Mary says YES!

Bristolscale7

As I pointed out in another post, Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier named Panthera not god.

Fleawuss

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

As I pointed out in another post, Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier named Panthera not god.

Ah here, have you the oul DNA proof of that at all at all?

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

As I pointed out in another post, Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier named Panthera not god.

Didn't you also point out at the time that you read the author purely because of his anti-Christian polemic? Can we take from your "P" and "g" that you're hopeful of filling his sandals so to speak?

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

but don't tell anybody unless you want God to be angry with you".

wheres that in the story?

pauldla

expectationlost wrote: »

where that in the story?

Um, near the back? Near the bit with the seven headed demon?

Actually it's a good point, there's not much point bringing forth the Son of God if you're not allowed to tell anyone. But there are other passages in the Gospels where God/Jesus/Whomever is saying '....and don't tell anyone about it', are there not?

looksee

recedite wrote: »

So, angel walks into 12 year old's bedroom and says "I'm gods representative here on earth. Something you may not be comfortable with is going to happen soon, but it is what god wants and he will be pleased with you".
And that's supposed to be all fine and dandy; a good message to give.

But if a paedophile priest walks into 12 year old's bedroom and says "I'm gods representative here on earth. Something you may not be comfortable with is going to happen soon, but it is what god wants and he will be pleased with you."
The child is supposed to see through this straight away, on account of being previously taught the correct message at school?

Recedite, you have to be very careful not to leave tiny holes that can be nit-picked through, alternative version above.

expectationlost

portrayed as a child? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpU3dWdVOyM http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2015/10/mary-says-yes/
if he had said maybe perceived as a child...
see page 4 http://www.veritasbooksonline.com/media/wysiwyg/Junior_Infants_sampler-web.pdf

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

Um, near the back? Near the bit with the seven headed demon?
Actually it's a good point, there's not much point bringing forth the Son of God if you're not allowed to tell anyone. But there are other passages in the Gospels where God/Jesus/Whomever is saying '....and don't tell anyone about it', are there not?

Where God/Jesus/Whomever is saying don't tell anyone about the Annunciation, or where God/Jesus/Whomever is saying don't tell anyone about something else?

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Recedite, you have to be very careful not to leave tiny holes that can be nit-picked through, alternative version above.

Well... don't fabricate your own story and expect people not to spot the overt substitution might be more to the point... just as with your own version of the story.

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

Where God/Jesus/Whomever is saying don't tell anyone about the Annunciation, or where God/Jesus/Whomever is saying don't tell anyone about something else?

The latter.

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

The latter.

In which case, not terribly relevant to the story under discussion?

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

In which case, not terribly relevant to the story under discussion?

Not terribly relevant, it could be argued. Relevant in a 'What to do when God* tells you to do something' way, perhaps? Are the Gospel stories relevant to each other, or is a modular reading of the Gospels possible?

* Should God appear to be in absentia, please refer to His duly appointed representative.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

Well... don't fabricate your own story and expect people not to spot the overt substitution might be more to the point... just as with your own version of the story.

It doesn't actually make any difference to the overall argument whether you use recedite's version or mine. It just gives the increasingly struggling pro-religion side something to create a diversion with.

I really cannot see why even the most devout Catholic cannot say, yes, they have really not done a very good job with that story, rather than twisting and contorting their beliefs to try and put it in a good light.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

It doesn't actually make any difference to the overall argument whether you use recedite's version or mine. It just gives the increasingly struggling pro-religion side something to create a diversion with.

Well, it is true both stories are different stories from the story the op is objecting to, so in that regard I suppose it makes no difference which is less true to the original, they're both strawman arguments.

looksee wrote: »

I really cannot see why even the most devout Catholic cannot say, yes, they have really not done a very good job with that story, rather than twisting and contorting their beliefs to try and put it in a good light.

I'd go out on a limb and say it's because there isn't really a problem with the story; those that are taking issue with it are doing so because it is a tenuously constructed opportunity to take a pop at something they actually do have an issue with; religious instruction in schools.

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

Not terribly relevant, it could be argued. Relevant in a 'What to do when God* tells you to do something' way, perhaps? Are the Gospel stories relevant to each other, or is a modular reading of the Gospels possible? * Should God appear to be in absentia, please refer to His duly appointed representative.

Though since God wasn't telling someone what to do in the lesson, still not relevant.
I suppose the Gospels are relevant to each other true enough. But inserting the fact that God said "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners" in a part of one Gospel into a different story in another Gospel, or even "Young man, I say to you, arise" arguably doesn't add much to the story of the Annunciation (maybe a juvenile giggle, but that's about it).

It's probably safe to say that the particular things He told various people to do on occasion were not intended to be hot swapped from story to story and remain relevant to the story.

recedite

I'm annuncing now that I'm officially recanting my earlier heresy, and I've been converted to the looksee version of the argument;

So, angel walks into 12 year old's bedroom and says "I'm gods representative here on earth. Something you may not be comfortable with is going to happen soon, but it is what god wants and he will be pleased with you".
And that's supposed to be all fine and dandy; a good message to give.

But if a paedophile priest walks into 12 year old's bedroom and says "I'm gods representative here on earth. Something you may not be comfortable with is going to happen soon, but it is what god wants and he will be pleased with you."
The child is supposed to see through this straight away, on account of being previously taught the correct message at school?


Carry on...

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I'm annuncing now that I'm officially recanting my earlier heresy, and I've been converted to the looksee version of the argument;

So, angel walks into 12 year old's bedroom and says "I'm gods representative here on earth. Something you may not be comfortable with is going to happen soon, but it is what god wants and he will be pleased with you".
And that's supposed to be all fine and dandy; a good message to give.

But if a paedophile priest walks into 12 year old's bedroom and says "I'm gods representative here on earth. Something you may not be comfortable with is going to happen soon, but it is what god wants and he will be pleased with you."
The child is supposed to see through this straight away, on account of being previously taught the correct message at school?


Carry on...

Still not the story from the OP though.

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

Still not the story from the OP though.

Somehow I'm reminded of this post

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

Somehow I'm reminded of this

It's a good point; if Recedite (or anyone to be fair) wants to offer a semantic argument, he has to expect a semantic rebuttal.

looksee

I just have a sneaking suspicion that it was not recidite's argument that swampgas was commenting on...

Fleawuss

Apparently from another thread you can be a Catholic if you call yourself one. Solves all the problems with this thread: "I'm a Catholic who doesn't believe in the Annunciation, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Trinity and I won't get my children baptised. Im still a Catholic because that's my opinion. Now, I'm enrolling in this Catholic school. "

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

I just have a sneaking suspicion that it was not recidite's argument that swampgas was commenting on...

Well, if the cap fits......

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

Apparently from another thread you can be a Catholic if you call yourself one. Solves all the problems with this thread: "I'm a Catholic who doesn't believe in the Annunciation, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Trinity and I won't get my children baptised. Im still a Catholic because that's my opinion. Now, I'm enrolling in this Catholic school. "

Not sure this thread is actually about being able to enrol in a Catholic School. But I totally admire your optimism, you should definitely do as you've said.

To clear up any semantic disagreement though, I didn't actually say on the other thread that you can be a Catholic if you call yourself one. I said that there's no reason your opinion on what it is to be Catholic should have any bearing on whether someone else should choose to call themselves Catholic if they wish.

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

Still not the story from the OP though.

Do you think the content in the schoolbook is a story (like Jack and Jill) or do you think that God really impregnated Mary?

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Do you think the content in the schoolbook is a story (like Jack and Jill) or do you think that God really impregnated Mary?

For the purposes of the discussion at hand, what difference do you think there is between the two?

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

For the purposes of the discussion at hand, what difference do you think there is between the two?

So rather then answer the question you'd rather side step it and just answer another question?

Why not answer the question you were asked?

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

For the purposes of the discussion at hand, what difference do you think there is between the two?

Isn't that pretty much the same question he asked you?

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

So rather then answer the question you'd rather side step it and just answer another question?
Why not answer the question you were asked?

I'm wondering whether it's sufficiently pertinent to the discussion to be worth answering. Do you know?

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

Isn't that pretty much the same question he asked you?

Nope, he asked me whether I believed one thing or another. Do you think that's relevant to the OP?

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Nope, he asked me whether I believed one thing or another. Do you think that's relevant to the OP?

Back to asking more questions instead of answering what you were asked,
:rolleyes: