1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneIf anyone who claimed they are an atheist claimed also they could actually grasp any significant amount of religious dogma I would be suspicious of at least one of said claims. Most of it is completely and totally bonkers.
Closer, but...
Try again.
Anyone else?
For some reason, I'm finding the atheists' attempts to grasp the significance of Christian dogma quite humorous today.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Yes, I did know that, and yes, you are confused.
No I'm not a Christian and yes I did find that post pointless and misinformed.
I dont have to be a Christian to know that the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's conception and not Christ's. Did you know that or are you just confused?
My point (because I see you're still in the dark) is that Jesus was born without sin. For this to happen, he could not have been born of a man, and thus the Holy Spirit gets into the act. For Mary to be free of sin, she had to have been born without sin herself.
Thus, the Immaculate Conception.
What I was saying is that, no, another Jesus won't be born very soon because there probably won't be another Immaculate Conception happening in today's world.
Now do you get it? Truly, that wasn't very hard to grasp, was it?
Originally posted by AgergThis is not true, Christian dogma follows an extremely logical path throughout the old testament through to the new testament.
If anyone who claimed they are an atheist claimed also they could actually grasp any significant amount of religious dogma I would be suspicious of at least one of said claims. Most of it is completely and totally bonkers.
The atheist problem is that if you do not believe any step in the long line, then you find the rest to be bonkers.
Originally posted by SuzianneYou just said what we've been saying... that there were two instances of a virgin birth according to the bible. Please don't try to cover up past ignorance by putting a meaning to your words after the fact.
Yes, I did know that, and yes, you are confused.
My point (because I see you're still in the dark) is that Jesus was born without sin. For this to happen, he could not have been born of a man, and thus the Holy Spirit gets into the act. For Mary to be free of sin, she had to have been born without sin herself.
Thus, the Immaculate Conception.
Wha ...[text shortened]... today's world.
[b]Now do you get it? Truly, that wasn't very hard to grasp, was it?[/b]
Originally posted by googlefudgeI am a Christian and I endorse this message.
As daft as this thread is.
Ill bite and make the serious point that abstinence only education programs are a spectacular and
unmitigated failure around the world wherever and whenever they have been tried.
Abstinence works right up to the point where people start having sex.
Which almost everyone does.
So the only practical, logical, sensible, ...[text shortened]... at it's the only, or most effective, or correct, method of birth control
and STD prevention.
Originally posted by tomtom232No, again, you are wrong.
You just said what we've been saying... that there were two instances of a virgin birth according to the bible. Please don't try to cover up past ignorance by putting a meaning to your words after the fact.
Mary's birth was not a "virgin birth". She had a human father (Joachim) and a human mother (Anne), and her conception was not "virginal". Just without the stain of original sin.
There is no ignorance (on my side, anyways) to try to cover.
Originally posted by SuzianneThis is the point. How can it be a sin to be born of man and woman but not be a sin just because god says so. Why can't he just say there is no such thing as sin?
No, again, you are wrong.
Mary's birth was not a "virgin birth". She had a human father (Joachim) and a human mother (Anne), and her conception was not "virginal". Just without the stain of original sin.
There is no ignorance (on my side, anyways) to try to cover.
Originally posted by SuzianneYou're lying - your original post indicates you didn't understand the Immaculate Conception - not that you necesarily should. Its a purely catholic Doctrine isnt it?
Yes, I did know that, and yes, you are confused.
My point (because I see you're still in the dark) is that Jesus was born without sin. For this to happen, he could not have been born of a man, and thus the Holy Spirit gets into the act. For Mary to be free of sin, she had to have been born without sin herself.
Thus, the Immaculate Conception.
Wha ...[text shortened]... today's world.
[b]Now do you get it? Truly, that wasn't very hard to grasp, was it?[/b]
Originally posted by SuzianneIt is not a problem.
This is not true, Christian dogma follows an extremely logical path throughout the old testament through to the new testament.
The atheist problem is that if you do not believe any step in the long line, then you find the rest to be bonkers.
Any unsubstantiated claim in a logical argument means the rest that follows can be (and most likely is) bonkers
Originally posted by wolfgang59No, you assumed I didn't understand it. And we know what happens when you assume.
You're lying - your original post indicates you didn't understand the Immaculate Conception - not that you necesarily should. Its a purely catholic Doctrine isnt it?
Yes, it IS a catholic doctrine. So now I'm forbidden to believe any catholic doctrine? Just because I'm not catholic?
Abstinence in and of itself is inarguably 100% effective.
Googlefudge said
Abstinence works right up to the point where people start having sex.
Exactly. I agree.
Abstinence works right up to the point that it isn't abstinence anymore.
The failure isn't on abstinence's part. The failure is rooted in mankind's general lack of self-control.
Now then. The idea--that telling everyone to abstain will solve the problem--is preposterous. We do agree on that.
