₦airaland Forum

Thank you Nuclear.

I am indeed aware that the Rabbi is obviously arguing what would be expected from the Jewish perspective: he is, after all, a Rabbi. I am nonetheless happy to note that you did not allow this from distracting you from approaching the meat of the matter.

I would like you to concentrate on that verse again - (see portions highlighted) -

"There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and[b] the way of a man with a young woman [/b] [b’alma].  This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.”

Do you think it probable that the writer would be referring in his analogy to a virgin - that which is unpoilt - and deploy that same analogy to describe the ways of an adulterous woman? ? ? ?

Think sincerely about that!

Secondly - but of no less noteworthiness - is the fact that the analogy he draws talks about leaving no effect; no trace.

STOP!

If he was referring to a virgin, that would not fly because after a virgin is disvirgined, there is indeed a major trace: the rupture of the closure. However if the woman is not a virgin, then such evidence is not seen - there is no rupture, and therefore no trace. This can only mean that the "alma" he used in his analogy was "young woman" in the sense of one who is not a virgin. This is further evinced by his immediate comparison therewith to an adulterous woman.

These are two serious thoughts I believe you should reflect on. It matters not that this is one out of seven: what it does show us is that "alma" as used there COULD NOT refer to "virgin" and this flies against your claim that every instance of the usage refers to virgins.

Accepted. But such extreme self denial (of the nature of the fasting he undertook) for the causes he was advocating is not something I would imagine can be superficially done. It requires belief. Conviction even, I would say. But I do understand that which you have said.

Alright. Since I have already written an epistle in the previous thread on my view, I doin't want to simply repeat myself. This is a view from a Jewish Scolar & Rabbi on the word "Alma."

What do you think of his argument?

For nearly two millennia the church has insisted that the Hebrew word alma can only mean “virgin.”  The church must hold this position because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.”  The first Gospel quotes this well-known verse to provide the only “Old Testament” proof text for the supposed virgin birth of Jesus.  The stakes are high for Christendom, because if the Hebrew word alma does not mean virgin, Matthew is misquoting the prophet Isaiah, and both a key tenet of Christianity and the credibility of the first Gospel collapses.

How accurate is this Christian claim?  The place to explore this issue is in the Jewish scriptures.  If the Hebrew word alma means virgin then each usage in the Bible must be either a clear reference to a virgin or at least be ambiguous.  The word alma appears in the Jewish scriptures seven times.  If even one reference clearly refers to a woman who is not a virgin, then Matthew’s rendition of Isaiah 7:14 becomes untenable.

One of the places where the uncommon Hebrew word alma appears in the Bible is in Proverbs 30:18-20 which reads,

There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman [b’alma].  This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.”

In the above three verses, King Solomon compares a man with an alma to three other things: an eagle in the sky, a serpent on a rock, and a ship in the sea.  What do these three things all have in common?  They leave no trace.  After the eagle has flown across the sky, determining that the eagle had ever flown there is impossible.  Once a snake has slithered over a rock, there is no way to discern that the snake had ever crossed there (as opposed to a snake slithering over sand or grass, where it leaves a trail).  After a ship has moved across the sea, the water comes together behind it and there is no way to tell that a ship had ever passed through there.  Similarly, King Solomon informs us that once a man has been with an alma there is also no trace of the fornication that had occurred between them.  Therefore, in the following verse (verse 20) King Solomon explains that once this adulterous woman has eaten (a metaphor for her fornication), she removes the trace of her sexual activity by exclaiming, “I have done no wrong.”  The word alma clearly does not mean virgin.

In the same way that in the English language the words “young woman” have no bearing on whether virginity is present or not, in the Hebrew language there is no relationship between the words alma and virgin.  On the contrary, it is usually a young woman who bears children.  Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin birth, he would have used the word betulah1 not alma.  Betulah is a common word in the Jewish scriptures, and can only mean “virgin.”

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.htm

I think it is rather very obvious indeed that the hebrew "alma" means young woman - and your argument that it refers to virgins only is flawed, as shown by the Rabbi in his argument above. In the previous thread I pointed out to you that ALL young women were expected to be chaste, and as such, expected to be virgins when not married - and for this reason once one was an "alma" one was also expected to be a virgin. This is a social presumption and does not in any way mean that the word "alma" meant "virgin" for it does not. It means 'young woman" - and has been used in the OT to refer to even a woman having s.ex!

