[jdjtcagle]

In Classical Greek the word parthenos simply meant "a young woman" or
"girl" and had no specific meaning of virginity. It later acquired the
meaning of "virgin" as we define it in English.

Not quite right. Athena and Artemis were both virgins and the word used in ancient Greek to describe that was "Parthenos".

Right.  

Only in Isaiah there is actually a better word for virgin than `almah in Hebrew.  So they more than likely meant young women and later Matthew connects this verse with Christ's virgin birth.

So basically both were saying that a young women would bare a child who was to be called God (9:6).  Then Matthew goes on to say that this women is also a virgin because of Christ's birth.  Because the child was Christ.

Isaiah 9:6

6 For to us a child is born,
       to us a son is given,
       and the government will be on his shoulders.
       And he will be called
       Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
       Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

[Flipside]

Which leaves 3 possible outcomes:

1) Mary was a Virgin, but was not directly referred to as such
2) Mary was not a Virgin, and Jesus was not born of a Virgin
3) Jesus was not born of Mary.

All three of them present big questions.

[jdjtcagle]

Which leaves 3 possible outcomes:

1) Mary was a Virgin, but was not directly referred to as such
2) Mary was not a Virgin, and Jesus was not born of a Virgin
3) Jesus was not born of Mary.

All three of them present big questions.

Correct.

Marry was not explicitly "prophesied" as a virgin but was a young women obviously
But doesn't say that she wasn't a virgin.  So then again a lack of evidence in this case is not evidence against it.

But NOTE:  In the New Testament Mary was a virgin for "she knew not a man"  There is no doubt.

Matthew was showing the parallels between the child and Christ.  Which every Jew at the time knew that the child talked about was in-fact someone that came to existence after the time of Isaiah from a women that obviously wasn't a virgin. (can't remember who) So it had been (partially, he wasn't called God 9:6) fulfilled, but then Matthew tells us that it had deeper significance.  So again double fulfillment of prophecy was not uncommon with them.

[Flipside]

Yup, though with the New Testament, quite a lot of is lost in interpretation, and continues to be, I was at my brothers wedding last year and because the marriage was between Protestant and United Reformed, there had to be two readings from two different versions of the New Testament, the KG and another.

On reflection, it's not uncommon, I suppose every section of Christianity interprets the Bible slightly differently, I suppose it's that very factor that makes me cautious around people who cite religion as their only morality system.

[jdjtcagle]

I can respect that.  I'm pretty cynical when it comes to modern Christianity, I mostly to keep it to myself though and try not to be prejudice.  I'm not perfect.

[peterv]

On reflection, it's not uncommon, I suppose every section of Christianity interprets the Bible slightly differently, I suppose it's that very factor that makes me cautious around people who cite religion as their only morality system.

And that's the big joke about Cristianity. The prototype of New Testament is written in a relitavelly simple language (not pure ancient Greek). Apocalypse aside, it's easy to understand the words of Christ, the conservativsm of Paule etc. Even trying to interptet such simple meanings is eathically questionable, especially given that we are mostly talking about the words of God himself.

[Turambar]

And that's the big joke about Cristianity.

Christianity is the big joke about Christianity.

Christians just don't get the joke, it just so happens that the joke is on them.

[TESLA]

And that's the big joke about Cristianity.

Christianity is the big joke about Christianity.

Christians just don't get the joke, it just so happens that the joke is on them.

You cant simply put all Christians under the one brush. Very generalised approach.

[iamzack]

And that's the big joke about Cristianity.

Christianity is the big joke about Christianity.

Christians just don't get the joke, it just so happens that the joke is on them.

You cant simply put all Christians under the one brush. Very generalised approach.

They do all specifically believe in a personal god. Everything else is just flavours of "my god can beat up your god." Not just Christians, though. Muslims, Jews, etc. Personal god is FTL.

[Liberator]

Personal God FTW.

An impersonal god who doesn't care a fig about anything wouldn't create a universe, except for his own amusement, and then stock it life, again except for his own amusement, and then communicate directly with that life and tell it what he needs/wants for it.

An impersonal god would be at best like the gods of the ancients, vengeful, petty and all too "human" in they're motivations and desires.

A personal God, which is one of the tenets of Christianity, is one who cares so much for the individual, that he placed Himself(Christ was both God and man at the same time)as the ultimate sacrifice to render His creations worthy to be in His presence.  It is one that cares enough about each man, woman and child, that he'll listen whenever you talk to him, he may not answer, but he's always listening.  It is one that sends His agents and servants to aid His creations in times of need, usually unseen and unknown in they're action.

[General Battuta]

Wow, you just made a great argument for Islam.

Meanwhile, the Christian god doesn't give a **** about non-believers and will happily consign them to hell for such sins as being born with the wrong genes or in the wrong part of the world (at least in some interpretations, I'm guessing yours included.)

