1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    27 May '07 02:38
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    No, we'd consider it a mistake because the baby is beyond what could survive.
    You are not understanding what I am saying. What I am saying is that there is a CAUSE for the baby being born with two heads. Scientifically, we may think we can prove why. Theologically we may think we can prove why. However, scientifically there is only ONE true answer as to why which would more than likely correlate to the ONE true theological reasons as to why. In terms of humans finding these true answers is another question, however. We may have "truths" as to why, such as the woman having genetic defects etc, however, why does the woman have genetic defects to produce more genetic defects for her infant? It seems as though to answer such questions is akin to chasing your tail. The truth is that there seems to be a generational reason that has lead to this development rather than treating such an occurance as though it happened in a vaccum.
  2. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    27 May '07 02:38
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Some people just don't do well without a constant father figure in their lives, and they'll make one up, if one doesn't exist.
    So you think Jesus of Nazareth would have faired better if He could have just gotten rid of that artificial father figure in His life?


    Then He might have done as well as you with no artificial father figure?
  3. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    27 May '07 02:40
    Originally posted by jaywill
    So you think Jesus of Nazareth would have faired better if He could have just gotten rid of that artificial father figure in His life?


    Then He might have done as well as you with no artificial father figure?
    Pour out your scorn little man - it seems to be all you have.

    Yes, I certainly think Jebus wouldn't have got nailed up to a big stick if he hadn't claimed to be the son of god.
  4. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    27 May '07 02:41
    Do you all think that some people don't do well unless they have a constant ape figure in their lives?

    I wonder.
  5. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    27 May '07 02:43
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Do you all think that some people don't do well unless they have a constant [b]ape figure in their lives?

    I wonder.[/b]
    Do you think?
  6. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    27 May '07 02:45
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Pour out your scorn little man - it seems to be all you have.

    Yes, I certainly think Jebus wouldn't have got nailed up to a big stick if he hadn't claimed to be the son of god.
    Well, at least you admit that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

    Problem is He not only claimed it. He acted like it too.
  7. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    27 May '07 02:47
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Do you think?
    Talking about scorn ...
  8. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    27 May '07 03:11
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Well, at least you admit that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

    Problem is He not only claimed it. He acted like it too.
    According to legend.
  9. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    27 May '07 03:11
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Talking about scorn ...
    Hey, if you can't take it, don't start it with me, sonny-jim.
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    27 May '07 03:51
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Hey, if you can't take it, don't start it with me, sonny-jim.
    Hey you two, you better behave. If I have to come up there......
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    27 May '07
    Moves
    0
    27 May '07 04:07

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  12. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    27 May '07 06:57
    There are clear cases where scientific discoveries contradict a literal Biblical view. Just as a quick and trivial example, I don’t think anyone seriously believes that the sky is a dome separating the waters above it from those below (and the dry land as well). On the other hand, that may have been a poetic speculation on what seemed the mystery of the blue sky.

    Also, few today believe that the length of a day is determined by the revolution of the sun around the earth. All of the “up and down” metaphors can be nothing else when the earth is seen as spherical, rather than flat.

    If such Biblical views are seen as simply (or even profoundly) metaphorical, why not simply accept that there may be many metaphors that—if treated as anything else—are or will be contraverted by scientific discovery? Why play the “god of the gaps” game with regard to geology or biology (e.g., evolution), for example?

    Let’s take a central Christian doctrine: the Incarnation of Jesus as the Christ. Suppose that after being “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit, Mary subsequently had intimate marital relations with Joseph and bore the child Jesus (note that both the Matthean and Lukan genealogical constructs go to Joseph, not Mary; could they not overcome their patriarchal/patrilineal biases even in the face of a virgin birth?). Suppose that the “virgin birth” is metaphorical and symbolic. Would that make the incarnation of the logos tou theou less real? The logos through/by whom all things “were begotten” (egeneto) from the beginning? Would it make Jesus less the Christ?

    Would a natural conception—according to the laws of biology—destroy Christology? Or pneumatology? Or soteriology? Would it even destroy the all the possible metaphorical and symbolical meanings of Mary’s “virginity”? Would it necessarily mean that one could not recite the second article of the Nicene Creed in good conscience?

