Total posts: 8
-->
@Tradesecret
churches around the world are locked down - a classic case of the STATE telling the churches what to do. A breach of any semblance of separation of church and state. Yet, historically, during all the plagues and pandemics, the churches have always remained open. Christians generally speaking see the way to love God is to gather together as people - and the bigger picture is not the community which is rejecting God - but the people who together love and worship God.
I think you will find that the correct perspective is that the "state" is telling everybody and all organisations what to do and not exclusively singling out Churches, unless you are implying that Churches should be somehow exempt from being told.
And, in light of the current situation, to even imply that Churches remain open for people to gather is completely absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I think you've beaten spacetime for having the most sock puppets banned in a single thread.
The point raised was a properly presented and reasoned fact.
Perhaps you may wish to keep within the rules of the site and refrain from continuous personal attacks and address the argument that was put forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
whether Jesus is just a human equivalent of the Sun? I am very conflicted as the evidence is pretty staggering
I think that perhaps the reason for your being "conflicted" is you are discombobulating "Sun" with "Son".
It's a common mistake really, especially with those who are dislexic.
The story goes that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and whilst the evidence is not exactly staggering the typical "Son of God" pattern is there.
For example, Jim Jones claimed he was the son of God. He was a charasmatic leader who charmed many gullible and naive people to follow him and listen to his teachings. Of course, Jones was persecuted, especially by the authorities just as Jesus was. Both Jones and Jesus ended up being martyrs to their followers. Jones took out 990 followers with him; there were no reports of any subsequent deaths.
When Christianity was about 300 years old an estimated 2 million followers had been killed for their faith and still today, it is believed that 11 Christians are killed every day because of their belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I don't know why immature people always translate the birth of Jesus as rape by God, isn't that a bit dumb?
There are two sides to an argument.
By the same token, I could say "I don't know why immature people always translate the birth of Jesus as ludicrously depicted in the Bible, isn't that a bit dumb?"
So, if you expect others to maturely see your point of view of accepting the whole God/Jesus scenario how about you show some civil respect by understanding why mature, sane people view the story of the immaculate conception as an offence to their intelligence and to the decency of women?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
No Willard, that's just your personal label for religious knowledge and spirituality.
No it is not my personal label. And you would know full well that I quoted the definition from the Oxford dictionary, I did not make it up.
Sure, one may have an intelligent discussion about God however there can be no rational argument about God since there is absolutely no substance to the belief that there is anything supernatural.
Just because one is willing to accept the presence of God, it does not authenticate such an identity any more than any other idea that the mind wishes to believe. I wish it were the case mind you since I could go down to the pub (in three months time hopefully) and brag about the dream I had last night which involved me and two other women. I would tell my mates it was true.
They would then query me and ask who and where these women are. To which I would reply: "Ah, well guys, one has to be willing to accept the fact that Fifi and Kara exist independent of physical matter."
Guess who will pay for the next round.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Lol. I think the moron's compulsion has become obsessed with me.Hey willows, if you prove more stupid than hari, that will be an accomplishment! But let's see shall we? How stupid are you, you mental basket case?
Do you really want to know who that sock puppet belongs to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Yes, you compulsive idiot. It's only insulting to you, because you're deluded.You've asked a thousand times, and each time you've been told yes, and that you're a moron.Make another sock and ask again, and you will be told again. You are a deluded moron. We like the religion board. And we don't care for your delusion or your insane compulsion.
It was'nt me and I don't know who the heck it is who literally copied and pasted my post #13.
Nevertheless, it was a fair question and answering with hot-headed spam is hardly appropriate, is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The literal interpretation of course is the sort of sensational sort of hyperbole which was the norm for writers in those days.I don't take a literal interpretation of Genesis on how man was created so I believe in order to have a physical body it must be developed through a physical giver, this is the process of life here. While it is a process, it's still a process originated/generated by the Creator. So although God can create from essentially an empty platform, things are created though processes, "building blocks".
If we are to believe the imaculate conception in that God wanted to show a physical birth, we have to accept that at some stage there would need to be an interface from the supernatural to the physical.
So, given that God did not physically inseminate Mary, there would have to be some sort of physical intervention within her body to conceive and ultimately give birth. All we know is that it was God's "will" to instigate the process and, given that there was no indication of consent from the mother, would we not still say that God was guilty of assault?
Created: