RE: Virgin Births a dime a dozen
December 18, 2013 at 5:34 pm
(This post was last modified: December 18, 2013 at 5:42 pm by Drich.)
(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?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.
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.
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?
