nuclearboy:

"Truth" is that there are 2 sides to this divide.

One side [AA] says here is why, when, what.

The other [ZZ] says NO, it cannot be, BASED on what we can observe, study, see

Then [AA] says - "look, this is easy. One thousand years ago, you guys couldn't see Parthenogenesis and thus said it was impossible. And you expected ALL to believe. That position is TODAY false. Today you say this issue is impossible. How do you know that it will not be resolved into your understanding in another 1000 years"

But [ZZ] insists - "We are right because we don't see it"

[AA] - "no wahala. You truly haven't seen it. YET!"

Truth then for me is that, your position is not planted on solid ground. It shifts based on "advancements", which are in turn based on "findings", which are in turn, based on time! Christians cannot shift goalposts and thus, you appear informed because of "doubt" rather than knowledge.

This is very good.

Enigma:

1. Please read the whole chapter again and particularly verses 1-17 and you will see a constant appeal to the thinking faculty , to the intellect.

2. In any event, the giving of commands/instructions and reasoning together are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

They are in this case since it is "obey my commands or I will punish you".

Enigma:

I'm sorry this is now off-point. If you have issues with the Christian lobby, please take it up with them.

The activities of the Christian lobby stem from similar reasoning as Christians display but since you wish to keep that aside, that's fine.

Enigma:

It is a straw man because the Christian faith does not teach that a person should not take conventional medicine --- hence my reference to Christian doctors. This is such an obvious matter that I actually resent having to answer this point in the first place.

And you bring up another question with such a statement. Who then is practicing the real form of Christianity? Is it the person with the mustard seed type of faith that can move mountains or the one with selective faith?

Enigma:

I repeat that it is a fallacy to assume that Christianity must conform with science. Now, no matter the "classification" which one gives the fallacy, the critical matter is that the assumption is a fallacy. See e.g. the quote of Lord Rees in my immediately preceding post.

I'm not asking for a classification of the fallacy but I'm wondering how it is fallacious to request for a mechanism by which your claimed virgin birth may occur.

Enigma:

This relates to a specific question about the virgin birth: we do not challenge science's claim about normal conception/birth by a woman; if we were challenging that, maybe you'd have a case; we say we believe that Jesus' virgin birth is outside that; yet, you keep demanding a comparison to science!

But it is a challenge. You are claiming that female humans have given birth to male offspring without fertilization from a man. Attempting to put such a clearly physical occurrence beyond the realm of science is not a solution to the problem.

Enigma:

Oh yes, I do! It was a deliberately provocative statement: provocative in two senses i.e. provoking the interlocutor to further thought as well as a minor irritation. I believe because I have faith; I have faith because I have reason (i.e. intellectual basis) to have faith. Again, I will keep it this cryptic to still remain mildly provocative.

I don't find it provocative I'm simply pointing out that by making such a statement with such a poor backup, you are simply demonstrating the anti-intellectualism that you're trying to avoid.

Enigma:

So are you going to force a choice or force a person to choose? Is that intellectual? A person says irrespective of whether you take all of the Bible literally or allegorically, he has enough reason to subscribe to Christianity ---- yet you say he must choose? He must operate on your own terms? Maybe you do not understand let alone appreciate his reasons for his faith?

You're getting things mixed up. I'm not forcing anyone to choose. I'm simply pointing out that, if you wish to present your views as not being anti-intellectual, then you have to first have to understand what being an intellectual is about.

Enigma:

As a Christian, I know that the Bible is authoritative on Christian living.

Is it? Can you be considered a good Christian if you do not carry out or support the punishments for crimes listed in it?

Enigma:

I'm sorry this is another of those pretty obvious things; please read the "render unto Caesar" refrerence from the Bible.

Here I'm asking for your opinion on what would be the best way to run the government not what to do with the current system so the rendering reference is not relevant.

Enigma:

For a start, as long as you expect my faith to prove itself to science, then you do not truly understand my faith. My faith is indeed intellectual because it is grounded in part but not only on reason i.e. the intellect ---- however, this reason is informed and conditioned by something far greater than scientific proof or the "scientific method" ---- personal experience of God.

You see you're still claiming the label "intellectual" for your faith. If you actually wish to be considered intellectual, you need to realize that while personal experience is important, it is not as important as the proper use of logic, critical inquiry and similar processes.

Enigma:

Ah, there you go! Current knowledge --- is that the be-all and end-all?

It should rank highly if you wish to be considered intellectual.

Enigma. Thank you for being so objective. That is a rare commodity.

Nuclearboy and Thehomer don't understand each other. What Nuke is saying is that not everything that science cannot prove NOW is false. It may be shown to be perfectly possible later. What thehomer is saying is what we can't prove NOW is likely not true and why should we take some dude's 2000 year old word for it anyway. Trouble is thehomer is absolutist since he's probably not religious and Nuclearboy is absolutist (as per the Christian faith) because he's a Christian. To me both stances make some sense but the atheist standpoint is superior because a Muslim will be equally faithful and also a Hindu and all others. If as Enigma wishes we treat Christianity specially, thehomer would be right to ask why. The Bible and the Quran and all other 'holy' are essentially nothing above Shakespearan literature as far as non-believers are concerned. That's why I refuse to separate Christianity from the broad brush of religion for this would be special pleading.

Now to the matter of miracles. Science deals with physical laws. As far as it is concerned, no law can EVER be defied. You can float in the air. Water cannot burn. There's no such thing as telekinesis. Etc. When any of these things don't happen as expected something else is at play and must be explained. But for some reason miracles never tend to happen in the laboratory. Going back to Nuclearboy, faith healers and their ilk are things that you largely don't subscribe to but it's not because you see it as impossible to heal someone by faith but because you think or know that the average faith healer is a charlatan. The very belief that it is possible is what I mean by anti-intellectual. So the koko is that people are anti-intellectual by degree. Some harmlessly so like me, Nuke and Enigma and most fatally so like suicide bombers, tithe payers etc. No science can explain God's ways. When the time comes, who knows what will newly constitute intellectual and anti-intellectual.

nuclearboy:

"Truth" is that there are 2 sides to this divide.

One side [AA] says here is why, when, what.

The other [ZZ] says NO, it cannot be, BASED on what we can observe, study, see

Then [AA] says - "look, this is easy. One thousand years ago, you guys couldn't see Parthenogenesis and thus said it was impossible. And you expected ALL to believe. That position is TODAY false. Today you say this issue is impossible. How do you know that it will not be resolved into your understanding in another 1000 years"

But [ZZ] insists - "We are right because we don't see it"

[AA] - "no wahala. You truly haven't seen it. YET!"

Truth then for me is that, your position is not planted on solid ground. It shifts based on "advancements", which are in turn based on "findings", which are in turn, based on time! Christians cannot shift goalposts and thus, you appear informed because of "doubt" rather than knowledge.

Are you implying that what you have taken to be true, which in this context is the words contained in the Bible, are planted on solid ground and do not progress or change?
If you are, my question is how did you arrive at this conclusion? Do you consider the method by which you arrived at this conclusion to be an intellectual manner?

thehomer:

They are in this case since it is "obey my commands or I will punish you".

For a start you are misrepresenting the passage and I'm afraid this is a very poor modus operandi which, sadly, is evident throughout your critique of Christianity. OK let me indulge with what you asked on this point in the first place i.e. what does the rest of the verse actually say?

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Do you see how the verse itself readily gives the lie to your interpretation? And the rest of the chapter is in the same tenor - which is why I asked you to read the chapter!

The activities of the Christian lobby stem from similar reasoning as Christians display but since you wish to keep that aside, that's fine.

Glad not to have to spend any further time on this digression!

And you bring up another question with such a statement. Who then is practicing the real form of Christianity? Is it the person with the mustard seed type of faith that can move mountains or the one with selective faith?

The issue here is whether the Christian faith teaches that people should not use conventional medicine. That is the issue. Now, don't take my word for an answer on the issue ---- go and study the Bible on the point and reach your own conclusion on what the Bible teaches on the point.

I'm not asking for a classification of the fallacy but I'm wondering how it is fallacious to request for a mechanism by which your claimed virgin birth may occur.

 Because you are trying to take back into science something which I claim to be outside science, simples. You think science is all, I do not think science is all.

But it is a challenge. You are claiming that female humans have given birth to male offspring without fertilization from a man. Attempting to put such a clearly physical occurrence beyond the realm of science is not a solution to the problem.

Nah, I claim that I believe that one woman (Mary) gave birth to one offspring (Jesus) without fertilization. Yes, it is a physical occurrence from a scientific point of view and I leave it to science to keep working on how it could have happened; maybe in a thousand years' time they will come up with a plausible theory; in the meantime, I believe it anyway.

Funny some scientists can assume the truth of something when it suits them even though they have no proof yet; many will tell you there must be aliens out there ---- they will still claim that to be an intellectual proposition. But how is such a proposition different from faith based on reason?

I don't find it provocative I'm simply pointing out that by making such a statement with such a poor backup, you are simply demonstrating the anti-intellectualism that you're trying to avoid.

So reasoning is now not "intellectual"? Only science is "intellectual"? Tell that to Plato, Socrates, Kant etc.

You're getting things mixed up. I'm not forcing anyone to choose. I'm simply pointing out that, if you wish to present your views as not being anti-intellectual, then you have to first have to understand what being an intellectual is about.

Again, if intelligent reasoning is not "intellectual" for you, good luck!

Is it? Can you be considered a good Christian if you do not carry out or support the punishments for crimes listed in it?

I find this unfortunate. Again, it demonstrates what I have been talking about ----- you need to go and read and understand the Bible first! That way, you really would not ask this type of question!

Here I'm asking for your opinion on what would be the best way to run the government not what to do with the current system so the rendering reference is not relevant.

Christians can legitimately express a view on how to run the government: we can say we prefer a democracy; we can say we do not want corruption; we can say we want the rule of law etc etc etc In fact, a lot of these fundamental principles were introduced by Christians and informed by Christianity. However, Christians are not advocating a theocracy! To suggest otherwise would be another caricature/straw man!

You see you're still claiming the label "intellectual" for your faith. If you actually wish to be considered intellectual, you need to realize that while personal experience is important, it is not as important as the proper use of logic, critical inquiry and similar processes.

It should rank highly if you wish to be considered intellectual.

I don't think I care to be considered an "intellectual" in the way that you want. However, I do know that my faith is indeed intellectual. I also know that Christianity is intellectual and even beyond that; it is supra-intellectual.

Don't have much business here, but before I am kicked out let me just say I can't get over this one - "supra-intellectual"

If one believes -

1. That everything stated by (Christian) religious lore must perforce be true

2. That there are physical laws governing the universe

Then one may well consider it supra-intellectual [/i]to believe, as some do, that the earth is sitting on the back of a giant turtle, SIMPLY THAT THAT TURTLE IS PERHAPS INVISIBLE.

After all, religious lore is infallible - and can always be dubbed [i]supra-intellectual.

What a life.

Again, escaping hurriedly through the door, I should just fling back into the mix the thought that regarding the virgin birth, what should be of concern should not simply be - is it possible? - - - > for who indeed can say with all finality what is possible or impossible?

The further questions should be -

1. Even if it is conceded possible (which is not conceded) was it in fact what actually happened in that instance?

2. Are there not more plausible explanations of a pregnancy?

Given that the punishment for extra marital s.ex at that time was death by stoning, what does this infer?

We all, dear friends, can think of at least one rather obvious explanation for the phenomenon of pregnancy, can we not?

Or is pregnancy a mysterious extra terrestrial occurrence now as mysterious as black holes and dark matter?

Now indeed, let us reason together: from whence cometh pregnancy? Copulation? Or Ghosts?

SO! It is a ghost that did it. A Holy one. A Holy Ghost.

That is supra-intellectual?

What a life. I just wonder how some "christians" here would react if their wives came home pregnant without them having done the do on her - - -> and then tells them a story about a Ghost having done it. It would be priceless to see their reactions to such a wife. Then, only then, will we know just how much they believe the tale about the Holy Ghost doing the hoopla . . .

What a life.

^^         

^^^ Yep! LOL!

I am a pixie. Don't ask me whether that thought of mine makes sense. It is "supra-intellectual" - i.e: in the words of the OP - "it recognises and acknowledges the intellectual position, but rises above it!"

Wonderful!

@thehomer:

I wish one of you would have the nerve to try these warped arguments against the veracity of the spiritual with people who are not mainstream christians yet know their onions.

There's one here on NL - Mad_Max.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-436863.288.html#msg6872384 from which I quote -
I merely check science now and then to see how well it's coming along. That's why people who claim there's no God from 'science' are a real hoot. Understandable, but a hoot nevertheless. When it comes to the spiritual, science is far behind.
Unquote

Do me a favor and match your "knowledge" of science against her on that thread. But the problem you guys have is Christianity so I wager you'll find a way out of such a dare.

@DS:

In response to our last altercation, I received a mail from a NL member. The subject was "don't mind the theatrical faker". I now see where he was coming from

nuclearboy:

@DS:

In response to our last altercation, I received a mail from a NL member. The subject was "don't mind the theatrical faker". I now see where he was coming from

Sir: I am genuinely lost. I cannot understand what this may have to do with my "supra-intelligence" or the virgin birth.

If this is all the response you can manage to the idea that our wives may be impregnated by ghosts who are holy (and our acceptance of such be dubbed "supra-intelligence". . .that's quite a let down, y'know?

Anyhow I must say I am chuffed you receive emails regarding my theatrics. Not in my whole life have I received any such pedantic trivia.

nuclearboy:

@thehomer:

I wish one of you would have the nerve to try these warped arguments against the veracity of the spiritual with people who are not mainstream christians yet know their onions.

There's one here on NL - Mad_Max.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-436863.288.html#msg6872384 from which I quote -
I merely check science now and then to see how well it's coming along. That's why people who claim there's no God from 'science' are a real hoot. Understandable, but a hoot nevertheless. When it comes to the spiritual, science is far behind.
Unquote

Do me a favor and match your "knowledge" of science against her on that thread. But the problem you guys have is Christianity so I wager you'll find a way out of such a dare.

Answer him yourself point for point, and let Mad_Max be, please: I am not aware that this discussion is about Mad_Max or her scientifc savvy, or is it?

Lol, you speak about "warped arguments?". . . . . . thehomer is a simple fellow who is not to be counted amongst a certain african lot who passionately believe that a pregnant Jewish woman obtained said pregnancy via the august ministrations of a ghost, is he?