    Note that I haven’t taken an “adoptionist” view here. Only that the intervention of the Holy Spirit could have resulted in a subsequent natural conception. (The one change in Christian history that I might see is a more benign attitude toward sexuality, and a fuller and more proper inclusion of eros in agape.)

    From a strictly theist point of view, does a God who creates nature—whose spirit and logos are involved in all of it—require contra-natural miracles? If all of the miracles reported in the texts have perfectly natural explanations, or of some of them were told in the manner of parables pointing to some underlying spiritual meaning, would that require the theist to become an atheist—or the Christian to become, say, a Buddhist?

    Sometimes, I think that the (perhaps unconscious) reason for an overly literalistic and defensive Biblicism is precisely because “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living God.” Fearful because, existentially, life itself is never as certain and predictable as the graven text. Fearful because we are frightened of the vagaries of an existence within the very nature—and natural circumstances—engendered by a living God. Fearful of accident, fearful of death—fearful of a living intimacy, with all the risk that entails?

    Perhaps the ragtag band of Israelites were “merely” inspired to bravely wade across the Sea of Reeds, whose soft bottom would not support the weight of the pursuing chariots; perhaps the inspiration came from YHVH, and the story became embellished in generations of retelling. Perhaps Mary was encouraged by the Holy Spirit toward the risk of loving intimacy with her betrothed; perhaps the original hearers of that story understood it so. Perhaps even the symbol of virginity in that story could be understood, not as somehow “holy” in itself, but a virtue that became a stumbling block to loving intimacy—a stumbling block removed by the encouragement divine intervention.

    Note once again that I have not here stepped beyond a religious view; I have not even denied divine inspiration or intervention—I have only tried, in a roundabout way, to make the point that these exasperating wars between religion and science are unnecessary. I think that may have been Whodey’s initial point, too.

    Scientists qua scientists study nature, without the assumption of contra-natural events—and rightly so, in my opinion. A scientist qua scientist must assume that whatever she’s studying has a natural explanation, or else she’s not doing science anymore. The scientific method is a powerful and self-correcting methodology. For a hypothesis to attain the level of theory, it has to acquire a lot of evidentiary support. If there are ultimately corrections, based on new evidence, that is a strength—not a weakness—of the paradigm.

    A scientist’s philosophy (theist or not) may well be informed by his scientific pursuits. Why not? My philosophy is informed by many things, and subject to change.
  13. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    27 May '07 12:251 edit
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Let’s take a central Christian doctrine: the Incarnation of Jesus as the Christ. Suppose that after being “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit, Mary subsequently had intimate marital relations with Joseph and bore the child Jesus
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


    Vistesd,

    You are now saying that Joseph did know his wife before the birth of Jesus. This is in direct contradiction to what was written:

    "And he [Joseph] did NOT KNOW HER until she bore a son. And he called His name Jesus" (Matt. 1:25) (my emphasis)


    Between your speculations and what the Apostle Matthew wrote I trust what Matthew wrote. I think you should also.

    The Gospel says Joseph didn't know her. You say, "No, Joseph did know her."

    Eventually we each have to put our trust in someone. Don't we?
  14. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    27 May '07 12:462 edits
    Vistesd,

    +++++++++++++++++++++
    Also, few today believe that the length of a day is determined by the revolution of the sun around the earth. All of the “up and down” metaphors can be nothing else when the earth is seen as spherical, rather than flat.

    If such Biblical views are seen as simply (or even profoundly) metaphorical, why not simply accept that there may be many metaphors that—if treated as anything else—are or will be contraverted by scientific discovery? Why play the “god of the gaps” game with regard to geology or biology (e.g., evolution), for example?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++



    Okay, let's come up to more modern and scientifically
    enlightened times.

    "The Big Bang" ... what decibel level do you think the "Bang" was ?

    Or is "Big Bang" just a kind of metaphorical way of speaking ?

    Was there actually a very loud Big Bang?
  15. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    27 May '07 13:00
    Originally posted by jaywill
    [b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Let’s take a central Christian doctrine: the Incarnation of Jesus as the Christ. Suppose that after being “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit, Mary subsequently had intimate marital relations with Joseph and bore the child Jesus
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


    Vistesd,

    You are now saying that Joseph did ...[text shortened]... b] did[/b] know her."

    Eventually we each have to put our trust in someone. Don't we?[/b]
    To you , what difference does it make that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary prior to Jesus' birth? What difference should it make to Christians?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree