simple straightforward question for christians
snex
birth of jesus?
a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether
you accept evolution or not.
spintronic
> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
> birth of jesus?
No.
> a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether
> you accept evolution or not.
Yes.
[M]adman
> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
> birth of jesus?
She was 14 damn it. NO
And YES. It was common to marry at a young age long ago.
>
> a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether
> you accept evolution or not.
Yes. Evolution within the same "kind" happens
A wolf will give rise to a dog.
A wolf will not give rise to a bird no matter how long you sit and watch
paint peel.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
> birth of jesus?
>
Do BJ's count?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
[M]adman
> On Jun 3, 10:57 am, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
>> birth of jesus?
>>
>
>
> Do BJ's count?
>
Was that you that told Pagnao you were a christian?
Why yes. It was.
Perplexed in Peoria
...
I am not now a Christian, but I can tell you what I was taught in
Catholic schools.
> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
> birth of jesus?
No, nor after the birth. Hence "virgin Mary". One of several miracles
which a good Catholic is expected to accept.
> a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether
> you accept evolution or not.
I was taught by my religion teacher that it is ok for a Catholic to
accept evolution. And by my biology teacher that I would be
a fool not to accept it. Same teacher. A guy named Brother Richard.
Dana Tweedy
> 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 10:57 am, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
>>> birth of jesus?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do BJ's count?
>>
>
> Was that you that told Pagnao you were a christian?
Lenny never claimed to be a Christian. He simply denied he was an athiest.
>
> Why yes. It was.
No, it was not.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> snex wrote:
>> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
>> birth of jesus?
>
> She was 14 damn it. NO
First of all, where in the Bible does it give Mary's age?
Second, even 13 year olds may have sex. (I'm not saying that Mary did, just
that it's possible).
>
> And YES. It was common to marry at a young age long ago.
Likewise it was common for girls that age to have sex...
>
>>
>> a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether
>> you accept evolution or not.
>
> Yes. Evolution within the same "kind" happens
But there is no way to tell what is a "kind". All of life appears to be
the same "kind".
>
> A wolf will give rise to a dog.
and a wolf will have come from a Canine, which came from a Miacid, which
came from an even more primitive mammal, which came from a mammal like
reptile, which came from an amphian, which came from a fish, etc, etc, back
to the original common ancestor.
>
> A wolf will not give rise to a bird no matter how long you sit and
> watch paint peel.
No one would expect a bird to come from a wolf, or any other mammal.
Birds do, however come from tetrapod dinosaurs, as the transitional fossil
evidence clearly shows. Dinosaurs came from archosaurs, which came from
the amphibians, just like all the other tetrapods.
DJT
Moist Lipwig
----------------------------------------------------
What a silly question. Why do you think that
fictional person is called the 'Virgin' Mary"?
And what has that got to do with the fact
of evolution?
Regards,
________________________________
Of course 200 years ago creationists were
saying that if man could fly, god would
have given him wings. 150 years ago they
were still shitting in their drinking water
and calling the resulting disease 'god's will'.
That's creationism.
-- wf3h 2/27/09
Mike Dworetsky
news:W5yVl.5974$Xw4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> snex wrote:
>> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
>> birth of jesus?
>
> She was 14 damn it. NO
>
Are you saying that it is impossible for a 14* year old to have sex and get
pregnant? Whether within marriage (they did marry young back then) or via
rape or coercion?
Newspapers are filled with stories about pregnant teenagers even younger
than 14 who become mothers.
(*where did you get that detailed age information?)
> And YES. It was common to marry at a young age long ago.
>
>>
>> a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether
>> you accept evolution or not.
>
> Yes. Evolution within the same "kind" happens
>
> A wolf will give rise to a dog.
They are essentially the same species.
>
> A wolf will not give rise to a bird no matter how long you sit and watch
> paint peel.
Thanks for that, it is exactly what evolution predicts will never be
observed. Thus you have proved evolution is correct. End of discussion.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
[M]adman
> [M]adman wrote:
>> snex wrote:
>>> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
>>> birth of jesus?
>>
>> She was 14 damn it. NO
>
> First of all, where in the Bible does it give Mary's age?
I did not say that was in the bible. Did I
Study some jewish history and work with the dates of who was born when and
you will find your answer
>
> Second, even 13 year olds may have sex. (I'm not saying that Mary
> did, just that it's possible).
The question was not was it possible if she could have sex.
>
>
>>
>> And YES. It was common to marry at a young age long ago.
>
> Likewise it was common for girls that age to have sex...
Which does not pertain to the question
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether
>>> you accept evolution or not.
>>
>> Yes. Evolution within the same "kind" happens
>
> But there is no way to tell what is a "kind". All of life appears
> to be the same "kind".
Only to a mind that cannot percieve beyond that
>
>
>>
>> A wolf will give rise to a dog.
>
> and a wolf will have come from a Canine, which came from a Miacid,
> which came from an even more primitive mammal, which came from a
> mammal like reptile, which came from an amphian, which came from a
> fish, etc, etc, back to the original common ancestor.
>
Nope. There was an original created kind that led to dogs
>
>>
>> A wolf will not give rise to a bird no matter how long you sit and
>> watch paint peel.
>
>
> No one would expect a bird to come from a wolf, or any other mammal.
> Birds do, however come from tetrapod dinosaurs, as the transitional
> fossil evidence clearly shows. Dinosaurs came from archosaurs,
> which came from the amphibians, just like all the other tetrapods.
This is a single subjective interpretation of the evidence.
There are other interpretations
>
>
> DJT
SkyEyes
> [M]adman wrote:
> > snex wrote:
> >> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
> >> birth of jesus?
>
> > She was 14 damn it. NO
>
> First of all, where in the Bible does it give Mary's age?
It doesn't. Methinks Maddy's conflating TVM with the character Juliet
in Shakespeare's play, who was "a fortnight and odd days from 14."
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
SkyEyes
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > [M]adman wrote:
> >> snex wrote:
> >>> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
> >>> birth of jesus?
>
> >> She was 14 damn it. NO
>
> > First of all, where in the Bible does it give Mary's age?
>
> I did not say that was in the bible. Did I
>
> Study some jewish history and work with the dates of who was born when and
> you will find your answer
Really? Please lay it out in detail right here for us. Show
*exactly* how you arrive at 14 being the age TVM was when Jesus was
supposedly born. I want chapter and verse. Or, since you say it
isn't in the bible, cite whatever other sources you like, and give
their arguments. Failure to do so will constitute your admission that
you are full of the well-known article.
er...@swva.net
wrote:
> "snex" <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I am not now a Christian, but I can tell you what I was taught in
> Catholic schools.
>
> > did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
> > birth of jesus?
>
> No, nor after the birth. Hence "virgin Mary". One of several miracles
> which a good Catholic is expected to accept.
What, Catholics think that Joseph was never off the hook?
>
> > a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether
> > you accept evolution or not.
>
> I was taught by my religion teacher that it is ok for a Catholic to
> accept evolution. And by my biology teacher that I would be
> a fool not to accept it. Same teacher. A guy named Brother Richard.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
How would we know? Also, what business is it of ours (or yours)?
Eric Root
Dana Tweedy
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> [M]adman wrote:
>>> snex wrote:
>>>> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to
>>>> the birth of jesus?
>>>
>>> She was 14 damn it. NO
>
>>
>> First of all, where in the Bible does it give Mary's age?
>
>
> I did not say that was in the bible. Did I
So, you have no support for that claim.
>
> Study some jewish history and work with the dates of who was born
> when and you will find your answer
In other words, you made it up.
>
>>
>> Second, even 13 year olds may have sex. (I'm not saying that Mary
>> did, just that it's possible).
>
> The question was not was it possible if she could have sex.
You seemed to suggest that she could not, as she was only 14
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And YES. It was common to marry at a young age long ago.
>>
>> Likewise it was common for girls that age to have sex...
>
> Which does not pertain to the question
The question was whether or not she did have sex. You suggested she did
not, because she was 14.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether
>>>> you accept evolution or not.
>>>
>>> Yes. Evolution within the same "kind" happens
>>
>> But there is no way to tell what is a "kind". All of life appears
>> to be the same "kind".
>
> Only to a mind that cannot percieve beyond that
You claim to have more perception, yet when I asked you what the orignal
"created kind" was, you said to ask God. That indicates you don't have the
perception either.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> A wolf will give rise to a dog.
>>
>> and a wolf will have come from a Canine, which came from a Miacid,
>> which came from an even more primitive mammal, which came from a
>> mammal like reptile, which came from an amphian, which came from a
>> fish, etc, etc, back to the original common ancestor.
>>
>
> Nope. There was an original created kind that led to dogs
What evidence do you have there was a original "created kind"? Where can
one find out what the "kind" was?
>
>>
>>>
>>> A wolf will not give rise to a bird no matter how long you sit and
>>> watch paint peel.
>>
>>
>> No one would expect a bird to come from a wolf, or any other mammal.
>> Birds do, however come from tetrapod dinosaurs, as the transitional
>> fossil evidence clearly shows. Dinosaurs came from archosaurs,
>> which came from the amphibians, just like all the other tetrapods.
>
> This is a single subjective interpretation of the evidence.
Actually, it's an objective interpretation of the evidence, based on the
scientific method.
>
> There are other interpretations
None of which are scientific. Those other "interpretations" are baseless.
DJT
snex
see, this is an example of somebody evading the question.
i didnt ask you if you knew. i didnt ask for your certainty level.
what do you think the answer to the question is? are you embarrassed
by your answer? reminds me of peter...
[M]adman
> "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote in message
> news:W5yVl.5974$Xw4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> snex wrote:
>>> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
>>> birth of jesus?
>>
>> She was 14 damn it. NO
>>
>
> Are you saying that it is impossible for a 14* year old to have sex
> and get pregnant? Whether within marriage (they did marry young back
> then) or via rape or coercion?
Are you suggesting THAT is what happened?
[M]adman
> [M]adman wrote:
>> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>> [M]adman wrote:
>>>> snex wrote:
>>>>> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to
>>>>> the birth of jesus?
>>>>
>>>> She was 14 damn it. NO
>>
>>>
>>> First of all, where in the Bible does it give Mary's age?
>>
>>
>> I did not say that was in the bible. Did I
>
> So, you have no support for that claim.
I did not say that either
>
>>
>> Study some jewish history and work with the dates of who was born
>> when and you will find your answer
>
> In other words, you made it up.
That is your intrepretation
Just like you have a wrong interpretation of the evidence for evolution
>
>>
>>>
>>> Second, even 13 year olds may have sex. (I'm not saying that Mary
>>> did, just that it's possible).
>>
>> The question was not was it possible if she could have sex.
>
>
> You seemed to suggest that she could not, as she was only 14
I said she was 14. She may have been as young as 12. I never said being 14
she could not have sex. but it would be highly unlikely that her parents
would have allowed that. Research on mary's family clearly shows a very
strict religious background, so Mary @ 14 would have been a virgin based on
that alone.
Joseph was around 90. I doubt a 14 year old would desire a 90 year old
sexually. And Joseph was not rich, so money would not be a motivation
either.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And YES. It was common to marry at a young age long ago.
>>>
>>> Likewise it was common for girls that age to have sex...
>>
>> Which does not pertain to the question
>
> The question was whether or not she did have sex. You suggested she
> did not, because she was 14.
Right. considering the century, the time period, the religious back ground,
Joseph's age all adds up to it being unlikely tat she had sex at 14
Stephen
> On Jun 3, 2:44 pm, er...@swva.net wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 10:57 am, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to
> > > the birth of jesus?
> >
> > > a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify
> > > whether you accept evolution or not.
> >
> > How would we know? Also, what business is it of ours (or yours)?
>
> see, this is an example of somebody evading the question.
No, it's not. It's someone who recognized the false dichotomy inherent
in the request for response. It's someone who wants evidence before
spewing forth an answer. We have no evidence, one way or the other;
only hearsay.
>
> i didnt ask you if you knew. i didnt ask for your certainty level.
> what do you think the answer to the question is? are you embarrassed
> by your answer? reminds me of peter...
No, you goofus, you asked "did mary ... ever engage in sex ..." which
is a point amenable to factual determination -- or not: a point of
historical occurance -- or not. Implying a way to know -- or not. You
didn't ask "do you know whether..." or "do you think that ... " or "do
you believe that ...". What a trollish set-up!
Regards,
Stephen
--
Dana Tweedy
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> [M]adman wrote:
>>> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>>> [M]adman wrote:
>>>>> snex wrote:
>>>>>> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to
>>>>>> the birth of jesus?
>>>>>
>>>>> She was 14 damn it. NO
>>>
>>>>
>>>> First of all, where in the Bible does it give Mary's age?
>>>
>>>
>>> I did not say that was in the bible. Did I
>>
>> So, you have no support for that claim.
>
> I did not say that either
Of course you didn't say it, but you know it's true.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Study some jewish history and work with the dates of who was born
>>> when and you will find your answer
>>
>> In other words, you made it up.
>
> That is your intrepretation
Which also happens to be true.
>
> Just like you have a wrong interpretation of the evidence for
> evolution
"my" intepretation of the evidence for evolution has been tested, and
confirmed. Your making up things and refusing to support your cliam has
not.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Second, even 13 year olds may have sex. (I'm not saying that Mary
>>>> did, just that it's possible).
>>>
>>> The question was not was it possible if she could have sex.
>>
>>
>> You seemed to suggest that she could not, as she was only 14
>
> I said she was 14. She may have been as young as 12.
Or maybe older. The fact is your don't know.
> I never said
> being 14 she could not have sex.
Yet that is what you were suggesting.
> but it would be highly unlikely that
> her parents would have allowed that.
As you yourself pointed out, young girls got married at a much younger age.
Also, the parents may have had little to say about it.
>Research on mary's family
> clearly shows a very strict religious background,
what research? There are no records of specific families from that era.
Again, you are just making things up.
> so Mary @ 14 would
> have been a virgin based on that alone.
Again, your claim doesn't follow from anything.
>
>
> Joseph was around 90.
Again you have no support for that claim. What records do you have that
Joseph was "around 90"? Birth certificates? More to the point, it's
highly unlikely that anyone from that age lived to reach 90.
> I doubt a 14 year old would desire a 90 year old
> sexually. And Joseph was not rich, so money would not be a motivation
> either.
There's no evidence to suggest that Joseph was 90 at the time he got
married, according to the Bible. The Bible doesn't give any age for either
Mary, or Joseph.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And YES. It was common to marry at a young age long ago.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise it was common for girls that age to have sex...
>>>
>>> Which does not pertain to the question
>>
>> The question was whether or not she did have sex. You suggested she
>> did not, because she was 14.
>
> Right. considering the century, the time period, the religious back
> ground, Joseph's age all adds up to it being unlikely tat she had sex
> at 14
Except that you are making things up out of thin air. There's no evidence
Joseph was an advanced age. There's no evidence that Mary was 14. You
are simply tap dancing around the fact you don't have any evidence for your
claims.
snip of things ignored
DJT
[M]adman
There are OTHER gospels, OTHER books, OTHER accounts of events during that
time period toots.
Mary was given to the temple when she was 3
snex
> snex wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2:44 pm, er...@swva.net wrote:
> > > On Jun 3, 10:57 am, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to
> > > > the birth of jesus?
>
> > > > a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify
> > > > whether you accept evolution or not.
>
> > > How would we know? Also, what business is it of ours (or yours)?
>
> > see, this is an example of somebody evading the question.
>
> No, it's not.
yes, it is. if he has no answer, then why bother posting? many
christans *do* in fact claim to have a way of knowing, eg revelation,
faith, tradition, or what have you.
<snip excuses>
Stephen
SkyEyes asked you to provide the references, not just assert there
some: what are the references? In case you missed it:
SkyEyes wrote:
<quote>
Please lay it out in detail right here for us. Show *exactly* how you
arrive at 14 being the age TVM was when Jesus was supposedly born. I
want chapter and verse. Or, since you say it isn't in the bible, cite
whatever other sources you like, and give their arguments. Failure to
do so will constitute your admission that you are full of the
well-known article.
</quote>
Regards,
Stephen
--
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
I have been a Buddhist/Taoist for well over 30 years now.
Madman is just making a spectacularly stupid effort to troll-bait me.
I'm just ignoring him. I suggest everyone else do likewise. It drives
him NUTS.
Desertphile
wrote:
> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
> birth of jesus?
They cannot even answer if "Mary" ever existed, let alone if she
was a slut or not.
> a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether
> you accept evolution or not.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> [M]adman wrote:
> > snex wrote:
> >> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
> >> birth of jesus?
> >
> > She was 14 damn it. NO
> First of all, where in the Bible does it give Mary's age?
His anus said so.
> Second, even 13 year olds may have sex. (I'm not saying that Mary did, just
> that it's possible).
Most girls start having sex around age eight; if they do not,
there may be something wrong with them.
> > And YES. It was common to marry at a young age long ago.
> Likewise it was common for girls that age to have sex...
It still is.
> >> a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether
> >> you accept evolution or not.
> > Yes. Evolution within the same "kind" happens
> But there is no way to tell what is a "kind". All of life appears to be
> the same "kind".
A "kind" means "what I happen to feel it means at the moment."
> > A wolf will give rise to a dog.
> and a wolf will have come from a Canine, which came from a Miacid, which
> came from an even more primitive mammal, which came from a mammal like
> reptile, which came from an amphian, which came from a fish, etc, etc, back
> to the original common ancestor.
> > A wolf will not give rise to a bird no matter how long you sit and
> > watch paint peel.
That would disprove evolutionary theory.
> No one would expect a bird to come from a wolf, or any other mammal.
> Birds do, however come from tetrapod dinosaurs, as the transitional fossil
> evidence clearly shows. Dinosaurs came from archosaurs, which came from
> the amphibians, just like all the other tetrapods.
>
>
> DJT
R. Baldwin
@s28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
> birth of jesus?
It is unimportant, and there is no way to know.
Wombat
wrote:
> "snex" <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I am not now a Christian, but I can tell you what I was taught in
> Catholic schools.
>
> > did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
> > birth of jesus?
>
> No, nor after the birth. Hence "virgin Mary". One of several miracles
> which a good Catholic is expected to accept.
We were told that Mary and Joseph had a 'platonic' marriage, which
were not uncommon in Judea at that time.
>
> > a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether
> > you accept evolution or not.
>
> I was taught by my religion teacher that it is ok for a Catholic to
> accept evolution. And by my biology teacher that I would be
> a fool not to accept it. Same teacher. A guy named Brother Richard.
The "E" word was not even mentioned in my secondary school.
Wombat
Mike Dworetsky
> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>> "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote in message
>> news:W5yVl.5974$Xw4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>> snex wrote:
>>>> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
>>>> birth of jesus?
>>>
>>> She was 14 damn it. NO
>>>
>>
>> Are you saying that it is impossible for a 14* year old to have sex
>> and get pregnant? Whether within marriage (they did marry young back
>> then) or via rape or coercion?
>
> Are you suggesting THAT is what happened?
>
Suggesting, yes; absolutely sure, no. There are various other writings not
in the bible that mention a Roman soldier named Panthera.
The idea that Mary was a "virgin" in the sense of "never had sex" came from
various translations of words that also mean "young woman" or "girl" and
that do not imply anything about sexual experience one way or another.
>>
>> Newspapers are filled with stories about pregnant teenagers even
>> younger than 14 who become mothers.
>>
>> (*where did you get that detailed age information?)
>>
>>> And YES. It was common to marry at a young age long ago.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether
>>>> you accept evolution or not.
>>>
>>> Yes. Evolution within the same "kind" happens
>>>
>>> A wolf will give rise to a dog.
>>
>> They are essentially the same species.
>>
>>>
>>> A wolf will not give rise to a bird no matter how long you sit and
>>> watch paint peel.
>>
>> Thanks for that, it is exactly what evolution predicts will never be
>> observed. Thus you have proved evolution is correct. End of
>> discussion.
>
John S. Wilkins
Nor mine, but my daughter's Biology textbook had an extensive and very
well written section on it, and also on genetics and ecology where
evolution played a key role.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvethink.wordpress.com/
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Wombat
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
My Biology text book was "Introduction to Biology" by D G Mackean. I
got it out recently and checked it again. There was no mention
anywhere in it of evolution or Darwin!
Wombat
snex
wrote:
> snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote in news:7132070c-ab1a-4623-832a-a3119c04b787
> @s28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> > did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
> > birth of jesus?
>
> It is unimportant, and there is no way to know.
do you consider yourself a christian? if so, what denomination/school
of thought/whatever?
[M]adman
> "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote in message
> news:25BVl.6096$he4....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>>> "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote in message
>>> news:W5yVl.5974$Xw4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>>> snex wrote:
>>>>> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to
>>>>> the birth of jesus?
>>>>
>>>> She was 14 damn it. NO
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying that it is impossible for a 14* year old to have sex
>>> and get pregnant? Whether within marriage (they did marry young
>>> back then) or via rape or coercion?
>>
>> Are you suggesting THAT is what happened?
