(December 18, 2013 at 11:54 am)xpastor Wrote:

(December 18, 2013 at 10:37 am)Drich Wrote: I would have thought someone claiming to be a 'pastor' at somepoint in his life would have a little more knoweledge and understanding than a common atheist has about the basic fundimentals of Christianity. How does one goto seminary and not know that the Virgin birth of Christ in of it self is not proof of anything? It's almost like you didn't actually go. If you had you would have known the virgin birth of Christ was a sign of Christ's deity along with thousands of other 'signs and wonders' He was apart of. This particular sign full filled one single prophesy. Everything else Christ live out and did full filled the others. It is the combination of all of his works/life, that underscores who Christ was.

Drich, this is perhaps the last occasion when I will waste my time replying to you. In seven short sentences all your major failings are on display.

1. You habitually contradict yourself because you are so eager to shoot off your mouth that you don't stop and think. First, you say that the virgin birth of Christ is not proof of anything.

Do you know what the phrase I highlighted means? If not ask someone or look it up, then I'll give you a chance to rewrite your post to reflect your new understanding of what i said.

No I don't know what that garble means......did you mean

IN AND OF ITSELF
.

(December 18, 2013 at 4:09 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: If they were involved in heavy petting and weren't careful where the semen ended up, or if they were practicing anal like so many chastity pledgers do, and some semen dripped down into her vulva, then plausible.

That would be a great one to hear. "Honest, we didn't have sex! He just RODE ME LIKE A FUCKING MARE FROM ONE SIDE OF THE ROOM TO THE OTHER. How could I have gotten pregnant???"

The only way to top that is if the guy added "My aim kinda sucks, I'll admit."

(December 18, 2013 at 4:35 pm)Drich Wrote: How does one goto seminary and not know that the Virgin birth of Christ in of it self is not proof of anything?

Do you know what the phrase I highlighted means? If not ask someone or look it up, then I'll give you a chance to rewrite your post to reflect your new understanding of what i said.

Actually the phrase you put in big bold letters means bugger-all although I can guess at it. The correct phrase in English would be in itself or in Latin per se.

Your argument still amounts to nothing. First you say in effect that the virgin birth tells us nothing of Christ's status, and then you claim that it shows Christ's deity. You can't have it both ways. Either you think the story of the virgin birth is meaningful or you think it is not meaningful

(December 18, 2013 at 12:17 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(December 18, 2013 at 11:54 am)xpastor Wrote: 3. Your rudeness springs from your colossal ignorance arrogance.

Fixed that for you.

Of course, the only thing dwarfed by Drich's arrogance, is, in fact, his ignorance. His rudeness, however, definitely stems from over-sized, Jesus-shaped ego.

I will admit I can be a bit arrogant especially when you guys deliver it to me by the dump truck load. this arrogance is compounded when I have the oppertunity to prove you not only just wrong, but when given enough rope, the person in question is so wrong that it makes the offending party into a hypocrite or fool.

Some may see this as being arrogant, in that I could have prevented 'your' humilation if I would just pander to your sensablities and phrase my responses in bites your use to chewing on. If I did this however you all would just find some way to come back to your orginal conclusions on a given topic, which makes my time here pointless.

I have found that if I word something too simply and seemingly contray to common belief, (the arrogance inherrit with someone who is willing to tell a religious person there is no God) will have that person zealously seek to correct me. It is with in that corrective process that i have the oppertunity to explain and teach you all something you would have ignored if i packaged it all the way your use to seeing things..

The Back and fourth I had recently with Genkaus on the meaning of the word "facts" is a good example. He like most of you just knew what the word meant. So he tried to correct me when I over simplified a gave examples that contradicted his 'atheist' understanding of the word. Then in the back and fourth i had an oppertunity to give all sorts of examples of how facts change and how the word does not always mean 'truth' as he though. this continued till he became beligerant/arrogant in his understanding and did not want to discuss it any further (which was quite a bit longer than if i would have just given him the defination) When he began to mock me I cited a couple different sources that supported my position ending the conversation completely supporting everything I have said. Did i gloat? was i overly arrogant? I don't think so. I was no where near as ass-holish as i could have been. Rather the only thing i did was cut and paste what he said to me and i redirected it back to him.

I go out of my way to weigh and aproximate an equal effort and or return response to each and every post i respond to. i take all of this very seriously. I do this so I can say if you do not like how i speak to you, then maybe you should look at how you present yourselves to me. In the end i truly believe that a truly arrogant man would seek to be better than everyone else around him. Because he thinks himself better than everyone else he will act better. I have taken the words of Paul to Heart.. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.

Why did Paul do this? One because he had the freedom to be this way and two so he would not show himself to be 'better' than what he actually was.

That said I know i am a little harder on some of you. Brakeman, and xpastor come to mind Why? because I have caught brakeman lying several times and I am pretty sure xpastor is. (Because how could an real/paid pastor be so clueless about the basics of christianity?) Either the good 'pastor' is intentionally misrepersenting Christianity, Is a complete fraud, or was just outright a bad pastor. I see the effort he puts into some of his posts and i believe if he put in 1/2 the effort into his duties as a pastor as he does here he wouldn't have been as incomentant as he is showing himself to be. Which brings us back to he is either intentionally misrepersenting Christianity or he is lying about being a pastor.

---

(December 18, 2013 at 5:06 pm)xpastor Wrote:

(December 18, 2013 at 4:35 pm)Drich Wrote: How does one goto seminary and not know that the Virgin birth of Christ in of it self is not proof of anything?

Do you know what the phrase I highlighted means? If not ask someone or look it up, then I'll give you a chance to rewrite your post to reflect your new understanding of what i said.

Actually the phrase you put in big bold letters means bugger-all although I can guess at it. The correct phrase in English would be in itself or in Latin per se.

Your argument still amounts to nothing. First you say in effect that the virgin birth tells us nothing of Christ's status, and then you claim that it shows Christ's deity. You can't have it both ways. Either you think the story of the virgin birth is meaningful or you think it is not meaningful

sorry sport. In of itself means That the virgin birth by itself does not mean the one born of a virgin is automatically God. subsequently what proved Christ's deity was everything else he did with his life. the virgin birth only answer one prophesy about Him. while extremely rare is not completely unique. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

---

(December 18, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Drich Wrote:

(December 18, 2013 at 12:17 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Fixed that for you.

Of course, the only thing dwarfed by Drich's arrogance, is, in fact, his ignorance. His rudeness, however, definitely stems from over-sized, Jesus-shaped ego.

I will admit I can be a bit arrogant especially when you guys deliver it to me by the dump truck load. this arrogance is compounded when I have the oppertunity to prove you not only just wrong, but when given enough rope, the person in question is so wrong that it makes the offending party into a hypocrite or fool.

Some may see this as being arrogant, in that I could have prevented 'your' humilation if I would just pander to your sensablities and phrase my responses in bites your use to chewing on. If I did this however you all would just find some way to come back to your orginal conclusions on a given topic, which makes my time here pointless.

I have found that if I word something too simply and seemingly contray to common belief, (the arrogance inherrit with someone who is willing to tell a religious person there is no God) will have that person zealously seek to correct me. It is with in that corrective process that i have the oppertunity to explain and teach you all something you would have ignored if i packaged it all the way your use to seeing things..

The Back and fourth I had recently with Genkaus on the meaning of the word "facts" is a good example. He like most of you just knew what the word meant. So he tried to correct me when I over simplified a gave examples that contradicted his 'atheist' understanding of the word. Then in the back and fourth i had an oppertunity to give all sorts of examples of how facts change and how the word does not always mean 'truth' as he though. this continued till he became beligerant/arrogant in his understanding and did not want to discuss it any further (which was quite a bit longer than if i would have just given him the defination) When he began to mock me I cited a couple different sources that supported my position ending the conversation completely supporting everything I have said. Did i gloat? was i overly arrogant? I don't think so. I was no where near as ass-holish as i could have been. Rather the only thing i did was cut and paste what he said to me and i redirected it back to him.

I go out of my way to weigh and aproximate an equal effort and or return response to each and every post i respond to. i take all of this very seriously. I do this so I can say if you do not like how i speak to you, then maybe you should look at how you present yourselves to me. In the end i truly believe that a truly arrogant man would seek to be better than everyone else around him. Because he thinks himself better than everyone else he will act better. I have taken the words of Paul to Heart.. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.

Why did Paul do this? One because he had the freedom to be this way and two so he would not show himself to be 'better' than what he actually was.

That said I know i am a little harder on some of you. Brakeman, and xpastor come to mind Why? because I have caught brakeman lying several times and I am pretty sure xpastor is. (Because how could an real/paid pastor be so clueless about the basics of christianity?) Either the good 'pastor' is intentionally misrepersenting Christianity, Is a complete fraud, or was just outright a bad pastor. I see the effort he puts into some of his posts and i believe if he put in 1/2 the effort into his duties as a pastor as he does here he wouldn't have been as incomentant as he is showing himself to be. Which brings us back to he is either intentionally misrepersenting Christianity or he is lying about being a pastor.

---

(December 18, 2013 at 5:06 pm)xpastor Wrote: Actually the phrase you put in big bold letters means bugger-all although I can guess at it. The correct phrase in English would be in itself or in Latin per se.

Your argument still amounts to nothing. First you say in effect that the virgin birth tells us nothing of Christ's status, and then you claim that it shows Christ's deity. You can't have it both ways. Either you think the story of the virgin birth is meaningful or you think it is not meaningful

sorry sport. In of itself means That the virgin birth by itself does not mean the one born of a virgin is automatically God. subsequently what proved Christ's deity was everything else he did with his life. the virgin birth only answer one prophesy about Him. while extremely rare is not completely unique. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

Do you want to try again, or are you going to stick with what you have above?

Forgive Drich. What passes for his head is hazy from almost exploding on contact with the notion that there exist much reality outside the bible, and almost none inside it.

(December 18, 2013 at 8:05 am)xpastor Wrote: Claims of virgin births in U.S. near 1 per cent: study

From a study published in a British medical journal. Among young women followed over a period of 14 years approximately 0.8% claimed to have become pregnant without engaging in sexual intercourse.

Those who made such claims were much more likely to have signed a chastity pledge and also to say that their parents talked to them rarely or never about sex and birth control.

If the claim of Jesus' birth originated with his mother, this phenomenon provides a plausible explanation. After all, the penalties back then for pregnancy outside marriage were much harsher than the shame of breaking a chastity pledge.

Personally, I think the claim was more likely to have originated with his fan club after they started to claim divine status for him. There are plenty of examples in the ancient world of hero-figures whose birth was said to have resulted from a human woman being impregnated by a god—e.g., Alexander the Great.

A supervisor at work who has visited the USA, told me that Americans in general are quite dumb. Now I know why she her comment was based on careful observations, rather than some insult.

(December 18, 2013 at 4:35 pm)Drich Wrote: How does one goto seminary and not know that the Virgin birth of Christ in of it self is not proof of anything?

First off, it should be in and of itself. But anyway:

in and of itself
considering it alone. The idea in and of itself is not bad, but the side issues introduce many difficulties. Her action, in and of itself, caused us no problem.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+and+of+itself

Therefore, you statement meant 'the (alleged) virgin birth of christ, considered alone, is not proof of anything.'

You then state:

(December 18, 2013 at 10:37 am)Drich Wrote: the virgin birth of Christ was a sign of Christ's deity

Hum? whilst you did not allege proof per se, this is certainly not in the same spirit as your first outburst.

You, sir, are acting with a remarkable lack of integrity.

(December 18, 2013 at 8:05 am)xpastor Wrote: Personally, I think the claim was more likely to have originated with his fan club after they started to claim divine status for him.

It is not a far fetched notion, considering that other cultures before and around that time also had divine hero types who were born of a virgin mortal mother who had become impregnated by a god. The similarities do not end there, however. Each of the hero types in their respective cultures preached to the people, healed and spoke of god's love, was sacrificed by the people and then rose from the dead three days later. Christianity is not original in its Jesus story at all.

(December 18, 2013 at 4:09 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote:

(December 18, 2013 at 8:05 am)xpastor Wrote: From a study published in a British medical journal. Among young women followed over a period of 14 years approximately 0.8% claimed to have become pregnant without engaging in sexual intercourse.

Those who made such claims were much more likely to have signed a chastity pledge and also to say that their parents talked to them rarely or never about sex and birth control.

If they were involved in heavy petting and weren't careful where the semen ended up, or if they were practicing anal like so many chastity pledgers do, and some semen dripped down into her vulva, then plausible. Otherwise they're probably lying their asses off. Considering that their parents rarely or never talked to them about sex and birth control, either scenario is likely.

At any rate, this is good evidence that "abstinence only" doesn't work worth shit for preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Ah....yes.