In the light of this, you must agree that it is certainly anti-the-evidence (if not anti-intellectual) to insist that, contrary to the known laws of nature, Jesus was delivered by a virgin.

MyJoe:
Mohandas “Mahatma” Gandhi at about the same time and even long after could not rise above these wretched sentiments he was born with, a matter I have had cause to elaborate on in another thread in this section not too long ago, yet the world worships the sound of his name as though he were some blend of Jesus and Vishnu.

Although you have already in the past extensively discussed Ghandi's failings in this regard, let us also note that the man did do quite some good work with regard to addressing some of the ills related to untouchability -

In September 1932, while in jail, Gandhi undertook a "fast unto death" to improve the status of the Hindu Untouchables. The British, by permitting the Untouchables to be considered as a separate part of the Indian electorate, were, according to Gandhi, countenancing an injustice. Although he was himself a member of an upper caste, Gandhi was the great leader of the movement in India dedicated to eradicating the unjust social and economic aspects of the caste system.

http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/gandhi.htm

The advancement of equality in the caste system is largely due to Gandhi. Gandhi was a member of the merchant caste. He was later called Mahatma, meaning "great soul". He went beyond the divisions of castes and took an untouchable child into his own home, breaking all requirements of tradition. The child was called the untouchables harijan (children of God). Gandhi persuaded the Indian National Congress to adopt a resolution in support of harijan uplift (Lamb 145), and published a magazine called Harijan, which was devoted to the welfare of the untouchables.

http://home.snu.edu/~dwilliam/s97/india/gandhi.htm

His requirement on his farms in South Africa that everyone share in such tasks comes up in an early scene in the movie Gandhi. Since Gandhi equated suffering with holiness, he saw the Untouchables as hallowed by their miserable treatment and so called them "Harijans" (Hari=Vis.n.u). Later Gandhi went on fasts in the hope of improving the condition of the Untouchables, or at least to avoid their being politically classified as non-Hindus.

http://www.friesian.com/caste.htm

Now, I do not propose to argue that which you have already conclusively shown in an earlier thread - namely that the man indeed had his failings in this regard especially in his youth in South Africa - but I think it is unfair to state that he "could not rise above these wretched sentiments," in light of the foregoing. I think he did some work to improve the system.

You needn't refer me to all that you already did refer me to in the earlier thread. I have taken note of all that and I quite agree he seemed rather bigoted especially in the earlier years. I only ask you to also take a balanced view by acknowledging the positive work that he did do in his later life which helped to create greater unity.

Lol! Will revert.

MyJoe:
Excellent. I was making the same point when I talked earlier about Odysseus and what we will achieve if we travel at light speed and bend time as we know it.

Do you really think time can be bent?

vescucci:
DS, I think when you continually shimmy around issues, people will have a right to address your person.

I feel that this is unfair. Perhaps you are able to cite instances? Disagreement is not "shimmying around issues." I really don't know how you can make such a weighty insinuation of dishonesty and duplicity regarding me.

nuclearboy:
Where's DeepSight?

Now the Alma issue is laid out, he'll disappear without comment though active elseplace as though it wasn't him that started the issue. 6 months hence, it will be brought up someplace else! Makes one wonder what the whole thing is about!

Hello Nuclear -

Goodday, and welcome to a new lease of life!

I raised the Alma issue because the virgin birth was already being discussed on this thread as an example of an anti-intellectual belief.

So it will not derail this thread (as will a discussion on the Trinity) - Nevertheless i have a feeling that the discussion on this thread has kinda veered off that. So I leave the choice to you - do we open a fresh thread to discuss this once and for all - or do we continue here?

Your dear and most loving yonger brother;
In peace and friendship always;

S.

thehomer:
I think one might as well call this meditation rather than using a loaded word like "prayer".

You are certainly free to have your choice of words. To the extent that I view such as communication with an element that is beyond me, I see no fallacy in using the word "prayer." Meditation is more of a calm inward reflection which may or may not reach out to something beyond the individual. I think that prayer is distinct in that one reaches out to something beyond the individual.

Hello –

I am sorry for the extended delay in continuing, Ilosiwaju. I have been thinking how best to convey my thoughts.

ilosiwaju:
Deists(not exactly you) often believe that the creator has some special intentions, such as making the universe suitable for intelligent life. The mere assertion that the cause of the universe is capable of having intentions is highly specific. Do you subscribe to this? On what evidence?

Now this is a most delicate matter which I hope I will be able to discuss with clarity.

The root of the matter regarding God’s intentions from my particular deistic point of view is grounded in the question – “What is God?”

I have already said in very simple terms above that for me God is that eternal and unchangeable element which is responsible for all that exists.

Now to be honest with you I may simply say that my view is that the very nature of that eternal element leads it to manifest in certain ways. Those manifestations are what you will see as “intentions” – but they are not, in my view, intentions in the specific sense. They are only intentions in the sense that the nature of that element produces certain natural manifestations of the element. So we should start by having a look at what the nature of the element is.

I believe that the eternal element which I refer to as God logically is –

1. One
2. Indivisible
3. Eternal/ Timeless
4. Unchangeable/ Constant

Without going into a slew of explanations, I hope it will suffice to simply say that the nature of that element transmits an imprint into everything that exists as a consequence of that element. In this regard the fact that the element is ONE means that everything that exists as a consequence of that element bears within it the imprint of oneness – and the imprint of oneness is simply a magnetic attraction towards that ONE eternal element. That attraction finds expression in the oneness of all things, the pressure towards harmony and the grand cycles of all existence which all root back to the ONE eternal element. It would thus emerge that the nature of that element thus inherently implies an eternal drive towards oneness and this manifests as harmony.

As such it is not that I conceive of God sitting some place and saying to himself “Let there be harmony and oneness of all things” – rather it is that the inherent nature of that ONE eternal element causes a oneness of all things. I hope I am making some sense.

The deist god is unknown and unknowable, since it doesn’t interfere in the operation of the universe. Given that, what can you say about it, and how could you ever rely on the truth of any opinion on it? Theists, at least, claim that their deity interferes from time to time. As crazy as that may be, it is at least a logically sound argument as to how they know their ideas are right,

I think it is wrong to say that the Deist God is unknown or unknowable. While it is generally agreed that that eternal element that is God will always remain a mystery, I believe that the building block of Deism is the approach through reason and logic. Accordingly I believe that whilst God may eternally remain a mystery, some things about God may be reasoned and understood. Such as that God is ONE and ETERNAL for example. If one will calmly reflect on these two attributes alone, there is actually a great deal about God that may be rationally inferred from these alone.

Consequently there is no question of “relying on the truth of any opinion” about God in my view – it is rather that there is simply that which I may sit down and meditate on and with a calm sense of both reason and intuition, set within myself as my understanding of that eternal element.

Regarding the general question of interference as claimed by many theists, I cannot agree with such or share the same views. An eternal and unchangeable element such as God is said to be cannot conceivably be taking holiday trips to the Bahamas to tinker with that which it has caused to be there. The entire idea of interference is to me simply internally inconsistent. For me it simply does not square with the immutability of God. I just cannot imagine a timeless transcendental being involved in such interference.

Can this god be observed? Is there a way to receive reliable information about its existence, purpose, or attributes? How can you define it to a useful degree.

God is to be observed in everything that exists and the nature of God may be seen within the Book of Life. The Book of Life is everything around you, and everything that exists in eternity.

I would like to tender sincere and unreserved apologies to all the Christians on this forum who may have been offended by my persistent criticism of some Christian teachings.

I have done so in the past not out of a desire to mock, as may be perceived, but because I feel very strongly about those teachings.

However I realize that I have been unduly militant in this respect and given that these are matters of faith I had no right to sometimes be as belligerent as I have been in the past.

I would like that we continue to discuss issues of interest without the unpleasantness that has at times been generated in the past: admittedly owing to some of my excesses.

PS - I would like you to know that I could never mock God, the Holy Spirit, or Jesus, as you claimed.

You know I believe in GOD, so it would be odd for me to mock God: that which I have admittedly mocked is the religious ontology of God, which I am painfully at odds with.

As per the Holy Spirit, I would be surprised if you view my assertion that it is not a personal sentient being as an attempt to mock it.

As per Jesus - I could never mock him. He remains one of the great teachers of truth to have walked the earth in my view: what I have admittedly mocked is the perspective that he is God - and you know I am at odds with this. I hope that while you take umbrage at the denial of the deity of christ, others, such as myself, are equally pained by what we see as amounting to blasphemy:: for in our view no human may be called God. Different perspectives, I guess - but i just want you to know I have not, and would never mock Jesus the man. What I have railed against is the assertion that he is God.

InesQor:
Deep Sight, dont make me have to search out and uproot your insults meted out to our God. There you stand, saying you never did. Dont get me started, abeg.

IMHO there are people who make statements about Christianity AS THEY SEE IT, non-condescendingly, objectively though from a non-Christian perspective. Deep Sight is NOT one of them, and I think that might even go without saying,
MyJoe is one of them. M_nwankwo is another. Krayola is yet another. Pastor AIO is yet another (though that conclusion is dodgy. You may need to excavate some levels of wit to see the embedded insults in his case).

On the other hand, we have people who EXTEND what the Bible says and add tripe to it, thus slurring it WHILE denying its authority. They take every chance to mock God, the Holy Spirit, Jesus and everything the Word stands for. These ones, I gradually learnt not to converse with except my back is to the wall, like now. T[b]he Hall of Fame has Abuzola, Olabowale, Jenwitemi, Mudley, Deep Sight, and recently noPuqEater.[/b]

Somewhere in the middle is someone like Mazaje who fluctuates his patterns between the two parties. And maybe Toneyb and huxley, pretending to take the information out of context.

My point is:
You don't have to hurl insults at a worldview because you disagree with it. You should learn to disagree politely. Take a cue from all those NON-Christians that I mentioned in the first category.

As to the "inconsistencies" you are seeing in Christianity, let me tell you the truth. It is a thing of choice. Christianity is a SOLE race. Whatever nuclearboy or Enigma or Aletheia or Viaro says, cannot help my faith on it's way to success UNLESS I ALLOW it to.

Faith is a personal, intellectual matter. Even if I have an explanation for all your questions, only I would understand it the way I received it from source. When you are ready to allow yourself to understand, you will understand it too. It's not all types of intellect that can be distributed. There are some things you just have to critically examine and find out for yourself using your, for lack of another word, supra-intellect.

Well, I think you have a point. For all that has been said, I could have been less militant in opposition to that which I disagree with, especially as this is a matter of faith.

I tender full and unreserved apologies if I have been unseemly in this regard; and will endeavour to be more circumspect in this regard.

On that note I hope you will forgive me if my perspectives have been delivered in a less than brotherly fashion in the past: and I invite you to start to rebuild whatever we may have lost in that regard.

P.S. Everyone, Viaro said Hi this afternoon. He's been really very busy but will pop into Nairaland again very soon. 

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaayyyy! ! ! !

@ 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?

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.

KAG:
What causes virtual particles? As in what - physical something - causes them? By they way, virtual particles emerge into something from nothing.

Que?

Oh Kag! Are you not tired of missing the mark on this subject?

You say that "virtual particles emerge into something from nothing." - CAN YOU PLEASE SHOW US WHERE THIS MYSTERIOUS "NOTHING" FROM WHICH THEY EMERGE IS? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Because the science of the matter shows that they emerge in a quantuum vacuum - and it has conclusively been proved that a quantuum vacuum is NOT nothing. It is something. So I may advance to you a more scientific surmise that they emerge from the quantuum vacuum - which is NOT nothing - as proven - and as already accepted by you -

Quote from: KAG on May 27, 2010, 12:18 AM

Vacuums have a specific place in physics and in this instance they indicate something

You thus have NO BASIS for your statement that they emerge "from nothing."

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.

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:
@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.

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.

^^^ 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.

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.

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.

^^^ 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!

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.

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.

Indeed Beneli had also had the following to say -

@KAG,
Your understanding of the uncertainty principle, virtual particles etc is totally flawed. Virtual particles do NOT emerge from nothing. In my initial response to you i had contexualised their behaviour as being within 'a complex space-time continuum' because their unusual behaviour-the way they oscillate between a form of matter ('particles) and a form of energy (waves)-at the level of quantum physics makes some scientists to consider their relationship to the whole concept of parallel universes, extradimensional space etc. Some have even posited that they are the 'graviton's being postulated to be the means by which gravity 'seeps out of our space-time continuum'.

Which is why I am surprised that KAG will still revert months later deploying the same argument in proof of decontextualized existences - which are in themselves illogical and inconceivable within a finite universe.

vescucci:
@Deep Sight. I don't really understand this vacuum thingie you guys are talking about. I don't understand why it is impossible for a perfect vacuum to exist. I'd say it is only a matter of scale. A hydrogen atom has its nucleus relatively very far from its electron. It is comparable to putting a baseball in the middle of a stadium, I think. What would you say occupies the space between an atom's nucleus and its electron. I dunno if I'm uneducated about this. So you guys better explain.

KAG was attempting in a previous discourse quite a while ago to prove to me that it is possible for something to emerge from nothing.

I sated to Kag -

Let me just assist you one last time to see the firm reason you are not to be taken seriously in this discussion.

The question was if it is possible for something to emerge from nothing. I stated that it is not possible: you claimed that it is possible. In defense of your claim you cited virtual particles in a quantum vacuum.

SHE THEN SAID -

KAG:
Virtual particles emerge from nothing into the universe.

I then informed her -

Thereafter I pointed out to you that quantum vacuums are not “nothing” and as such your claim that virtual particles arise from “nothing” could not be sustained. I did also point out to you that scientifically there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum – namely that it is only a philosophical precept. ONLY after I had pointed these out did you revert conceding –

And she retracted here -

KAG:
Vacuums have a specific place in physics and in this instance they indicate something

- - - thereby conceding that Vacuums are not nothing.

She then went on to say –

KAG:
What has been said also is that short of the probability of uncertainty, a vacuum possesses nothing.

To which I responded -

WHICH IS AN OUTRIGHT FALSITY BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS THAT – THE SAID VACUUMS HAVE GASEOUS PRESSURE – ONLY MUCH LOWER THAN NORMALLY OBSERVED ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE

She retracted -

KAG:
That was my fault. I should have been more specific. It was sloppy on my part.

KAG:
I apologised for being sloppy in my depiction of vacuums.

I had further stated that the fact of the matter is simple and clear for all to see: that KAG's claim that virtual particles EMERGE from “nothing” IS SCIENTIFICALY FALSE – AS THE VACUUM YOU REFER TO IS NOT NOTHING – AND THIS HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY PROVED

To regurgitate this point for you, Vesc, please note that quantuum vacuums -

1. Contain a time-energy uncertainty

2. Contain low gaseous pressure

And as such it is conclusive that they are not "nothing" and are not "perfect vacuums." In this regard please note the following -

Wikipedia -

In everyday usage, vacuum is a volume of space that is essentially empty of matter, such that its gaseous pressure is [size=16pt]much less than atmospheric pressure[/size].[1] The word comes from the Latin term for "empty". Even putting aside the complexities of the quantum vacuum, [size=16pt]the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and never is observed in practice.[/size] Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they simply call "vacuum" or "free space", and [size=16pt]use the term partial vacuum to refer to real vacuum.[/size] The Latin term in vacuo is also used to describe an object as being in [size=16pt]what would otherwise be a vacuum.[/size]

So KAG's argument that virtual particles are uncaused simply cannot fly once it is shown that they do not emerge from nothingness, but from something.

KAG:
Really? What causes virtual particles?

Before I respond to anything else that you have written, let me just express my shock that you could write this YET AGAIN.

You and I have been over the virtual particles argument very thoroughly and it was conclusively shown to you that virtual particles DO NOT arise from nothing - contrary to what you claimed. Indeed I recall showing you - and you agreed with apologies - that quantum vacuums within which virtual particles emerge ARE NOT nothing - and that indeed there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum that has ever been observed.

It is therefore beyond bizzare that you would yet revert with this argument.

Dear Ilosiwaju –

I am most sorry I did not attend to your queries earlier – it has been a little hectic. Just a little. Like I said earlier, I would like us to walk gently together – a mutual journey of discovery, and hopefully we can “edify” each other, as the Christians love to say!

ilosiwaju:
You believe in God but not exactly the Allah or Yahweh or Jehovah of the 3 monotheistic faiths. Tell us more about the deist's God or "World Architect".

Well perhaps I am splitting hairs, but I think it is important to note that there is no such thing as “the Deist’s God” any more than there is “the Christian God” or “the muslim God.” There is simply GOD. And then there are perspectives of GOD.

GOD is simply that eternal constant which is the basis of all existence.

Now as humans, we doubtless have different perspectives of GOD: we agree nonetheless, being theists, that God IS.

Recall the story about the 12 blind men touching different parts of an elephant. They all described the elephant in terms of the part that they were touching. This is a great way to view humanity’s perception of God. Our vision, being finite, is analogous to being blind in these matters. We however, being alive, have a “feel” of God, and we define our perceptions according to that feel. It needn’t be that we are wrong if we disagree: it could simply be that we are each in touch with different aspects of GOD, much like the 12 blind men around the elephant.

What is key however, is that we should actually be touching or “feeling out” the elephant before we arrive at our limited perceptions of what the elephant is like. The tragedy is that the vast majority of religious people do not even “feel” out the elephant as the 12 blind men did: they simply sit back and listen to what other people who have not felt the elephant say about the elephant – and they accept such as inviolable truth about the elephant.

That is the tragedy and irony of the acceptance of religious dogma.

How does the word God sound to you? The earth creator (above) or a title for universal dynamics devoid of myths and practices

To be honest with you, it is a frightening word – “GOD.” People just bandy about the word carelessly. If one has stopped to reflect for even an instant on what such a primordial founding element of all existence could be, one would be shattered by the sheer mystery, enormity and wonder of it all.

And in that quiet moment of reflection – we do not gain full understanding of the mystery – but we can cultivate and harbor a sense of wonder at that grand mystery which remains the eternal and constant unchangeable source of all things.

That should fill a man with a sense of wonder at all that exists, and that sense of wonder is what I understand to be true worship. Nothing else. Not shouting and singing in church. Not kneeling down to pray. Not speaking in tongues. Not paying tithes. Not reading the bible, quoran, or any other book. Nothing but just that – a sense of reverent wonder.

Many people are like children. We feel alone and scared in this vast universe. We need to hold on to the belief that someone is looking out for us. That is sometimes in psychology called the Father Syndrome, or something of the sort, I forget now. That is the reason that people have taken that eternal sacred sense of wonder and compressed it into the image of a grand old man sitting in the skies looking out for them. That image has formed the basis for the ontology of God as perceived by the religionist. No such image is necessary for the truly liberated and mature human spirit. Such a spirit recognizes that God is simply ineffable, and therein lies the beauty and the wonder – the worship – for such a spirit.

I will be back on the rest, but please do let me have your own thoughts. Cheers.

If you accept what you have accepted, then you have no reason for presuming that "begat" did not refer to direct parenthood.

The only reason I can see is your desire to create an excuse for a genealogy that you fear does not add up.

Or can you advance a logical reason?

InesQor:
@vescucci : You should be clear, bro. Which of the genealogies? The fact that they are not both equal should tell you something.

Here's a quote by Martin Luther
I hope you see the point. The ancient word "begat" does not necessarily mean a direct parenthood.

Etmyology: Begat:
bef. 1000; ME begeten ( see be-, get); r. ME biyeten, OE begetan; c. Goth bigitan, OHG bigezzan
Meaning: occasion, engender, effect, generate.

Adam GENERATED the seed after him, leading through paths to David, who GENERATED the seed after him. . . etc etc

It describes descendants of Adam, and links Christ through the generations, showing how God chose select people to line up and produce the Messiah. I believe (as Jewish tradition too has shown) there are some members (though in the minority by number) who were listed in the genealogy but were RELATED to the genealogy and were not necessarily direct ascendants or ancestors.

Maybe I am wrong, but this is what I believe.

Thanks

Jesus wept. Another terrible concocted excuse.

The plain fact that within the genealogy SEVERAL direct parents are mentioned in the context of the use puts paid to this excuse of yours.