What do you think of the virgin birth of Jesus ?

[viole]

I voted real, however what on earth does ''supernatural'' mean?

Good question. According to my information, things that are not natural are supernatural. So, gays are, for some, supernatural, for instance.

Anyway, it is still possible to bear a child while staying virgin. It is unlikely, but still possible. In QM it is known as the tunnel effect. Lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yes, because I'm a Christian.


No, because I don't believe in nor practice Hellenismos. But I recognize the deep value and power in those stories to those who did/do believe in them. It's the same with other cultures I admire such as the Germanic, the Egyptian and the Aztec. Even cultures I don't feel necessarily drawn towards.

Exactly.
So you'll forgive those of us who aren't required by a faith system to accept something that any rational person knows is clearly impossible.

Just as you believe that the Hellenes maintained faith in some mystical non-possiblity, so we feel about your supposed mythological stories.
As such, it's a bit inconsistent of you to claim that one is real, as a legitimate act of history, while the other is just mythology, regardless of how much you respect the stories of the old one.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Exactly.
So you'll forgive those of us who aren't required by a faith system to accept something that any rational person knows is clearly impossible.

Just as you believe that the Hellenes maintained faith in some mystical non-possiblity, so we feel about your supposed mythological stories.
As such, it's a bit inconsistent of you to claim that one is real, as a legitimate act of history, while the other is just mythology, regardless of how much you respect the stories of the old one.

Not holding a personal belief in a religion's mythology is not the same as condemning it as nonsense or "hokum". Why would I believe in some other religion's tenants? They don't believe in mine. I can respect what they believe while not holding that same belief. You're being illogical.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Excuse me, but what are you talking about?
Septuagint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you implying that it was early Christians that translated Isaiah in that fashion?

It's possible.

The LXX is more than just the Pentateuch. It contains all the books included in the RCC OT.

King Ptolemy had the Jewish scholars translate the Torah. The other books were translated during the course of the next two or three centuries. By who, and for what purpose? Who knows?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's possible.



King Ptolemy had the Jewish scholars translate the Torah. The other books were translated during the course of the next two or three centuries. By who, and for what purpose? Who knows?

Now you're getting into conspiracy theory territory.

 

[viole]

Not holding a personal belief in a religion's mythology is not the same as condemning it as nonsense or "hokum". Why would I believe in some other religion's tenants? They don't believe in mine. I can respect what they believe while not holding that same belief. You're being illogical.

Would you intellectually respect anyone who believes in Santa In his fourties?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Would you intellectually respect anyone who believes in Santa In his fourties?

Ciao

- viole

Sure. I'd respect him for not letting this horrible, negative society destroy his sense of magic and joy. I wish Santa were real.

Sorry, but your pathetic attempts to insult by analogy won't work with me. Give it up.

 

[viole]

Sure. I'd respect him for not letting this horrible, negative society destroy his sense of magic and joy. I wish Santa were real.

Sorry, but your pathetic attempts to insult by analogy won't work with me. Give it up.

Why insult? If you think it is an insult, then you are already putting your belief in God on a higher pedestal than a belief in Santa. Which would logically lead to the conclusion that belief in God is more respectable than belief in Santa and, as a corollary, imply that you are the one insulting Santa believers.

But why, since Santa and the Christian God have the same exact evidence of existing?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why insult? If you think it is an insult, then you are already putting your belief in God on a higher pedestal than a belief in Santa. Which would logically lead to the conclusion that belief in God is more respectable than belief in Santa and, as a corollary, imply that you are the one insulting Santa believers.

But why, since Santa and the Christian God have the same exact evidence of existing?

Ciao

- viole

Because it's a common tactic of atheists. You're doing it here, yourself. You apparently also think that spiritual belief is worthy of being the butt of an offensive April Fool's joke.

 

[viole]

Because it's a common tactic of atheists. You're doing it here, yourself. You apparently also think that spiritual belief is worthy of being the butt of an offensive April Fool's joke.

No tactics. i swear on my soul, lol.

Kidding aside. Rest assured that I have the same exact amount of intellectual respect towards Santa, blue fairies, bigfoot, Zeus, Jesus and God. I assume, according to your posts, that you do the same.

So, we agree, for a change, I presume.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No tactics. i swear on my soul, lol.

Kidding aside. Rest assured that I have the same exact amount of intellectual respect towards Santa, blue fairies, bigfoot, Zeus and God. I assume, according to your posts, that you do the same.

So, we agree, for a change, I presume.

Ciao

- viole

No, we don't.

 

[viole]

No, we don't.

What? Don't you equally respect fairies believers?

Why not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

@Nietzsche @The Hammer @fantome profane @dust1n @Tiapan @Nietzsche @Debater Slayer @psychoslice @Mycroft @Bunyip @NewGuyOnTheBlock @jonathan180iq @Carlita @NulliuSINverba @Jumi @Eliab ben Benjamin @Augustus @Frolicking_Fox @te_lanus

Why do you think it's rational that a bacteria can be evolved to a human being by random mutations through time whereas it's irrational to you that a single human being to be asexual at one point of time ?

 

[Mycroft]

Why do you think it's rational that a bacteria can be evolved to a human being by random mutations through time whereas it's irrational to you that a single human being to be asexual at one point of time.

Is that a question?

 

[FearGod]

Is that a question?

Yes, why do you think one is irrational while the other isn't.

 

[Nietzsche]

Why do you think it's rational that a bacteria can be evolved to a human being by random mutations through time

It is not "bacteria to human". It's single-celled organism to slightly-different single-celled organism, and after that happens for hundreds of millions of years you have mutli-cellular life. This multi-cell life then branches into differing sorts of animal, and one branch of them leads to us. After a billion or so years. That obviously lacks in many core details but it'll suffice for this.

whereas it's irrational to you that a single human being to be asexual at one point of time.

Because if there was no sex involved in the birth of the child, you have a clone of Mary. And unless you want argue Jesus was a she, that's not a tenable position. Granted, that position is still far & away more likely than, you know, divine parentage.

 

[FearGod]

It is not "bacteria to human". It's single-celled organism to slightly-different single-celled organism, and after that happens for hundreds of millions of years you have mutli-cellular life. This multi-cell life then branches into differing sorts of animal, and one branch of them leads to us. After a billion or so years. That obviously lacks in many core details but it'll suffice for this.

How and at which point do you think that asexual reproduction evolved to sexual reproduction, It's either asexual or sexual, so billions of years is meaningless and irrational way to explain it.

Because if there was no sex involved in the birth of the child, you have a clone of Mary. And unless you want argue Jesus was a she, that's not a tenable position. Granted, that position is still far & away more likely than, you know, divine parentage.

How males and females evolved at first place while there were no genders at the beginning of life.

 

[Nietzsche]

How and at which point do you think that asexual reproduction evolved to sexual reproduction, It's either asexual or sexual, so billions of years is meaningless and irrational way to explain it.



How males and females evolved at first place while there were no genders at the beginning of life.

Many, many people have tried innumerable times to explain this to you. I personally am done trying.

 

[FearGod]

Many, many people have tried innumerable times to explain this to you. I personally am done trying.

So you trust that a human can easily be evolved from a primitive cell, of course billions of years was needed, not an easy job, a lot of wiring.

 

[fantome profane]

@Nietzsche @The Hammer @fantome profane @dust1n @Tiapan @Nietzsche @Debater Slayer @psychoslice @Mycroft @Bunyip @NewGuyOnTheBlock @jonathan180iq @Carlita @NulliuSINverba @Jumi @Eliab ben Benjamin @Augustus @Frolicking_Fox

Why do you think it's rational that a bacteria can be evolved to a human being by random mutations through time whereas it's irrational to you that a single human being to be asexual at one point of time ?

Because I understand the science behind the theory of evolution. I know that for those who don't understand it evolution can seem like a miracle, but it is not.