Why and where is God ? - Page 3

deepsand · #**101** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickanderson

deep

you're right, being fanatical is a problem; Good luck to her.

regards
rick

As I'm not the one prosletizing. why should I need any luck?

deepsand · #**102** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickanderson

lol, a conclusion based on a negative pre-supposition.

your whole outlook on life has been based on a negative pre-supposition.

How how that which you call a "negative pre-supposition" different from the assumptions unlying your belief and the life that you've bult around such?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickanderson

thats why i use the word "sad" since you've never taken the time to educate yourself

There is very important distinction between "education" and "regious teachings," a distinction that you here fail to recognize.

rickanderson · #**103** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsand

As I'm not the one prosletizing. why should I need any luck?

deep

please keep up, i wished your mother good luck, not you.

my heart tends to go out to fanatics. (as you describe her)

for the most part they're well intentioned simpletons with unbridled passion

**mjtaylor** · #**104** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickanderson

"disconbobulated" is a word known to people who's native tongue is english.

It is? Perhaps you mean discombobulate ....

rickanderson · #**105** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

It is? Perhaps you mean discombobulate ....

good one mj...i knew i should have looked it up.

\o/

rickanderson · #**106** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsand

How how that which you call a "negative pre-supposition" different from the assumptions unlying your belief

I'm not aware of any assumptions underlying my beliefs.

Care to state one?

Dubbya · #**107** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsand

.
So, there is in fact neither a scriptural or cultural basis for the claim of Jesus being the issue of "immaculate conception."

Though that statement appears technically correct in that they didn't use those precise words, IN FACT, every New testament Bible ever printed, regardless of the version, says it as plain as day.

Mr. Dawkins and his ilk might logically argue that this "proves nothing" because he was not there to witness the event and because no known photos exist, but that's his prerogative and disproves nothing.

Twist it whichever way you choose, here it is. Believe/disbelieve as you will but do not dispute the fact that it's clearly laid out in scripture.

Matthew 1:18-25 (New International Version)

18 "This 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."

19 "Because 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."

20 "But 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.

21 "She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

22 "All 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" which means, "God with us."

24 "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife."

25 "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."

Matthew 1:18-25 (King James Version)

18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost".

19 "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily".

20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost".

21 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

22 "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, "

23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us".

24 "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:"

25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

Luke 1:27 (New International Version)

"to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary."

Luke 1:34 (New International Version)

"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

Luke 1:26-28 (King James Version)

26 "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, "

27 "To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. "

28 "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

rickanderson · #**108** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubbya

Though that statement appears technically correct in that they didn't use those precise words, IN FACT, every New testament Bible ever printed, regardless of the version, says it as plain as day.

Mr. Dawkins and his ilk might logically argue that this "proves nothing" because he was not there to witness the event and because no known photos exist, but that's his prerogative and disproves nothing.

Twist it whichever way you choose, here it is. Believe/disbelieve as you will but do not dispute the fact that it's clearly laid out in scripture.

Matthew 1:18-25 (New International Version)

18 "This 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."

19 "Because 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."

20 "But 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.

21 "She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

22 "All 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" which means, "God with us."

24 "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife."

25 "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."

Matthew 1:18-25 (King James Version)

18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost".

19 "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily".

20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost".

21 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

22 "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, "

23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us".

24 "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:"

25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

Luke 1:27 (New International Version)

"to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary."

Luke 1:34 (New International Version)

"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

Luke 1:26-28 (King James Version)

26 "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, "

27 "To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. "

28 "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

dubbya

well done; thats pretty much a wrap.

\o/

deepsand · #**109** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickanderson

deep

please keep up, i wished your mother good luck, not you.

my heart tends to go out to fanatics. (as you describe her)

for the most part they're well intentioned simpletons with unbridled passion

Remember, though, she may feel that you're the one in need of good luck.

The bottom line is that, in a battle of beliefs, one can prove neither the correctness of their position not the errors in that of theor opponents, resulting in a stalemate.

There is, therefore, nothing, other that a self-generated feeling of having done something good, to be gained by proselytizing.

deepsand · #**110** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubbya

Though that statement appears technically correct in that they didn't use those precise words, IN FACT, every New testament Bible ever printed, regardless of the version, says it as plain as day.

