1. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    26 Sep '11 22:54
    She wasn't a virgin... she cheated on her husband and when she became pregnant her excuse was that her pregnancy came from God. Joseph's visions are delusions caused from severe emotional and mental stress because of a scandalous wife.


    Now a vote. With the knowledge we have today who thinks that the passage above is a more believable version of events than the biblical version?
  2. Subscriberdivegeester
    the altruistic one
    Forked
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86638
    26 Sep '11 23:02
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    She wasn't a virgin... she cheated on her husband and when she became pregnant her excuse was that her pregnancy came from God. Joseph's visions are delusions caused from severe emotional and mental stress because of a scandalous wife.


    Now a vote. With the knowledge we have today who thinks that the passage above is a more believable version of events than the biblical version?
    What's the point?
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12724
    26 Sep '11 23:07
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    She wasn't a virgin... she cheated on her husband and when she became pregnant her excuse was that her pregnancy came from God. Joseph's visions are delusions caused from severe emotional and mental stress because of a scandalous wife.


    Now a vote. With the knowledge we have today who thinks that the passage above is a more believable version of events than the biblical version?
    The Holy Bible version is more believable, it was predicted. The whole
    story from the fall of man to the coming of a Savior would not work
    without the virgin birth.
  4. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91848
    26 Sep '11 23:08
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    She wasn't a virgin... she cheated on her husband and when she became pregnant her excuse was that her pregnancy came from God. Joseph's visions are delusions caused from severe emotional and mental stress because of a scandalous wife.


    Now a vote. With the knowledge we have today who thinks that the passage above is a more believable version of events than the biblical version?
    so are you like joe667? ie.athiest?
  5. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    26 Sep '11 23:08
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    so are you like joe667? ie.athiest?
    Well... I believe in something but it sure ain't the bible.
  6. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    26 Sep '11 23:10
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The Holy Bible version is more believable, it was predicted. The whole
    story from the fall of man to the coming of a Savior would not work
    without the virgin birth.
    How was it predicted? Nowhere in the old testament does it say that a woman named Mary would give birth to a boy named Jesus in fact it states that he shall be called Emanuel not Jesus.
  7. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91848
    26 Sep '11 23:111 edit
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    Well... I believe in something but it sure ain't the bible.
    agnostic?

    (I'm not trying to pidgeon-hole you here. You need not answer)

    BTW I dont believe that a lot of the stuff surrounding JC's birth ,especially the virgin mary stuff, is either misrepresented or omitted. I suspect a bit of both.
  8. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    26 Sep '11 23:12
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    She wasn't a virgin... she cheated on her husband and when she became pregnant her excuse was that her pregnancy came from God. Joseph's visions are delusions caused from severe emotional and mental stress because of a scandalous wife.


    Now a vote. With the knowledge we have today who thinks that the passage above is a more believable version of events than the biblical version?
    The people writing that she was a virgin wrote it 90 odd years later and at least 1 if not 2 generations later.

    How about they just made the virgin conception up to make the story sound better?

    Your version is of course more plausible than the original.
    But as all the evidence we have is from stories written 2 generations later by people who's motives are
    unknown it is not unreasonable (if a little unlikely) to claim JC didn't even exist at all.

    You could equally claim that Mary was faithful to Joseph but that she got pregnant before they were married
    and so they concocted the virgin birth idea to hide the fact they had premarital sex...

    You could fantasise about possible explanations till the cows come home.

    However (much as I hate to say this) it is supposed to be a miracle.
    The hand of god (or some other part) intervening in the lives of man.
    It's not supposed to be plausible or likely.


    Although, given that girls were married off at a very young age back then, unless she was rather poor and ugly,
    it's likely she was under the modern age of consent and almost certainly not yet what we would consider
    to be an adult for her still to be a virgin when this happened.... So god the child molester?

    Of course marriage and pregnancy at young ages (for women) was the norm back then, but still....
  9. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    26 Sep '11 23:181 edit
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    agnostic?

    (I'm not trying to pidgeon-hole you here. You need not answer)

    BTW I dont believe that a lot of the stuff surrounding JC's birth ,especially the virgin mary stuff, is either misrepresented or omitted. I suspect a bit of both.
    No, I sincerely believe that what we experience is a phenomena that is beyond us and that there is no "real" reality except what we make. I believe that if someone believes in something enough then it is real to them. As a collective, many beliefs such as "jump off a cliff you will fall" are hard to "unbelieve" if not impossible while others are debated. I'm just here to test your belief.
  10. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    26 Sep '11 23:22
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    agnostic?

    (I'm not trying to pidgeon-hole you here. You need not answer)

    BTW I dont believe that a lot of the stuff surrounding JC's birth ,especially the virgin mary stuff, is either misrepresented or omitted. I suspect a bit of both.
    You can be both atheist and agnostic....
    They are not mutually exclusive...

    That said you can be an agnostic theist as well.

    If you believe in god and claim to know he exists then you're a "gnostic theist".

    If you believe in god and don't know if he exists then you're an "agnostic theist".

    If you don't believe in god and don't know if he exists then you're an "agnostic atheist".

    If you don't believe in god and claim to know he doesn't exist then you're a "gnostic atheist".

    I don't know how you can claim to be agnostic (with respect to theism) and not be in one of those 4 camps.

    You either believe in god, or you don't.

    I don't think you can not know if you believe.

    If you 'don't know if you believe' then you don't believe.

    Which in terms of theism makes you an atheist, as well as agnostic.
  11. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35574
    28 Sep '11 00:01
    The concept of a virgin Mary is central to the faith.

    Only in the manner described in the bible could Jesus have been born without sin.

    I wish you atheists would leave the believers alone with your half-baked ideas.

    We don't want to be bothered by you just as you might not wish to be bothered by the JWs on Saturday morning.

    I hear atheists constantly bemoaning the fact that Christians are always trying to sell them on Jesus. Well, similarly, we don't need you trying to sell us on the abyss.
  12. Standard membersumydid
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Not of this World
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    38013
    28 Sep '11 01:48
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    The concept of a virgin Mary is central to the faith.

    Only in the manner described in the bible could Jesus have been born without sin.

    I wish you atheists would leave the believers alone with your half-baked ideas.

    We don't want to be bothered by you just as you might not wish to be bothered by the JWs on Saturday morning.

    I hear atheists const ...[text shortened]... ing to sell them on Jesus. Well, similarly, we don't need you trying to sell us on the abyss.
    Indeed Suzianne

    It doesn't take any critical thought or wit to make up other explanations for things that happen in the bible.

    The impossible thing--apart from the grace of God Himself--is to actually believe it happened.

    I am one who went from the OP's sarcastic, militant skepticism, to a true believer. Without warning, without want, and with the inability to turn back the clock and pretend the conversion didn't take place. I've seen both sides of the fence--and am completely understanding and sympathetic to the agnostic/atheist (more so to the agnostic). I do not hold the skeptic responsible for their unbelief. But I do hold certain ones responsible for their destructive behavior and claims. And that goes for the Pagans too, Dasa. 🙂
  13. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    29 Sep '11 23:21
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    The concept of a virgin Mary is central to the faith.

    Only in the manner described in the bible could Jesus have been born without sin.

    I wish you atheists would leave the believers alone with your half-baked ideas.

    We don't want to be bothered by you just as you might not wish to be bothered by the JWs on Saturday morning.

    I hear atheists const ...[text shortened]... ing to sell them on Jesus. Well, similarly, we don't need you trying to sell us on the abyss.
    And we wish you believers would stop imposing your half baked ideas on everyone else.

    People often talk about religious beliefs in an analogous way to how people like to eat their cream eggs...

    See uk cream egg advertising campaign

    YouTube

    Basically everyone has their own beliefs and practices and it's all good and enhances our society and people
    should just be allowed to believe whatever they want.
    I mean it doesn't effect you does it?

    Whereas as people make decisions based on their beliefs, important ones, ones that effect other people.

    The closer analogy is how people drive their cars.

    If you do so badly it very much effects me, and everyone else.


    What people believe matters because it impacts directly on how they behave towards everyone else.


    That combined with the fact that many (particularly the monotheistic religions) religions/theists try as hard as possible to
    convert everyone else to their particular brand of theism, or at the least impose their religious 'morals' onto everyone else
    means that it is very much the business of everyone else what you believe.


    And unlike JW knocking on your door on a Sunday morning this is an internet forum you chose to come onto.


    This is a place for discussion and disagreement.

    If you don't want your faith challenged or discussed then don't come to a forum on the internet designated for that very purpose.


    But also think a bit as you go through your life how many positions you hold, and choices you make, that are influenced by your
    religious faith/teachings.
    And consider how those positions and choices effect everyone else, who theist or atheist, may very well not share or agree with.
  14. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    29 Sep '11 23:27
    Originally posted by sumydid
    Indeed Suzianne

    It doesn't take any critical thought or wit to make up other explanations for things that happen in the bible.

    The impossible thing--apart from the grace of God Himself--is to actually believe it happened.

    I am one who went from the OP's sarcastic, militant skepticism, to a true believer. Without warning, without want, and with the ...[text shortened]... ible for their destructive behavior and claims. And that goes for the Pagans too, Dasa. 🙂
    Just to restate, most atheists are agnostic.
    And everyone you are referring to as agnostic is an atheist.
    See my post above for details.

    But I agree that trying to come up with possible alternative explanations to the miracles of the bible is pointless...
    And I said so, in not quite so many words, in my first post to this thread.

    However I for one would very much like to be considered responsible for my unbelief.
    Unlike I suspect many theists I have thought about the subject and have come to my position with reflection and consideration.
    I object to being considered not to be responsible for my beliefs and positions, like I was some little child who hadn't really
    though about the matter.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12724
    29 Sep '11 23:50
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Just to restate, most atheists are agnostic.
    And everyone you are referring to as agnostic is an atheist.
    See my post above for details.

    But I agree that trying to come up with possible alternative explanations to the miracles of the bible is pointless...
    And I said so, in not quite so many words, in my first post to this thread.

    However I for ...[text shortened]... eliefs and positions, like I was some little child who hadn't really
    though about the matter.
    You don't even have a Bible, you said. So how can you possibly have
    enough knowledge to think about it and come to any rational decision?
    You are too ignorant to do so.
Back to Top