The virgin birth of Christ.

[_Bazooka]

c) Is it possible, that the Holy Ghost 'implanted' the Lord of Hosts in Mary, as an 'embryo/fetus', with the body of Mary simply providing the sustenance for life during the required gestation period until the Son of Man could be born? I think this is highly likely. It all makes sense.

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Yeah...because a supernatural 'ghost' getting a human female pregnant is 'highly likely' and 'all makes sense'......

I don't understand your post (above). Do you believe in the Bible, or not? If you don't, then why bother posting anything? If you do, then explain what you posted. Thank you.

I thought you said thoughts would be greatly appreciated? Are you looking for thoughts and opinions or are you simply wanting people to agree with you?

[_Thorwald]

What does believing in the Bible have to do with anything? Can non believers not be involved in the discussion?

There is no point in discussing the Bible, unless both parties involved in the discussion believe in the Bible. Common sense dictates this.

[_SteelHead]

Why does common sense dictate this? It is entirely possible to discuss the Bible without believing in it.

Seems like a variation of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Do I have to believe in all of it to discuss it? All literal and inerrant? Or can I pick and choose some of the stories as allegories like; the creation, the global flood, and the exodus?

If I don't accept all of it as literal, do I still get to participate?

[_Thorwald]

Why does common sense dictate this? It is entirely possible to discuss the Bible without believing in it.

Seems like a variation of the "no true Scotsman" falacy.

The Bible [The written Word of God], is the starting point. If a person does not believe in the Bible, what do you hope to achieve by beginning with, "I don't believe in the Bible." If you erase the 'source' material, then you have nothing. You simply have, 'anything goes'.

If you believe that the earth is 'cubic', and I believe the world is 'spherical', then anything you say in terms of trying to explain things in terms of the earth being cubic, will automatically be different from mine, because mine would have to relate to the world being spherical. Do you 'get it'?

[_SteelHead]

Do I have to believe in all of it to discuss it? All literal and inerrant? Or can I pick and choose some of the stories as allegories like; the creation, the global flood, and the exodus?

If I don't accept all of it as literal, do I still get to participate?

--ETA--

Do I have to believe in the same interpretation of various verses as you to participate? Or am I allowed my individual interpretation?

[_Thorwald]

Do I have to believe in all of it to discuss it? All literal and inerrant? Or can I pick and choose some of the stories as allegories like; the creation, the global flood, and the exodus?

If I don't accept all of it as literal, do I still get to participate?

--ETA--

Do I have to believe in the same interpretation of various verses as you to participate? Or am I allowed my individual interpretation?

The Word of God, IS GOD. If you 'change' The Word, you worship a different 'god'. This is the danger that most ministers face. A person can actually become a 'false prophet' by doing so. It is written, that 'talebearers' are just as guilty as the original author of the 'error'.

[_SteelHead]

You didn't answer the question about interpretation. Do I have to interpret various sundry verses the same as you to participate?

[_Bazooka]

Thorwald....have you been introduced to Little Nipper yet?

[_Bazooka]

There is no point in discussing the Bible, unless both parties involved in the discussion believe in the Bible. Common sense dictates this.

A more stupid comment posted on a discussion board I have yet to see.

[_subgenius]

Why does common sense dictate this? It is entirely possible to discuss the Bible without believing in it.

case in point

Seems like a variation of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

but in this context it is not...while the discussion clearly has a context, you would rather argue the context....which is the common sense point.

Do I have to believe in all of it to discuss it? All literal and inerrant? Or can I pick and choose some of the stories as allegories like; the creation, the global flood, and the exodus?

You would have to believe in order to participate in the discussion, otherwise you are participating in another discussion...

If I don't accept all of it as literal, do I still get to participate?

you can, but out of politeness, you should not. If you believe in the sun and i do not, why would either of us talk about solar flares together?
For a more immediate example...see my response herein.