[colecampbell666]

So god has a greater love for us? He is merciful? How is it merciful to bring someone into life knowing that they were going to sn, and then punish them eternally in hell. Wouldn't it be merciful to not let them live?

[SpardaSon21]

Cole, you do of course realize that one of the tenets of Christianity is that God will forgive you for your sins, don't you?

[General Battuta]

Yeah, if you're lucky enough to be told you're a sinner, lucky enough to have the bizarre system of sins explained to you, lucky enough to learn about Jesus, lucky enough to be raised in a Christian environnment so that you don't just blow it all off as a crazy fantasy, and lucky enough not to have been reached by another equally convincing religion first.

Basically it's a huge game of Russian roulette, and even if God does exist, the number of people he damns to hell just due to bad luck makes him about the most evil thing in existence and worthy of destruction.

...all that said, I have no problem with Christians as long as they don't try to tell me or others what to think or how to act. Keep your faith to yourself.

[Ford Prefect]

Personal God FTW.

An impersonal god who doesn't care a fig about anything wouldn't create a universe, except for his own amusement, and then stock it life, again except for his own amusement, and then communicate directly with that life and tell it what he needs/wants for it.

An impersonal god would be at best like the gods of the ancients, vengeful, petty and all too "human" in they're motivations and desires.

I disagree. An impersonal god can be an immanent presence, a force of nature that is felt but cannot be appealed to for anything, because it is not "aware" of us in any sense that would enable its direct involvement in our affairs. Many self-described atheists, like me, find mysticism/pantheism extremely appealing precisely because we find such a concept of divinity to be the most profoundly distinct from anything human.

[TESLA]

Maybe in extreme Christian dogmas.

In the end you make your own hell, not some sort of childhood image of fire, damnation and demons.

You can’t blame a 'God' for the actions of Genes.

There is a basic principle that God is all good (Omni benevolent) all knowing (omnipresent) and all powerful (Omnipotent).

Basic rule of three (why is it always three???)


But how can an all powerful God allow evil?

If God cannot stop evil, then God is not all powerful.

If God allows evil, then God is not all good.

If God does not understand evil, then God is not all knowing.



Look at human history. It is filled with the most evil and gruesome acts: the Nazi holocaust of the Jews in WW2, the reign of Pol Pot in Cambodia, Unit 731 of the Imperial Japanese Army, the Hans Fritzl, Charles Mansons, etc.


A very simplistic view yes, but logical, and valid.

But there are problems to that theory.

Such as were are not in a position to assume that an infinite God has reasons for allowing evil. Would we as finite and fallible being be able to work them out?

Are there justifiable reasons or are we simply limited by current human thinking?


Philosopher William Alston once said that “Suppose that some of the very best scientists in the world came up with a new theory about quantum physics. Suppose I, as a non-physicist, look at their theory and say, “because I cannot figure it out, they must be wrong”. It’s possible they might be wrong, but I have no real basis for knowing”

In a sense religion can seem like that at times. We live in a beautiful age, where we look up at the stars and can almost sense thanks to the advances in technology and science that they are almost in reach. There is nothing the human mind cannot do. We set out own limits, we choose our own standards.

Christians are meant to look for good coming out of evil. That when evil happens, good things can emerge out of the horror.

Such as war is evil, but sometimes the lesser of two evils.  Good outcome could be a permanent peace.

Some do believe that suffering can draw them closer to God, but this is frond upon in many different Christian traditions.


Suffering is usually a human cause. In response to the idea about ‘wrong genes’, these could simply be natures response. No one is born evil. Society creates evil, its our own faults our own problems. Usually it comes down to free will.

If God intervened with all the problems on this planet, we would never grow as a species or learn. We might as well be a character on Sims 3. Let God do all the thinking, pointing and clicking for us.





Many famous Scientists to this day maintain there Christian beliefs. Alan Sheppard- the first American in Space, believed in God.

Einstein while never believing in a personal God, The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism”, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists."  

Science and religion can, should and in many cases do work together.

Science asks the question “How”
Religion asks the question “Why”

[iamzack]

Personal God FTW.

An impersonal god who doesn't care a fig about anything wouldn't create a universe, except for his own amusement, and then stock it life, again except for his own amusement, and then communicate directly with that life and tell it what he needs/wants for it.

An impersonal god would be at best like the gods of the ancients, vengeful, petty and all too "human" in they're motivations and desires.

Ironically, that's a perfect description of *your* god. Created some beings to worship him, demands worship and sacrifice, condemns at will.

