Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
gone

deleted

deleted
Leonard James

Well, Roses, as it is impossible to exterminate something that is only a fictitious character, we have to concentrate on getting people who believe God is real to see that he isn't.
Honey 56

Willow,

Most Christian would identify 'sin' as falling short of the glory of God and as He is perfect, well that leaves us with a problem.....

Would you consider exterminating a human parent, who had your best interest at heart and set down guidlines, just because you object to His authority in your life?

And Leonard, please for goodness sake, don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen!  

Honey
cyberman

Willow, is your problem with the use of the word 'sin', or with the fact that some people extend it to include homosexuality etc.?

Do you consider murder, adultery, rape, theft, etc. to be sinful?
gone

deleted
gone

deleted
Shaker

Willow wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Willow, is your problem with the use of the word 'sin', or with the fact that some people extend it to include homosexuality etc.?

Do you consider murder, adultery, rape, theft, etc. to be sinful?


I don't like the word 'sin' as it covers things I don't believe are wrong. I prefer 'wrongdoing' for things like murder, theft, etc.

Each to their own but surely the more fundamental objection is that since it is a religious term, if you're not religious it has no meaning whatever. If you're not in the club you don't abide by its rules.
cyberman

Willow wrote:

I don't like the word 'sin' as it covers things I don't believe are wrong. I prefer 'wrongdoing' for things like murder, theft, etc.


It only sometimes covers things you don't believe are wrong. I use the term, and don't believe it covers homosexuality etc.

Also, non-religious people who do not use the term 'sin' sometimes consider homosexuality etc. to be 'wrongdoing'.
gone

deleted
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Willow wrote:

I don't like the word 'sin' as it covers things I don't believe are wrong. I prefer 'wrongdoing' for things like murder, theft, etc.


It only sometimes covers things you don't believe are wrong. I use the term, and don't believe it covers homosexuality etc.

Also, non-religious people who do not use the term 'sin' sometimes consider homosexuality etc. to be 'wrongdoing'.


All you've said here is what was already patently bleeding obvious, i.e. "sin" and "wrongdoing" are coterminous for the religious some of the time but not for the non-religious.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Willow wrote:

I don't like the word 'sin' as it covers things I don't believe are wrong. I prefer 'wrongdoing' for things like murder, theft, etc.


It only sometimes covers things you don't believe are wrong. I use the term, and don't believe it covers homosexuality etc.

Also, non-religious people who do not use the term 'sin' sometimes consider homosexuality etc. to be 'wrongdoing'.


All you've said here is what was already patently bleeding obvious, i.e. "sin" and "wrongdoing" are coterminous for the religious some of the time but not for the non-religious.


Shaker, Willow believes that the key difference between 'sin' and 'wrongdoing' is that 'sin' covers things which she does not think are wrong. That being the case, she seems to differ from you slightly in her understanding of the significance of the terms in question. I am having a polite discussion with Willow on her terms. No need to get defensive - I am not being mean to her. Calm down, there's a good chap.
Honey 56

Willow wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Willow wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Willow, is your problem with the use of the word 'sin', or with the fact that some people extend it to include homosexuality etc.?

Do you consider murder, adultery, rape, theft, etc. to be sinful?


I don't like the word 'sin' as it covers things I don't believe are wrong. I prefer 'wrongdoing' for things like murder, theft, etc.

Each to their own but surely the more fundamental objection is that since it is a religious term, if you're not religious it has no meaning whatever. If you're not in the club you don't abide by its rules.


If only that were true and the fundies kept their 'club' all to themselves, without using threats of eternal damnation, without the slightest bit of evidence to support the notion, to get others to sign up. Intelligent adults might be able to withstand the pressure, but that is not the case where children and the vulnerable are concerned. Such pressure then becomes abuse, imo.


Willow,

Instead of blaming these so called 'fundies' for your teatment as a child, or the God they claimed to represent, perhaps your resentment would be better placed with the people who should have loved, protected and nurtured you. What you describe is abuse, no one would argue with that.

I have yet to meet these people who treaten anyone with hell, never mind vulnerable young children, in the real world. Most of us would put them straight if we did.

Christians should understand not to judge others because that job belongs to Almighty God and as for hell, most of us don't truly understand the concept, most of us would hate the thought of anyone being seperated from God in this life never mind the next!

We try to share our faith from a grateful heart and because Jesus asked us to. But if you hate it that much, I can't for the life of me understand why you keep on questioning it all?

If you try to forgive and forget the things they did and said Willow, that would take away their power to continue to hurt you, I know it is the most difficult thing in the world to move on from a childhood that was so plagued by shame,guilt and suffering, but it is possible, many people have done so with the right help.

Honey
Leonard James

Honey 56 wrote:
Willow,

Most Christian would identify 'sin' as falling short of the glory of God and as He is perfect, well that leaves us with a problem.....

Indeed it does, which is exactly what the scripture writers intended when they wrote it ...  to gain control of their followers. Convince them that something unattainable is necessary, and offer a way out of the falsity.

Quote:
Would you consider exterminating a human parent, who had your best interest at heart and set down guidelines, just because you object to His authority in your life?

No human parents would set their kids an impossible task and punish them for not achieving it.

Quote:
And Leonard, please for goodness sake, don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen!  

Contrary to the opinion of some of the posters here, Honey, I am no fool!  
Honey 56

Leonard James wrote:
Honey 56 wrote:
Willow,



Contrary to the opinion of some of the posters here, Honey, I am no fool!  



Most definitely not Leonard, I sincerely hope that my post did not imply that, because nothing would be further from the truth. I thought the little smiley would indicate that my comment was really the more tongue in cheek kind.

Honey
Leonard James

Honey 56 wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Honey 56 wrote:
Willow,



Contrary to the opinion of some of the posters here, Honey, I am no fool!  



Most definitely not Leonard, I sincerely hope that my post did not imply that, because nothing would be further from the truth. I thought the little smiley would indicate that my comment was really the more tongue in cheek kind.

Honey

No, no, my dear ... I know you would never imply that.

I was referring to my stalker, whose sole aim seems to be to pick holes in what other people post rather than offer anything in the way of constructive debate.
gone

deleted
cyberman

Willow wrote:
Therefore you believe if you don't get 'saved' you go to hell, don't you?


Doesn't "saved" (in this context) simply mean "not going to hell". Everybody in the world believes that you are either "going to hell" or "not going to hell", don't they?

(Nothing to do with whether you believe in hell. Similarly, everyone in the world believes that are either "in Narnia" or "Not in Narnia").

So you have presented Honey with a question to which the only logical answer is 'yes'. You are not daft, so you have done this on purpose. I wonder why.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
I was referring to my stalker


You should find yourself so lucky.



BTW Honey, you may not consider Leonard to be a fool but if you believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection or the ascension then he considers you to be a "goggle eyed fool":
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
SceptiKarl wrote:
There again believing that a dead man, (previously born of a virgin), rose up on the 3rd day and levitated Himself to heaven to sit beside Himself on His own right hand side, doesn't exactly provide good credentials for the interpretation of reality!

Make the story daft enough and there will always be some goggle-eyed fool who will believe it!

Are you branding all Christians "goggle-eyed fools" Leonard for believing in the virgin birth, the resurrection and the ascension?

Yes, but with the qualification that they are simply the victims of cultural indoctrination.




What a nice chap he is.  
Jim

Willow;
I agree with honey, but I'll add my tuppence worth.
You know I'm Cof S. I can assure you that this denomination, and most of the mainline denominations north of the border with which I'm aquainted, and have fellowshipped with - R.C., Baptist, Methodist, Sally Army, Episcopal, and several independant evangelical congregations, do not, and will not, frighten any child into the kingdom. Such action would be directly in contradiction with what Jesus said, and taught, regarding those who 'caused these little ones to stumble" - I won't bore you with chapter and verse; you've read the script.
Even the Bretheren, a very closed denomination in the past, which did frighten folk into the Kingdom many years ago, does not do so now.
Perhaps the situation is different south of the border, and, if so, you could provide examples of this odious behaviour?
cymrudynnion

Willow wrote:
Honey 56 wrote:
Willow wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Willow wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Willow, is your problem with the use of the word 'sin', or with the fact that some people extend it to include homosexuality etc.?

Do you consider murder, adultery, rape, theft, etc. to be sinful?


I don't like the word 'sin' as it covers things I don't believe are wrong. I prefer 'wrongdoing' for things like murder, theft, etc.

Each to their own but surely the more fundamental objection is that since it is a religious term, if you're not religious it has no meaning whatever. If you're not in the club you don't abide by its rules.


If only that were true and the fundies kept their 'club' all to themselves, without using threats of eternal damnation, without the slightest bit of evidence to support the notion, to get others to sign up. Intelligent adults might be able to withstand the pressure, but that is not the case where children and the vulnerable are concerned. Such pressure then becomes abuse, imo.


Willow,

Instead of blaming these so called 'fundies' for your teatment as a child, or the God they claimed to represent, perhaps your resentment would be better placed with the people who should have loved, protected and nurtured you. What you describe is abuse, no one would argue with that.

I have yet to meet these people who treaten anyone with hell, never mind vulnerable young children, in the real world. Most of us would put them straight if we did.

Christians should understand not to judge others because that job belongs to Almighty God and as for hell, most of us don't truly understand the concept, most of us would hate the thought of anyone being seperated from God in this life never mind the next!

We try to share our faith from a grateful heart and because Jesus asked us to. But if you hate it that much, I can't for the life of me understand why you keep on questioning it all?

If you try to forgive and forget the things they did and said Willow, that would take away their power to continue to hurt you, I know it is the most difficult thing in the world to move on from a childhood that was so plagued by shame,guilt and suffering, but it is possible, many people have done so with the right help.

Honey


Honey you make no bones about the fact you are a Christian fundamentalist. Therefore you believe if you don't get 'saved' you go to hell, don't you?

I will challenge this evil nastiness, which is without any foundation in fact! Children are still being abused by this awful dogma as I know full well. Please don't pretend it is just me having had a bad childhood experience. Children are suffering right now because of that version of Christianity, however much you might bury your head in the sand where that is concerned.  I will NOT remain silent whilst this abuse still goes on unchecked.
So long as when you refuse to remain silent you are prepared to acvcept everything that is thrown at you, which you are not. To be a Christian you accept The Bible and its contents unconditionally. Your refer to christianity as a Club, ok, you decided to leave it of your own accord but are welcome to return. You may find homosexuality acceptable, the "Club" doesn't, end of.
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
You may find homosexuality acceptable, the "Club" doesn't, end of.


End of what?
Honey 56

Quote:
[quote="Willow:73006"][quote="Honey 56:72999

Honey you make no bones about the fact you are a Christian fundamentalist. Therefore you believe if you don't get 'saved' you go to hell, don't you?

I will challenge this evil nastiness, which is without any foundation in fact! Children are still being abused by this awful dogma as I know full well. Please don't pretend it is just me having had a bad childhood experience. Children are suffering right now because of that version of Christianity, however much you might bury your head in the sand where that is concerned.  I will NOT remain silent whilst this abuse still goes on unchecked.[/quote
]

Good for you Willow, I will join you, absolutely, and if you are aware of this type of behaviour (as I am not) them perhaps these organistaions are the ones to tackle, head on preferably. I don't see how anything will change by you posting on a forum though. You are preaching to the converted I'm afraid, because as Jim has pointed out, we just do not come across this nowadays, maybe it was more prevelent in the past, I really don't know about that,  but this was obviously due to a misunderstanding or a diregarding of biblical teaching.

There is a website called silentlambs, is is for the purpose of naming and shaming the perpetrators and supporting the survivors of childhood (sexual) abuse within some churches.

Do you know someone who would be willing to do something similar for these people who you claim are continuing this abuse on children, it is an effective tool for breaking the cycle.
IvyOwl

Quote:
You may find homosexuality acceptable, the "Club" doesn't, end of.


Not all sections of the 'club' find it unacceptable though do they?

Are you aware that this one issue has caused many people to disrespect the 'club' as you call it? I don't suppose you really care as you are convinced you are right.

IO
Honey 56

Quote:
Leonard James wrote:
[quote="Honey 56:73001

Most definitely not Leonard, I sincerely hope that my post did not imply that, because nothing would be further from the truth. I thought the little smiley would indicate that my comment was really the more tongue in cheek kind.

Honey

No, no, my dear ... I know you would never imply that.


Oh thank goodness for that,
Bally hump Leonard, I have seen your webstite, I wish I had half your faculties at my time of life and so handsome.... (pinches his face cheeks) if I was ten years younger and we were free, I would let you chase me, 'til I caught you!!!  

And before anyone points out  where I may be mistaken in this view, a girl can dream, you know!!!!  
IvyOwl

Honey and Jim,

Just out of interest do you believe that people who die 'unsaved' will go to hell? If not what do you think happens to them?

Not overtly preaching the doctine to children in a threatening way is one thing but if at heart this is what you believe it will be there simmering in the background.

Whilst most Christians will proselytize with the emphasis on the joy they feel in their belief that is only one side of the coin. The light is there in contrast to the dark.

IO
gone

deleted
cyberman

IvyOwl wrote:
do you believe that people who die 'unsaved' will go to hell?


Ivy, this is tautologous. 'Unsaved' means 'going to hell'.

You can believe this and also believe that every single person is 'saved' and therefore no-one is going to hell.

So Honey and Jim will, logically, answer yes to this - but that will not inform you about their beliefs regarding who is saved, how, when etc.
IvyOwl

Quote:
And before anyone points out  where I may be mistaken in this view, a girl can dream, you know!!!!  


Sorry Honey join the queue! You are just one behind me goodness knows how many are in front!!!

Why are all the nicest men gay??? 'taint fair .... boo hoo sob.

IO
Leonard James

Honey 56 wrote:
Quote:
Leonard James wrote:
[quote="Honey 56:73001

Most definitely not Leonard, I sincerely hope that my post did not imply that, because nothing would be further from the truth. I thought the little smiley would indicate that my comment was really the more tongue in cheek kind.

Honey

No, no, my dear ... I know you would never imply that.


Oh thank goodness for that,
Bally hump Leonard, I have seen your webstite, I wish I had half your faculties at my time of life and so handsome.... (pinches his face cheeks) if I was ten years younger and we were free, I would let you chase me, 'til I caught you!!!  

And as long as you didn't expect too much, sweetie, I would let you catch me!

Code:
And before anyone points out  where I may be mistaken in this view, a girl can dream, you know!!!!  
 

Thank goodness for you and other light-hearted people on this forum!

Some folk like to sigh, some folk do, some folk do,
Others long to die, but that's not me or you!
Long live the merry, merry heart
That laughs by night and day,
Like the Queen of Mirth,
No matter what some folk say.

Life's too short to take too seriously.
Jim

cyberman;
agreed.
IO;
you'd have to open a new thread to discuss the concept of salvation.
But i would say that, in the context of the discussion, no-one who is incapable of understanding the concept of salvation would 'go to hell'.
That, in my opinion, includes children, which is why indoctrinating them with fear is no way to show love.
And love is what we are commanded to do.
Not doing so, if we take Jesus at His word in John 15, would be a disqualifier for membership of his 'club'.
IvyOwl

cyberman wrote:
IvyOwl wrote:
do you believe that people who die 'unsaved' will go to hell?


Ivy, this is tautologous. 'Unsaved' means 'going to hell'.

You can believe this and also believe that every single person is 'saved' and therefore no-one is going to hell.

So Honey and Jim will, logically, answer yes to this - but that will not inform you about their beliefs regarding who is saved, how, when etc.


So some get around the nastiness by saying everyone is saved?  Well Honey and Jim might well be in that camp but many other brands of Christianity aren't and say that the 'everyone is saved regardless of whether or not they believe' type Christians are being unscriptural.

IO
Leonard James

IvyOwl wrote:
Quote:
And before anyone points out  where I may be mistaken in this view, a girl can dream, you know!!!!  


Sorry Honey join the queue! You are just one behind me goodness knows how many are in front!!!

Why are all the nicest men gay??? 'taint fair .... boo hoo sob.

IO

Hi Ivy, you flattering young minx!  

Maybe we seem nice to women because we tend to think a bit like them.  
Honey 56

IvyOwl wrote:
Honey and Jim,

Just out of interest do you believe that people who die 'unsaved' will go to hell? If not what do you think happens to them?

Not overtly preaching the doctine to children in a threatening way is one thing but if at heart this is what you believe it will be there simmering in the background.

Whilst most Christians will proselytize with the emphasis on the joy they feel in their belief that is only one side of the coin. The light is there in contrast to the dark.

IO



Hi Ivy,

It is not something I think about, I would never teach anyone whatever their age about this, because I don't have the understanding about it.
Jesus taught on it, but, mostly to the religious leaders of His day and mainly because they were making it impossible for ordinary people to come to God for a relationship.

The early apostles seemed to focus more on the Lords salvation and his love, I think it is only mentioned once by them and it was pertaining to angels not men (I could be wrong)

I don't think Christians proselytize in the true sense of the word, we are not interested in people joining a religion, rather helping them to find and establish a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, only He has the power to win their hearts and minds. Evangelism is not the same thing  really.

You may know that I have two children, one has renounced his faith, very very sadly. One gave her life to the Lord when she turned eighteen, she has her own private relationship to the Lord, we do not interfere with that in any way, other than her Dad had the privelege of carrying out her baptism for her.

We love them equally and we trust the Lord with them equally, I can't pretend I would not be overjoyed if my Son rediscovered his realationship with the Lord, but that is a private matter for him.

I do trust that when the day comes when we all have to stand before our God and give an account of our lives, then he will judge us fairly, with compassion and impartially.
cyberman

IvyOwl wrote:

So some get around the nastiness by saying everyone is saved?  


How cynical. You could simply say "some believe no-one goes to hell". Why couch it on wording which suggests that expressed beliefs are manipulative or insincere?
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
To be a Christian you accept The Bible and its contents unconditionally. Your refer to christianity as a Club, ok, you decided to leave it of your own accord but are welcome to return. You may find homosexuality acceptable, the "Club" doesn't, end of.


Funny way to talk about a Club of which you are not a member..

cymrudynnion wrote:
I never say i am a Christian
Honey 56

IvyOwl wrote:
cyberman wrote:
IvyOwl wrote:
do you believe that people who die 'unsaved' will go to hell?


Ivy, this is tautologous. 'Unsaved' means 'going to hell'.

You can believe this and also believe that every single person is 'saved' and therefore no-one is going to hell.

So Honey and Jim will, logically, answer yes to this - but that will not inform you about their beliefs regarding who is saved, how, when etc.


So some get around the nastiness by saying everyone is saved?  Well Honey and Jim might well be in that camp but many other brands of Christianity aren't and say that the 'everyone is saved regardless of whether or not they believe' type Christians are being unscriptural.

