Religion Was the "Virgin" Mary unfaithful ?

[strongvoicesforward]

One is an accurate translation, the other is IMO a 'dumbed-down' version for those who can't understand the accurate translation.
I think that's enough on the matter, as it is offtopic.

lol! Yes, always good to declare it "enough" when you can get in and hope for the last "jab" on the point. Things offered here on the forum are surely different from each other, however, I wouldn`t be so crass as to call and declare someone`s use of something "dumbdowned" just to get the last word in and give myself the final boost up over the person I am engaged with.
That was a rather low shot, Tsuyoiko. But, I will let you have it since you felt the need to take it.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

You have a very peculiar conception of identity, IMO :?

Well, Tsuyoiko -- go back and outline how it is so DRASTICALLY different from what I have offered. I offered premarital sex as to how she became pregnant and so has Nurizeko. Go ahead and roll up your sleeves and jump in to point out the DRASTIC differences. You are invited to begin to show rather than just declaring something.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Well, Tsuyoiko -- go back and outline how it is so DRASTICALLY different from what I have offered. I offered premarital sex as to how she became pregnant and so has Nurizeko. Go ahead and roll up your sleeves and jump in to point out the DRASTIC differences. You are invited to begin to show rather than just declaring something.

In post #45 I clearly outline which part of Nuri's post I find compelling.

 

[Mars Man]

I was only trying to get clear in what you believed in regards to the Bible and Christianity -- hence the reason for those questions to you. Had your position been clear, I never would have asked you.

I challenge you to tell us what meaning that #9 question in your #39 had? It was not a 'loaded' question, it was simply a meaningless question. That is a fact ! If you had not asked the questions clearly and totally precluding any answer to it before that, we could say that it had meaning. It is most obvious that that #9 question had no meaning whatsoever.

Keep in mind, you asked the loaded question first. Fairness took a turn at that point.

This is incorrect. I did NOT ask you a loaded question--rather your brain conceptualized it as such. I will admit that this matter however is of an extremely conceptualized abstract nature, and beyond stating that it was neither 'loaded', 'weighed', nor 'perverse' in my paradigm of reason, I cannot provide evidence.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

I challenge you to tell us what meaning that #9 question in your #39 had? It was not a 'loaded' question, it was simply a meaningless question. That is a fact ! If you had not asked the questions clearly and totally precluding any answer to it before that, we could say that it had meaning. It is most obvious that that #9 question had no meaning whatsoever.

Just to stick my nose in here for a while, here's something I've noticed. By answering NO to #5, the answer to question in #9 automatically becomes NO. Think about it.

However, if Mars Man had answered YES to #5, then it would be possible to either answer #9 in the affirmative completely or partially. I mean it would be possible to say that one believes either that ALL supernatural events in the Bible "as having happened or have happened and caused by Bible God" or that A CERTAIN SUBSET of those events fit the bill.

 

[Mars Man]

Happy 'Becoming of Japan' day to you Mikawa san !! And I would say that you are most welcome at any time, to pop your head in on these threads !!

Yes, it is pretty easy to see the lack in meaning of a question which has already been answered, isn't it. Good observation on the other point as well. I simply applied the definite article rule-of-thumb in combination with an uncountable noun, and took it to be all inclusive; although it could be less encompassing.

Nice to see you 'round from time to time in this niche of the woods !!

 

[strongvoicesforward]

In post #45 I clearly outline which part of Nuri's post I find compelling.

Yes, I`ll accept that. It is still premised on pre-marital sex which I have been saying all along. Nurizeko has just gave a different route for the method of Jesus` cult than mine. I never once said my scenarios which surrounded Mary`s premarital sex were the only ones, did I? Nurizeko`s is welcome along with mine. All three are simple explanations. But, all three have pre-marital sex as the starting point and give no room to the "virgin" claim.

Tsyoiko, you are just wanting to dismiss my scenarios merely because it is strongvoicesforward who has put them forth. It is anathema to you to have to think of considering to say something like, "yes, strongvoicesforward, that is a rather reasonable, perhaps one of several, explanations that leads us to see how or why Mary felt a need to claim she was a virgin."

You seem to not like the point that Mary had a motive for lying which is one of the things I have focused on. Nurizeko didn`t focus on that, which is fine. But he did clearly state the simply undeniable -- premarital sex, which is what I have consistantly said.

 

[Mars Man]

Strongvoicesforward san, can you not answer the challenge of telling us what meaning that #9 question had had?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Strongvoicesforward san, can you not answer the challenge of telling us what meaning that #9 question had had?

Mikawa-san has already pointed it out to you, Mars Man. I could say the same thing but it would be redundant.

 

[Kinsao]

I am thoroughly confused by this thread with its references to various numbered questions.
But to return to the virgin birth...
I can see this possible explanations:
a) Mary really was a virgin who got pregnant by some intervention of God.
b) Mary got pregnant the usual way, by sex (with either Joseph or someone else) and made up the story to try and get out of problems.
c) Mary got pregnant by genital contact without penatrative sex, and made up the story to try and get out of problems.
d) Mary got pregnant by genital contact without penatrative sex, and because people's knowledge in those days wasn't so good, she didn't realise that was why she got pregnant and genuinely thought it was an 'act of God'.
e) Mary got pregnant some other odd and uncommon way such as parthenogenesis.