Mr. Dawkins and his ilk might logically argue that this "proves nothing" because he was not there to witness the event and because no known photos exist, but that's his prerogative and disproves nothing.

Twist it whichever way you choose, here it is. Believe/disbelieve as you will but do not dispute the fact that it's clearly laid out in scripture.

Matthew 1:18-25 (New International Version)

18 "This 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."

19 "Because 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."

20 "But 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.

21 "She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

22 "All 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" which means, "God with us."

24 "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife."

25 "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."

Matthew 1:18-25 (King James Version)

18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost".

19 "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily".

20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost".

21 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

22 "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, "

23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us".

24 "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:"

25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

Luke 1:27 (New International Version)

"to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary."

Luke 1:34 (New International Version)

"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

Luke 1:26-28 (King James Version)

26 "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, "

27 "To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. "

28 "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

You've obviously not read any of the oldest known documents in their original languages.

Later translations do not stand as authoritative.

deepsand · #**111** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickanderson

dubbya

well done; thats pretty much a wrap.

\o/

Here you demonstrate your dependence on a factually unsupported assumption.

As earlier noted, the oldest known writings do not use the word "virgin." You, of course, chose to ignore such, as their is no factual rebuttal available.

Therefore, to spell it out for you, translations are not authoritative.

deepsand · #**112** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickanderson

I'm not aware of any assumptions underlying my beliefs.

Care to state one?

Already done in my earlier post re. the absence of factual evidence for the claim that Mary was a virgin.

Clicken · #**113** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 04:04 PM

Belief without proof is an assumption.

It is a magician's trick to foretell an event for which was already planned out and is easily effective when the foretelling is vague. It is also much easier for the con artist to just make stuff up especially when there is no way to prove or disprove the claim but rather persuade a mind to believe it is possible.

Could the virgin conception be based on the possibility that she was slipped a drug in her drink and then was artificially inseminated? Is that thought any more unrealistic than the story offered as the truth?

Was it so miraculous that she named the babe the very name which was foretold when an angel told her what to name it? It would seem more “supernatural” if she hadn’t been instructed on the name.

Could these characters have been singled out and used to stage the events which were vaguely planned out so many years earlier in order to perpetrate the biggest con of everlasting time?

rickanderson · #**114** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 04:11 PM

[quote=deepsand;368603There is, therefore, nothing, other that a self-generated feeling of having done something good, to be gained by proselytizing.[/quote]

if that were true then the unhappy smoker wouldn't be so angry since he's the one espousing his atheistic doctrine the loudest...

i on the other hand have simply stated that nothing could ever make christianity crumble (as you yourself said) and that God could help with unhappy's life long problem with anger if he ceased having negative presuppostions.

remember, im the cool smiley

Dubbya · #**115** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsand

Here you demonstrate your dependence on a factually unsupported assumption.

You know, it's funny, I'm COMPLETELY okay with that.

Whether or not you choose to believe now, there is one thing I'm absolutely certain of. At some point we'll all become believers, be it at the end of this life or the beginning of the next.

deepsand · #**116** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickanderson

if that were true then the unhappy smoker wouldn't be so angry since he's the one espousing his atheistic doctrine the loudest...

i on the other hand have simply stated that nothing could ever make christianity crumble (as you yourself said) and that God could help with unhappy's life long problem with anger if he ceased having negative presuppostions.

remember, im the cool smiley

Actually, his anger lies in the fact that you and others refuse to address the fact that you've nothing to offer in the way of "proof" other than anecdotal evidence, along with certain documents that are not even the originals, and that said originals fail to wholly support your claims.

In short, you refuse to engage in objective debate.

cw1865 · #**117** (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsand

Actually, his anger lies in the fact that you and others refuse to address the fact that you've nothing to offer in the way of "proof" other than anecdotal evidence, along with certain documents that are not even the originals.

In short, you refuse to engage in objective debate.

Please do not attribute that statement to my thoughts. Per a previous posting, excerpted below, I readily acknowledge that the belief cannot be proven.

"Just to make sure that I am not misunderstood. This is simply a belief. I CANNOT prove it through the scientific method. It does not belong in a science classroom. In the educational setting it would properly belong in a philosophy classroom. I firmly believe that to seek 'truth' we cannot confine ourselves to a ridgid dogma."