Evolution or Creation?

[MÆST]

Jesus-bashing? Stop trying to divert the issue, Worf, especially to the old chestnut of 'Wah wah the biggest coherent human grouping on the planet is being oppressed'.



Maghead said that God was a paedophile and a rapist. Jesus was never even mentioned. In the absence of any other reason, I have to assume your condemnation was on grounds of heresy.

I found that interesting as you seem to me to be one of those rubber Christians, one iota more tolerant of other versions of God as you can be without being seen as an outright fanatic. This is the first time I can remember that I've seen you condemn a blasphemous belief outright entirely on dogmatic grounds.

If I've got it wrong, please feel free to tell me what the real problem with Maghead's statement was.

I don't see how you can defend him honestly. At first I thought he was joking, so going along with his joke I brought up the Nephilim (half-angel, half-human) that are mentioned in Genesis before Noah and the flood.

But seeing his later replies, it's not even about heresy as much as ignorance, hatred, and intolerance. So why are we defending him again?

 

[Hunter]

Damn it PMB you got me thinking. Anyway, it could be similar to an octipus fitting in to a milk bottle or through a really, really small hole and that the star sucked in is spat out of the other end. Or you could be right. Can we use tool as a test subject?

 

[Mr.Magnetichead]

I don't see how you can defend him honestly. At first I thought he was joking, so going along with his joke I brought up the Nephilim (half-angel, half-human) that are mentioned in Genesis before Noah and the flood.

But seeing his later replies, it's not even about heresy as much as ignorance, hatred, and intolerance. So why are we defending him again?

me or worf?

 

[PsychoMoggieBagpuss]

you woun't get into superstring theory
you only get into superstring theory if noone knows
the superstring theory can explain so many things, because it's like hendrik schön's work: wrong and it modified the reality to work(the world has 10 dimensions, even if some russians already calculated that it's impossible to have more than 3? naw)
namu once explained exactly why it's wrong in one of his posts, but I haven't seen him here for a long time

10 dimensions??

Damn

Ok,

1 - Length
2 - Breadth
3 - Depth
4 - Time
ermmm....
5 - well, if they're russian its probably percentage proof of vodka.
6 - Curvieness
7 - Amount of cheese
8 - I give up.

 

[Metakill]

I still want to know how a virgin birth would work. I know we have some biologists on here.

I saw a show on Discovery (IIRC) that was a scientific evaluation of Biblical miracles, and it actually wasn't a debunking mob. Some legitimate scientists even claimed that this was much more conceivable (no pun intended) than most other miracles like walking on water or ressurrection, and that there are vertebrate animals that are capable of this in emergencies. The child would essentially be a clone of its mother.

Incidentally, Worf, I wouldn't mind an explanation of the difference between Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth. I hope you understand I'm not trying to bash Jesus, just that there are aspects of Christianity that I have personal problems with. I ascribe them to humanity not Jesus, and if I'm just wrong and stubbornly unwillingly to submit to God's will, oh well, it's off to Hell I go.... .

 

[O.S.T]

no, sorry, I don't count time as dimension(because it's a condition for space)
you've to come up with 11 dimensions if you count time as a dimension too
don't give up! I want to see you try

 

[_Zd_3s_]

I saw a show on Discovery (IIRC) that was a scientific evaluation of Biblical miracles, and it actually wasn't a debunking mob. Some legitimate scientists even claimed that this was much more conceivable (no pun intended) than most other miracles like walking on water or ressurrection, and that there are vertebrate animals that are capable of this in emergencies. The child would essentially be a clone of its mother.

Hmm, yes. It's a process called parthenogenesis; reproduction without fertilization. You could imagine that human oocytes that haven't undergone the final cell division that reduces their DNA to 50% - so that the other 50% can be provided by the sperm - can spontaneously generate an embryo. It only needs a first trigger for that; this trigger is under investigation at the moment, because it can be useful when employing in vitro fertilization.

There's only one problem. And you also mention it: the child would be a clone of its mother. That means that it's impossible for the mother to produce a boy. Even when there would have been some sort of chromosomal disorder, there is no way a woman can have a Y (male sex) chromosome and still be fertile. Whenever a Y chromosome is present, the person tends to have a male appearance. For example, in Klinefelter's syndrome, where there are more female sex-chromosomes than male sex-chromosomes (XXY, XXXY genotypes), patients still will develop small male genitals (not functional, by the way).

Now if only Jesus would have been a girl.

 

[shadow_dragon]

I tihnk putting god in the role of a "rapist" is a very offensive and, quite frankly ignorant manner to go about things. I, like some others assumed he was joking untill he continued.

Seriously? I mean how could he rape her? Was she not still a virgin after the event? Assuming it's still an immaculate conception?

(Also about the difference bettween the two terms?)
I guess the difference between an immaculate conception and a virgin birth, is that an immaculate conception is to concieve the child without removing the virginity, while a virgin birth is to give birth to the child without losing the virginity. Which are in theory two different things.
Though assuming it is a virign birth and this is a god we're talking about. (The assumption that the god is the same one who created a universe) then it's hardly unfair to assume he can place a baby into a ladies womb in a NICE way.

Anyway she had a freaking angel come down and tell her all about it before hand, it's not like it was a suprise. Plus some amount of assumption that preparations were made and carefull selection of a willing mother would've been involved.

I find it hard to understand how some people can pretend to assume there is a god and then instantly file all his actions under "stupid" and explain it all in the most basic and defaced way, using none of their brain matter at all to work out how the event might've been sensible, when clearly the people they're debating with are taking his actions via interpretation.
it's not trying tounderstand their opinion at all it's just....... patronising it?


(That all makes sense right? I tend to look at things interpretively or philosophically rather than.... literally.)

 

[W0RF]

No, the virgin birth refers to the virginal conception of Jesus. Immaculate Conception is a Catholic doctrine which assumes that since Jesus was without sin, and sin is a hereditary spiritual trait in man, than Mary must have been sinless in order to conceive a sinless Savior. It's tied to The Assumption, which assumes that since death is supposedly the penalty for sin, and Mary was supposedly without sin, then Mary was supposedly "assumed" into Heaven rather than having died.

See wikipedia for a more detailed (and probably more accurate, as I am not Catholic) explanation.

Yeah I've bought up 3 different topics and yet you havn't responded to them.

Give me a break, mag, you're just taking the piss and I'm not going to waste time trying to discuss things rationally and respectfully when it would be a one-way street. Especially since none of the things you mentioned are even tangentially related to the actual topic. Oh, except dinosaurs to a small extent, which of course you would already know that I don't subscribe to moonbat theories... IF you had bothered to find out what I had already brought up. I'm not going to go chasing the wind while you move around from topic to topic.

And Sam, get off the oppression schtick, I wasn't even talking about oppression. Strawmen are not typically your style. If you don't understand a premise as simple as being respectful of people's cultures and beliefs, I'm not going to bother explaining it to you. If you want to defend Mag's comments, you go right ahead, but you choose strange causes to champion.

 

[Metakill]

There's only one problem. And you also mention it: the child would be a clone of its mother. That means that it's impossible for the mother to produce a boy. Even when there would have been some sort of chromosomal disorder, there is no way a woman can have a Y (male sex) chromosome and still be fertile. Whenever a Y chromosome is present, the person tends to have a male appearance. For example, in Klinefelter's syndrome, where there are more female sex-chromosomes than male sex-chromosomes (XXY, XXXY genotypes), patients still will develop small male genitals (not functional, by the way).

Now if only Jesus would have been a girl

Hmmm, maybe Jesus was a girl who looked like a boy.

 

[Mr.Magnetichead]

I'm not taking the piss, I'm asking you questions. Questions you seem to just answer with crying and running away.

And as for you shadow_dragon, how can a 14 year old girl understand the ramifications of being the mother of the savior of mankind let alone understand what God was asking from her.

It IS like 1 40 year old man forcing himself on a 2 year old.

 

[K]

Right >< Wrong
Good >< Evil
Such ideas amuse me greatly.
There is no truth.
only Perspective

 

[W0RF]

I'm not taking the piss, I'm asking you questions. Questions you seem to just answer with crying and running away.

Is that a fact?

Oh yeah and let's not get started on race or anything, because after we the flood we all know that we all just painted ourselves different colours.

This is not a question at all, much less an honest inquiry.

You accept that perticuler paleontological fact but you dismiss the dinosaurs, the evolutionary stages of pre homoerectus man and the actualy age of the planet?

This is baiting. If you REALLY want to know the answer to that question, it is already in this thread. I even posted an extra link yesterday which you probably didn't read.

That's right folks, God was a kiddy ****ing pedophille.

Again, not a question.

So what exactly are you trying to discuss respectfully and rationally again?

 

[Mr.Magnetichead]

This is not a ****ing pick and mix aisle.

You cannot accept one part of a scientific field and then deny another even after the exact same methods were used for both.

 

[W0RF]

You cannot accept one part of a scientific field and then deny another even after the exact same methods were used for both.

What are you on about now? There are no specifics in this response so I'm not sure.

Please tell me you're not back on the "w0rf doesn't believe in dinosaurs" train. I know you can't be saying that "God is a pedophile" is a field of scientific study.

 

[PsychoMoggieBagpuss]

I'm not taking the piss, I'm asking you questions. Questions you seem to just answer with crying and running away.

And as for you shadow_dragon, how can a 14 year old girl understand the ramifications of being the mother of the savior of mankind let alone understand what God was asking from her.

It IS like 1 40 year old man forcing himself on a 2 year old.

What you are doing wrong here is applying modern day social beliefs onto ancient society.

Marriage in the ancient Arabic countries started very soon after puberty. Woman were property, with the value of the property being decreased if they were no longer a virgin (one of the reasons why rapists were usually forced to marry their victims).

Back then people were married and having kids at a much younger age (as well as dying). Young woman were often married off at the ages 12-14. Young men often married at 14. In Egypt, girls were married between twelve and fourteen; boys, between fourteen and twenty."


In the 14th century the average marrigable age of woman was higher (approximately 16).

 

[shadow_dragon]

No, the virgin birth refers to the virginal conception of Jesus. Immaculate Conception is a Catholic doctrine which assumes that since Jesus was without sin, and sin is a hereditary spiritual trait in man, than Mary must have been sinless in order to conceive a sinless Savior. It's tied to The Assumption, which assumes that since death is supposedly the penalty for sin, and Mary was supposedly without sin, then Mary was supposedly "assumed" into Heaven rather than having died.

See wikipedia for a more detailed (and probably more accurate, as I am not Catholic) explanation.

My mistake.

And as for you shadow_dragon, how can a 14 year old girl understand the ramifications of being the mother of the savior of mankind let alone understand what God was asking from her.

It IS like 1 40 year old man forcing himself on a 2 year old.

No it's not and clearly you didn't understand what i said before.

It IS like the ageless concept of all that is good and loving aprtaking of a gift of someone who believed they weren't worthy. You think all 14 years olds are naive and stupid?

On the contrary she, like many people had a great love for HER god and thus would've accepted it gladly, being the mother of christ/god i imagine she could take some amount of pride.

I really don't get why you can't understand a single possible manner in which such a thing can occur innocently.

or do you just like writing the word paedophile, it sounds like you've picked up on an out of context joke made by a comedian on some tv show and taken it too seriously to me.

 

[Mr.Magnetichead]

It's less to do with Marys age and more to do with the fact that an all powerful god needed to come to a child in order to birth our savior.

****, he made Adam from dust, surley he doesn't require the human reproductive system to bring forth his son.

 

[shadow_dragon]

Maybe he'd been planning it all along, maybe he'd been gently, evolving her families gene pool up untill her to prepare her to carry such a child.

Also it's worth remembering that jesus and god are, in part, the same thing, i don't think god could've built another adam and dumped himself in it. More like be born into his creation.

Also wouldn't it rather ruin the point of creating eve and adam if he started making christs and bob and brians and throwing them down? Surely he could just dump the whole reproductive system? He could just become a man manufacturing factory after all?

 

[W0RF]

It's less to do with Marys age and more to do with the fact that an all powerful god needed to come to a child in order to birth our savior.

Which is of course why you felt it necessary to post pedophile flamebait, right? In order to make a salient point? For someone who doesn't seem concerned about her age, you like to bring it up over and over and over again. Why are you backpedaling on the point the first time someone (PMB) calls you on it?

****, he made Adam from dust, surley he doesn't require the human reproductive system to bring forth his son.

I'm not convinced that he was "required" to do so, but I believe there's some significance to the fact that he CHOSE to do it this way, to go through the full range of human experience: birth, life and death. I'm not a theologian so I can't comment of the full meaning of such a premise, not without doing some more research at least, but it's always been my understanding that the human element of Jesus, including his natural birth, is a necessary component of the atonement process.