Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Religion on SI -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (741)	9/8/1998 5:03:00 PM
From: X Y Zebra	Respond to of 1542

By insisting on these inflamatory partial quotations from Judaic writings, you are forcing me to act in a way in which I might, inadvertantly offend the faith of other Christian, not having the nefarious motives that drive you. I may have probably done so in an earlier post when I brought up other "possibilities" for "rational explanation" for Immaculate conceptions, the truth is that for a believer, there is no need to expalin immaculate conception, it is taken on faith, because one believe. I am not a believer, I am an Atheist. I can not understand that there can be a "rational explanation" for "inmaculate conceptions". In fact I can not understand a "rational explanation" to anything taken on "faith". To me, the above sound like oximorons. Why would anyone take offense to reason ? If reason shows someone a specific event, where would the offense be ? One can not take offense to facts. The simple fact is that all the writings you want to make reference are and have been performed by humans, there is no tangible proof that such writings were the writings of a deity, (whatever name you may want to give it). There can not be a "rational" explanation to such things. A belief on "whatever you want" based on faith is one thing. Its impossibility because of the lack of a rational explanation, and facts, is another. Kallah, 1b. (18b) -- Illegitimate and conceived during menstruation. I have not had time to research this one, but I will only say that it should be viewed as a rational argument as to the mystical origins of Jesus, nothing particularly derogatory nor inflamatory Well I am sorry, but I laughed my head off when I read that. I checked with a Gynecologist and he agreed with me and said, "continue laughing". Zeev, I believe you are an extremely bright individual, however, I find no explanation as to your exchanges with Emile, who is a racist, an extremist, and with a very twisted view of history and facts, particularly when he always avoid answering pointed questions that many have put to him. As to "reason with Emile"..... well, that is yet another oxymoron. Z.