>>
>
> Suggesting, yes; absolutely sure, no. There are various other
> writings not in the bible that mention a Roman soldier named Panthera.
>
> The idea that Mary was a "virgin" in the sense of "never had sex"
> came from various translations of words that also mean "young woman"
> or "girl" and that do not imply anything about sexual experience one
> way or another.
Yeah but in this case it did. Mary was given to the temple at the age of
three and then given in marriage to Joseph upon leaving the temple. It is
unlikely that she had sex with anyone although not impossible. It then
becomes a matter of what do you choose to believe regarding the Roman
Soldier based on who's story seems more creditable. Since there is no real
reason to believe that Jesus' brother James would lie about the events in
his mothers early life, there would also be no reason to believe rumors
about roman soldiers. Why? Because the Romans indeed respected the Jewish
temple and the Jewish religion. They followed their customs as is evident
when Pilate freed Barabas during their festival. They never entered the
temple. Also, The Romans kept very good records; and AFAIK there has been no
historical data about the Romans raping in Jerusalem as is the case with
most armies. They were there to keep order in a Roman outpost and collect
taxes; which is generally all they did. There were not that many soldiers in
Jerusalem and they were garrisoned. Usually patrolling in pairs through the
streets. So there simply is no motive or opportunity for a Roman soldier to
have sex with or rape a young servant girl of the temple.
[]
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> The idea that Mary was a "virgin" in the sense of "never had sex"
>> came from various translations of words that also mean "young woman"
>> or "girl" and that do not imply anything about sexual experience one
>> way or another.
>
> Yeah but in this case it did. Mary was given to the temple at the age
> of three and then given in marriage to Joseph upon leaving the
> temple.
There's no indication in the Bible that Mary was "given to the temple".
AFAIK, Jewish temples didn't have vestal virgins.
> It is unlikely that she had sex with anyone although not
> impossible. It then becomes a matter of what do you choose to believe
> regarding the Roman Soldier based on who's story seems more
> creditable. Since there is no real reason to believe that Jesus'
> brother James would lie about the events in his mothers early life,
First of all, your own sources hold that James was Jesus' half brother, not
the son of Mary. Second, there's no evidence to indicate that the
"infancy gospel" was actually written by James. It was attributed to him,
but internal evidence indicates it was written long after James had died.
> there would also be no reason to believe rumors about roman soldiers.
> Why? Because the Romans indeed respected the Jewish temple and the
> Jewish religion.
Which doesn't match Pilate being recalled for cruelty to worshipers.
>They followed their customs as is evident when
> Pilate freed Barabas during their festival. They never entered the
> temple. Also, The Romans kept very good records; and AFAIK there has
> been no historical data about the Romans raping in Jerusalem as is
> the case with most armies.
>They were there to keep order in a Roman
> outpost and collect taxes; which is generally all they did. There
> were not that many soldiers in Jerusalem and they were garrisoned.
> Usually patrolling in pairs through the streets. So there simply is
> no motive or opportunity for a Roman soldier to have sex with or rape
> a young servant girl of the temple.
Your claim is based on several unsupported assumptions.
DJT
>
> []
John McKendry
> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
> birth of jesus?
>
> a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether you
> accept evolution or not.
Can I play? I'll even give you two different Christian answers to argue
with.
<Christian A, a contemporary Christian of a non-credal denomination>
Of course she did. That's how she became a mother. The infancy stories
in the Gospels are just pious legends that accreted to some early Jesus
traditions and got recorded. It's too bad that "born of the Virgin Mary"
made its way into the Creeds, because it's not important. And of course
I accept evolution.
<Christian B, a contemporary orthodox credal Christian>
No, she didn't. The conception of Jesus was one of God's miracles.
And of course I accept evolution.
<me again>
I don't know exactly why everyone is so reluctant to humor you, but
I will defend either or both of these positions. Just don't expect
more than one reply per day.
John
Garamond Lethe
> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
> birth of jesus?
>
> a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether you
> accept evolution or not.
Did Socrates ever engage in sex at any time prior to the birth of Jesus?
Would your answer change if you thought Socrates was a literary invention
of Plato?
Would your answer change again if Socrates was based on an actual person,
but Plato took several liberties in recording what he said and what he
did in order to better make the point Plato wanted made?
And why would you care?
Also, if you would, please explain why science is unable to refute Last
Thursdayism.
snex
> On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:57:59 -0700, snex wrote:
> > did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
> > birth of jesus?
>
> > a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether you
> > accept evolution or not.
>
whats the matter garry, dont like the posts by the christians so far?
snex
this thread isnt for me to argue anything - its to get the beliefs of
christians (preferably ones who accept evolution) out in public.
because there are a lot of atheists going around insisting that modern
christians who accept science dont really believe those miracle
stories. who better to prove them wrong than the christians themselves
announcing their beliefs?
Garamond Lethe
Looking over the responses, I don't see any replies by self-identified
Christians. Did I miss one?
Perplexed: "I am not now a Christian" (but reports Catholics were taught
virgin birth was miraculous).
[M]adman: No due to age. (?)
Lenny: Is Lenny.
eroot: Appropriate epistemological query.
R. Baldwin: Appropriate epistemological reply.
John McKendry: Willing to humor you.
And me.
As much as I appreciate Perplexed offering to help, if I was interested
in the official position of the Roman Catholic Church I'd be looking at
the various encyclicals issued by the Vatican. I've quoted one such
encyclical to you in another thread. You declined to reply.
Since you're interested in Christianity in general, and since I'm
currently bored fiddling with open office, here is a Unitarian take on
miracles from 1841.
<q>
But looking at the history of what men call Christianity nothing seems
more uncertain and perishable. While true religion is always the same
thing, in each century and every land, in each man that feels it, the
Christianity of the pulpit, which is the religion taught, the
Christianity of the people, which is the religion that is accepted and
lived out, has never been the same thing in two centuries or lands,
except only in name. . . . It must be confessed, though with sorrow, that
transient things form a great part of what is commonly taught as
Religion. An undue place has often been assigned to forms and doctrines,
while too little stress has been laid on the divine life of the soul,
love to God, and love to man. Religious forms may be useful and
beautiful. They are so, whenever they speak to the soul, and answer a
want thereof. In our present state some forms are perhaps necessary. But
they are only the accident of Christianity; not its substance. They are
the robe, not the angel, who may take another robe, quite as becoming and
useful.
</q>
The commentator makes the point more explicitly:
<q>
Parker evidently loved the sound of his voice, and the studied
mellifluousness of his prose; the sermon goes on for twelve thousand
words, and must have taken almost two hours to preach. But in this
paragraph we have the nub: "Doctrines and forms," including the Bible,
theology, the supernatural, *miracles*, churches, and all their rituals,
whether Christian or otherwise – all are transient.
</q>
[Emphasis added.]
Chuck Fager, Quaker Theology #10, 2004.
http://www.quaker.org/quest/issue-10-mott-CEF-02.htm
<q>
The Unitarian Universalists now refer to [Parker] as "a canonical figure—
the model of a prophetic minister in the American Unitarian tradition.
</q>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Parker
Parker obviously self-identified as a Christian, and he is considered
important by both Unitarians and Quakers (as well as Abraham Lincoln and
Martin Luther King, Jr.).
So, now you know what an Actual Christian thinks of miracles.
Hope that helps.
R. Baldwin
news:d489acd7-e9f6-44b5...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
I do. I'd been a member of United Church of Christ for many years. I
don't belong to a denomination at present.
Ye Old One
<redd...@bresnan.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>[M]adman wrote:
>snip
>
>>> The idea that Mary was a "virgin" in the sense of "never had sex"
>>> came from various translations of words that also mean "young woman"
>>> or "girl" and that do not imply anything about sexual experience one
>>> way or another.
>>
>> Yeah but in this case it did. Mary was given to the temple at the age
>> of three and then given in marriage to Joseph upon leaving the
>> temple.
>
>There's no indication in the Bible that Mary was "given to the temple".
>AFAIK, Jewish temples didn't have vestal virgins.
Would there have been a temple in Nazareth? Small village, more than
likely not even inhabited at the time... Well, you get the idea.
[snip]
--
Bob.
[M]adman
You stupid idiot.
Everyone traveled to the temple once a year.
Everyone.
>
>
> [snip]
Mark Isaak
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:35:00 -0700, snex wrote:
>
>> On Jun 4, 9:50 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:57:59 -0700, snex wrote:
>>> > did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to the
>>> > birth of jesus?
>>>
>>> > a simple "yes" or "no" will do. also if you could, identify whether
>>> > you accept evolution or not.
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> whats the matter garry, dont like the posts by the christians so far?
>
> Looking over the responses, I don't see any replies by self-identified
> Christians. Did I miss one?
>
> Perplexed: "I am not now a Christian" (but reports Catholics were taught
> virgin birth was miraculous).
>
> [M]adman: No due to age. (?)
>
> Lenny: Is Lenny.
>
> eroot: Appropriate epistemological query.
>
> R. Baldwin: Appropriate epistemological reply.
>
> John McKendry: Willing to humor you.
>
> And me.
I will add that I was taught as a Methodist that "virgin" is a
mistranslation of a word that means simply "young woman," that Mary
was indeed a young woman, and that there is no reason not to believe that
she did in fact engage in sex.
My broader point remains that, on subjective issues such as religion, it
is entirely reasonable that different people may hold different views.
The problems come only when they refuse to see those views as subjective,
as creationists and snex do.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
snex
either you are misremembering here or you were mistaught. the gospels
use the greek word for "virgin." the mistranslation (if any - this is
not certain by any means), was in the septuagint version of isaiah.
>
> My broader point remains that, on subjective issues such as religion, it
> is entirely reasonable that different people may hold different views.
> The problems come only when they refuse to see those views as subjective,
> as creationists and snex do.
views like "a virgin gave birth" are NOT subjective. why do i need to
keep repeating this? do you even know what the word means, or are you
deliberately being dishonest?
Garamond Lethe
Or maybe you're wrong. It could happen.
> the gospels
> use the greek word for "virgin." the mistranslation (if any - this is
> not certain by any means), was in the septuagint version of isaiah.
And this was quoted by the author of Matthew.
<q>
Matthew, writing in Greek about the virgin birth of Jesus, quotes the
Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word
"παρθένος" (parthenos, virgin), while the original Hebrew text has
"עלמה" (almah), which has the wider meaning of a young woman.
</q>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus
I'd say Mark has the right of it.
(Had you taken two minutes to track this down rather than guessing, you
could have saved me the two minutes it took to correct you.)
>
>
>> My broader point remains that, on subjective issues such as religion,
>> it is entirely reasonable that different people may hold different
>> views. The problems come only when they refuse to see those views as
>> subjective, as creationists and snex do.
>
> views like "a virgin gave birth" are NOT subjective.
Well, that's one opinion. It doesn't appear to be either useful or
persuasive, though.
> why do i need to
> keep repeating this?
Since your position is neither useful nor persuasive, people don't agree
with it. You are under the impression that by repeating it often enough,
people will come to agree with you.
Or was that a rhetorical question?
> do you even know what the word means, or are you
> deliberately being dishonest?
Calumny is easier than persuasion. Not as effective, but then you're not
that impressed by effectiveness.
snex
or maybe youre a moron, since right below you agree with me.
>
> > the gospels
> > use the greek word for "virgin." the mistranslation (if any - this is
> > not certain by any means), was in the septuagint version of isaiah.
>
> And this was quoted by the author of Matthew.
>
> <q>
> Matthew, writing in Greek about the virgin birth of Jesus, quotes the
> Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word
> "παρθένος" (parthenos, virgin), while the original Hebrew text has
> "עלמה" (almah), which has the wider meaning of a young woman.
> </q>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus
>
> I'd say Mark has the right of it.
>
> (Had you taken two minutes to track this down rather than guessing, you
> could have saved me the two minutes it took to correct you.)
you didnt correct me, you validated what i said. the gospels
themselves refer to mary as a virgin.
>
>
>
> >> My broader point remains that, on subjective issues such as religion,
> >> it is entirely reasonable that different people may hold different
> >> views. The problems come only when they refuse to see those views as
> >> subjective, as creationists and snex do.
>
> > views like "a virgin gave birth" are NOT subjective.
>
> Well, that's one opinion. It doesn't appear to be either useful or
> persuasive, though.
no, its not an opinion. its a matter of fact. statements about the
sexual histories of people are not subjective.
>
> > why do i need to
> > keep repeating this?
>
> Since your position is neither useful nor persuasive, people don't agree
> with it. You are under the impression that by repeating it often enough,
> people will come to agree with you.
or the fact that its simply correct. "i like chocolate" is a
subjective statement. "mary the mother of jesus never had sex" is a
statement about the objective world. if you cant tell the difference,
then you dont belong in the discussion.
Garamond Lethe
So what did Mark misremember?
<snip>
LTfl...@hotmail.com
> [M]adman wrote:
> > SkyEyes wrote:
> > >On Jun 3, 12:07 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
> > > > Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > > > > [M]adman wrote:
> > > > > > snex wrote:
> > > > > > > did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time
> > > > > > > prior to the birth of jesus?
>
>
>
>
> > > > Study some jewish history and work with the dates of who was born
> > > > when and you will find your answer
>
> > > Really? Please lay it out in detail right here for us. Show
> > > *exactly* how you arrive at 14 being the age TVM was when Jesus was
> > > supposedly born. I want chapter and verse. Or, since you say it
> > > isn't in the bible, cite whatever other sources you like, and give
> > > their arguments. Failure to do so will constitute your admission
> > > that you are full of the well-known article.
>
> > > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> > > skyeyes nine at cox dot net
>
> > There are OTHER gospels, OTHER books, OTHER accounts of events during
> > that time period toots.
>
> > Mary was given to the temple when she was 3
>
> SkyEyes asked you to provide the references, not just assert there
> some: what are the references? In case you missed it:
>
> SkyEyes wrote:
>
> <quote>
> Please lay it out in detail right here for us. Show *exactly* how you
> arrive at 14 being the age TVM was when Jesus was supposedly born. I
> want chapter and verse. Or, since you say it isn't in the bible, cite
> whatever other sources you like, and give their arguments. Failure to
> do so will constitute your admission that you are full of the
> well-known article.
> </quote>
>
> Regards,
> Stephen
>
> --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
He won't, of course. Madman think that just by him declaring
something, anything, it's fact.
That's the level of extraordinary arrogance we are dealing with from
him.
LT
snex
that "mary was a virgin" is a mistranslation. its not. nowhere is mary
herself ever described as anything but a virgin. the mistranslation is
from the prophecy of isaiah (which wasnt about the messiah at all
anyway).
LTfl...@hotmail.com
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > [M]adman wrote:
> >> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> >>> [M]adman wrote:
> >>>>> did mary (jesus' mother) ever engage in sex at any time prior to
> >>>>> the birth of jesus?
>
>
> >>> First of all, where in the Bible does it give Mary's age?
>
> >> I did not say that was in the bible. Did I
>
>
> I did not say that either
Because you won't support your claim, as usual. Until you do, it is
clear to everyone that you don't have the support.
> >> Study some jewish history and work with the dates of who was born
> >> when and you will find your answer
>
> > In other words, you made it up.
>
> That is your intrepretation
>
> Just like you have a wrong interpretation of the evidence for evolution
See previous comment.
> >>> Second, even 13 year olds may have sex. (I'm not saying that Mary
> >>> did, just that it's possible).
>
> >> The question was not was it possible if she could have sex.
>
> > You seemed to suggest that she could not, as she was only 14
>
> I said she was 14. She may have been as young as 12.
Make up your mind. Is she 14 or 12? Show some evidence for your answer
since you seem to think you know.
> I never said being 14
> she could not have sex.
By implication, you did. That's how the language of English works.
> but it would be highly unlikely that her parents
> would have allowed that.
What the fuck do you know about what parents would allow 2000 years
ago? It was common to be married before being a teenager back then.
> Research on mary's family clearly shows a very
> strict religious background, so Mary @ 14 would have been a virgin based on
> that alone.
What research? Show us where you get this shit?
You should also realize that the word "virgin" in the Bible doesn't
mean what it means today. It meant essentially "unmarried". Such are
the perils of translating text over and over again using various
languages, some dead, under the rule of different kings and tyrants,
and done by a scribe with his own opinions or a lack of ethics.
> Joseph was around 90. I doubt a 14 year old would desire a 90 year old
> sexually. And Joseph was not rich, so money would not be a motivation
> either.
http://www.neatorama.com/2009/05/23/young-bride-divorced-rich-old-man-because-she-cant-keep-up/
> >>>> And YES. It was common to marry at a young age long ago.
>
> >>> Likewise it was common for girls that age to have sex...
>
> >> Which does not pertain to the question
>
> > The question was whether or not she did have sex. You suggested she
> > did not, because she was 14.
>
> Right. considering the century, the time period, the religious back ground,
> Joseph's age all adds up to it being unlikely tat she had sex at 14
You haven't even the slightest ability to credibly make that claim.
*snip for brevity*
LT
Perplexed in Peoria
I find myself in an unfamiliar situation defending snex, but he is clearly
right and Isaac and Lethe are wrong. The Gospel story clearly states
that Jesus's conception was miraculous and that Mary had not had sex.
There is just no possibility that this was a mistranslation.
The prophecy in Isaiah was probably mistranslated and Matthew copied
the mistranslation - true. But this matters only if you think Matthew is
making the whole thing up (which you are welcome to do). Matthew
(assuming he is a liar) didn't need to lie in order to have Christ fulfill
the prophecy. That is the joke that amuses Dawkins and the like.
But, *assuming he is telling the truth*, Mary *was* a virgin,
and Christians (even Methodists) are under some obligation to assume
that Matthew was not just making stuff up.
Furthermore, when Paul undertook to construct his ideology of 'vicarious
atonement' and similar rationalization which constitutes the core dogma
of Christianity, the 'fact' that Jesus was literally the son of God and not
the son of Joseph was considered important - not just a pious superstition.
Garamond Lethe
I can see that reading, but I think it weakens the text.
The following three facts are, I believe, uncontested (but for the
benefit of snex, I'll make them explicit):
1) Matthew's version of Isaiah contained a mistranslation.
2) Matthew fully intended to use the word "virgin".
3) Matthew's gospel has been translated correctly.
Let's have a look at the text itself.
18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was
pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was
found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her
husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public
disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him
in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary
home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy
Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name
Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins."
22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the
prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son,
and they will call him Immanuel"[d]—which means, "God with us."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=1&version=31
What Matthew is trying to do here is legitimize Jesus. He has a couple
things working against him.
1) Jesus was known at the time to have been conceived (and possibly
born) out of wedlock.
2) Jesus was known at the time to have come from Nazareth.
For the audience Matthew had in mind, the simplest route to
legitimization was providing Jesus with a royal lineage (Matt. 1:1-17)
and then treat his birth as a fulfillment of earlier prophecies.
Matthew then performs what we now call quote mining. He finds a
(mistranslated) use of "virgin" in his copy of Isaiah and then either
concocts or derives (depending on your sympathies) what happened next.
Just in case his readers aren't as familiar with the prophecies of
antiquity as they should be, quotes his (mistranslated) version directly.
snex believes (and a subset of Christians and Muslims agree) that
Matthew's misreading (and Luke's wholly dissimilar misreading) translates
into a historical claim. I find this baffling. Matthew may have wanted
us to read this as a historical claim, but his reliance on the
mistranslation frees us from the requirement of doing so.
As great literature is wont to do, this passage has far outgrown the
original intents of its author. The Catholic Church in particular has
founded a completely different set of ideas on this story, and these
ideas are independent of the story's historical accuracy.
All that being said: I'm not a theologian, I just read a lot.
Corrections are genuinely welcome.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:37:28 -0600, "Dana Tweedy"
>> <redd...@bresnan.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>> [M]adman wrote:
>>> snip
>>>
>>>>> The idea that Mary was a "virgin" in the sense of "never had sex"
>>>>> came from various translations of words that also mean "young
>>>>> woman" or "girl" and that do not imply anything about sexual
>>>>> experience one way or another.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah but in this case it did. Mary was given to the temple at the
>>>> age of three and then given in marriage to Joseph upon leaving the
>>>> temple.
>>>
>>> There's no indication in the Bible that Mary was "given to the
>>> temple". AFAIK, Jewish temples didn't have vestal virgins.
>>
>> Would there have been a temple in Nazareth? Small village, more than
>> likely not even inhabited at the time... Well, you get the idea.
>
>You stupid idiot.
No, honest, that really is you. Ask anyone.
>
>Everyone traveled to the temple once a year.
So?
>
>Everyone.
Well, no, not everyone.
>
>>
>>
>> [snip]
Now. Given that first century Nazareth would have been a VERY tiny
village, if in fact it was inhabited at all. Would there have been a
Temple? Somehow I rather doubt it.
But there again, I doubt nearly everything you say.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Mark Isaak
> On Jun 5, 12:32 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> My broader point remains that, on subjective issues such as religion,
>> it is entirely reasonable that different people may hold different
>> views. The problems come only when they refuse to see those views as
>> subjective, as creationists and snex do.
>
> views like "a virgin gave birth" are NOT subjective.
I agree. However, views like "I believe a virgin gave birth" ARE
subjective.
> why do i need to keep repeating this?
You don't, since what you keep repeating is not in dispute and misses the
point.
snex
> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:46:34 -0700, snex wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 12:32 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> My broader point remains that, on subjective issues such as religion,
> >> it is entirely reasonable that different people may hold different
> >> views. The problems come only when they refuse to see those views as
> >> subjective, as creationists and snex do.
>
> > views like "a virgin gave birth" are NOT subjective.
>
> I agree. However, views like "I believe a virgin gave birth" ARE
> subjective.
and nobody disputes that they do in fact believe it (except garamond).
the issue is whether or not that belief is justifiable, and whether or
not honestly maintaining that belief is compatible with science.
>
> > why do i need to keep repeating this?
>
> You don't, since what you keep repeating is not in dispute and misses the
> point.
no, you keep missing the point. belief in silly things like that is
anti-scientific. you cannot criticize creationists for doing it
without also criticizing theistic evolutionists who accept things that
are just as silly "on faith."
TomS
<4a298989$0$8652$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com>, Garamond Lethe stated..."
>
>On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:36:44 -0400, Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>
>> "snex" <xe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Jun 5, 1:22 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:46:34 -0700, snex wrote:
>>> > > On Jun 5, 12:32 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > >> I will add that I was taught as a Methodist that "virgin" is a
>>> > >> mistranslation of a word that means simply "young woman," that
>>> > >> Mary was indeed a young woman, and that there is no reason not to
>>> > >> believe that she did in fact engage in sex.
>>> >
>>> > > either you are misremembering here or you were mistaught.
>>> >
>>> > Or maybe you're wrong. It could happen.
>>>
>>> or maybe youre a moron, since right below you agree with me.
>>> >
>>> > > the gospels
>>> > > use the greek word for "virgin." the mistranslation (if any - this
>>> > > is not certain by any means), was in the septuagint version of
>>> > > isaiah.
>>> >
>>> > And this was quoted by the author of Matthew.
>>> >
>>> > <q>
>>> > Matthew, writing in Greek about the virgin birth of Jesus, quotes the
>>> > Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word
I suggest that it was quite legitimate for the Greek translation
to use the word "parthenos", for an ordinary reader of the whole
story wouldn't be misled into thinking that it was referring to
a miraculous birth.
I would also suggest that it is a kind of "Whiggish history" to
blame Matthew for not applying modern standards of using a text.
To the contrary, what it shows is that the standards of his
culture allowed a very loose interpretation. A couple of other
famous cases in Matthew are 2:23 "He shall be called a Nazarene",
and 21:5 "sitting on an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass".
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Perplexed in Peoria
... you keep missing the point. belief in silly things like that is
anti-scientific. you cannot criticize creationists for doing it
without also criticizing theistic evolutionists who accept things that
are just as silly "on faith."
I don't see why you think that a belief that some miracles have
happened is so incompatible with science. Science, in the minds
of a believer, simply studies how the universe works when there
is not a miracle happening (which is almost always).
Compared with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the
multiverse, and Everett's Many Worlds hypothesis, that does
not strike me as a radical restriction on the scope of science.
[M]adman
Look, apply some common sense to the phrase "Theist Evolutionist"
There can be no such thing. You either believe in the teachings of the
original Christian, Jesus, or you don't.
1) "Christ died for our sins." that is one of the basic teachings of
Christianity.If we are evolved from animals then there was no fall from
grace, there was no adam to fall from grace. There was no sin.
2) But Jesus explains there was an Adam and an Eve in Mat 19:4
"And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from
the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
"He" = God Male and Female= Adam and Eve.
Then in Luke 3:38, Adam is listed last in the chronology:
the son of MethuSelah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of
Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son
of Adam, the son of God.
3) If evolution is true then there is no 'Satan"
But jesus mentions Satan in John 8:44, Jesus calls him "the father of all
lies".
4) If evolution is true then there was no flood. That means there was not a
"Noah"
But Jesus mentions Noah. Jesus tells us that the last days will be like the
days of Noah. Mat 24:36
Jesus said he came to fufill the law. No where in the law does it ssay "God
created with evolution"
No where in genesis does it say that either.
It is impossible to believe that man has evolved from an aple like ancestor
while believing the bible.
Anyone that thinks so is on that wide road that leads to destruction and has
been lied to by false teachers. Lied to By sheep in wolves clothing.
Devils Advocaat
>
>
>
> > [snip]
wf3h
>
> Look, apply some common sense to the phrase "Theist Evolutionist"
>
> There can be no such thing. You either believe in the teachings of the
> original Christian, Jesus, or you don't.
you're laboring under 2 misapprehensions:
1. there is only ONE teaching of jesus christ, one interpretation.
that is not true. the existence of over 30,000 christian denominations
demonstrates there is not just one interpretation, but many.
2. YOU know the true interpretation of the bible. that is also not
true. if 2B christians can't agree on the bible there's no reason
YOUR view is the true view
>
> 1) "Christ died for our sins." that is one of the basic teachings of
> Christianity.If we are evolved from animals then there was no fall from
> grace, there was no adam to fall from grace. There was no sin.
how do you know who 'adam' was? it's quite possible, as some authors
have pointed out (and i thought this also when i was a theistic
evolutionist), that god knew when the 'first' human evolved. that was
adam.
you see, god's pretty smart. he's ALOT smarter than the creationists
think he is. in fact, that's a hallmark of creationism: it thinks
god's an idiot and he needs the help of creationists to figure things
out. creationists are constantly telling god what he can and can't
do.
>
> Then in Luke 3:38, Adam is listed last in the chronology:
> the son of MethuSelah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of
> Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son
> of Adam, the son of God.
we already know that, in the gospels, there are differences...many
differences...between the gospels. these differences are substantive
and lead to the conclusion there are errors in the gospels,
contradictions that can not be washed away.
>
> 3) If evolution is true then there is no 'Satan"
how do you know this? by what logic do you arrive at this conclusion?
no logic, it seems
>
> 4) If evolution is true then there was no flood. That means there was not a
> "Noah"
> But Jesus mentions Noah. Jesus tells us that the last days will be like the
> days of Noah. Mat 24:36
unfortunately creationism seems to want to invent evidence. there was
no global flood and creationists have been unable to demonstrate its
existence. this reliance on the 'god did it' view of nature for 2000
years proved nothing. creationists can't tell us the SIMPLEST features
of nature yet pretend they know the secrets of the universe.
creationism is a failure. total and complete. rarely in human history
has an idea been so consistently wrong yet believed by so many.
>
> Jesus said he came to fufill the law. No where in the law does it ssay "God
> created with evolution"
nowhere does it say light is compose of photons; that matter is
composed of atoms. yet we know both to be true. we can not say what is
false by what the bible does not mention.
where the hell do creationists get this logic?
>
> No where in genesis does it say that either.
>
> It is impossible to believe that man has evolved from an aple like ancestor
> while believing the bible.
genesis says god created. it does not say how. creationism is a
complete failure. it could not tell us anything about nature at all.
for 2000 years it demonstrated failure after failure after failure.
it's totally wrong.
yet creatoinists are quite proud of their arrogance; they run around
tellng god what he can do so they can continue in their failure.
TomS
<007673fd-1640-4b45...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, wf3h
stated..."
>
>On Jun 6, 4:55=A0am, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
[...snip...]
>> Jesus said he came to fufill the law. No where in the law does it ssay "G=
>od
>> created with evolution"
>
>nowhere does it say light is compose of photons; that matter is
>composed of atoms. yet we know both to be true. we can not say what is
>false by what the bible does not mention.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that species are fixed, or that
there is no variation in populations, or that the vertebrate eye
was designed, or that birds are not related to dinosaurs, or
anything at all about the majority of life on earth (the microbes).
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
JC was 100% Jew.
>
>1) "Christ died for our sins." that is one of the basic teachings of
>Christianity. If we are evolved from animals then there was no fall from
>grace, there was no adam to fall from grace. There was no sin.
Correct on all counts.
>
>2) But Jesus explains there was an Adam and an Eve in Mat 19:4
>"And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from
>the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
>
>"He" = God Male and Female= Adam and Eve.
Using one fairy tale to back up another is hardly a sensible thing to
try.
>
>Then in Luke 3:38, Adam is listed last in the chronology:
> the son of MethuSelah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of
>Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son
>of Adam, the son of God.
So what? Fiction can say anything it wants.
>
>3) If evolution is true then there is no 'Satan"
>But jesus mentions Satan in John 8:44, Jesus calls him "the father of all
>lies".
Again, using fairy tales to bolster your argument is not a bright
idea.
>
>4) If evolution is true then there was no flood. That means there was not a
>"Noah"
Correct.
>But Jesus mentions Noah. Jesus tells us that the last days will be like the
>days of Noah. Mat 24:36
Again, using fairy tales to bolster your argument is not a bright
idea.
>
>Jesus said he came to fufill the law. No where in the law does it ssay "God
>created with evolution"
Gods are the invention of primitive man, and it takes a primitive man
to spout most of the rubbish you do.
>
>No where in genesis does it say that either.
>
>It is impossible to believe that man has evolved from an aple like ancestor
>while believing the bible.
I agree, though I know a lot of people who do not.
>
>Anyone that thinks so is on that wide road that leads to destruction and has
>been lied to by false teachers. Lied to By sheep in wolves clothing.
>
Oh? People like you who make false claims? Things like :-
wf3h
> "On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 04:02:19 -0700 (PDT), in article
> stated..."
>
> >On Jun 6, 4:55=A0am, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
> [...snip...]
> >> Jesus said he came to fufill the law. No where in the law does it ssay "G=
> >od
> >> created with evolution"
>
> >nowhere does it say light is compose of photons; that matter is
> >composed of atoms. yet we know both to be true. we can not say what is
> >false by what the bible does not mention.
>
> [...snip...]
>
> Nowhere in the Bible does it say that species are fixed, or that
> there is no variation in populations, or that the vertebrate eye
> was designed, or that birds are not related to dinosaurs, or
> anything at all about the majority of life on earth (the microbes).
>
> --
'tis true. i don't know how creationists know what god wants by what
he doesn't say. they go on and on about what the bible says
then say it's all meaningless because what's REALLY important is what
god doesn't say.
creationism is full of contradictions
Vend
wrote:
>
> Furthermore, when Paul undertook to construct his ideology of 'vicarious
> atonement' and similar rationalization which constitutes the core dogma
> of Christianity, the 'fact' that Jesus was literally the son of God and not
> the son of Joseph was considered important - not just a pious superstition.
Ok.
However it's strange that Matthew's Gospel begins with a genealogy of
Joseph, tracing him to King David, just to end with:
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,
who is called Christ."
I think it's likely that the original story had Jesus descending from
David through Joseph, and the virgin birth myth was a later addition.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Jun 5, 9:36 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Furthermore, when Paul undertook to construct his ideology of 'vicarious
> > atonement' and similar rationalization which constitutes the core dogma
> > of Christianity, the 'fact' that Jesus was literally the son of God and not
> > the son of Joseph was considered important - not just a pious superstition.
>
> Ok.
>
> However it's strange that Matthew's Gospel begins with a genealogy of
> Joseph, tracing him to King David, just to end with:
>
> "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,
> who is called Christ."
That depends on which book you read: Luke says something different:
Luke 3:23 "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began
his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of
Heli"
The fundies like to wave their arms that "one of these" is Jospeh's
lineage and "the other one" is MARY's (despite the fact that "Mary"
isn't mentioned in ANY of them, nor indeed is any other women). Alas,
though,they have no idea at all whatsoever which is which, even if
their rather contrived excuse were true.
> I think it's likely that the original story had Jesus descending from
> David through Joseph, and the virgin birth myth was a later addition.
And the two different geneologies makes it pretty clear that nobody
seemed to actually have any idea what Joseph's actual lineage was. Of
course, since Joseph was an insignficant little nobody, there's no
reason why anyone would have bothered to preserve his lineage anyway.
So it's most likely that BOTH of the different lineages were just made
up, for the religious purpose of demonstrating that Jesus was somehow
a descendent of David.
And of course that same process of embellishment seems to have
happened in several other instances, too, where various things about
Christ's life were altered (the virgin birth being the most prominent)
in such a way as to make them agree with previous biblical
requirements.
Note that there's nothing "wrong" with this (treated on THEIR terms
and standards, since OUR terms and standards today don't matter),
since the Bible was not a historical document and was not intended to
give an accurate history of the life of Chist. It was a religious
document, and the alterations and additions that were made had
religious significance. In many cultures throughout history, prominent
people were declared (after the fact) to be born of the gods or born
of a virgin by the gods - Alexander the Great, Hercules, etc etc etc.
The virgin birth of Jesus was not intended to have an actual literal
historical meaning any more than the divine birth of Alexander the
Great was. It was added after the fact to signify his divinity.
This embellishment for non-historical purposes doesn't seem to be
limited to the New Testament. It was a common literary device in the
Middle East, for instance, to exaggerate the lifespans of prominent
people, using a centuries-old lifespan to signify how wise they were.
Kings were often attributed with lifespans of hundreds of years. The
Bible adopts the same convention in its descriptions of the lifespans
of the Jewish patriarchs.
It is rather unfortunate that by insisting on the solely literal and
strictly historical nature of the Bible, the fundies close themselves
off from a whole host of rich symbolism and deeper meanings. It's
like reading Aesop's Fables and believing that it is just a book about
talking rabbits.
And it is, of course, the very same mistake that so many of the
evangelical atheists like Snex make.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
Mark Isaak
> On Jun 5, 5:26 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:46:34 -0700, snex wrote:
>> > On Jun 5, 12:32 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> My broader point remains that, on subjective issues such as
>> >> religion, it is entirely reasonable that different people may hold
>> >> different views. The problems come only when they refuse to see
>> >> those views as subjective, as creationists and snex do.
>>
>> > views like "a virgin gave birth" are NOT subjective.
>>
>> I agree. However, views like "I believe a virgin gave birth" ARE
>> subjective.
>
> and nobody disputes that they do in fact believe it (except garamond).
> the issue is whether or not that belief is justifiable, and whether or
> not honestly maintaining that belief is compatible with science.
Those are two separate issues.
The first issue, whether it is justafiable, is, to my mind, very simple:
As long as your belief does not impinge negatively on the rest of the
world, you get to believe whatever you want, and nobody else gets to
judge justifiability.
The second issue, whether it is compatible with science, is almost as
simple. Obviously, is it incompatible with the sciece-of-ancient-
messiah-mother-procreation. But that is just one small area of science,
practiced by, I estimate, zero scientists. The belief *is* compatible
with every other science. Or can you show how how the belief affects,
e.g., gathering data on rice yields in different soils, performing an
ANOVA, and writing up the results?
> no, you keep missing the point. belief in silly things like that is
> anti-scientific.
No, it is non-scientific. Learn the difference.
Your belief that it is anti-scientific is silly, and therefore, by your
standards, you are anti-science. That's where your argument leads.
snex
wrote:
why are you offering religions the ability to define when science
doesnt work (ie, "when a miracle is happening)? after all, that is
exactly what creationism is. if we deny science's ability to draw
general conclusions about the past from what we know about the
present, then things like radiometric dating, for example, are no more
reliable than the idea that human virgins do not give birth.
why dont you, instead, tell religions and religious people to stop
making claims about the natural world?
snex
once again flank entirely ignores what i have actually been saying all
along.
get it through your head flank, *i* dont give a shit what the "actual
meaning" of the text is, whatever the hell that is even supposed to
mean. i am an atheist. what *i* am pointing out is that it is *not*
only fundies who take it literally. ken miller and francis collins
also take the virgin birth story literally. why dont you dare to utter
a word of criticism against them for it?
snex
> snex wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 5:26 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:46:34 -0700, snex wrote:
> >>> On Jun 5, 12:32 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> My broader point remains that, on subjective issues such as
> >>>> religion, it is entirely reasonable that different people may hold
> >>>> different views. The problems come only when they refuse to see
> >>>> those views as subjective, as creationists and snex do.
>
> >>> views like "a virgin gave birth" are NOT subjective.
>
> >> I agree. However, views like "I believe a virgin gave birth" ARE
> >> subjective.
>
> > and nobody disputes that they do in fact believe it (except garamond).
> > the issue is whether or not that belief is justifiable, and whether or
> > not honestly maintaining that belief is compatible with science.
>
> >>> why do i need to keep repeating this?
>
> >> You don't, since what you keep repeating is not in dispute and
> >> misses the point.
>
> > no, you keep missing the point. belief in silly things like that is
> > anti-scientific. you cannot criticize creationists for doing it
> > without also criticizing theistic evolutionists who accept things that
> > are just as silly "on faith."
>
the biblical god is not the only god people believe in, so your entire
post is irrelevant.
snex
> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:31:08 -0700, snex wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 5:26 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:46:34 -0700, snex wrote:
> >> > On Jun 5, 12:32 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> My broader point remains that, on subjective issues such as
> >> >> religion, it is entirely reasonable that different people may hold
> >> >> different views. The problems come only when they refuse to see
> >> >> those views as subjective, as creationists and snex do.
>
> >> > views like "a virgin gave birth" are NOT subjective.
>
> >> I agree. However, views like "I believe a virgin gave birth" ARE
> >> subjective.
>
> > and nobody disputes that they do in fact believe it (except garamond).
> > the issue is whether or not that belief is justifiable, and whether or
> > not honestly maintaining that belief is compatible with science.
>
> Those are two separate issues.
>
> The first issue, whether it is justafiable, is, to my mind, very simple:
> As long as your belief does not impinge negatively on the rest of the
> world, you get to believe whatever you want, and nobody else gets to
> judge justifiability.
thats a pretty silly way to judge the justifiability of a belief.
first of all, how can you even measure what negativity comes from a
given belief? are you *really* going to tell me that christian beliefs
have not led to negative consequences? and even if the consequences
arent direct, how can you measure the indirect consequences? for
example, how can you determine whether it is negative or positive to
raise a child in such a way that he/she is taught that accepting
things on faith is a virtue? maybe that child will get lucky in life
and never accept anything negative on faith, but then again, maybe
not. you simply cant measure it. but you *can* know that accepting
things on faith in general is a bad way to gain accurate beliefs about
the world.
and second of all, justifiability has nothing at all to do with the
consequences of the belief anyway. it has to do with whether or not
that belief is, well, justified. "because this here old book says so"
is not a justification for *any* belief.
>
> The second issue, whether it is compatible with science, is almost as
> simple. Obviously, is it incompatible with the sciece-of-ancient-
> messiah-mother-procreation. But that is just one small area of science,
> practiced by, I estimate, zero scientists. The belief *is* compatible
> with every other science. Or can you show how how the belief affects,
> e.g., gathering data on rice yields in different soils, performing an
> ANOVA, and writing up the results?
you are treating science here as a body of conclusions and statements
about the world, as opposed to a process that derives those
conclusions and statements from observations and logic. but science is
in fact the process, not the results. that is why such beliefs are
incompatible with science as a whole.
>
> > no, you keep missing the point. belief in silly things like that is
> > anti-scientific.
>
> No, it is non-scientific. Learn the difference.
no, it is anti-scientific. non-scientific beliefs would not relate to
the way the natural world works. "a virgin gave birth" is a statement
about how the natural world works.
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> ken miller and francis collins also take
> the virgin birth story literally.
Well, that may be true. I kinda doubt it, though.
Could you point me to any remarks either have made that indicate this?
(I'm afraid "being Catholic" isn't sufficient. There have been and are
Catholics who don't believe this. Some have even been Jesuit priests.
Citations on request.)
> why dont you dare to utter a word of
> criticism against them for it?
Because you have a poor track record when it comes to summarizing things
I tell you directly, so I'm inclined to believe that you're not
summarizing their beliefs accurately, either.
That being said, I criticize actions, not beliefs.
Mark Isaak
> On Jun 6, 12:01 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> The first issue, whether it is justafiable, is, to my mind, very simple:
>> As long as your belief does not impinge negatively on the rest of the
>> world, you get to believe whatever you want, and nobody else gets to
>> judge justifiability.
>
> thats a pretty silly way to judge the justifiability of a belief.
> first of all, how can you even measure what negativity comes from a
> given belief?
With some difficulty.
> are you *really* going to tell me that christian beliefs
> have not led to negative consequences?
No, I am telling you that Christian beliefs have not invariably led to
negative consequences (and, in fact, have sometimes led to positive
consequences). You're the fundamentalist who sees everything as all
black and all white, not me.
> [...] but you *can* know that accepting things on faith in general is a
> bad way to gain accurate beliefs about the world.
And, IMHO, religions should teach that. Some, I have heard tell, do.
> and second of all, justifiability has nothing at all to do with the
> consequences of the belief anyway. it has to do with whether or not
> that belief is, well, justified. "because this here old book says so"
> is not a justification for *any* belief.
You're right; justifiability is entirely subjective. It should never
have been brought up in a discussion of scientific objectivism.
>> The second issue, whether it is compatible with science, is almost as
>> simple. Obviously, is it incompatible with the sciece-of-ancient-
>> messiah-mother-procreation. But that is just one small area of science,
>> practiced by, I estimate, zero scientists. The belief *is* compatible
>> with every other science. Or can you show how how the belief affects,
>> e.g., gathering data on rice yields in different soils, performing an
>> ANOVA, and writing up the results?
>
> you are treating science here as a body of conclusions and statements
> about the world, as opposed to a process that derives those
> conclusions and statements from observations and logic. but science is
> in fact the process, not the results.
Check again; I am treating science entirely as a process. In the example
I gave, gathering data, analyzing it, and presenting it are all part of
the process.
So let me ask again: What part or parts of the soil experiment cannot be
done by someone with belief in a virgin birth? Designing the experiment?
Setting up the soil and rice sample plots? Gathering the data?
Analyzing the data? Publishing the results? Your statement that
religion is incompatible with science requires that at least at least one
of those steps is impossible for someone who is religious. Which one?
>> > no, you keep missing the point. belief in silly things like that is
>> > anti-scientific.
>>
>> No, it is non-scientific. Learn the difference.
>
> no, it is anti-scientific. non-scientific beliefs would not relate to
> the way the natural world works.
Why not?
A lot of people believe that people act generally crazier around a full
moon. They believe it simply because that's what they have always heard.
I used to believe it myself. The science, however, says otherwise. So
about those people who believe the full-moon effect -- is their belief
scientific, anti-scientific, or non-scientific? I don't see how it can
be called scientific, because it is not, nor ever has been, based on any
science. I don't see how it can be called anti-scientific, because the
people honestly believe that science supports their belief. That leaves
only non-scientific.
> "a virgin gave birth" is a statement about how the natural world
> works.
I think for most people who believe it, is is a statement about how the
supernatural world works, which quite explicitly is *not* a statement
about how the natural world works.
--
Perplexed in Peoria
PiP:
Because I doubt they will listen to me. How are you doing on
that score?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Ignoring your silly dick-waving.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
I'm curious -- what claims about the natural world does Zen Buddhism
make . . . .?
Please be as specific as possible.
snex
they dont listen because very few are speaking.
snex
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:26:13 -0700, snex wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > ken miller and francis collins also take
> > the virgin birth story literally.
>
> Well, that may be true. I kinda doubt it, though.
>
> Could you point me to any remarks either have made that indicate this?
i *could,* but then i already told you why i wont. i dont engage liars
in serious discussion. when youre ready to give straightforward
answers to straightforward questions, then you will earn an ouce of
respect.
snex
im curious as to how this is at all relevant to anything.
snex
no moron, you are not ignoring me. you reply to my posts precisely
because you cant ignore them, so you desperately pretend they dont
refute you, as if anybody gave a shit about your posturing. when are
you going to grow up flank? respond to my points or actually ignore
them. nobody buys your bullshit content-free replies.
snex
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:41:47 -0700, snex wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 12:01 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> The first issue, whether it is justafiable, is, to my mind, very simple:
> >> As long as your belief does not impinge negatively on the rest of the
> >> world, you get to believe whatever you want, and nobody else gets to
> >> judge justifiability.
>
> > thats a pretty silly way to judge the justifiability of a belief.
> > first of all, how can you even measure what negativity comes from a
> > given belief?
>
> With some difficulty.
>
> > are you *really* going to tell me that christian beliefs
> > have not led to negative consequences?
>
> No, I am telling you that Christian beliefs have not invariably led to
> negative consequences (and, in fact, have sometimes led to positive
> consequences). You're the fundamentalist who sees everything as all
> black and all white, not me.
no, it was *you* that just said that beliefs are justified based on
their consequences. but now you are claiming that christianity leads
to both good and bad consequences. and it can even happen with the
same person! so how can christianity at all be called "justified" by
your silly definition? how can *any* belief be called justified?
>
> > [...] but you *can* know that accepting things on faith in general is a
> > bad way to gain accurate beliefs about the world.
>
> And, IMHO, religions should teach that. Some, I have heard tell, do.
but you never criticize many of the ones that dont, simply because
they have no problem with evolution.
>
> > and second of all, justifiability has nothing at all to do with the
> > consequences of the belief anyway. it has to do with whether or not
> > that belief is, well, justified. "because this here old book says so"
> > is not a justification for *any* belief.
>
> You're right; justifiability is entirely subjective. It should never
> have been brought up in a discussion of scientific objectivism.
no, it is not subjective. part of science is determining if the
conclusions are justifiable given the data.
>
> >> The second issue, whether it is compatible with science, is almost as
> >> simple. Obviously, is it incompatible with the sciece-of-ancient-
> >> messiah-mother-procreation. But that is just one small area of science,
> >> practiced by, I estimate, zero scientists. The belief *is* compatible
> >> with every other science. Or can you show how how the belief affects,
> >> e.g., gathering data on rice yields in different soils, performing an
> >> ANOVA, and writing up the results?
>
> > you are treating science here as a body of conclusions and statements
> > about the world, as opposed to a process that derives those
> > conclusions and statements from observations and logic. but science is
> > in fact the process, not the results.
>
> Check again; I am treating science entirely as a process. In the example
> I gave, gathering data, analyzing it, and presenting it are all part of
> the process.
>
> So let me ask again: What part or parts of the soil experiment cannot be
> done by someone with belief in a virgin birth? Designing the experiment?
> Setting up the soil and rice sample plots? Gathering the data?
> Analyzing the data? Publishing the results? Your statement that
> religion is incompatible with science requires that at least at least one
> of those steps is impossible for someone who is religious. Which one?
no, my statement that religion is incompatible with science requires
that *some* experiment cannot be carried out, not that *your* soil
experiment cannot be carried out. and indeed there is *some* such
experiment for somebody who believes that a human virgin can give
birth.
>
> >> > no, you keep missing the point. belief in silly things like that is
> >> > anti-scientific.
>
> >> No, it is non-scientific. Learn the difference.
>
> > no, it is anti-scientific. non-scientific beliefs would not relate to
> > the way the natural world works.
>
> Why not?
>
> A lot of people believe that people act generally crazier around a full
> moon. They believe it simply because that's what they have always heard.
> I used to believe it myself. The science, however, says otherwise. So
> about those people who believe the full-moon effect -- is their belief
> scientific, anti-scientific, or non-scientific? I don't see how it can
> be called scientific, because it is not, nor ever has been, based on any
> science. I don't see how it can be called anti-scientific, because the
> people honestly believe that science supports their belief. That leaves
> only non-scientific.
it doesnt matter if people think science supports it. science doesnt
support it. science denies it. hence the belief is anti-scientific.
>
> > "a virgin gave birth" is a statement about how the natural world
> > works.
>
> I think for most people who believe it, is is a statement about how the
> supernatural world works, which quite explicitly is *not* a statement
> about how the natural world works.
then you think wrong. human virgins are natural objects.
John McKendry
I too would like to see your evidence that Miller and Collins take
the Virgin Birth literally. I also don't think I have seen a serious
rebuttal to the argument I presented to you earlier. Here it is again:
Miracles are suspensions or contraventions of laws of nature. If there
is a God who causes the laws of nature to be what they are, then that
God has the ability to suspend or contravene those laws, to cause them
to be other than what they currently are.
There may be such a God. Science has no way to settle the question,
because the observable universe would be exactly the same whether there
is such a God or not.
People who believe in such a miracle-capable God can still do science.
All it takes is the additional belief that God wants people to do
science, and does not suspend or alter the laws of nature when those
laws are being investigated.
But I really want to see your justification for saying that Miller and
Collins take the Virgin Birth literally. It would have to be something
in their own words to convince me.
John
snex
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:30:51 -0700, snex wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 5:02 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:26:13 -0700, snex wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> > ken miller and francis collins also take the virgin birth story
> >> > literally.
>
> >> Well, that may be true. I kinda doubt it, though.
>
> >> Could you point me to any remarks either have made that indicate this?
>
> > i *could,* but then i already told you why i wont. i dont engage liars
> > in serious discussion. when youre ready to give straightforward answers
> > to straightforward questions, then you will earn an ouce of respect.
>
> I too would like to see your evidence that Miller and Collins take
> the Virgin Birth literally. I also don't think I have seen a serious
> rebuttal to the argument I presented to you earlier. Here it is again:
ken miller is a catholic, and it is a necessary catholic doctrine. you
can hear him affirm it every sunday.
and here is an interview with francis collins in which he answers the
question: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/07/collins/print.html
>
> Miracles are suspensions or contraventions of laws of nature. If there
> is a God who causes the laws of nature to be what they are, then that
> God has the ability to suspend or contravene those laws, to cause them
> to be other than what they currently are.
>
> There may be such a God. Science has no way to settle the question,
> because the observable universe would be exactly the same whether there
> is such a God or not.
wrong. the observable universe would be very different in which a god
like this existed. namely, we would witness such miracles. they might
not be commonplace, but we should still witness them nonetheless.
>
> People who believe in such a miracle-capable God can still do science.
> All it takes is the additional belief that God wants people to do
> science, and does not suspend or alter the laws of nature when those
> laws are being investigated.
where is the evidence for *any* of these beliefs? to do science, you
need evidence to form conclusions about reality.
<snip>
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> > > why dont you, instead, tell religions and religious people to stop
> > > making claims about the natural world?
> > I'm curious -- what claims about the natural world does Zen Buddhism
> > make . . . .?
> im curious as to how this is at all relevant to anything.-
Perhaps it's more clear to you now.
Garamond Lethe
> On Jun 6, 10:45 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:30:51 -0700, snex wrote:
>> > On Jun 6, 5:02 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:26:13 -0700, snex wrote:
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> > ken miller and francis collins also take the virgin birth story
>> >> > literally.
>>
>> >> Well, that may be true. I kinda doubt it, though.
>>
>> >> Could you point me to any remarks either have made that indicate
>> >> this?
>>
>> > i *could,* but then i already told you why i wont. i dont engage
>> > liars in serious discussion. when youre ready to give straightforward
>> > answers to straightforward questions, then you will earn an ouce of
>> > respect.
>>
>> I too would like to see your evidence that Miller and Collins take
>> the Virgin Birth literally. I also don't think I have seen a serious
>> rebuttal to the argument I presented to you earlier. Here it is again:
>
> ken miller is a catholic, and it is a necessary catholic doctrine. you
> can hear him affirm it every sunday.
Anytime you'd care to post a citation to the effect I'll read it.
Until then, here's a quote from a letter he sent to the Pope.
<q>
July 12, 2005
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
00120 Vatican City
Your Holiness:
In his magnificent letter to the Pontifical Academy in 1996 regarding the
subject of Evolution, Pope John Paul II affirmed that scientific
rationality and the Church's spiritual commitment to divine purpose and
meaning in the Universe were not incompatible.
...
At the same time, he rightly recognized that the spiritual significance
that one draws from the scientific observations and theory lie outside of
the scientific theories themselves. In this sense, claiming that
evolution definitely implies a lack of divinity, and/or divine purpose in
nature is as much an affront to science as it is to the Church.
</q>
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/catholic/papal-letter.html
>
> and here is an interview with francis collins in which he answers the
> question: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/07/collins/print.html
>
Thank you for engaging in an evidence-based discussion. I hope you will
find it as satisfying as I do.
From that link:
<q>
Salon: I guess I'm trying to figure out if you think God intervenes in
the affairs of human beings. Virtually all of your arguments so far
suggest He does not. God stays out of the realm of humanity.
Collins: I think God can intervene. That's what the great miracles are.
Certainly God intervened in the person of Jesus Christ and in the most
amazing miracle of all, the Resurrection. But I don't think God pops up
in lots of circumstances and turns around the course of events or alters
the way in which nature is going to behave. I think those are reserved
for special moments, of special significance, with a special lesson
involved.
S: Well, I have to ask you about a couple of the best known miracles in
the Bible. Do you believe in the Virgin Birth?
C: I do.
S: And the Resurrection? Do you believe that what was resurrected was
the physical body of Jesus?
C: Physical body? We should be careful in terms of exactly what you mean
by that. Does that mean the cellular structure was exactly the same as it
was when he was alive? I don't know. But I believe that he was
resurrected in physical form and seen by witnesses whom he spoke to
before he then ascended. That is the absolute cornerstone of the
Christian faith.
S: But how can you as a scientist accept some of these ideas in the
Bible that cut so directly against the laws of nature?
C: I have no trouble at all. Again, the big decision is, do you believe
in God? If you believe in God, and if God is more than nature, then
there's no reason that God could not stage an invasion into the natural
world, which -- to our limited perspective -- would appear to be a
miracle.
</q>
In an earlier thread, you had posited that science and religion were
incompatible. That was shown to be trivially false, and I think you've
reduced your claim now to belief in miracles is incompatible with
science.
Is this your belief?
It's trivially false as well, of course. As my first exhibit, may I
present the CV of Dr. Collins.
www.genome.gov/Pages/About/Organization/OD/FrancisCollinsCVJuly2007.pdf
This is a couple years out of date.
He has 384 peer-reviewed publications.
He was a rock star from his work with cystic fibrosis. "Other major
discoveries soon followed, including isolation of the genes for
Huntington's disease, neurofibromatosis, multiple endocrine neoplasia
type 1, and the M4 type of adult acute leukemia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)
And then did something or another with the human genome project that got
him a few more pubs and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
All while believing the Virgin Birth Actually Happened.
So, science is obviously compatible with belief in the Virgin Birth.
Perhaps that's not what you meant.
Maybe you meant to say that a scientific explanation of the Virgin Birth
is not compatible with a belief that the Virgin Birth was miraculous.
This is wholly sensible, defensible and uninteresting.
So at this point, perhaps I should ask you directly:
What was your point?
>> People who believe in such a miracle-capable God can still do
>> science.
>> All it takes is the additional belief that God wants people to do
>> science, and does not suspend or alter the laws of nature when those
>> laws are being investigated.
>
> where is the evidence for *any* of these beliefs? to do science, you
> need evidence to form conclusions about reality.
Ah, well, ask and ye shall receive.
Yes, when Dr. Collins does science, he gathers evidence about reality.
When Dr. Collins does Biblical exegesis, he is not doing science.
I'm really not seeing a problem here....
What was your point?
>
> <snip>
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
And once again ignoring your silly dick-waving.
Elijahovah
Is it somehow connected to whether a the
nature of a virgin birth could therefore give
birth to a wolf or dog or bird?
I am wondering why if they fertilize and implant
human embryos, is there a reason that no human
has yet opted to have implanted a fertilized dog egg.
I mean would the egg implant itself into a human womb
or would it be attacked and killed by the immune system.
So was this thread a question of whether Jesus evolved.
I would like to submit the following science in contrary
argument where WatchTower says that a God who can
create Adam from soil can create a fetus
(fertilized egg) in Mary. Many people envision Jesus as
effeminate, and of course those who fear this is an excuse
for gays will instantly explode his muscle into that
of a testosterone king, natural testosterone since of course
his spiritual mission had little time for the Olympic games.
BUT if you do a GOOGLE on virgin birth you will find that
a species of female shark exists that has been known to
produced eggs that are fully chromosomed to start growing
and identical twin daughter of mother baby shark.
The process of half-numbered chromosome eggs begins with
full chromosome cells. And that process can slip so as to
have full chromosomes and so if implanted they begin to grow.
This is the only way this female shark can do this, and the
probable answer before even observing it to be so.
Do this to a human and you have an identical twin daughter.
I have been saying this for 20 years, long before Jehovah
provided a shark to prove it.
In observation, gamma rays do alter a gene in cells so that
it is not impossible to change an X-chrome to Y-chrome
and start a this identical twin off as a male. There is no way
that a male Mary will look like her. Not only do identical twins
vary, but if opposite sex were made of such twins that variation
would be drastically different dur to growth with testosterone
instead of estrogen. Altering sex from conception to adulthood
is a far cry more variant than the lame alterations done after
maturity has been reached via surgery and hormones. Altered
people via surgery do not have the hormone glands that an
altered XX to XY would have. Thus Jesus was an identical
twin of Mary with a Y chrome in every cell.
VIRGIN BIRTH
But the virgin birth prediction was never intended to be real,
what man proclaims God has provided. As with Pharaoh who
wanted firstborn dead should Moses show his face again,
Jehovah then took Egyptian first born. So too with the virgin birth
it is metphoric astral positions for Venus as well constellation
of Virgo in predicting the hour the end will come.
Mark Isaak
> On Jun 6, 6:12 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> So let me ask again: What part or parts of the soil experiment cannot
>> be done by someone with belief in a virgin birth? Designing the
>> experiment? Setting up the soil and rice sample plots? Gathering the
>> data? Analyzing the data? Publishing the results? Your statement
>> that religion is incompatible with science requires that at least at
>> least one of those steps is impossible for someone who is religious.
>> Which one?
>
> no, my statement that religion is incompatible with science requires
> that *some* experiment cannot be carried out, not that *your* soil
> experiment cannot be carried out. and indeed there is *some* such
> experiment for somebody who believes that a human virgin can give birth.
[and later]
> it doesnt matter if people think science supports it. science doesnt
> support it. science denies it. hence the belief is anti-scientific.
So many of the greatest scientists in history, from Galileo to Newton to
Collins, have been anti-science, and an anti-science position is no
obstacle to doing extraordinary science.
Great. Go ahead and call whomever you choose anti-science. It will be a
badge that they can wear with honor.
snex
> > > > why dont you, instead, tell religions and religious people to stop
> > > > making claims about the natural world?
> > > I'm curious -- what claims about the natural world does Zen Buddhism
> > > make . . . .?
> > im curious as to how this is at all relevant to anything.-
>
> Perhaps it's more clear to you now.
no moron, it isnt. care to offer more than a content-free one-liner?
snex
no moron, you arent. respond to the post or actually ignore it. dont
lie about ignoring it.
snex
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:07:14 -0700, snex wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 10:45 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:30:51 -0700, snex wrote:
> >> > On Jun 6, 5:02 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:26:13 -0700, snex wrote:
>
> >> >> <snip>
>
> >> >> > ken miller and francis collins also take the virgin birth story
> >> >> > literally.
>
> >> >> Well, that may be true. I kinda doubt it, though.
>
> >> >> Could you point me to any remarks either have made that indicate
> >> >> this?
>
> >> > i *could,* but then i already told you why i wont. i dont engage
> >> > liars in serious discussion. when youre ready to give straightforward
> >> > answers to straightforward questions, then you will earn an ouce of
> >> > respect.
>
> >> I too would like to see your evidence that Miller and Collins take
> >> the Virgin Birth literally. I also don't think I have seen a serious
> >> rebuttal to the argument I presented to you earlier. Here it is again:
>
> > ken miller is a catholic, and it is a necessary catholic doctrine. you
> > can hear him affirm it every sunday.
>
i wasnt talking to you liar. fuck off.
snex
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:41:54 -0700, snex wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 6:12 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> So let me ask again: What part or parts of the soil experiment cannot
> >> be done by someone with belief in a virgin birth? Designing the
> >> experiment? Setting up the soil and rice sample plots? Gathering the
> >> data? Analyzing the data? Publishing the results? Your statement
> >> that religion is incompatible with science requires that at least at
> >> least one of those steps is impossible for someone who is religious.
> >> Which one?
>
> > no, my statement that religion is incompatible with science requires
> > that *some* experiment cannot be carried out, not that *your* soil
> > experiment cannot be carried out. and indeed there is *some* such
> > experiment for somebody who believes that a human virgin can give birth.
>
> [and later]
>
> > it doesnt matter if people think science supports it. science doesnt
> > support it. science denies it. hence the belief is anti-scientific.
>
> So many of the greatest scientists in history, from Galileo to Newton to
> Collins, have been anti-science, and an anti-science position is no
> obstacle to doing extraordinary science.
>
> Great. Go ahead and call whomever you choose anti-science. It will be a
> badge that they can wear with honor.
galileo and newton lived in a time where modern science didnt even
exist. its no surprise then that their attitudes about the world were
often anti-scientific. but what is francis collins' excuse?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
OK, ignoring your silly dick-waving.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
And still ignoring your silly dick-waving.
snex
> On Jun 7, 1:57 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 7, 2:29 am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > why dont you, instead, tell religions and religious people to stop
> > > > > > making claims about the natural world?
> > > > > I'm curious -- what claims about the natural world does Zen Buddhism
> > > > > make . . . .?
> > > > im curious as to how this is at all relevant to anything.-
>
> > > Perhaps it's more clear to you now.
>
> > no moron, it isnt. care to offer more than a content-free one-liner?
>
> OK, ignoring your silly dick-waving.
once again, flank cant actually defend his arguments, so he *pretends*
to igonre rebuttals. is *anyone* impressed?
snex
do you even know what ignoring means, moron? if you were ignoring me,
you wouldnt be replying. when are you going to grow up flank? either
address my post or really ignore it. your childish posturing makes you
look much worse than the other 2 actions would.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
And yet again ignoring your silly dick-waving.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
And once more ignoring your silly dick-waving.
snex
no moron, you arent.