Virgin Birth: Failed Prophecy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-12-2014, 10:38 AM
RE: Virgin Birth: Failed Prophecy
(04-12-2014 03:05 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Again, I wish atheists would make up their collective mind rather than saying "if EITHER premise is true, the Bible is untrue." That's "swinging both ways," isn't it?

Human beings do not have a "collective mind"... perhaps you are thinking of bees.
***

To answer your question... no, that is not "swinging both ways".
When discussing fiction, one begins with the basic assumption that the entire premis is presupposed to be an asertion of a plausible reality. The discussion would then proceed to establish the plausibility of such a reality.

Fuck man, take a class or something. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
05-12-2014, 10:58 AM
RE: Virgin Birth: Failed Prophecy
(05-12-2014 10:38 AM)kim Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 03:05 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Again, I wish atheists would make up their collective mind rather than saying "if EITHER premise is true, the Bible is untrue." That's "swinging both ways," isn't it?

Human beings do not have a "collective mind"... perhaps you are thinking of bees.
***

To answer your question... no, that is not "swinging both ways".
When discussing fiction, one begins with the basic assumption that the entire premise is presupposed to be an assertion of a plausible reality. The discussion would then proceed to establish the plausibility of such a reality.

Fuck man, take a class or something. Drinking Beverage


More likely the Borg. Yes

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 12:16 PM
RE: Virgin Birth: Failed Prophecy
(05-12-2014 07:44 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 03:05 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  However, I feel obliged to remind you that if I cannot say that some are correct and some are incorrect regarding baptism, you cannot say that anyone is correct or incorrect regarding the interpretation of Isaiah, or whether the prophecy was fulfilled or unfulfilled or whether anyone at this forum is an atheist or not.

But I'll let you off the hook here--I can advocate both stances simultaneously. It's called "grace" and "tolerance". You want to baptize your infant, fine. I wouldn't. Neither baptizing or not baptizing a child saves the adult or the child...

No, this isn't the same thing. If it doesn't matter when a person is baptized, then both answers are neither correct or incorrect. If it does matter, then only one of those stances can be correct, given that they're mutually exclusive. I suppose a third option is "it's different depending on the person", and since we were given no directive on how to make that distinction, anything that follows would be just guessing.

Anyway, if it doesn't matter, then both sides are wrong for advocating a narrower-than-necessary stance as "true". If it does matter, then, yes you cannot determine who is and isn't correct, but someone still is, regardless. It's just another artifact of an annoyingly vague Bible.


(04-12-2014 03:05 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  My point stands. Either say Jesus wasn't born of a virgin or that it's a young woman but not both. There, we certainly agree. Again, I wish atheists would make up their collective mind rather than saying "if EITHER premise is true, the Bible is untrue." That's "swinging both ways," isn't it?

No, the problem is, you're conflating different rhetorical approaches. One is to approach the issue from the stance that certain words in the Bible may be interpreted incorrectly over the years, and the other is to grant certain assumptions for sake of discussion. If you read other threads here, you'll find plenty where an atheist grants the existence of God and other such things just set a common framework for discussion. It's how these things work when people don't agree.

Also, I'm pretty sure not a single atheist actually believes that Jesus was born of a virgin. So, there you go. That's probably pretty close to a collective belief. Any time an atheist does assume virgin birth for a discussion, it's no different than them assuming God or unicorns in a different discussion.

Good point. Atheists don't believe in virgin births, creation, worldwide floods, etc. So what would you call a Christian who doesn't believe those things? How would you classify their "faith"?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 12:17 PM
RE: Virgin Birth: Failed Prophecy
(05-12-2014 10:38 AM)kim Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 03:05 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Again, I wish atheists would make up their collective mind rather than saying "if EITHER premise is true, the Bible is untrue." That's "swinging both ways," isn't it?

Human beings do not have a "collective mind"... perhaps you are thinking of bees.
***

To answer your question... no, that is not "swinging both ways".
When discussing fiction, one begins with the basic assumption that the entire premis is presupposed to be an asertion of a plausible reality. The discussion would then proceed to establish the plausibility of such a reality.

Fuck man, take a class or something. Drinking Beverage

My comment was a take on being told that Christians do NOT have a collective mind. They do in terms of all true Christians are born again and thus are linked in to Jesus Christ, the mind or logos of God. Or so we Q have heard...

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 01:38 PM
RE: Virgin Birth: Failed Prophecy
(05-12-2014 12:16 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Good point. Atheists don't believe in virgin births, creation, worldwide floods, etc. So what would you call a Christian who doesn't believe those things? How would you classify their "faith"?

I don't know of a good term that describes it in any way that unambiguously communicates the idea. Most Christians I know who don't believe in different parts of the Bible can often be described as "moderate" or "liberal", but I don't think either of those descriptions describes that in and of itself.

My wife, for example, doesn't believe in hell, Satan, a global flood, young Earth creation, or much of either of the Genesis creation stories. I'm not sure about her stance on Job or the Exodus. That being said, I'd classify her as "liberal" for her belief that everyone goes to heaven, period, but I wouldn't classify her as liberal for not believing in a global flood or YEC.

Sorry for the somewhat non-answer. I don't think there is a single good term, but I think I've explained why.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 03:07 PM
RE: Virgin Birth: Failed Prophecy
(05-12-2014 12:17 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(05-12-2014 10:38 AM)kim Wrote:  Human beings do not have a "collective mind"... perhaps you are thinking of bees.
***

To answer your question... no, that is not "swinging both ways".
When discussing fiction, one begins with the basic assumption that the entire premis is presupposed to be an asertion of a plausible reality. The discussion would then proceed to establish the plausibility of such a reality.

Fuck man, take a class or something. Drinking Beverage

My comment was a take on being told that Christians do NOT have a collective mind. They do in terms of all true Christians are born again and thus are linked in to Jesus Christ, the mind or logos of God. Or so we Q have heard...

LOL, that sounds just like the Borg.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 03:08 PM
RE: Virgin Birth: Failed Prophecy
(03-12-2014 08:55 AM)JonDarbyXIII Wrote:  How is it that Christians use the virgin birth as one of their greatest examples of prophecy when the original passage itself was a failed prophecy: Isaiah 7 is where Christians get the whole 'and the virgin shall conceive' idea. Yet, the whole purpose of Isaiah 7:1-14 was that God was giving a sign that Israel and Syria would not defeat Ahaz. If you look in II Chronicles 28:1-5 though, you see that Israel and Syria did defeat Ahaz!

Anyone else ever notice this?

JonDarby,
Even better than a failed prophecy is a non-existent one. Matthew 2:23 says "... he (Jesus's father, Joseph) went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: He shall be called a Nazarene".

This prophecy is nowhere to be found in the OT, Apocrypha or Pseudo-epigraphia. Matthew seems to have pulled this prophecy from an obscure part of his anatomy to justify the fact that Jesus came from Nazareth, a town of no account.

Read literally though, the prophecy should apply to Joseph, not to Jesus. So - double fail.

Incidentally, JonDarbyXIII, are you the great, great, great... descendant of John Nelson Darby, the founder of the Plymouth Brethren and well-known loony?

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes docskeptic's post
05-12-2014, 07:51 PM
RE: Virgin Birth: Failed Prophecy
(05-12-2014 12:16 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(05-12-2014 07:44 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  No, this isn't the same thing. If it doesn't matter when a person is baptized, then both answers are neither correct or incorrect. If it does matter, then only one of those stances can be correct, given that they're mutually exclusive. I suppose a third option is "it's different depending on the person", and since we were given no directive on how to make that distinction, anything that follows would be just guessing.

Anyway, if it doesn't matter, then both sides are wrong for advocating a narrower-than-necessary stance as "true". If it does matter, then, yes you cannot determine who is and isn't correct, but someone still is, regardless. It's just another artifact of an annoyingly vague Bible.



No, the problem is, you're conflating different rhetorical approaches. One is to approach the issue from the stance that certain words in the Bible may be interpreted incorrectly over the years, and the other is to grant certain assumptions for sake of discussion. If you read other threads here, you'll find plenty where an atheist grants the existence of God and other such things just set a common framework for discussion. It's how these things work when people don't agree.

Also, I'm pretty sure not a single atheist actually believes that Jesus was born of a virgin. So, there you go. That's probably pretty close to a collective belief. Any time an atheist does assume virgin birth for a discussion, it's no different than them assuming God or unicorns in a different discussion.

Good point. Atheists don't believe in virgin births, creation, worldwide floods, etc. So what would you call a Christian who doesn't believe those things? How would you classify their "faith"?

I am most confused by Christians that selectively interpret the bible. If part of the bible is bullshit, how do you know all of it isn't bullshit? How do you decide which is true and what isn't? Wouldn't that make every part of the christian dogma suspect? Far more questions than answers there.

These people are very annoying to talk to. They are happy to criticize atheists and Christians alike, but often take a stance on nothing. What do you believe and how do you know it is true? (hint; if 'because i feels it in my heart' is an answer' I am not particularly interested).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
05-12-2014, 08:02 PM
RE: Virgin Birth: Failed Prophecy
(05-12-2014 12:17 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(05-12-2014 10:38 AM)kim Wrote:  Human beings do not have a "collective mind"... perhaps you are thinking of bees.
***

To answer your question... no, that is not "swinging both ways".
When discussing fiction, one begins with the basic assumption that the entire premis is presupposed to be an asertion of a plausible reality. The discussion would then proceed to establish the plausibility of such a reality.

Fuck man, take a class or something. Drinking Beverage

My comment was a take on being told that Christians do NOT have a collective mind. They do in terms of all true Christians are born again and thus are linked in to Jesus Christ, the mind or logos of God. Or so we Q have heard...

Nope. Not at all. I never once heard any Anglican or Catholic go on about being "born again". You can't possibly be so arrogant as to rule out literally billions of sincere honest believers as not "true Christians" just because some Fundie idiot made up that crap. The cooker-upper of your cult, (Saul of Tarsus) never said anything about that nonsense. Paul said you people were baptized into his (Christ's) DEATH. Can't you theists get it straight and stop trying to have it both ways ? Sheesh. Rolleyes

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 07:33 PM
RE: Virgin Birth: Failed Prophecy
(05-12-2014 08:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. Not at all. I never once heard any Anglican or Catholic go on about being "born again". You can't possibly be so arrogant as to rule out literally billions of sincere honest believers as not "true Christians" just because some Fundie idiot made up that crap.

But he clearly is that arrogant.

Quote:The cooker-upper of your cult, (Saul of Tarsus) never said anything about that nonsense. Paul said you people were baptized into his (Christ's) DEATH. Can't you theists get it straight and stop trying to have it both ways ? Sheesh. Rolleyes

The theology is silly and Saul was a misogynistic nutter.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: