> I can imagine you going to a place where you absolutely > know something will be said that you absolutely disagree > with just so you can have the opportunity to voice an > opinion that you know the other person will absolutely > disagree with. Cheap entertainment, I guess.
>>>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>>news:jm31f55osv7a0td3uob270r3sjniroc6oh@4ax.com... >>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:43:07 -0500, Alan Browne >>>>> <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" >>>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was >>>>>>>>> miraculously impregnated. >>>>>>>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't >>>>>>>> accept.
>>>>>>> Interesting discussion...
>>>>>>> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years >>>>>>> after >>>>>>> Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.
>>>>>>> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
>>>>>>A few years ago, for sentimental reasons, I attended midnight Xmas >>>>>>service at the local Anglican church. Within minutes I was repulsed >>>>>>by >>>>>>the priest holding up the bible (after some reading from it) and >>>>>>declaring it "The Word of God".
>>>>> Why would you be repulsed by a priest's comment in a church about God?
>>>>> What had you expected the topic to be?
>>>>> Your reaction is like going to a political rally and being offended by >>>>> someone asking you to vote for them.
>>>>> -- >>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>>>In my case, I would call it stupid.
>>> Then it would be stupid of you to go to church. They tend to say >>> things like that in churches. Especially priests.
>>Exactly. - And I don't. But if I did, and the pastor were to say something >>like that, I would ask him afterward if he were a literalist, and if not, >>I >>would call him on his comment that the Bible was, "The word of God". I >>would >>probably point out the discrepancy between Matthew 19:24 and Ecclesiastes >>10:19 (for example), and ask him if God was just having a bad day when he >>wrote one or the other of those two contradicting passages.
> I can imagine that. Easily. I can imagine you going to a church with > the sole intent of starting an argument with a priest. I can imagine > you going to a place where you absolutely know something will be said > that you absolutely disagree with just so you can have the opportunity > to voice an opinion that you know the other person will absolutely > disagree with. Cheap entertainment, I guess.
Whatever gave you the idea that I would go to church with the sole intent of starting an argument with a priest? I seldom go to any church. In any case, I wouldn't be in one unless I was the guest of someone else, since I have no religion of my own, and, being someone else's guest, I wouldn't, "Start an argument with a priest". I would, however, bring to his/her attention that the Bible is very probably not the, "Word of God". And, I doubt seriously if there is any pastor that hasn't heard that position expressed before I came along. As a matter of fact, I have found very few positions of my own that most pastors are in serious disagreement with. It is surprising to me that as an atheist, I am so compatible with most men of the cloth. They are quick to tell me that their beliefs are not logical, but are matters of, "faith". Although I have no, "faith", I can easily understand that position.
>>> I wouldn't, "Start an argument with a priest".
>>>I would, however, bring to his/her attention that the Bible is very >>>probably not the, "Word of God".
>> Only Bill, and perhaps John Navas, would not see the conflict between >> those two sentences.
>> -- >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>Only Tony can't tell the difference between, "Start an argument with", and >"Bring to the attention of".
Sure I do. "Start an argument with" is a straight-forward and honest statement of intent. "Bring to the attention of" is a disingenuous opening that allows the person to feign surprise at ending up in an argument.
>>>> I wouldn't, "Start an argument with a priest".
>>>>I would, however, bring to his/her attention that the Bible is very >>>>probably not the, "Word of God".
>>> Only Bill, and perhaps John Navas, would not see the conflict between >>> those two sentences.
>>> -- >>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>Only Tony can't tell the difference between, "Start an argument with", and >>"Bring to the attention of".
> Sure I do. "Start an argument with" is a straight-forward and honest > statement of intent. "Bring to the attention of" is a disingenuous > opening that allows the person to feign surprise at ending up in an > argument.
You mean, "......that allows Tony Cooper to feign surprise at ending up in an argument." Speak for yourself, and not for all persons. I have had many interesting discussions with men of the cloth, which rarely ended up in arguments.
>> Sure I do. "Start an argument with" is a straight-forward and honest >> statement of intent. "Bring to the attention of" is a disingenuous >> opening that allows the person to feign surprise at ending up in an >> argument.
> You mean, "......that allows Tony Cooper to feign surprise at ending > up in an argument." Speak for yourself, and not for all persons. I > have had many interesting discussions with men of the cloth, which > rarely ended up in arguments.
Only because they're too polite to tell you what a dick you are.
>>> Sure I do. "Start an argument with" is a straight-forward and honest >>> statement of intent. "Bring to the attention of" is a disingenuous >>> opening that allows the person to feign surprise at ending up in an >>> argument.
>> You mean, "......that allows Tony Cooper to feign surprise at ending >> up in an argument." Speak for yourself, and not for all persons. I >> have had many interesting discussions with men of the cloth, which >> rarely ended up in arguments.
> Only because they're too polite to tell you what a dick you are.
No, it's because, unlike you, they are, for the most part, not dumb liberals, so I understand where they are coming from.
>>>> Sure I do. "Start an argument with" is a straight-forward and honest >>>> statement of intent. "Bring to the attention of" is a disingenuous >>>> opening that allows the person to feign surprise at ending up in an >>>> argument.
>>> You mean, "......that allows Tony Cooper to feign surprise at ending >>> up in an argument." Speak for yourself, and not for all persons. I >>> have had many interesting discussions with men of the cloth, which >>> rarely ended up in arguments.
>> Only because they're too polite to tell you what a dick you are. >No, it's because, unlike you, they are, for the most part, not dumb >liberals, so I understand where they are coming from.
"Dumb liberals" like, say, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton ...
|
