her husband after jesus's birth. So inotherwords after Jesus was born , who was conceived via 'immaculate conception', she then finally had sex with her husband????

this is reasonable, or logical or rational??????

Finding fault with certain passages of the bible and believing in a higher power are mutually exclusive.

[cybercoma]

Reason, logic, evidence, understanding, proof... All of these things are incompatible with God and without evidence for the existence of God, there is no need for religion. Religion and reason are therefore terribly incompatible because reason and understanding has destroyed ideas that religion has held to be true. See Galileo for evidence of that.

logical fallacy. This would only make sense if you subscribed to the notion that science has discovered all there is to discover - which of course, is not true.

So it's logical or even reasonable to say a magical invisible creature that sees all and knows all (sounds a lot like Santa) is the cause, instead of simply saying we don't know yet but we're working on it?

Science is about finding out the things we don't know the answers to. It's completely asinine to even suggest that there would be an "end", where we've figured out everything. There's not even enough people on the planet (if they were ALL scientists) or enough time to figure everything out. New discoveries raise new questions and sometimes change old beliefs.

Which is funny because religious beliefs don't change. They cannot be changed and that's evidence enough of how nonsensical it is.

[cybercoma]

Finding fault with certain passages of the bible and believing in a higher power are mutually exclusive.

Isn't that convenient? Your personal higher power could be anything, couldn't it? I could believe in a flying spaghetti monster, but what's true is universally so, which means my own personal higher power means nothing. You can't have an individual personal truth and just so I'm not off on a tangent, I'm talking about proving your higher power is true and actually exists. At least organized religion is a single step more closer to reason in the sense that it's extensive. Making up your own personal higher power is just make-believe. The reasons you can't prove the existence of your higher power is the same reason organized religion is playing make-believe too, except they recruit and label children before they're even capable of understanding those beliefs. When you're born into an x religious family and are labelled as being an xist from your birth, you're going to grow up and believe x. That's the only reason they're more widespread than your personal opinion of a higher power.

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps what your really might want to say is that one group of christians were opposed to surgery while another group of Christians were eager to advance it.

...

Which of these groups of 'Christians' tended more to back their viewpoint with reference to religious doctrines?

Which of these groups of 'Christians' comprised more persons holding religious authority?

Which of these groups of 'Christians' comprised more persons holding individualistic religious interpretations?

I think you'll find that the objections to surgery revolved around particular interpretations of religious beliefs.

I think you'll find that more people who opposed surgery were employed in religious work, or were dedicatedly religious believers.

I think you'll find that more people who supported surgery were inclined to think outside the religious box of their place and time.

What's more, I think you'll find that the majority of scientific innovations, since the approximate birth of science in c.1500whatever, have generally been opposed by religion.

I really don't think you think.

Now be a good girl and run along and back up this farcical claim......

What's more, I think you'll find that the majority of scientific innovations, since the approximate birth of science in c.1500whatever, have generally been opposed by religion.

I fully understand that it is phrased in such a way that backing it up is impossible....but I want you to have every chance to be...um...rational.

[M.Dancer]

See Galileo for evidence of that.

Galileo was a devoyut Catholic. What's your point?

[M.Dancer]

Reason and religion are TOTALLY incompatible!

Let's recount a story, had this devout christian woman, over the weekend, telling me about Mary, mother of Jesus, and with absolute seriousness, she told me , Mary was a virgin, when she gave birth to Jesus, a virgin giving birth, immaculate conception, right?..........

Cause though she was married to Joseph, she never "did the nasty" with him, until after Jesus was born, then, she did "lay down" with her husband after jesus's birth. So inotherwords after Jesus was born , who was conceived via 'immaculate conception', she then finally had sex with her husband????

this is reasonable, or logical or rational??????

Finding fault with certain passages of the bible and believing in a higher power are mutually exclusive.

It not that he's is finding fault, he's just confused and doesn't really know what he's talikng about, period. Nothing that he refers to is canonical.

[M.Dancer]

Which is funny because religious beliefs don't change. They cannot be changed and that's evidence enough of how nonsensical it is.

You studied religion, where?

Off you go with Figleaf asn see if you can find proof of this never changing religion thingy.....

[kuzadd]

Reason and religion are TOTALLY incompatible!

Let's recount a story, had this devout christian woman, over the weekend, telling me about Mary, mother of Jesus, and with absolute seriousness, she told me , Mary was a virgin, when she gave birth to Jesus, a virgin giving birth, immaculate conception, right?..........

Cause though she was married to Joseph, she never "did the nasty" with him, until after Jesus was born, then, she did "lay down" with her husband after jesus's birth. So inotherwords after Jesus was born , who was conceived via 'immaculate conception', she then finally had sex with her husband????

this is reasonable, or logical or rational??????

Finding fault with certain passages of the bible and believing in a higher power are mutually exclusive.

It not that he's is finding fault, he's just confused and doesn't really know what he's talikng about, period. Nothing that he refers to is canonical.

canonic: appearing in a biblical canon; "a canonical book of the Christian New Testament"

so are you just throwing words around?

or are you denying the virgin birth?

or are you further saying my fundamentalist christian friend, who goes to prayer group everyday, and church every Sunday is wrong, and reads the bible everyday?

or are you further claiming that, speaking for myself, raised, Roman catholic, attended Catholic school , have been taught wrongly wrt the "virgin Birth"??

[Drea]

The only way there could have been a "virgin" birth is if the ancients practiced artificial insemination.

OR

the fact that the word "virgin" did not mean the same thing as it does today. It used to mean "young woman", not young woman who had never been penetrated.

[Figleaf]

Yes, M.Dancer ... considering the overweaning attitude of righteous self-regard you display on this thread, do please enlighten us all about where you did your theological degree(s) and what your thesis subject was.

[M.Dancer]

Reason and religion are TOTALLY incompatible!

Let's recount a story, had this devout christian woman, over the weekend, telling me about Mary, mother of Jesus, and with absolute seriousness, she told me , Mary was a virgin, when she gave birth to Jesus, a virgin giving birth, immaculate conception, right?..........

Cause though she was married to Joseph, she never "did the nasty" with him, until after Jesus was born, then, she did "lay down" with her husband after jesus's birth. So inotherwords after Jesus was born , who was conceived via 'immaculate conception', she then finally had sex with her husband????

this is reasonable, or logical or rational??????

Finding fault with certain passages of the bible and believing in a higher power are mutually exclusive.

It not that he's is finding fault, he's just confused and doesn't really know what he's talikng about, period. Nothing that he refers to is canonical.

canonic: appearing in a biblical canon; "a canonical book of the Christian New Testament"

so are you just throwing words around?

or are you denying the virgin birth?

or are you further saying my fundamentalist christian friend, who goes to prayer group everyday, and church every Sunday is wrong, and reads the bible everyday?

or are you further claiming that, speaking for myself, raised, Roman catholic, attended Catholic school , have been taught wrongly wrt the "virgin Birth"??

Cause though she was married to Joseph, she never "did the nasty" with him, until after Jesus was born, then, she did "lay down" with her husband after jesus's birth. So inotherwords after Jesus was born , who was conceived via 'immaculate conception', she then finally had sex with her husband????

this is reasonable, or logical or rational??????

Find the bold text in the bible......after you have searched fruitlessly for that, look up parthenogenesis

[Drea]

Parthenogenesis is a form of asexual reproduction in which females produce eggs that develop without fertilization. Parthenogenesis is seen in aphids, daphnia, rotifers, and some other invertebrates, as well as in some plants. Most recently Komodo Dragons have been added to this list. Among vertebrates, there are several genera of fish, amphibians, and reptiles that exhibit differing forms of asexual reproduction, including true parthenogenesis, gynogenesis, and hybridogenesis (an incomplete form of parthenogenesis).

LOL

The "virgin birth" must be PROOF that we evolved from these creatures! PROOF that we are reptilians!

I wonder though, why there has not been more instances of this "spontaneous" pregancy occuring. LOL

Modern biology has long ruled out the possibility of a virgin birth, and polls indicate that contemporary belief in central tenets of the Christian faith, including the Virgin Birth, is highly variable among both the clergy and the laity, in all branches of Christianity. Nevertheless, the belief in the Virgin Birth remains central to Christianity, and those conservative Christians who continue to hold it, do so as a supernatural event outside the laws of science.

Heres the link: Parthenogenesis

[kuzadd]

Cause though she was married to Joseph, she never "did the nasty" with him, until after Jesus was born, then, she did "lay down" with her husband after jesus's birth. So inotherwords after Jesus was born , who was conceived via 'immaculate conception', she then finally had sex with her husband????

this is reasonable, or logical or rational??????

Find the bold text in the bible......after you have searched fruitlessly for that, look up parthenogenesis

are you serious?

what a load of garbage , of course my wording was not in the bible, I don't think , the people used the term

'the nasty" then!

cybercoma, was correct, 100 percent.

The 'virgin birth' is completely irrational.

[M.Dancer]

Reason and religion are TOTALLY incompatible!

Let's recount a story, had this devout christian woman, over the weekend, telling me about Mary, mother of Jesus, and with absolute seriousness, she told me , Mary was a virgin, when she gave birth to Jesus, a virgin giving birth, immaculate conception, right?..........

Cause though she was married to Joseph, she never "did the nasty" with him, until after Jesus was born, then, she did "lay down" with her husband after jesus's birth. So inotherwords after Jesus was born , who was conceived via 'immaculate conception', she then finally had sex with her husband????

this is reasonable, or logical or rational??????

Finding fault with certain passages of the bible and believing in a higher power are mutually exclusive.

It not that he's is finding fault, he's just confused and doesn't really know what he's talikng about, period. Nothing that he refers to is canonical.

canonic: appearing in a biblical canon; "a canonical book of the Christian New Testament"

so are you just throwing words around?

or are you denying the virgin birth?

or are you further saying my fundamentalist christian friend, who goes to prayer group everyday, and church every Sunday is wrong, and reads the bible everyday?

or are you further claiming that, speaking for myself, raised, Roman catholic, attended Catholic school , have been taught wrongly wrt the "virgin Birth"??

Cause though she was married to Joseph, she never "did the nasty" with him, until after Jesus was born, then, she did "lay down" with her husband after jesus's birth. So inotherwords after Jesus was born , who was conceived via 'immaculate conception', she then finally had sex with her husband????

this is reasonable, or logical or rational??????

Find the bold text in the bible......after you have searched fruitlessly for that, look up parthenogenesis

are you serious?

what a load of garbage , of course my wording was not in the bible, I don't think , the people used the term

'the nasty" then!

The 'virgin birth' is completely irrational.

Okay, find in the bible any p[assage that said Mary layed down, had sex or any other euphemism you prefer. For that matter, find immaculate conception in the bible.

Then explain why something that happens in nature, is irrational.

[kuzadd]

Okay, find in the bible any p[assage that said Mary layed down, had sex or any other euphemism you prefer. For that matter, find immaculate conception in the bible.

Then explain why something that happens in nature, is irrational.

so, now your denying the virgin birth is a religious teaching?

ok?

Gosh, all my years of catholic school, darn it!

lay wasted at my feet.

whatever floats your boat.

something that happens in nature, but not to human beings.

This is going to get to 'out there' for me, I know it!

[M.Dancer]

The only way there could have been a "virgin" birth is if the ancients practiced artificial insemination.

OR

the fact that the word "virgin" did not mean the same thing as it does today. It used to mean "young woman", not young woman who had never been penetrated.

Here's a hint. .....they didn't use the word virgin in the greek text or the hebrew so what it meant yesterday or what it means today is irrelevant.

The hebrew from which the prophesy is alluded to uses the word almah which has been translated to an unmarried woman. There is a more exact word which describes virginity, but it is not used in Isiah.

The greek used in the New Testament is also not exact. The word used to describe Mary is neanis and not parthenos.

Needless to say there are great debates amongst bible scholars as to which is correct and why.

Also the context must be taken in. To call a young woman almah or neanis is also to assume she is a virgin, givene the cultural norm for the era.

[M.Dancer]

so, now your denying the virgin birth is a religious teaching?

ok?

whatever floats your boat.

something that happens in nature, but not to human beings.

This is going to get to 'out there' for me, I know it!

I'm not denying that it is a "religious teaching". I'm just denying you know what you are talking about.

[kuzadd]

so, now your denying the virgin birth is a religious teaching?

ok?

whatever floats your boat.

something that happens in nature, but not to human beings.

This is going to get to 'out there' for me, I know it!

I'm not denying that it is a "religious teaching". I'm just denying you know what you are talking about.

"Overview:

From about 80 CE to the present time, most Christian faith groups have taught that Jesus was conceived by his mother Mary, while she was still a virgin. This is believed to have been accomplished by the action of the Holy Spirit, without an act of sexual intercourse. Catholics and some other faith groups have taught the doctrine of perpetual virginity -- that Mary lived, gave birth to Jesus, and died while still a virgin.

The Anglican Communion, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have taught a variety of beliefs about the Jesus' conception. This doctrine is usually called the "virgin birth," although the term "virgin conception" would be much more accurate. This has long been one of the church's foundational beliefs, along with the inerrancy of the Bible; the inspiration of the Bible; the atonement, resurrection, and anticipated second coming of Jesus, etc. All of the commonly used major ancient church creeds have also mentioned it."

yeah, well , 9 yrs of catholic education and church going, and I don't know what I am talking about?

The virgin Birth is a teaching, and it's a crock of huey, there is no way anyone is going to be a virgin and give birth.

You may need a 'birds and bees' talk.

[M.Dancer]

"Overview:

From about 80 CE to the present time, most Christian faith groups have taught that Jesus was conceived by his mother Mary, while she was still a virgin. This is believed to have been accomplished by the action of the Holy Spirit, without an act of sexual intercourse. Catholics and some other faith groups have taught the doctrine of perpetual virginity -- that Mary lived, gave birth to Jesus, and died while still a virgin.

The Anglican Communion, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have taught a variety of beliefs about the Jesus' conception. This doctrine is usually called the "virgin birth," although the term "virgin conception" would be much more accurate. This has long been one of the church's foundational beliefs, along with the inerrancy of the Bible; the inspiration of the Bible; the atonement, resurrection, and anticipated second coming of Jesus, etc. All of the commonly used major ancient church creeds have also mentioned it."

yeah, well , 9 yrs of catholic education and church going, and I don't know what I am talking about?

The virgin Birth is a teaching, and it's a crock of huey, there is no way anyone is going to be a virgin and give birth.

You may need a 'birds and bees' talk.

I guess plagiarizing content backs up my claim you don't know what yuou are talking about.

Now back to yolu assertians about Mary's sex life.....do you think you can plagiarize some content about that?

[M.Dancer]

Allow me to complete the section that Kuzadd's plaigerism left out......

Most modern liberal theologians have generally rejected the virgin birth, and classify it as a religious myth that was added to Christian belief in the late first century CE and was triggered by a mistranslation of the book of Isaiah. Its purpose was to make the religion more competitive with contemporary Pagan religions in the Mediterranean region, most of whom featured a virgin birth of their founder.

Various polls have found that about 80% of American adults believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. This exceeds the total number of American adults who identify themselves as Christian or Muslim. In fact, 47% of non-Christian adults also believe in the virgin birth. 6

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm

[stignasty]

Christopher Hitchens spends a few words on Mary and the immaculate conception. He goes on about how the church realized that it was a hard sell and that eventually it had to be extended to the idea that Mary was without sin. Without sin, no death - thus the assumption.

[kuzadd]

Allow me to complete the section that Kuzadd's plaigerism left out......

Most modern liberal theologians have generally rejected the virgin birth, and classify it as a religious myth that was added to Christian belief in the late first century CE and was triggered by a mistranslation of the book of Isaiah. Its purpose was to make the religion more competitive with contemporary Pagan religions in the Mediterranean region, most of whom featured a virgin birth of their founder.

Various polls have found that about 80% of American adults believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. This exceeds the total number of American adults who identify themselves as Christian or Muslim. In fact, 47% of non-Christian adults also believe in the virgin birth. 6

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm

Thanks, I forgot the link, and usually I am so good!!

"

Various polls have found that about 80% of American adults believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.

but, I guess that is because it is NOT a religious teaching right??

where would 80 percent of the population get such a crazu idea?

well that blows a hole through your own theory.

From the bible or not, it is a religious teaching, and it is irrational.

Like I said 'birds and the bee's" ok?