Of course, if you don't believe in God, the first one isn't going to feature on your radar. Of the alternatives, (b) is the most likely. If you do believe in God, you could believe in (a) or any of the others depending on your view of things it says in the Bible, society at the time, etc, etc...
:relief:

 

[kumo]

Kinsao, you forgot one explanation:
f) Mary is a made-up allegoric character who never got pregnant or even existed in the first place.

 

[Mars Man]

Mikawa-san has already pointed it out to you, Mars Man. I could say the same thing but it would be redundant.

Good morning strongvoicesforward san ! I'll take that as your admitting that question number nine had been a meaningless question. I appreciate your reply--even if it was some 18 posts late.

And, now, strongvoicesforward san, you may well be better equiped to understand just how it is that the following questions are meaningless questions as well:

Did Bible God commit adultery or have pre-marital sex by impregnating Mary? Should He have been stoned for such an act?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Good morning strongvoicesforward san ! I'll take that as your admitting that question number nine had been a meaningless question. I appreciate your reply--even if it was some 18 posts late.

lol! Haven`t you seen Mikawa`s comment on it? If it is "meaningless," then it is so to the same degree as yours was "loaded."

And, now, strongvoicesforward san, you may well be better equiped to understand just how it is that the following questions are meaningless questions as well:

Suffice it to say -- we disagree. Feel free to ignore them if you so wish.

 

[Mars Man]

So, you are claiming that your #9 question had meaning. Please tell us what that meaning was, while at the same time not forgetting the order of the questions. This was, and is the challenge, from the very beginning, asking questions which have meaning inherent within the purpose and answer of such question.

 

[Mars Man]

You do not wish to insinutate that you take that 'Bible god' to be an actual and real entity, do you?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I will admit mine had no meaning as soon as you admit yours was loaded. Quid pro quo -- or we can just disagree. Or, do you want us going in circles with each other on this point, for I am no sooner going to admit mine had no meaning as you are probably unlikely to admit yours was a loaded question.

So, do you want us to just post with each other saying, "Does, too. Does, not. Does, too. Does, not." Is that what you want to be mired in? I am willing to move on on this point.

 

[Mars Man]

Hi there strongvoicesforward ! Good to see you on line again. Unlike some, I will not get involved in immature arguments based on the differences of observational capabilities. I will simply outline the definitions of the terms loaded question and meaningless question for the purpose of evidence, and then will agree that we disagree on the two points--my asking you if you knew a thing, and your asking me of that #9 question.

Loaded question: [a question phrased] so as to elicit a desired answer or reaction. [Websters New World Dictionary--Second College Edition 1976]

Meaningless question [a question having no meaning; without significance or purpose [ibid] (no significance or purpose in its value as a question.)

THAT being solely for evidence, I agree that we disagree on this point up to here.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

Hi, sticking my nose in again! Hope you don't mind!

Did Bible God commit adultery or have pre-marital sex by impregnating Mary? Should He have been stoned for such an act?

If within the context of the first question it is assumed that "Bible God" means the god in the Bible who created the world just by willing it to be so, then it must be assumed if only for purposes of the question that this god does exist. If this is so, then thinking that "sex" or "adultery" must necessarily be involved for said god to impregnate Mary is simply...well...strange to say the least.

First of all, working backward, a being that has the power to just will something to come into exsistence has no need for sex. Second, adultery? Is it not this god who ultimately defines what adultery is? Even if you want to argue that he uses a double standard, it is quite beside the point. In the context of the Bible, we humans simply do not make the rules. Our choice is very simple: either accept and abide by the rules or be denied to everlasting life in Heaven.

Assuming that this god does in fact exist, what you or I "think" makes not one iota of difference. The ultimate authority is this god. In issues of the afterlife and probably morality he is the ONLY authority.

I believe that the second question was merely a rhetorical question.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

That is a loaded question Mars Man and I recognized it right off the bat.
To phrase a question about something that is not proven (despite unfairly expecting someone to accept "that account as historical") with words such as "indeed," and "true," in the manner of "Do you know...?" is deceptive.
If you phrased it as "Do you believe or do you accept...?" then it would be an honest question.
Here:
Do you know that the story Santa Clause flying around on a sleigh with reindeer is, indeed, a true story in history?
If I answer "Yes," then I am stating my belief in it. However, even if I answer "No," I am just admitting to I don`t know it is historical truth -- but still cedes that it is truth -- It is just my knowledge that is lacking and not the truth of the matter.
It is a classical loaded question which you have asked, Mars Man. Why not ask an honest one like, "Do you believe...?" or "Do you accept...?"
I don`t think you would like it if the police called you down to the station and asked you, "Do you remember how many times you beat your wife last week?" and then say, " Answer, "Yes, or No! No other explanation is required," would you?
Reread your post. Don`t you see how that is a loaded question?
Mars Man, are you playing semantics with me?

I disagree with your assessment of the question, SVF. I think that Mars Man was saying that based on the evidence presented in the first part of the question, do you know that the latter part is historically true? The answer of course is no, even more so if you don't believe in the teachings of the Bible.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Yes, we disagree. That is understood.