Deep Sight:

I tend to get better quality in terms of ripostes on the Religion Board of this forum.

This is quite interesting. Let's have a look.

A woman gets pregnant. Two persons have different views as to how that happened.

Person 1: Has the view that, as is consistent with human reproductive experience, the woman had gotten pregnant from s.exual intercourse.

Person 2: Has the view that an intangible spiritual entity magically made her pregnant without intercourse.

Which view is more consistent with reason, human experience and common sense? ? ? ?

And some how I am the one being deleuded? Well, your choice, son.

On no account would you receive from me that which you give: namely knee jerk insults arising from a void.

There is a well studied psychological phenomenon amongst human beings and this is it; when a human being is unable to address a glaring (and painful) internal inconsistency in his beliefs, he is most likely to convulsively explode. That explosion has appeared in the form of your insults - I take no offence in the least; I merely recognise that which is obvious: namely that you are deeply pained by the absurdity that emerges as your conviction: It is simply and civilly pointed out to you that it is not very likely that a woman would get pregnant without intercourse - and you have made exactly no logical rebuttal of that reasonable proposition. What you have done is simply evince the truth; namely that you have no answer to that obvious illogicality which happens to be your conviction. In this you are sadly supported by a group of people who have not proffered any reasonable rebuttal in that regard.

Accordingly I see no reason as yet to retract the very simple proposition that I laid before you; namely that people to not get pregnant by spiritual or magical means; but by s.exual intercourse or artificial insemination - which was not available two thousand years ago.

It is hardly my cup of tea that you subscribe to ancient semitic myths which would certainly sound ludicruous to you if they were tales of your own ancestors.


This is where I have a problem. And further this is what I mean by thoughtless knee-jerk reactions. You have stated –

1. That I have blasphemed.

2. That I have “abused’ God.

I am aghast at these conclusions. From where did you get the notion that questioning the likelihood of a pregnancy arising without s.exual intercourse, amounts to blasphemy? We are well past the age of reason, dear friend. If we are entitled to question such things as men turning into frogs, surely we are entitled to question an ancient story which tells us that a woman conceived a baby out of thin air.

Now I would urge you to be more perceptive. At time of that supposed event, the punishment for s.exual activity outside wedlock was death by stoning. What do you suppose a young female who is pregnant outside of wedlock would do? Admit that she has had s.ex? Or blame it on the Holy Ghost?

You riddle me with laughter. You do have miles to walk yet, son.

Again let us look at the second part of your statement. You stated that I have abused God! That is a grand presumption sir, for I did no such thing.

I drew out an analogy showing that it is unlikely that a woman may be pregnant without any form of natural conception. How does that amount to abusing God? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I do not know what your perception of the transcendental almighty God is: but I can assure you that I believe in God and worship God. My perception of God however, does not involve such things as miraculous pregnancies or rituals of any sort. I urge you not to make any presumptions in this regard.

Dress warm.

Siena:

Sauron, I can understand your concern, regarding Deep Sight's posts. But reading through his latest response, I can honestly say, he hasn't blasphemed, or insulted God. He's merely mentioned that divinity, and humanity often conflict. Sometimes, we question spiritual occurences, and apply human logic to try explaining these occurences, questioning things we don't understand does not make us bad, it's a human emotion to be curious.

That's what I deduce from his post at any rate.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Thanks Sauron.

It is hugely satisfying for me that in all of your continuously abusive responses, you have yet to address the simple poser that was raised.

I do wonder what your perception of the divine is. Anything that is illogical must perforce be divine?

There is a Yoruba myth regarding a chicken and some sand being lowered on a rope to the earth, landing at Ile Ife, and creating the world. I suppose you might defend the veracity of that legend by stating that it is divine: and as such, cannot be understood. That would not be very useful son.

Likewise it is not very useful to defend an ancient semitic myth with the same lame excuse. Frankly, everyone can use that excuse. Hindus use the exact same excuse to defend their worhip and veneration of cows. Its a divine matter, so we can't question it. I wonder what you make of that.

Dress warm.

cryptic:

All said mr, all of this composition of yours amounts to nothing tangible. You say you worship God and do not believe in Christ, then why worship God?

I wanna ask you a question. Do you read the bible ?

Do you believe in its contents ?

That said, do you believe in spirituality ?

Have you seen magicians perform magic?

Are you aware that some places on this earth are haunted by ghosts? Why is it then impossible for God, the creator of this earth, to twist the natural flow of things to fulfill his word and purpose for man ?

~Sauron~:

But how did this Black parents, White Blond concern Mary and Jesus.
Were Jesus' parents Black and he's White? The analogy makes no sense and i dunno why anyone would bring stuffs like that here. . . .

Deep Sight:

God is available to all of humanity, irrespective of race or creed.

There are hundreds of millions of people who know nothing of Jesus of Nazareth. You might be surprised to learn that many of them actually are more "christ-like" than many supposed christians.

Cover to cover, all the time. Its a great book.

It is a book of great spiritual insight, worthwhile history, and much wisdom. However in the course of the centuries many mistranslations, misconceptions, innaccuracies, and deliberate alterations have crept into it. Like everything with a human imprint, it is not perfect.

Everything is spiritual. Existence would be dead matter, without the spirit.

There is no such thing as magic. There is only manipulation of the laws of nature to acheive desired results. If those laws are unknown to you, the manipulatuon would appear "magical" to you.

I want you to reflect carefully on this statement. Do you not see the ineluctable contradiction. Nature is spawned by God. Nature is, in fact, the will and manifestation of God. Why then wpould God "twist" the natural order of things? Recall that God is unchangeable, perfect from all eternity. As such God does not "twist' the natural order of things because that order is willed by God. It is inconceiveable to talk of God acting against his own will.

Deep Sight:

Hi Cryptic.

Those are all very natural things. They simply lie outside our knowledge and this is why we term them "supernatural" - because we have no understanding of how they happen. Healing is possible in many ways. It is possible for you to heal a person by projecting positive thoughtwaves through vibrations that move in ethereal space. This again, is perfectly natural. However a person who is not schooled in such things will term them "magic", "miracles" or "supernatural."

So things do happen that are beyond our knowledge. This is however no reason to suppose that men turn into frogs or that people get pregnant from thin air. We are able to discern the natural processes of certain things. One such natural process is copulation, conception, pregnancy and birth. Telling me that a woman became pregnant without copulation is just as ludicruous as telling me that a woman gave birth without being pregnant. It is a natural process, and that process is willed by God, and God is perfect and unchanging.

tpiah:

no need to get defensive and insultive unless you're a lunatic.

i made my points very civilly and if you feel you're too big to post photos to prove what you're alleging, then kindly buzz off and stop wasting people's time.

you say there are biracial people with one pure black parent and one 100% white parent, who are born with naturally blonde hair. If you're not ready to provide evidence of that, then keep quiet.

you obviously have no idea what you're talking about if you think eye color isnt an indicator of albinism.

or maybe you just like deceiving yourself.

Look at you talking about light eyes in newborns being a sign of albinism; some just have lighter eyes that will either stay that way or darken. It doesn't mean that they are albinos. 

hackney:

SMART.
From the pic whats the baby then?
Arrow.

THE AMAKA:

you're more than an id!ot.
just because someone has white skin and blond hair does not make them Caucasian.
why do i feel I'm arguing with someone with no brain?
thats like saying MJ is no longer African America.

tpiah:

^^plz shut up and look at that mother very well.

is that your example of a pure black?

i've seen that picture before lots of times, on google.

abeg comot for road you senseless thing.

oponu.

bring another photo of a naturally blonde biracial baby with a pure black parent and by pure black i dont mean someone who looks like she could be mixed.

is english comprehension a problem for you?

na so una just dey chase whites everywhere trying to be more white than them and creating problems where there are none!







gosh you are s.tupid and why am i wasting my time with you.
 

Deep Sight:

I tend to get better quality in terms of ripostes on the Religion Board of this forum.

This is quite interesting. Let's have a look.

A woman gets pregnant. Two persons have different views as to how that happened.

Person 1: Has the view that, as is consistent with human reproductive experience, the woman had gotten pregnant from s.exual intercourse.

Person 2: Has the view that an intangible spiritual entity magically made her pregnant without intercourse.

Which view is more consistent with reason, human experience and common sense? ? ? ?

And some how I am the one being deleuded? Well, your choice, son.

On no account would you receive from me that which you give: namely knee jerk insults arising from a void.

There is a well studied psychological phenomenon amongst human beings and this is it; when a human being is unable to address a glaring (and painful) internal inconsistency in his beliefs, he is most likely to convulsively explode. That explosion has appeared in the form of your insults - I take no offence in the least; I merely recognise that which is obvious: namely that you are deeply pained by the absurdity that emerges as your conviction: It is simply and civilly pointed out to you that it is not very likely that a woman would get pregnant without intercourse - and you have made exactly no logical rebuttal of that reasonable proposition. What you have done is simply evince the truth; namely that you have no answer to that obvious illogicality which happens to be your conviction. In this you are sadly supported by a group of people who have not proffered any reasonable rebuttal in that regard.

Accordingly I see no reason as yet to retract the very simple proposition that I laid before you; namely that people to not get pregnant by spiritual or magical means; but by s.exual intercourse or artificial insemination - which was not available two thousand years ago.

It is hardly my cup of tea that you subscribe to ancient semitic myths which would certainly sound ludicruous to you if they were tales of your own ancestors.


This is where I have a problem. And further this is what I mean by thoughtless knee-jerk reactions. You have stated –

1. That I have blasphemed.

2. That I have “abused’ God.

I am aghast at these conclusions. From where did you get the notion that questioning the likelihood of a pregnancy arising without s.exual intercourse, amounts to blasphemy? We are well past the age of reason, dear friend. If we are entitled to question such things as men turning into frogs, surely we are entitled to question an ancient story which tells us that a woman conceived a baby out of thin air.

Now I would urge you to be more perceptive. At time of that supposed event, the punishment for s.exual activity outside wedlock was death by stoning. What do you suppose a young female who is pregnant outside of wedlock would do? Admit that she has had s.ex? Or blame it on the Holy Ghost?

You riddle me with laughter. You do have miles to walk yet, son.

Again let us look at the second part of your statement. You stated that I have abused God! That is a grand presumption sir, for I did no such thing.

I drew out an analogy showing that it is unlikely that a woman may be pregnant without any form of natural conception. How does that amount to abusing God? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I do not know what your perception of the transcendental almighty God is: but I can assure you that I believe in God and worship God. My perception of God however, does not involve such things as miraculous pregnancies or rituals of any sort. I urge you not to make any presumptions in this regard.

Dress warm.

dayokanu:

Am I not your child? Dont you feed me with what they feed young children? The lactose enriched protein shake

SSaemoenl:

^^^

tpiah:

^^plz shut up and look at that mother very well.

is that your example of a pure black?

i've seen that picture before lots of times, on google.

abeg comot for road you senseless thing.

oponu.

bring another photo of a naturally blonde biracial baby with a pure black parent and by pure black i dont mean someone who looks like she could be mixed.

is english comprehension a problem for you?

na so una just dey chase whites everywhere trying to be more white than them and creating problems where there are none!







gosh you are s.tupid and why am i wasting my time with you.
 

mama-gee: