The Virgin Birth

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:You were probably excommunicated a long time ago. Just because no one made a public excommunication doesn’t mean you’re not. Sorry, you’re not a public enough figure for a bishop to send out a statement about you.[/quote]I actually agree with Chris in this instance. My point is not about people like you who leave. That’s the natural response of a worldling when confronted with the word of God in a faithful church as well. We don’t have to kick most people out. They DO NOT want to hear the convicting sanctifying Word of the Lord preached to them in purity and power. My point is churches where the Word of the Lord IS NOT preached in purity OR power so that all manner of reprobate abominable unconverted pagans are perfectly comfortable sitting in their pews and calling themselves Christians.

The Catholic gospel itself has no power which explains the vast majority of them showing zero evidence of actual Christian conversion and tons of evidence of the very external religious busy-ness that Jesus condemned.[/quote]

Busy-ness? That is laughable. First, by referencing the Catholic Gospel? What are you referring to? Are you referring to what some refer to as the hermeneutical of discontinuity, where they claim there is two or split magisterium (basically someone believe there is the magisterium with the bishops/tradition and there is the magisterium of theologians)? Or, are you referring to the Gospel that flows from the traditions of the Church taught by Jesus and the Apostles?

If you referring to the former, I can understand your confusion. That’s what you get when you don’t teach theologians how to be, well…theologians. That is what we got when theologians fancied themselves bishops or more correctly-though not intentionally-protestants (their own pope). It came from an idea that after Vatican II, we found new parts of the Gospel we had forgot to teach, and that basically the Gospel was a difference before & during and after Vatican II. This is of course heresy, from both the liberal and traditionalist sides that they fall into possibly.

Now, if that is the “Catholic Gospel” you are referring to? Then sure, you have a point. That has as much power as a wet noodle, I’ve seen it come in a variety of forms…sock puppet sermons, magic show sermons, communist manifesto thumping liberal priests, and a dozen others. However, you have made a misnomer, because that is not the Catholic Gospel…that is an imposer of the Gospel, brought in by the Evil One, that is properly called the Devil’s Gospel. If you’re talking about the actual Catholic Gospel, you’re a sitting duck. Because this Gospel is the Gospel who has inspired and filled every martyr, virgin, saint, mother, father to be a self-gift to others in sanctifying love and die to oneself for the greater glory of God and the Kingdom. Including two dudes who died in Rome, St. Peter and Paul. This is not a Gospel of busy-ness. This is the Gospel of Be still and know that I Am the Lord. This is the Gospel that taught me Peter had nothing to say besides it is Good to be here, Lord. This is the Gospel that taught Catholics how the world can’t not fidget for five seconds while playing with their phones and sexting, but we can sit in a dark chapel for 30, 60, or 90 minutes (or, 270 minutes if your John Paul II) at a time and stare at the face of Jesus and just be present with the Lord.

Everyone has failed God, except the Church. The Church can’t fail God, individual members can of course sin we’re fallen men and we have, more than we can atone for. But to say the Church failed God is saying God failed, Jesus failed because he didn’t actually protect the Church by sending the Paraclete.

Crap like evolution, well I think crap like Total Depravity is more nonsense then Evolution. Ecumenical inclusivism you’ll have to explain to me. Because I don’t even think inclusivism is a word.

Of who’s founding?

[quote]Some so outrageous it is beyond belief. That is “THE CHURCH’S” fault. She is an unfaithful adulterous bride (the visible "church Chris), just like Israel. Praise be to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, HE IS FAITHFUL!! AND there is a remnant. Just like Israel. Who have not bowed the knee to Baal. Most of them ARE NOT in my church before anybody goes off thinking I’m making some schismatic claim of exclusivity.

There is no shortage of churches in this country. There IS a choking shortage of actual Christians living the life of Christ in the earth. I do pray for my beloved United States of America. The answers are not in DC. They’re in your house.
[/quote]

Actually there is no shortage of Churches, well because there is and only needs to be one and really because there is one Church whom the Bridgeroom promised he’d be with til the end of the time, the Catholic Church. All I read on this last part is you basically denying Jesus’ promises. I’d really love to know when Jesus stopped being with his Bride the Catholic Church. Because I don’t really think Jesus meant Pastor Chris’ ecclesiastical community when he referred to the Church.

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Here Pat this is probably the best essay on the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument written by Alexander R. Pruss from the Blackwell companion to Natural Theology edited by William Lane Craig and JP Moreland. I haven’t read it yet but plan to soon.

https://bearspace.baylor.edu/Alexander_Pruss/www/papers/LCA.html
(101 page essay on the Kalam Cosmological argument from the same book as well) Luke Muehlhauser

Warning this takes up 87 pages in the book. If one does not feel like going in depth this has a reasonable treatment of it.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/[/quote]

Thanks Joab, they have been duly bookmarked…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Pat, why does it follow from, “we don’t really know or can’t really explain why there’s something versus nothing,” to “there must be a god,” or, more specifically, “there must be a christian god.”[/quote]

I don’t think anyone is arguing that theistic proofs lead necessarily and exclusively to the God (in and of themselves).[/quote]

Well, yes and no. The logic indicates something we would consider “God like” exists, what you want to call it doesn’t change it’s nature. It’s a being “with a particular set of skills” :)[/quote]

Da fuk this have to do with a virgin giving birth to a child?

Anyone who believes that can happen, in 6 AD or whatever, is insane.

There was no virgin birth and the only thing true about Jesus is that he preached as a rabbi.

The people who wrote the gospels are the greatest trolls who ever lived, except maybe for Mohammed.
[/quote]

You make stupid look brilliant. Ad hominems are the only way to go. You add nothing to any argument except pervasive and intense stupidity. I pity you, and if your married I damn sure pity her.

Well said, Chris.

I wish I had time to add my piece tonight but as usual you’ve done a better job of it than I could in any case.

I keep wondering where this Catholic Church is that doesn’t roundly and wholly condemn homosexuality among all manner of sexual immorality. I ain’t been to that one.

Back before my wife and I were married I got what can only be described as a full verbal scourging from my priest in confession, when I confided to him that my wife to be sometimes spent the night at my house. You had better believe there was no groovy liberalism going on in that confessional. I hadn’t felt so ashamed since high school, and I was 27 years old.

Situations like this, based upon actual first-hand experience, may contribute just a teensy bit to why I don’t take this particular angle of Tirib’s argument against Catholic sanctity too seriously.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< are you referring to the Gospel that flows from the traditions of the Church taught by Jesus and the Apostles? >>>[/quote]I’m referring to the false gospel that flows from Catholic (big C) traditions that are a perversion and an affront to the true Gospel taught by Jesus and through the apostles. But I am on my way out the door though I just walked in. I understand Cortes’s frustration. You’re not understanding my point Cortes which I will take responsibility for. Being made to feel guilty was done by the pharisees very “religiously”.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< are you referring to the Gospel that flows from the traditions of the Church taught by Jesus and the Apostles? >>>[/quote]I’m referring to the false gospel that flows from Catholic (big C) traditions that are a perversion and an affront to the true Gospel taught by Jesus and through the apostles. But I am on my way out the door though I just walked in. I understand Cortes’s frustration. You’re not understanding my point Cortes which I will take responsibility for. Being made to feel guilty was done by the pharisees very “religiously”.
[/quote]

The whole “Big C” thing makes you look like an ass.

Just saying.

That’s the first time in a few weeks I’ve used it since the last time everybody told me that. It has a point here.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That’s the first time in a few weeks I’ve used it since the last time everybody told me that. It has a point here.[/quote]

Is the point being condescending?

^

I actually don’t get it. What is up with that?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Pat, why does it follow from, “we don’t really know or can’t really explain why there’s something versus nothing,” to “there must be a god,” or, more specifically, “there must be a christian god.”[/quote]

I don’t think anyone is arguing that theistic proofs lead necessarily and exclusively to the God (in and of themselves).[/quote]

Well, yes and no. The logic indicates something we would consider “God like” exists, what you want to call it doesn’t change it’s nature. It’s a being “with a particular set of skills” :)[/quote]

Da fuk this have to do with a virgin giving birth to a child?

Anyone who believes that can happen, in 6 AD or whatever, is insane.

There was no virgin birth and the only thing true about Jesus is that he preached as a rabbi.

The people who wrote the gospels are the greatest trolls who ever lived, except maybe for Mohammed.
[/quote]

You make stupid look brilliant. Ad hominems are the only way to go. You add nothing to any argument except pervasive and intense stupidity. I pity you, and if your married I damn sure pity her.[/quote]

Typical response by the irrationalist crowd…“You…you’re dumb…and a meanie!!”

Sorry, bugwit, sputtering like you’re doing proves nothing.

There is little evidence that Jesus was divine, born of a virgin (LOLOLOLOL!), or was able to feed thousands of people out of a little basket, so on and so forth.

It just didn’t happen.

So, you have to stand on your own two feet, accept the fact that your life depends upon your mind, and that short circuiting your mind with this nonsense was a disaster for the world.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Pat, why does it follow from, “we don’t really know or can’t really explain why there’s something versus nothing,” to “there must be a god,” or, more specifically, “there must be a christian god.”[/quote]

I don’t think anyone is arguing that theistic proofs lead necessarily and exclusively to the God (in and of themselves).[/quote]

Well, yes and no. The logic indicates something we would consider “God like” exists, what you want to call it doesn’t change it’s nature. It’s a being “with a particular set of skills” :)[/quote]

Da fuk this have to do with a virgin giving birth to a child?

Anyone who believes that can happen, in 6 AD or whatever, is insane.

There was no virgin birth and the only thing true about Jesus is that he preached as a rabbi.

The people who wrote the gospels are the greatest trolls who ever lived, except maybe for Mohammed.
[/quote]

You make stupid look brilliant. Ad hominems are the only way to go. You add nothing to any argument except pervasive and intense stupidity. I pity you, and if your married I damn sure pity her.[/quote]

Typical response by the irrationalist crowd…“You…you’re dumb…and a meanie!!”

Sorry, bugwit, sputtering like you’re doing proves nothing.

There is little evidence that Jesus was divine, born of a virgin (LOLOLOLOL!), or was able to feed thousands of people out of a little basket, so on and so forth.

It just didn’t happen.

So, you have to stand on your own two feet, accept the fact that your life depends upon your mind, and that short circuiting your mind with this nonsense was a disaster for the world.
[/quote]

You are just dumb. Really dumb. You have no points, just vitriol. I have no interest in discussing with you. I just think you need to know how stupid you are. I only discuss points with adults. I feel like acting adolescent with you is proper and speaking to you on your level.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

So, you have to stand on your own two feet, accept the fact that your life depends upon your mind, and that short circuiting your mind with this nonsense was a disaster for the world.
[/quote]

You are just dumb. Really dumb. You have no points, just vitriol. I have no interest in discussing with you. I just think you need to know how stupid you are. I only discuss points with adults. I feel like acting adolescent with you is proper and speaking to you on your level.[/quote]

â??If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down on his shouldersâ??what would you tell him to do? …To Shrug.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

So, you have to stand on your own two feet, accept the fact that your life depends upon your mind, and that short circuiting your mind with this nonsense was a disaster for the world.
[/quote]

You are just dumb. Really dumb. You have no points, just vitriol. I have no interest in discussing with you. I just think you need to know how stupid you are. I only discuss points with adults. I feel like acting adolescent with you is proper and speaking to you on your level.[/quote]

â??If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down on his shouldersâ??what would you tell him to do? …To Shrug.[/quote]

Rand, what a moron. She’s as sharp as a bowling ball. Her disciples, even dumber.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< are you referring to the Gospel that flows from the traditions of the Church taught by Jesus and the Apostles? >>>[/quote]I’m referring to the false gospel that flows from Catholic (big C) traditions that are a perversion and an affront to the true Gospel taught by Jesus and through the apostles. But I am on my way out the door though I just walked in. I understand Cortes’s frustration. You’re not understanding my point Cortes which I will take responsibility for. Being made to feel guilty was done by the pharisees very “religiously”.
[/quote]

The whole “Big C” thing makes you look like an ass.

Just saying.[/quote]

Look?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< are you referring to the Gospel that flows from the traditions of the Church taught by Jesus and the Apostles? >>>[/quote]I’m referring to the false gospel that flows from Catholic (big C) traditions that are a perversion and an affront to the true Gospel taught by Jesus and through the apostles. But I am on my way out the door though I just walked in. I understand Cortes’s frustration. You’re not understanding my point Cortes which I will take responsibility for. Being made to feel guilty was done by the pharisees very “religiously”.
[/quote]

The whole “Big C” thing makes you look like an ass.

Just saying.[/quote]

Look?[/quote]

I can understand capitalizing the C in Catholic, it’s just how it’s done in English, but constantly pointing it out like a jackass is completely unnecessary.

Chris understands. Don’t ya Chris? Mak doesn’t know a thing about theology of any kind so he won’t understand. No offense to Mak. Just the way it is. Ah shoot. OK Mak. The big C in this context defines that I am definitively referring to the Roman Catholic Church and not the universal church, little c, I might mean at another time. You cannot nit pick your way out of responsibility to the Lord your God Mak. I’ll be happy to continue being your target though. Feel free.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Rand, what a moron. She’s as sharp as a bowling ball. Her disciples, even dumber.[/quote]

And yet…how she must cringe to know that she has bred an imbecile like HH.[/quote]

And yet, she knew to what lengths desperate people like you would go, to deny accepting your own mind as the final arbiter of right and wrong.

You’ve tried escaping into sexual addiction and various perversions. What other escapes have you tried? Are you now trying religion as an escape?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Rand, what a moron. She’s as sharp as a bowling ball. Her disciples, even dumber.[/quote]

And yet…how she must cringe to know that she has bred an imbecile like HH.[/quote]

And yet, she knew to what lengths desperate people like you would go, to deny accepting your own mind as the final arbiter of right and wrong.

You’ve tried escaping into sexual addiction and various perversions. What other escapes have you tried? Are you now trying religion as an escape?
[/quote]

For the last time, on what grounds do you call ANYTHING a “perversion,” HH?

You hate religion and yet steal its truth claims and set them up as self-evident. Without religion, your attacks on homosexuality and other so-called “perversions” have NO foundation; such supposed perversions (most of which can be found among other animal species) would simply reflect the sexual diversity inherent in the world. That’s me using my brain alone, HH. And guess what? Most of the developed nations, having already rejected religion and elevated human reason in its place, AGREE ENTIRELY with my “brain-alone” assessment. YOU’RE the one who, by the standards of the secular thought you love so much, looks “desperate.”

I, however, CAN say that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful because the Almighty God calls it unnatural, an abomination (i.e., something that goes against the order of the world as he originally created it and ultimately intends it to be).

Without such a stable platform, you are nothing but an ignorant bigot, a typical American prude crying for the loss of “sexual innocence” while denying the only real basis for holding onto such “innocence.”

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Rand, what a moron. She’s as sharp as a bowling ball. Her disciples, even dumber.[/quote]

And yet…how she must cringe to know that she has bred an imbecile like HH.[/quote]

And yet, she knew to what lengths desperate people like you would go, to deny accepting your own mind as the final arbiter of right and wrong.

You’ve tried escaping into sexual addiction and various perversions. What other escapes have you tried? Are you now trying religion as an escape?
[/quote]

For the last time, on what grounds do you call ANYTHING a “perversion,” HH?

You hate religion and yet steal its truth claims and set them up as self-evident. Without religion, your attacks on homosexuality and other so-called “perversions” have NO foundation; such supposed perversions (most of which can be found among other animal species) would simply reflect the sexual diversity inherent in the world. That’s me using my brain alone, HH. And guess what? Most of the developed nations, having already rejected religion and elevated human reason in its place, AGREE ENTIRELY with my “brain-alone” assessment. YOU’RE the one who, by the standards of the secular thought you love so much, looks “desperate.”

I, however, CAN say that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful because the Almighty God calls it unnatural, an abomination (i.e., something that goes against the order of the world as he originally created it and ultimately intends it to be).

Without such a stable platform, you are nothing but an ignorant bigot, a typical American prude crying for the loss of “sexual innocence” while denying the only real basis for holding onto such “innocence.”[/quote]

A perversion means to use something in a way that is unnatural and destructive. Sex organs are for the creation of life. Since human life is the highest standard existent, it is the goal of sex. Thus using homo sex is simply wrong from the start.

You religious folks are like the child who says: “I’ll be honest all the other times but right now I’m going to steal these cookies.” You rely on your mind in order to live but deny your rationality in accepting a concept with no empirical roots. “I’ll be rational all the other times but for right now I want to believe in religious fantasies!!”

Such willful and purposeful insanity is an affront to man.