Of who then, shall we speak of "warped arguments?"

Funny thing is, when you guys hear these sorts of fanciful things from your own african traditions or the traditions of other religions, you instantly recognise them for what they are: fables, myths, legends, etc.

Lol. what a life.

Trivia it would be in other instance. In this, it turns out so apt.

Because it is your own posts that seem trivial when one considers that though "stoning to death" was the norm in those days, that was not applied in the stated case. I wonder why. Because the husband existed and thought it wise to "allow". I wonder why. And all the witnesses watched, marvelled and kept quiet. I wonder why. Could they have seen something that convinced them to think outside the box?

But 2,000 years after the fact, a young man on heat, trying desperately to convince of his education, decides to show his diction by casting aspersion in not particularly bright language,  on what has been studied and accepted by billions of better educated people with better diction.

Your "vapidness" is so full of theatre. Yet whats your "reality"?

Infinity - defined by poor math, poor logic and deluded reasoning. You need a doctor.

Btw, I do not need Mad_Max to do my work for me. I only pointed out something rather obvious. Your education, scholastic ability and reasoning is directed at what makes you uncomfortable only. When confronted by a neutral party, you crumble. Take the hint and go find that doctor. Tell him its upstairs

^^^ Tra la la la la la la. . . Nuclear has it come to it that you are never able to address a poser any more?

Good grief, you've joined the Enigma-Party: every poser must be addressed by personal insults and nothing more.

Oh dear me. Your rebuttal is the fact that something has been "accepted by billions of better educated people with better diction. . .?"

Creeps. . . !

nuclearboy:

@thehomer:

I wish one of you would have the nerve to try these warped arguments against the veracity of the spiritual with people who are not mainstream christians yet know their onions.

There's one here on NL - Mad_Max.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-436863.288.html#msg6872384 from which I quote -
I merely check science now and then to see how well it's coming along. That's why people who claim there's no God from 'science' are a real hoot. Understandable, but a hoot nevertheless. When it comes to the spiritual, science is far behind.
Unquote

Do me a favor and match your "knowledge" of science against her on that thread. But the problem you guys have is Christianity so I wager you'll find a way out of such a dare.

@DS:

In response to our last altercation, I received a mail from a NL member. The subject was "don't mind the theatrical faker". I now see where he was coming from

I will go invite Davidylan, noetic and our own Aristotle VAIRO. If i Decide to join now, i trust myself i go scatter everything for here. lolrmaof

Unsurpassable idiocy -> "Enigma-party"! Why don't you just say you don't know how to really dish it (yet your pathetic attempts give you to believe you are "gangster" and you also don't know how to take it? You'd find pity, believe me.

I wonder how I could ever have thought you were worth the effort.

People who do not agree with ANYTHING I believe exist on this site and have my utmost respect - they listen, they think and they show it. They offer respect because it doesn't cost anything and is a sign of maturity.

You on the other hand, have a closed mind like a sprung trap. You pick on individual words and phrases. You insist you are right when it is blatantly obvious you have gaffed and then you demand to be treated like an adult. Adults behave differently, I assure you. And carrying a permanent hard-on around is not that behaviour.

@Toba:

How now? My choice of Mad_Max was deliberate. As I said, she's not main-stream christian but she's fair, honest and knowledgable so tricks of "dictates of your faith" cannot be used against her when all else fails and one seeks a prop.

nuclearboy:

Unsurpassable idiocy -> "Enigma-party"! Why don't you just say you don't know how to really dish it (yet your pathetic attempts give you to believe you are "gangster" and you also don't know how to take it? You'd find pity, believe me.

I wonder how I could ever have thought you were worth the effort.

People who do not agree with ANYTHING I believe exist on this site and have my utmost respect - they listen, they think and they show it. They offer respect because it doesn't cost anything and is a sign of maturity.

You on the other hand, have a closed mind like a sprung trap. You pick on individual words and phrases. You insist you are right when it is blatantly obvious you have gaffed and then you demand to be treated like an adult. Adults behave differently, I assure you. And carrying a permanent hard-on around is not that behaviour.

There can be only one logical explanation as to your ascerbic bitterness: and I am given to assume that it is rooted in the fact that you perceive that which you have taken as a personal conviction - to wit - christian lore - to be. . .well. . .not so infallible.

I am also certain that once a person feels that a treasured faith begins to appear inconsistent and illogical, such a person instinctively becomes violent, or insultive.

Trust me, brother - there is a better way indeed.

Now let me draw a treaty with you: The ridiculous fact that everything I say to you is greeted with needless personal insult does no credit whatsoever: I believe this is something that does not "edify," as you christians would say.

You say I cannot take insult: but believe me the lack of a thick skin is not my problem in the least: I simply have no taste for it - and I believe that it belittles the  person offering it. Now this is to be distinguished from stating your views strongly.

For example, you may state that the idea of a oneness of infinity as representative of God does not make sense, is a myth, is ill-conceived, is ignorant - those are fair and legitimate views. It will however cross the line of decency to begin to address the prophet of infinity as "a fool, daft, an id.iot, illiterate, etc - which has been your wont severally. I am certain that I have equally expressed strong views against christian doctrines that I do not believe in, but Nuclear, I will bet my left testicle that you cannot produce a quote wherein I have ever addressed you as "a fool, daft, an i.d.iot, etc." - despite your persistent offerings of such.

Now, I am not whining: understand me aright - I feel that such is distasteful, unncessary and belittles us. It is churlish, puerile, unbecoming, and I sincerely long to see the day that you will put such aside - and as I have always told you: focus on issues, and not on persons.

So; if you are game; I am: let us express our views with liberty: in strong and vigorous terms even: but let us agree that the sort of insult that has become your trademark of recent does nobody any credit and decisively renders a profitable relationship nothing but a kindergarten fist fight.

I am sincere in that wish: and i extend this invitation to you that you make a clean break with such going forward.

vescucci:

Enigma. Thank you for being so objective. That is a rare commodity.

Nuclearboy and Thehomer don't understand each other. What Nuke is saying is that not everything that science cannot prove NOW is false. It may be shown to be perfectly possible later. What thehomer is saying is what we can't prove NOW is likely not true and why should we take some dude's 2000 year old word for it anyway. Trouble is thehomer is absolutist since he's probably not religious and Nuclearboy is absolutist (as per the Christian faith) because he's a Christian. To me both stances make some sense but the atheist standpoint is superior because a Muslim will be equally faithful and also a Hindu and all others. If as Enigma wishes we treat Christianity specially, thehomer would be right to ask why. The Bible and the Quran and all other 'holy' are essentially nothing above Shakespearan literature as far as non-believers are concerned. That's why I refuse to separate Christianity from the broad brush of religion for this would be special pleading.
. . .

An incisive paragraph. But I am not absolutist in any way. I have simply decided to go where the evidence leads. So, if I'm going to make some conclusions, there must be good evidence behind it.

@DS:

I hear you.

In that case, let us revert to your decision to "go away" when on the Trinity thread (where my anger/aversion started). At that time, I asked you to explain the words of Jesus - "go ye into the world etc etc  etc baptising them in the name of the Father AND of the Son AND of the Holy Spirit". Tell me how that statement supports your decision that the Holy Spirit is "the energy or force of God".

My recollection in that thread was that when I asked the above, you disappeared only to go couch the same assertion in different terms elsewhere.

BTW, we address issues differently. Please remember that

What the above means is if you wish to be respected, show respect - we too can link the dots and make the connections. Rehashing things over and over is a waste of my time

nuclearboy:

@thehomer:

I wish one of you would have the nerve to try these warped arguments against the veracity of the spiritual with people who are not mainstream christians yet know their onions.

How are the arguments I've presented warped?

nuclearboy:

There's one here on NL - Mad_Max.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-436863.288.html#msg6872384 from which I quote -
I merely check science now and then to see how well it's coming along. That's why people who claim there's no God from 'science' are a real hoot. Understandable, but a hoot nevertheless. When it comes to the spiritual, science is far behind.
Unquote

Do me a favor and match your "knowledge" of science against her on that thread. But the problem you guys have is Christianity so I wager you'll find a way out of such a dare.

. . .

I'm not ready to put in the required effort in joining that thread. It's progressed quite a bit.

Deep Sight:

I think, most disrespectful for Christians on this forum, is NOT your insults on Christians but on the personae of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and our God and Father.

You say you do not use abusive words against us, but you cannot lie that you haven't used such of our God and our Faith. I do not say this gives Christians any license to attack you in turn, BUT consider this:
Personally, the reason why I no longer bother responding to some NL posters is that they attack other people's faiths and make a joke out of it, rather unobjectively. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone's faith. You need not hurl insults at our God, for any reason! I didnt know better when I joined NL but it's different now. The ONLY people I "attack" so-to-speak are those who call themselves Christians but are spreading poison that is obviously unbiblical.

Thus, your tongue-in-cheek (it appears to me) apology above, I'm afraid, hardly helps. It will only make it easier for you to hurl more insults at the Christian God since your venom reserved for those of us who believe, has been redacted. And then you return to say. "But what? I am not insulting YOU". But we identify with Christ. We are members of God's family now.

Ciao.

nuclearboy:

@DS:

I hear you.

In that case, let us revert to your decision to "go away" when on the Trinity thread (where my anger/aversion started). At that time, I asked you to explain the words of Jesus - "go ye into the world etc etc  etc baptising them in the name of the Father AND of the Son AND of the Holy Spirit". Tell me how that statement supports your decision that the Holy Spirit is "the energy or force of God".

I cannot begin to address that because it will derail the thread and I have been much accused of being a serial-derailer of threads. I will go back there if needs be.

BTW, we address issues differently. Please remember that

That is well noted indeed. But surely we can have limits of decency.

nuclearboy:

What the above means is if you wish to be respected, show respect - we too can link the dots and make the connections. Rehashing things over and over is a waste of my time

Indeed I do agree: but Nuc - here's a big problem which you must consider - and I say this with all sincerity - when a particular dogma inherently appears outlandish, merely stating the facts of the dogma itself: that is - merely reciting its canon alone, ends up sounding to the Christian as though one has insulted him. I believe this is at the root of what alot of people seem to think  - namely that I insult their religion.

So to give the present example: a simple statement such as -

Deep Sight:


We all, dear friends, can think of at least one rather obvious explanation for the phenomenon of pregnancy, can we not?

Or is pregnancy a mysterious extra terrestrial occurrence now as mysterious as black holes and dark matter?

Now indeed, let us reason together: from whence cometh pregnancy? Copulation? Or Ghosts?

SO! It is a ghost that did it. A Holy one. A Holy Ghost.

- - - - > will look like an insult to the Christian - despite the fact that it offers no insult and only states the facts of the particular belief.

I submit, sir - that it looks like an insult because it appears patently obvious that it is not very logical. Therefore merely stating the facts alone makes the holder of the belief feel as though he has been insulted.

That is no insult: i need you to understand that: if you feel that it is an insult to merely state your belief to you, then surely you need to re examine that belief?

So that is the problem that I encounter. Same thing with the deity of Christ. I ask how a Nazarene local could be called almighty God and immediately this appears like an insult.

There is a reason it appears so. I hope you get my drift.

InesQor:

Deep Sight:

I think, most disrespectful for Christians on this forum, is NOT your insults on Christians but on the personae of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and our God and Father.

You say you do not use abusive words against us, but you cannot lie that you haven't used such of our God and our Faith. I do not say this gives Christians any license to attack you in turn, BUT consider this:
Personally, the reason why I no longer bother responding to some NL posters is that they attack other people's faiths and make a joke out of it, rather unobjectively. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone's faith. You need not hurl insults at our God, for any reason! I didnt know better when I joined NL but it's different now. The ONLY people I "attack" so-to-speak are those who call themselves Christians but are spreading poison that is obviously unbiblical.

Thus, your tongue-in-cheek (it appears to me) apology above, I'm afraid, hardly helps. It will only make it easier for you to hurl more insults at the Christian God since your venom reserved for those of us who believe, has been redacted. And then you return to say. "But what? I am not insulting YOU". But we identify with Christ. We are members of God's family now.

Ciao.

But consider what I wrote to Nuke above: I do not set out to insult your religion. It simply happens that some beliefs are so incongruous that when the said belief are merely repeated verbatim to the holder of the belief, it sounds to him as though he has been insulted.

I state again: if the mere recital of the canon of your belief to you makes you feel insulted, then surely that is a pointer that there is something in those beliefs which simply does not sound right when stated.

So please I do not enjoy these things, and you all cannot deny that I have had a proclivity towards not returning tit for tat in terms of insult.

I have stated to you in the past: how can you accept a mere man to be God? Maybe the fact that I deliberately call him "carpenter" irks you. It should occur to you that I do that in order to emphasize my view that he is only a normal human being - with a normal human occupation. So that is no insult but a statement of fact. He did have a vocation and it was capentry, and later, teaching.

Then go over to all the threads on the scary acts of Yahweh in the old testament. Where are the insults to be found? We simply quote directly from the scripture the unmentionable things that were there in the old testament. Once such things are quoted, the christian will feel that he has been insulted.

I seriously urge you all to re examine a belief system which renders you insulted simply because its basic tenets are stated.

So look again - let is not derail the thread: let us focus - is christianity anti - intellectual?

The present example on the floor is the virfin birth. Simply stating that belief alone, will look again like an insult. That in itself is conclusive proof that it is indeed anti-intellectual. The "supra-intellectual" kite floated by Enigma is simply a disaster, is it not? I hope I am at liberty to say that: that is no insult.

Can you tell me that it is not anti-intellectual to believe that a woman was impregnated by a ghost?

Now please tell me in all searing and sincere honestly - please, please, please, please, please - and if only for the humber of "pleases" i have laboured to write, please tell me truly - if that story was told to you as part of african heritage, would you, Inesqor, not regard that as a myth?

nuclearboy:

I wonder how I could ever have thought you were worth the effort.

I have always felt Deep Sight is not worth the effort. His pretensions to being an "intellectual" can be very easily deconstructed by any informed person who has the time, inclination and interest.

Deep Sight:
. . .

You say I cannot take insult: but believe me the lack of a thick skin is not my problem in the least: I simply have no taste for it - and I believe that it belittles the  person offering it. Now this is to be distinguished from stating your views strongly.

This is sheer nonsense and an untruth to boot. Read this thread (which I have given before and there are others) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-454157.0.html
and count how many of your posts were gratuitous insults. If after that you still say throwing insults belittles the person offering it, then your own words contradict you. If after reading it you still say you do not throw insults then your own words will show you not merely to be a dissembler but in fact a liar.

@ all

The thread had been proceeding with reasonable (granted not absolute) politeness before Deep Sight showed up . . . says something, doesn't it?

Enigma:

For a start you are misrepresenting the passage and I'm afraid this is a very poor modus operandi which, sadly, is evident throughout your critique of Christianity. OK let me indulge with what you asked on this point in the first place i.e. what does the rest of the verse actually say?

I'm not interested in critiquing Christianity but simply pointing out your inconsistencies if you wish to subject your particular views of it to some sort of intellectualism.

Enigma:

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Do you see how the verse itself readily gives the lie to your interpretation? And the rest of the chapter is in the same tenor - which is why I asked you to read the chapter!

Did you not read the following verses about God describing himself and the threats that may follow if they rebel?

Enigma:

Glad not to have to spend any further time on this digression!
The issue here is whether the Christian faith teaches that people should not use conventional medicine. That is the issue. Now, don't take my word for an answer on the issue ---- go and study the Bible on the point and reach your own conclusion on what the Bible teaches on the point.

I already presented the example of the faith of the mustard seed or is that not in your Bible? Though I understand that some choose to ignore such statements.

Enigma:

Because you are trying to take back into science something which I claim to be outside science, simples. You think science is all, I do not think science is all.

Why do you claim it is outside of science considering the other possibilities that we know of?

Enigma:

Nah, I claim that I believe that one woman (Mary) gave birth to one offspring (Jesus) without fertilization. Yes, it is a physical occurrence from a scientific point of view and I leave it to science to keep working on how it could have happened; maybe in a thousand years' time they will come up with a plausible theory; in the meantime, I believe it anyway.

It is not the job of scientists to try to justify all claims that may be present in old texts. If you believe so strongly that your hypothesis is correct, then you should put in the required work if you want others to accept it as correct.

Enigma:

Funny some scientists can assume the truth of something when it suits them even though they have no proof yet; many will tell you there must be aliens out there ---- they will still claim that to be an intellectual proposition. But how is such a proposition different from faith based on reason?

You're making another mistake here. What they say is that it is possible that there could be extraterrestrial organisms out there. This conclusion is arrived at based on the fact that we know that there are organisms on one planet, and that there are billions of galaxies out there.
But they do not go about living their lives as though they may just run into one of them tomorrow.

Enigma:

So reasoning is now not "intellectual"? Only science is "intellectual"? Tell that to Plato, Socrates, Kant etc.

How have I implied this? Using circular arguments to demonstrate your point is simply an anti-intellectual method of proceeding.

Enigma:

Again, if intelligent reasoning is not "intellectual" for you, good luck!

Again, using circular arguments is anti-intellectual.

Enigma:

I find this unfortunate. Again, it demonstrates what I have been talking about ----- you need to go and read and understand the Bible first! That way, you really would not ask this type of question!

I'm simply wondering what your views are. Since it seems that after reading the Bible, my understanding is different from yours. So I simply want to find out your understanding.

Enigma:

Christians can legitimately express a view on how to run the government: we can say we prefer a democracy; we can say we do not want corruption; we can say we want the rule of law etc etc etc In fact, a lot of these fundamental principles were introduced by Christians and informed by Christianity.

I know Christians have opinions so I'm asking for your opinion.

Enigma:

However, Christians are not advocating a theocracy! To suggest otherwise would be another caricature/straw man!

It would not be a straw-man because we have seen such requests made using passages from the Bible. Unless you wish to label such Christians as caricatures".

Enigma:

I don't think I care to be considered an "intellectual" in the way that you want. However, I do know that my faith is indeed intellectual. I also know that Christianity is intellectual and even beyond that; it is supra-intellectual.

Again it's not what I want but what comes with the use of such a label.
I wonder how it is that you know your faith is intellectual while it seems to demonstrate the very opposite.

Enigma:

I have always felt Deep Sight is not worth the effort. His pretensions to being an "intellectual" can be very easily deconstructed by any informed person who has the time, inclination and interest.

I have never called myself "an intellectual." If there is something in my posts which makes you bring up that word, then that is your concern, and is quite suggestive.

This is sheer nonsense and an untruth to boot. Read this thread (which I have given before and there are others) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-454157.0.html
and count how many of your posts were gratuitous insults.

You are one man who really pushed me to the wall. At all; events I recall that you have said this before regarding your perceptions of my comments on that thread: and I recall that I offered an apology to you.

At all events, if of all the thousands of threads i have participated in, that remains the only thread you always refer, to, then that's not a bad record on my part, is it, brother?

@ all

The thread had been proceeding with reasonable (granted not absolute) politeness before Deep Sight showed up . . . says something, doesn't it?

And who offered the impoliteness? Go read again - certainly not me.

thehomer:

I'm not interested in critiquing Christianity but simply pointing out your inconsistencies if you wish to subject your particular views of it to some sort of intellectualism.

Well, it seems to me you are indeed making a critique of Christianity and I believe that it is fair to say that the modus operandi is as I mentioned.

Did you not read the following verses about God describing himself and the threats that may follow if they rebel?

1. Most of the entire chapter is about promises and rewards; a very small part of it is about threats.
2. As I said before, appeal to the intellect and a threat of punishment (and even a promise of reward) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Example: father says to seven year old son, do not play with the iron; it is dangerous, it can injure you; plus, if you do it I will smack you and if you don't do it I will give you chocolates.

I already presented the example of the faith of the mustard seed or is that not in your Bible? Though I understand that some choose to ignore such statements.

As I keep saying, the point at issue is whether Christianity teaches that a person should not take conventional medicine; it does not thus you need to reappraise your understanding of the 'mustard seed' passage.

Why do you claim it is outside of science considering the other possibilities that we know of?

It is outside of science because it does not account to science for its truth, reliability or believability.

It is not the job of scientists to try to justify all claims that may be present in old texts. If you believe so strongly that your hypothesis is correct, then you should put in the required work if you want others to accept it as correct.

Then let scientists continue with their own jobs/tasks. I have put in enough work to satisfy me and I do not ask you or any scientist to accept what I believe. I am very happy for you to doubt it.

You're making another mistake here. What they say is that it is possible that there could be extraterrestrial organisms out there. This conclusion is arrived at based on the fact that we know that there are organisms on one planet, and that there are billions of galaxies out there.
But they do not go about living their lives as though they may just run into one of them tomorrow.

So, based on various things that we do know, we accept the virgin birth.

How have I implied this? Using circular arguments to demonstrate your point is simply an anti-intellectual method of proceeding.

Again, using circular arguments is anti-intellectual.

My point is that reasoning is a valid intellectual exercise in its own right and it is one of the things that inform my acceptance of Christianity.

I'm simply wondering what your views are. Since it seems that after reading the Bible, my understanding is different from yours. So I simply want to find out your understanding.

This was about the punishments in the Bible (presumably the Old Testament); as I said before, if you have a proper understanding of Christianity and Christian doctrine, the question will not arise. Read for example what Christ said about a lot of these things 'you have heard x but I tell you. . .'

I know Christians have opinions so I'm asking for your opinion.

Christians, like others, are entitled to have political opinions. Sorry, if I do not proffer my opinion here beyond saying I do not seek a theocracy.

It would not be a straw-man because we have seen such requests made using passages from the Bible. Unless you wish to label such Christians as caricatures".

I do not think it can be reasonably denied that there are misrepresentations and caricatures of Christianity. The fact, for example, that some fools seek to use Christianity to justify apartheid, slavery or bestiality etc does not mean that Christianity or true Christian doctrine supports any of these things.

Again it's not what I want but what comes with the use of such a label.

Again, it does not matter much to me whether people consider me an "intellectual"; I know what I know; I realise how much I do not know and indeed I am humbled by how much I do not know. Paradoxically, this even encourages my Christian faith.

I wonder how it is that you know your faith is intellectual while it seems to demonstrate the very opposite.

My faith is supported by both reason and a personal experience of God; both of these are sufficiently "intellectual" in my view.

Enigma:


So, based on various things that we do know, we accept the virgin birth.

Can you give examples of such things?

My faith is supported by both reason and a personal experience of God; both of these are sufficiently "intellectual" in my view.

You say - "Based on both reason and a personal experience of God."

REASON -
1/ - - -> Is there any iota of reason in the supposition that a woman was impregnated by a Ghost? If so, can you explain? If not, then it should suffice to say your faith is based on faith - and not reason.

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF GOD -
2/ - - -> Did you have a personal experience/ revelation from God showing you the virgin birth to be true?

Please Enigma, the treaty I am making with Nuclearboy extends to you. I ask these questions for the purpose of genuine discussion. I beg you not to give me a predictable response along the lines of your contempt for my worldview - rather, let us sincerely continue to discuss. If you did not wish to discuss, afterall, you would not have opened the thread.

@ Nuke -

Recall we had once extensively discussed the word 'alma' - which is translated "virgin" - but in reality simply means "young woman."

Does that affect your view of the concept of the virgin birth?

Okay, so how does one crowbar intellectual reasoning into religious dogmatism without shattering dogmatism into smithereens? Intellectual reasoning and religious dogmatism are muitually exclusive, like fire and water. They can't coexist as a unit, so why try to bring the two together?

To be subjected to religious dogmatism (or any other kind of dogmatism for that matter) means to see things from a very limited and claustrophobic perspectives based on very narrow ideological presets. This is the exact opposite of the requirements necessary to facilitate any form of exercise in intellectual reasoning, is it not?  To be able to reason intellectually, one has to first of all free one's intellect(to a large degree) of any form of dogmatism. Without that, the exercise is a folly.