A personal God, which is one of the tenets of Christianity, is one who cares so much for the individual, that he placed Himself(Christ was both God and man at the same time)as the ultimate sacrifice to render His creations worthy to be in His presence.  It is one that cares enough about each man, woman and child, that he'll listen whenever you talk to him, he may not answer, but he's always listening.  It is one that sends His agents and servants to aid His creations in times of need, usually unseen and unknown in they're action.

Plothole 1: why not just create beings worthy of him in the first place?
Plothole 2: why not just deem his creations worthy because he can? after all, it's his world, ain't it?
Plothole 3: if he's so great, why does he require so much mindless worship?

[colecampbell666]

Maybe in extreme Christian dogmas.

In the end you make your own hell, not some sort of childhood image of fire, damnation and demons.

You can’t blame a 'God' for the actions of Genes.

The churches are pretty specific on the hell thing, and didn't God create those genes?

There is a basic principle that God is all good (Omni benevolent) all knowing (omnipresent) and all powerful (Omnipotent).

So doesn't he know everything that's gonna happen? If so, why does he react to things, why does he allow sinners to live if he knows that they're going to sin?

Such as were are not in a position to assume that an infinite God has reasons for allowing evil. Would we as finite and fallible being be able to work them out?

Are there justifiable reasons or are we simply limited by current human thinking?

As falliable human beings, we can't work out the mysteries of the universe, so we hide behind "God".

Christians are meant to look for good coming out of evil. That when evil happens, good things can emerge out of the horror.

I do that too. I'm not Christian.

Some do believe that suffering can draw them closer to God, but this is frond upon in many different Christian traditions.

How do you know that they're wrong, and you're right? I thought that you weren't allowed to pick and choose.

Suffering is usually a human cause. In response to the idea about ‘wrong genes’, these could simply be natures response. No one is born evil. Society creates evil, its our own faults our own problems. Usually it comes down to free will.

There is no free will if god knows everything that will happen and has a plan.

If God intervened with all the problems on this planet, we would never grow as a species or learn. We might as well be a character on Sims 3. Let God do all the thinking, pointing and clicking for us.

He already has intervened, refer to last answer.

Many famous Scientists to this day maintain there Christian beliefs.

However 93% do not. Smartest people on Earth.

Science asks the question “How”
Religion asks the question “Why”

Which is the question "How" worded differently.

If God is omnipotent and he has a plan ... then why did he not create the universe as it will be one second after the plan has succeeded? Who or what prevented him from doing that?

[Scotty]

   Why, of all the times, did one of these arguments pop up during THE ONLY WEEK OF THE YEAR I CAN'T GET ON THE COMPUTER??

The churches are pretty specific on the hell thing, and didn't God create those genes?

Personally, I can't accept that there is a gene for that.  It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

So doesn't he know everything that's gonna happen? If so, why does he react to things, why does he allow sinners to live if he knows that they're going to sin?

He does.  Because anything He does after the fact would be considered a reaction.  For the second part, because everyone sins and that if He didn't, the world would be awfully empty of people.  The flipside to the second part of your other question is that were He to simply kill all sinners for no other reason than they sin, that would be the closest I can think He would come to something I, personally, would call evil (also, I'm fairly certain that He said he wouldn't do that again.  See: The Flood.  It has a promise at the end.)

I do that too. I'm not Christian.

Well, bully for you.

How do you know that they're wrong, and you're right?  I thought that you weren't allowed to pick and choose.

That sentiment is a personal opinion, which, while held by many, does not appear in the New Testament, as far as I have read.

There is no free will if god knows everything that will happen and has a plan.

Ah.  So, if I were to know, unequivocally, that one of my classmates would be going to school on a given day, that person has no free will?  Knowledge of actions != dictations of will.

However 93% do not. Most intelligent people on Earth.

Fixed.  Intelligent != Infallibility, nor does it equal Common Sense.

then why did he not create the universe as it will be one second after the plan has succeeded? Who or what prevented him from doing that?

I'm not sure I understand what your question is here.  Are you basically asking why he didn't just skip His plan in its entirety and simply make the universe as it would be?  Based on my own interpretations, the universe one second after the plan has succeeded is going to suck something serious.  Keep in mind that I'm assuming (ASSUMING, MIND YOU) that his plan would be complete when Jesus returns, at which point there is a good deal of description of what that will be like in Revelation.

(I do so LOVE these arguments )

[General Battuta]

  Why, of all the times, did one of these arguments pop up during THE ONLY WEEK OF THE YEAR I CAN'T GET ON THE COMPUTER??

The churches are pretty specific on the hell thing, and didn't God create those genes?

Personally, I can't accept that there is a gene for that.  It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

Nope, but there are genes for both homosexuality (a mortal sin in Christianity) and criminal behavior (it's estimated that a significant percentage of the criminal population possesses a certain gene variant or set of gene variants that characterize male antisocial behavior.)

Guess God just doesn't love them.