IO


I think you need to try to understand, it is not our concern who will be saved and who won't, that is a matter for God alone, and we trust him with this. Our remit as Christians is to go and tell.

Some people we tell, we may never meet again in this life, but we have planted a seed, hopefully that person will allow God to feed and nuture it until it reaches maturity, hopefully that person will produce  a great deal of fruit of their own.

We cannot be responsible for what a person does with what we tell them , we would hope with all our hearts that it will be something positive,
A lovely woman I met over twenty years ago in a supermarket  prayed for me, without my knowlege, she prayed that I would come to know God as she did,. When I told her that I had become a Christian she was overjoyed. We enjoyed many years of friendship since then, we have shared lifes troubles and its victories.

A few weeks ago she died really suddenly, it was such a blow! I really miss her.

I can't help but wonder though,  how many souls she will meet who will say to her, "you didn't know it at the time, but God heard your prayers for me" judging by the time she spent with the Lord, there will be a great many!
IvyOwl

Quote:
How cynical. You could simply say "some believe no-one goes to hell". Why couch it on wording which suggests that expressed beliefs are manipulative or insincere?


Well yes I could have worded it that way which does indeed give a different slant to those that thus believe. I stand corrected.

I'm  trying to get at the mindset of the others that don't believe that salvation is automatic. There is a lot of nasty stuff in the Bible concerning judgment and hell.

Personally I don't believe in any of it. I'm interested as to why people do though.

IO
Powwow

Pardon the bad language!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1...qfk&feature=player_detailpage
Honey 56

[
Quote:
quote="The Boyg:73008"]
Leonard James wrote:
I was referring to my stalker


You should find yourself so lucky.



BTW Honey, you may not consider Leonard to be a fool but if you believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection or the ascension then he considers you to be a "goggle eyed fool":


Well in my case, he may be correct, but it isn't because of my faith, it's in spite of it  

did you know that the bible teaches "a fool says in his heart, there is no God"

Just saying........    
cymrudynnion

IvyOwl wrote:
Quote:
You may find homosexuality acceptable, the "Club" doesn't, end of.


Not all sections of the 'club' find it unacceptable though do they?

Are you aware that this one issue has caused many people to disrespect the 'club' as you call it? I don't suppose you really care as you are convinced you are right.

IO
As far as i am aware trhe subject has never been put to all members of the "Club" to express a view on it. My belief is based on the Bible which is at the core of the Faith I practice. Now if there are some who wish to remove the verses of the Bible that causes them diffciulties or offence I'm sure those in authority will make it easy for them to leave, as has happened before.
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
My belief is based on the Bible which is at the core of the Faith I practice.


What faith is that, cymrudynnion?

cymrudynnion wrote:
I never say i am a Christian
Leonard James

Honey 56 wrote:

did you know that the bible teaches "a fool says in his heart, there is no God"


Any book which teaches that people can talk in their hearts has got to be viewed with suspicion!  

ps. I still love ya, Honey.  
trentvoyager

Quote:
My belief is based on ignorance which is at the core of the prejudice I practice.


Just needed a slight adjustment so that it read correctly.

No need to thank me.

The service is free of charge.  
Honey 56

Leonard James wrote:
Honey 56 wrote:

did you know that the bible teaches "a fool says in his heart, there is no God"


Any book which teaches that people can talk in their hearts has got to be viewed with suspicion!  

ps. I still love ya, Honey.  


The feeling is mutual, lovely boy.  

I have been reading lately about 'heart memories', experienced by some heart transplant patients, it is really interesting....

Paul Pearsall, a neuropsychologist, wrote about this interesting topic in his book, The Heart's Code: Tapping the Wisdom and Power of Our Heart Energy. In it, he provides insight into his belief that the physical heart contains within it memories belonging to its person. Part of Pearsall's research for the book included tracking several real life cases of heart transplant recipients who mysteriously inherited some of their donors' traits.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/028537...lants_memories.html#ixzz21dv3b8Ws
IvyOwl

Interesting idea, but as far as I know cellular memory has not been proved
IO
Honey 56

IvyOwl wrote:
Interesting idea, but as far as I know cellular memory has not been proved
IO


No it hasn't been proven, but as you say it is interesting, especially the anecdotal evidence from the recipients.

Of course, personally I would love it to be proven, because it is referred to a great deal in the scriptures.

Honey
gone

deleted
Honey 56

Willow wrote:
The heart is the  organ for pumping blood around the body. People who didn't have the benefit of modern science could be forgiven for giving it significance it doesn't deserve in respect of feelings, which all stem from the human brain, imo!


Lots of people have opinions on this subject, some scientifically based some not, we shall have to wait and see before pronouncing on this subject with any certainty I think.

Honey
gone

deleted
IvyOwl

Quote:
No it hasn't been proven, but as you say it is interesting, especially the anecdotal evidence from the recipients.


Anecdotal 'evidence' is notoriously unreliable but enough could be grounds for further study certainly.

Quote:
Of course, personally I would love it to be proven, because it is referred to a great deal in the scriptures.


It's just a figure of speach Honey as Willow has said above.  It reminds me of the the time many years ago a friend of mine who had been brought up in a 'born again believer' household expressing her surprise when I told her that if we could cut open the heart of an unbeliever it would be the same colour as hers. She'd read in the Bible it would be black. I was shocked at how literally she'd taken everything but them she'd had this phraseology fed her from childhood, constantly repeated and had never questioned it. Sad.

IO
Honey 56

IvyOwl wrote:
Quote:
No it hasn't been proven, but as you say it is interesting, especially the anecdotal evidence from the recipients.


Anecdotal 'evidence' is notoriously unreliable but enough could be grounds for further study certainly.

Quote:
Of course, personally I would love it to be proven, because it is referred to a great deal in the scriptures.


It's just a figure of speach Honey as Willow has said above.  It reminds me of the the time many years ago a friend of mine who had been brought up in a 'born again believer' household expressing her surprise when I told her that if we could cut open the heart of an unbeliever it would be the same colour as hers. She'd read in the Bible it would be black. I was shocked at how literally she'd taken everything but them she'd had this phraseology fed her from childhood, constantly repeated and had never questioned it. Sad.

IO


It is sad that she didn't manage to sit through biology classes, did this person have special educational needs?

Most 'kids' will at some time in their education come across at least an illustation of a human/animal heart !
IvyOwl

Jim wrote:
cyberman;
agreed.
IO;
you'd have to open a new thread to discuss the concept of salvation.
But i would say that, in the context of the discussion, no-one who is incapable of understanding the concept of salvation would 'go to hell'.
That, in my opinion, includes children, which is why indoctrinating them with fear is no way to show love.
And love is what we are commanded to do.
Not doing so, if we take Jesus at His word in John 15, would be a disqualifier for membership of his 'club'.


So those of us who are capable of understanding but who reject it will according to you be sent there after the judgement?

Yes yes I realise that you and Honey and other Christians on this board will say that's not something you'd concern yourself with or worry about.

Honey and Jim I'm pleased for you both that you've found a way to live your lives and I do understand why you wish to share your beliefs. But other people have found other ways, yours isn't any more valid than their's. The most valid one for you you but certainly not the 'One True Way'.

IO
IvyOwl

Quote:
It is sad that she didn't manage to sit through biology classes, did this person have special educational needs?


No she wasn't ESN but intelligent and private school educated. She trained as a secretary and eventually became a missionary in Equador. Do doubt she prayed for myself and others to 'come back to the fold'.  

IO
Honey 56

IvyOwl wrote:
Quote:
It is sad that she didn't manage to sit through biology classes, did this person have special educational needs?


No she wasn't ESN but intelligent and private school educated. She trained as a secretary and eventually became a missionary in Equador. Do doubt she prayed for myself and others to 'come back to the fold'.  

IO

Well, either the private education was an absolute wate of money, or someone was/is having someone else on     .
Jim

IO;
My understanding is thatthose who hear and reject the claims of Christ aren't sent anywhere by anyone.
That is their right and their choice. I have no concept of what hell iss like - but I'd visualise it as a place or state where God has withdrawn His love, power, forgiveness, blessing andinfluence in every possible way. That state is the consequence of the rejection, therefore it is the chosen path of the individual, just as the path of life - Christ, the only way, truth and life, is.

    I also, from looking at the scriptures, believe that this state is not eternal, but will, in time, end.
Leonard James

Morning  Honey,
Honey 56 wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Honey 56 wrote:

did you know that the bible teaches "a fool says in his heart, there is no God"


Any book which teaches that people can talk in their hearts has got to be viewed with suspicion!  

ps. I still love ya, Honey.  


The feeling is mutual, lovely boy.  

I have been reading lately about 'heart memories', experienced by some heart transplant patients, it is really interesting....

Paul Pearsall, a neuropsychologist, wrote about this interesting topic in his book, The Heart's Code: Tapping the Wisdom and Power of Our Heart Energy. In it, he provides insight into his belief that the physical heart contains within it memories belonging to its person. Part of Pearsall's research for the book included tracking several real life cases of heart transplant recipients who mysteriously inherited some of their donors' traits.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/028537...lants_memories.html#ixzz21dv3b8Ws

Even if this turns out to be true and body cells can somehow store memories, it has nothing to do with 'speaking in the heart'. To me this is clearly just an expression for believing something very sincerely, as in "I believe with all my heart".

Thus it would be perfectly natural for the writer of the scripture to believe "with all his heart" that a non-believer is wrong ... but to go from there to calling him a fool is woefully ignorant.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
Thus it would be perfectly natural for the writer of the scripture to believe "with all his heart" that a non-believer is wrong ... but to go from there to calling him a fool is woefully ignorant.


What about calling people "goggle-eyed fools" simply for believing in things that you don't? Is that not ignorant Len?
gone

deleted
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Thus it would be perfectly natural for the writer of the scripture to believe "with all his heart" that a non-believer is wrong ... but to go from there to calling him a fool is woefully ignorant.


What about calling people "goggle-eyed fools" simply for believing in things that you don't? Is that not ignorant Len?

Believing something that contravenes natural laws simply because it appears in the folklore of an ancient people can only be described as foolish. How would you describe somebody who believed in Zeus or Thor?
gone

deleted
Honey 56

Leonard James wrote:
Morning  Honey,
Honey 56 wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Honey 56 wrote:

did you know that the bible teaches "a fool says in his heart, there is no God"


Any book which teaches that people can talk in their hearts has got to be viewed with suspicion!  

ps. I still love ya, Honey.  


The feeling is mutual, lovely boy.  

I have been reading lately about 'heart memories', experienced by some heart transplant patients, it is really interesting....

Paul Pearsall, a neuropsychologist, wrote about this interesting topic in his book, The Heart's Code: Tapping the Wisdom and Power of Our Heart Energy. In it, he provides insight into his belief that the physical heart contains within it memories belonging to its person. Part of Pearsall's research for the book included tracking several real life cases of heart transplant recipients who mysteriously inherited some of their donors' traits.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/028537...lants_memories.html#ixzz21dv3b8Ws

Even if this turns out to be true and body cells can somehow store memories, it has nothing to do with 'speaking in the heart'. To me this is clearly just an expression for believing something very sincerely, as in "I believe with all my heart".

Thus it would be perfectly natural for the writer of the scripture to believe "with all his heart" that a non-believer is wrong ... but to go from there to calling him a fool is woefully ignorant.


Morming, or afternoon now, Leornard,

I understand your point Leonard, t is common language to say, things like "I feel it in my heart" or "I believe it with all my heart" and not attribute these feelings to the brain. But the bible has a lot more to say about the heart than this one scripture, and so I was speaking generally and not just about this one example.

As for the scripture that says  " A fool says in his heart that there is no God", well it may sound extreme or 'woefully ignorant', but it slots in with the general teaching of the scriptures, and since the bible teaches  that to not recognise God leads to death, then the bible writers would recognise it as foolishness.

I think as a general rule when somone says, "I said to myself" or "he says to himself", it is generally accepted that the person is actually thinking these things not actually saying them.

But I hope that you recognised that it was just a bit of retaliatory fun on my behalf.    
Honey.
gone

deleted
Leonard James

Hi Honey,

I'm afraid when anybody quotes that particular verse to me it only convinces me of the weakness of their argument. If you have a strong case to argue, it just isn't necessary to resort to calling people who don't agree with you fools. Such a ploy smacks of desperation.

As for the 'fun' aspect, the whole argument is fun to me!
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:
If you have a strong case to argue, it just isn't necessary to resort to calling people who don't agree with you fools.


I am sorry Leonard, but it has to be said that you saying this is a bloomin' cheek to say the least. You continually refer to theists as fools or in similar terms.
cymrudynnion

cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
My belief is based on the Bible which is at the core of the Faith I practice.


What faith is that, cymrudynnion?

cymrudynnion wrote:
I never say i am a Christian
Anglicanism (traditional)
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Thus it would be perfectly natural for the writer of the scripture to believe "with all his heart" that a non-believer is wrong ... but to go from there to calling him a fool is woefully ignorant.


What about calling people "goggle-eyed fools" simply for believing in things that you don't? Is that not ignorant Len?

Believing something that contravenes natural laws simply because it appears in the folklore of an ancient people can only be described as foolish. How would you describe somebody who believed in Zeus or Thor?


So you're saying that calling someone with different beliefs to you a fool is "ignorant" if that person is an atheist but calling someone with different beliefs to you a "goggle-eyed fool" is okay so long as that person is a Christian. You do realise how bigoted that makes you look Len?
The Boyg

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
If you have a strong case to argue, it just isn't necessary to resort to calling people who don't agree with you fools.


I am sorry Leonard, but it has to be said that you saying this is a bloomin' cheek to say the least. You continually refer to theists as fools or in similar terms.


But that's because he's behaving in a hypocritical fashion. He thinks it's okay for him to label people with different beliefs to him as fools but 'ignorant' if they do the same thing to him.
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
My belief is based on the Bible which is at the core of the Faith I practice.


What faith is that, cymrudynnion?

cymrudynnion wrote:
I never say i am a Christian
Anglicanism (traditional)


Isn't Anglicanism traditionally Christian?

cymrudynnion wrote:
I never say i am a Christian .
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
If you have a strong case to argue, it just isn't necessary to resort to calling people who don't agree with you fools.


I am sorry Leonard, but it has to be said that you saying this is a bloomin' cheek to say the least. You continually refer to theists as fools or in similar terms.

In the majority of cases I don't think Christians are fools, I think they are people who have succumbed to religious indoctrination ... whose ability to reason has been weakened by it.

I can't remember exactly, but I think my original remark was that no matter how daft you make a story, there will always be some goggle-eyed fool ready to believe it. There are many people in this world who believe daft things for which there is no evidence, including some Christians.

However, there are also Christians who don't take such things literally, and approach their belief in a much more reasoned way.

If my remarks have caused offense to any of them, I'm sorry ... but that is my honest opinion.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
If you have a strong case to argue, it just isn't necessary to resort to calling people who don't agree with you fools.


I am sorry Leonard, but it has to be said that you saying this is a bloomin' cheek to say the least. You continually refer to theists as fools or in similar terms.

In the majority of cases I don't think Christians are fools.


But you did call those who hold mainstream Christian beliefs "goggle-eyed fools" Leonard:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
SceptiKarl wrote:
There again believing that a dead man, (previously born of a virgin), rose up on the 3rd day and levitated Himself to heaven to sit beside Himself on His own right hand side, doesn't exactly provide good credentials for the interpretation of reality!

Make the story daft enough and there will always be some goggle-eyed fool who will believe it!


Are you branding all Christians "goggle-eyed fools" Leonard for believing in the virgin birth, the resurrection and the ascension?

Yes, but with the qualification that they are simply the victims of cultural indoctrination.
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
If you have a strong case to argue, it just isn't necessary to resort to calling people who don't agree with you fools.


I am sorry Leonard, but it has to be said that you saying this is a bloomin' cheek to say the least. You continually refer to theists as fools or in similar terms.

In the majority of cases I don't think Christians are fools, I think they are people who have succumbed to religious indoctrination ... whose ability to reason has been weakened by it.


hmmm - I'm not sure about the distinction you are making.

You are saying that it is weak and wrong to say "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God"
But it is quite reasonable to say "The person with weak reasoning powers has said to himself there is a God"

One is less offensive than the other? Not convinced!
Honey 56

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
If you have a strong case to argue, it just isn't necessary to resort to calling people who don't agree with you fools.


I am sorry Leonard, but it has to be said that you saying this is a bloomin' cheek to say the least. You continually refer to theists as fools or in similar terms.

In the majority of cases I don't think Christians are fools, I think they are people who have succumbed to religious indoctrination ... whose ability to reason has been weakened by it.


hmmm - I'm not sure about the distinction you are making.

You are saying that it is weak and wrong to say "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God"
But it is quite reasonable to say "The person with weak reasoning powers has said to himself there is a God"

One is less offensive than the other? Not convinced!




Quote:
The person with weak reasoning powers has said to himself there is a God"


Oh my goodness Cyberman, that sounds like it could have come from 'The New Revised poilitically Correct Translation of the Atheists Bible'. God forbid!!!

Honey
Leonard James

Cultural and religious indoctrinated beliefs affect everybody. Those least affected are still able to reason themselves out, but others are too ensnared by them to do so.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
Cultural and religious indoctrinated beliefs affect everybody. Those least affected are still able to reason themselves out, but others are too ensnared by them to do so.


If you truly believe that to be the case then why do you consider those who have been 'ensnared' to be "goggle-eyed fools"? Isn't that rather uncharitable of you?
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:
Cultural and religious indoctrinated beliefs affect everybody. Those least affected are still able to reason themselves out, but others are too ensnared by them to do so.


Leonard, the fundamental fact which you always fail to grasp is that someone can be in full possession of the same facts as you, and be as able to reason as you are, and still disagree with you.

You characterise your own experience with theism as being a period during which, you now realise, you were failing to employ your reasoning powers. It does not, however, follow that all theists are the same as you were; and it is unscientific and illogical of you to imagine that that must be the case.
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Cultural and religious indoctrinated beliefs affect everybody. Those least affected are still able to reason themselves out, but others are too ensnared by them to do so.


Leonard, the fundamental fact which you always fail to grasp is that someone can be in full possession of the same facts as you, and be as able to reason as you are, and still disagree with you.

You characterise your own experience with theism as being a period during which, you now realise, you were failing to employ your reasoning powers. It does not, however, follow that all theists are the same as you were; and it is unscientific and illogical of you to imagine that that must be the case.

It is impossible to believe in supernatural events by reasoning. You cannot reason a natural virgin birth, a natural resurrection or a natural God. Your reason tells you that such things can't be, and you have to suspend your ability to reason and just believe them.
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:

It is impossible to believe in supernatural events by reasoning. You cannot reason a natural virgin birth, a natural resurrection or a natural God. Your reason tells you that such things can't be, and you have to suspend your ability to reason and just believe them.


You assert that it is impossible for reason to lead you to belief in the supernatural. Can you support this assertion with any argument?
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:

It is impossible to believe in supernatural events by reasoning. You cannot reason a natural virgin birth, a natural resurrection or a natural God. Your reason tells you that such things can't be, and you have to suspend your ability to reason and just believe them.


You assert that it is impossible for reason to lead you to belief in the supernatural. Can you support this assertion with any argument?

Reasoning is the act of drawing a conclusion from facts or evidence. All the facts and evidence that exist are part of the natural world, so by definition reasoning cannot point to anything supernatural.
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:

It is impossible to believe in supernatural events by reasoning. You cannot reason a natural virgin birth, a natural resurrection or a natural God. Your reason tells you that such things can't be, and you have to suspend your ability to reason and just believe them.


You assert that it is impossible for reason to lead you to belief in the supernatural. Can you support this assertion with any argument?

Reasoning is the act of drawing a conclusion from facts or evidence. All the facts and evidence that exist are part of the natural world, so by definition reasoning cannot point to anything supernatural.


That simply does not follow. You are assuming that all reasoning is empirical, which it is not.
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:

It is impossible to believe in supernatural events by reasoning. You cannot reason a natural virgin birth, a natural resurrection or a natural God. Your reason tells you that such things can't be, and you have to suspend your ability to reason and just believe them.


You assert that it is impossible for reason to lead you to belief in the supernatural. Can you support this assertion with any argument?

Reasoning is the act of drawing a conclusion from facts or evidence. All the facts and evidence that exist are part of the natural world, so by definition reasoning cannot point to anything supernatural.


That simply does not follow. You are assuming that all reasoning is empirical, which it is not.

Facts and evidence are empirical. What else can you reason with?
cymrudynnion

Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Cultural and religious indoctrinated beliefs affect everybody. Those least affected are still able to reason themselves out, but others are too ensnared by them to do so.


Leonard, the fundamental fact which you always fail to grasp is that someone can be in full possession of the same facts as you, and be as able to reason as you are, and still disagree with you.

You characterise your own experience with theism as being a period during which, you now realise, you were failing to employ your reasoning powers. It does not, however, follow that all theists are the same as you were; and it is unscientific and illogical of you to imagine that that must be the case.

It is impossible to believe in supernatural events by reasoning. You cannot reason a natural virgin birth, a natural resurrection or a natural God. Your reason tells you that such things can't be, and you have to suspend your ability to reason and just believe them.
Leonard can you define a Virgin birth and a Natural Virgin Birth please
Leonard James

cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard can you define a Virgin birth and a Natural Virgin Birth please

A virgin birth, i.e., a birth not involving male sperm is not possible naturally, so there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard can you define a Virgin birth and a Natural Virgin Birth please

A virgin birth, i.e., a birth not involving male sperm is not possible naturally, so there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth.


Surely a virgin birth is one that does not involve sexual intercourse.
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard can you define a Virgin birth and a Natural Virgin Birth please

A virgin birth, i.e., a birth not involving male sperm is not possible naturally, so there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth.


Surely a virgin birth is one that does not involve sexual intercourse.

Artificial insemination?
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard can you define a Virgin birth and a Natural Virgin Birth please

A virgin birth, i.e., a birth not involving male sperm is not possible naturally, so there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth.

Surely a virgin birth is one that does not involve sexual intercourse.

Artificial insemination?


That would be one possibility.

So, contrary to your earlier assertion, do you now accept that a natural virgin birth is possible because what defines it as 'virgin' is the absence of sexual intercourse rather than the absence of sperm?
cymrudynnion

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard can you define a Virgin birth and a Natural Virgin Birth please

A virgin birth, i.e., a birth not involving male sperm is not possible naturally, so there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth.

Surely a virgin birth is one that does not involve sexual intercourse.

Artificial insemination?


That would be one possibility.

So, contrary to your earlier assertion, do you now accept that a natural virgin birth is possible because what defines it as 'virgin' is the absence of sexual intercourse rather than the absence of sperm?
That is the arguement I have always supported. A virgin is defined as someone who hasd not engaged in sexual intercourse. Therefore it is possible for a female to be impregnated by another human using artificial insemination and then yuo would have avirgin birth.
Farmer Geddon

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard can you define a Virgin birth and a Natural Virgin Birth please

A virgin birth, i.e., a birth not involving male sperm is not possible naturally, so there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth.

Surely a virgin birth is one that does not involve sexual intercourse.

Artificial insemination?


That would be one possibility.

So, contrary to your earlier assertion, do you now accept that a natural virgin birth is possible because what defines it as 'virgin' is the absence of sexual intercourse rather than the absence of sperm?


So - Mary had Josephs prick stuck up her arse or not?
Shaker

cymrudynnion wrote:
That is the arguement I have always supported. A virgin is defined as someone who hasd not engaged in sexual intercourse. Therefore it is possible for a female to be impregnated by another human using artificial insemination and then yuo would have avirgin birth.

So on that basis, exactly how probable would it be, or rather would it have been, that two individuals in the near east two thousand years ago would have had both the knowledge and the means to perform this act of artificial insemination?
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard can you define a Virgin birth and a Natural Virgin Birth please

A virgin birth, i.e., a birth not involving male sperm is not possible naturally, so there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth.

Surely a virgin birth is one that does not involve sexual intercourse.

Artificial insemination?


That would be one possibility.

So, contrary to your earlier assertion, do you now accept that a natural virgin birth is possible because what defines it as 'virgin' is the absence of sexual intercourse rather than the absence of sperm?

Please don't twist what I said.

A virgin birth, i.e., a birth not involving male sperm is not possible naturally, so there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard can you define a Virgin birth and a Natural Virgin Birth please

A virgin birth, i.e., a birth not involving male sperm is not possible naturally, so there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth.

Surely a virgin birth is one that does not involve sexual intercourse.

Artificial insemination?


That would be one possibility.

So, contrary to your earlier assertion, do you now accept that a natural virgin birth is possible because what defines it as 'virgin' is the absence of sexual intercourse rather than the absence of sperm?

Please don't twist what I said.

A virgin birth, i.e., a birth not involving male sperm is not possible naturally, so there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth.


But you now accept that your definition of 'virgin birth' was wrong leading to your assertion that "there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth" also being wrong. Correct?
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard can you define a Virgin birth and a Natural Virgin Birth please

A virgin birth, i.e., a birth not involving male sperm is not possible naturally, so there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth.

Surely a virgin birth is one that does not involve sexual intercourse.

Artificial insemination?


That would be one possibility.

So, contrary to your earlier assertion, do you now accept that a natural virgin birth is possible because what defines it as 'virgin' is the absence of sexual intercourse rather than the absence of sperm?

Please don't twist what I said.

A virgin birth, i.e., a birth not involving male sperm is not possible naturally, so there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth.


But you now accept that your definition of 'virgin birth' was wrong leading to your assertion that "there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth" also being wrong. Correct?

No. My definition of a virgin birth remains the same. It is not possible in the natural world.

You can use whatever arguments you like but it will not change the fact that a virgin birth is not possible without male sperm.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
But you now accept that your definition of 'virgin birth' was wrong leading to your assertion that "there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth" also being wrong. Correct?

No. My definition of a virgin birth remains the same.


So you believe that the word 'virgin' relates to the absence of sperm rather than the absence of sexual intercourse.

As with 'brainwash' you appear to be using a unique, personal definition of a word that is at odds with how it is commonly understood.  
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
But you now accept that your definition of 'virgin birth' was wrong leading to your assertion that "there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth" also being wrong. Correct?

No. My definition of a virgin birth remains the same.


So you believe that the word 'virgin' relates to the absence of sperm rather than the absence of sexual intercourse.


In the case under discussion, the Biblical 'virgin' birth, artificial insemination was not available at the time, so the 'virgin birth' was not an option.
Honey 56

Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
But you now accept that your definition of 'virgin birth' was wrong leading to your assertion that "there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth" also being wrong. Correct?

No. My definition of a virgin birth remains the same.


So you believe that the word 'virgin' relates to the absence of sperm rather than the absence of sexual intercourse.


In the case under discussion, the Biblical 'virgin' birth, artificial insemination was not available at the time, so the 'virgin birth' was not an option.


Virgin birth, is a strange term really, it seems to be a man made term to describe a God created miracle.
Sorry if I add to your blushes, but the term 'virgin' is defined by the hymen being intact,(especially in 'biblical times') so artificial insemination (even if available) would not be possible, whilst preserving the state of virginity.

A better term as used within bible teaching, would be the 'incarnation' or 'God in the flesh' which is  prophesied by Isaiah (chapters 7 and 9)   and is explained in the gospel of Luke. Mary is told that the The Almighty God would overshadow her and by the power of the Holy Spirit she would conceive a son, He too would be Holy and the son of The Most High. Mary who was still a virgin in the true sense of the word accepted this in faith, the same way we have to if we choose to believe that Jesus is/was the Immanuel (God with us).Of  course when mary gave birth she was no longer a virgin and then, she and Joseph (her husband by this time) were then free to consumate their marriage and they went on to have more siblings for Jesus, (according to scripture anyway)

It is a supernatural event like the resurrection that we either take on faith and believe or we dimiss as lacking in evidence and don't bellieve, it is our choice at the end of the day.

Honey
Leonard James

Hi Honeybunch,

Quote:
It is a supernatural event like the resurrection that we either take on faith and believe or we dimiss as lacking in evidence and don't bellieve, it is our choice at the end of the day.


But unfortunately it isn't a choice. I can't make myself believe something that my power of reason tell me is not true.  
Honey 56

Leonard James wrote:
Hi Honeybunch,

Quote:
It is a supernatural event like the resurrection that we either take on faith and believe or we dimiss as lacking in evidence and don't bellieve, it is our choice at the end of the day.


But unfortunately it isn't a choice. I can't make myself believe something that my power of reason tell me is not true.  


Hello sweetie  

Well I have managed it Leonard,    (and I suspect many other Christians have too.)

You see, as far as I can work out some things cannot be reasoned with, then it becomes a matter of faith, we have to decide whether we can trust biblical acounts even when we can't fully understand or when they are beyond our 'ken' a bit like 'wormholes'?

Honey.
Leonard James

Honey 56 wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Hi Honeybunch,

Quote:
It is a supernatural event like the resurrection that we either take on faith and believe or we dimiss as lacking in evidence and don't bellieve, it is our choice at the end of the day.


But unfortunately it isn't a choice. I can't make myself believe something that my power of reason tell me is not true.  


Hello sweetie  

Well I have managed it Leonard,    (and I suspect many other Christians have too.)


Then you all have an ability that I was not born with ... and I hasten to add that I don't regret it! My reason is the only thing I have that guides me in life, so I don't want to be able to just ignore it at will.

Quote:
You see, as far as I can work out some things cannot be reasoned with, then it becomes a matter of faith, we have to decide whether we can trust biblical acounts even when we can't fully understand or when they are beyond our 'ken' a bit like 'wormholes'?

I consider it foolhardy to ditch the ability to reason because of a story dreamed up by members of an ancient culture, but clearly others don't.

It takes all sorts to make a world!
Shaker

Honey 56 wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Hi

But unfortunately it isn't a choice. I can't make myself believe something that my power of reason tell me is not true.  


Hello sweetie  

Well I have managed it Leonard,    (and I suspect many other Christians have too.)

More fool them, goggle eyed or no.

Quote:
You see, as far as I can work out some things cannot be reasoned with, then it becomes a matter of faith


False dichotomy. Anything that can't be reasoned with doesn't have to become a matter of faith at all: rationally speaking it should go in the "Don't know; set aside until such time as we may have further evidence" tray, not automatically accepted as true.
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:

False dichotomy. Anything that can't be reasoned with doesn't have to become a matter of faith at all: rationally speaking it should go in the "Don't know; set aside until such time as we may have further evidence" tray, not automatically accepted as true.


My attitude entirely.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
But you now accept that your definition of 'virgin birth' was wrong leading to your assertion that "there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth" also being wrong. Correct?

No. My definition of a virgin birth remains the same.


So you believe that the word 'virgin' relates to the absence of sperm rather than the absence of sexual intercourse.


In the case under discussion, the Biblical 'virgin' birth, artificial insemination was not available at the time, so the 'virgin birth' was not an option.


I'm sorry for having to correct you yet again Leonard but you asserted quite clearly that a 'natural' virgin birth (not just the Biblical virgin birth) is impossible:
Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard can you define a Virgin birth and a Natural Virgin Birth please

A virgin birth, i.e., a birth not involving male sperm is not possible naturally, so there is no such thing as a natural virgin birth.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum