The hidden history of Mary and Joseph

originally posted by: xbeta
a reply to: Raggedyman

Nobody can find proof links to a new 'idea' to themselves through their old ways. Thus yes providing proof is always on the listener. Also you really dont feel like proving somethings in most conditions.again this may be for your own sake despite i feel you would think differently. I always want to peole to understand easily but understanding was never easy. So forgive me if it looks annoying.

No
A theory is a belief, the person with the theory then has to validate the theory.
Others can if they feel interested, but, never is the burden of proof on the listener.
The listener can readily dismiss anything anyone else states if there is no proof

Why would someone listening to a ludicrous theory, belief, be subject to providing proof

Have you ever heard of string theory, if you havnt then you have now.
Its about finding common ground between quantum mechanics and relativity
Now you have heard of string theory, and listen carefully listener, the burden of proof is now on you to provide proof.
According to you?
Is that right?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: xbeta
a reply to: Raggedyman

Nobody can find proof links to a new 'idea' to themselves through their old ways. Thus yes providing proof is always on the listener. Also you really dont feel like proving somethings in most conditions.again this may be for your own sake despite i feel you would think differently. I always want to peole to understand easily but understanding was never easy. So forgive me if it looks annoying.

No
A theory is a belief, the person with the theory then has to validate the theory.
Others can if they feel interested, but, never is the burden of proof on the listener.
The listener can readily dismiss anything anyone else states if there is no proof

Why would someone listening to a ludicrous theory, belief, be subject to providing proof

Have you ever heard of string theory, if you havnt then you have now.
Its about finding common ground between quantum mechanics and relativity
Now you have heard of string theory, and listen carefully listener, the burden of proof is now on you to provide proof.
According to you?
Is that right?

I dont have a theory. I have proof.

originally posted by: xbeta

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: xbeta
a reply to: Raggedyman

Nobody can find proof links to a new 'idea' to themselves through their old ways. Thus yes providing proof is always on the listener. Also you really dont feel like proving somethings in most conditions.again this may be for your own sake despite i feel you would think differently. I always want to peole to understand easily but understanding was never easy. So forgive me if it looks annoying.

No
A theory is a belief, the person with the theory then has to validate the theory.
Others can if they feel interested, but, never is the burden of proof on the listener.
The listener can readily dismiss anything anyone else states if there is no proof

Why would someone listening to a ludicrous theory, belief, be subject to providing proof

Have you ever heard of string theory, if you havnt then you have now.
Its about finding common ground between quantum mechanics and relativity
Now you have heard of string theory, and listen carefully listener, the burden of proof is now on you to provide proof.
According to you?
Is that right?

I dont have a theory. I have proof.

Well prove it, put me out of my misery

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: xbeta

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: xbeta
a reply to: Raggedyman

Nobody can find proof links to a new 'idea' to themselves through their old ways. Thus yes providing proof is always on the listener. Also you really dont feel like proving somethings in most conditions.again this may be for your own sake despite i feel you would think differently. I always want to peole to understand easily but understanding was never easy. So forgive me if it looks annoying.

No
A theory is a belief, the person with the theory then has to validate the theory.
Others can if they feel interested, but, never is the burden of proof on the listener.
The listener can readily dismiss anything anyone else states if there is no proof

Why would someone listening to a ludicrous theory, belief, be subject to providing proof

Have you ever heard of string theory, if you havnt then you have now.
Its about finding common ground between quantum mechanics and relativity
Now you have heard of string theory, and listen carefully listener, the burden of proof is now on you to provide proof.
According to you?
Is that right?

I dont have a theory. I have proof.

Well prove it, put me out of my misery

Didnt you get hurt replying to that as i did while replying to you? Then you didnt want the proof like i wanted to give it to you. What else can i do?

Misery ..hm. Well. I dont know. What difference would it make the lack of it?

It's not so far fetched compared to many other stories I've read in the Book. True or not doesn't make a difference afaic.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Joseph and Mary offered a pair of turtle doves

Thirty-two more days passed quietly in Bethlehem. The Law said that forty days after the birth of a male child, the mother was to offer a sacrifice at the temple for her purification (Leviticus 12:1-8). Because blood is involved in the act of giving birth, the woman was made ceremonially unfit to enter the temple for worship. Simply as a reminder of the curse of sin and of God's judgment on Eve which made pain part of the process of childbirth, sacrifices had to be made. The Law required two sacrifices — a lamb offered as a burnt offering and a dove or pigeon offered as a sin offering. If you were too poor to buy a lamb, the Law allowed the offering of two doves or pigeons. We get some insight into the poverty of Mary and Joseph when we read in Luke 2:24 that they offered two birds. They couldn't afford a lamb.
www.ccel.us...

Blood, sacrifices, sin...bigotry against women.
What a God!!

I do not believe that the 'God' of Jesus was YHWH. The god who created human kind was the god of Jesus, not the god who created the Adam and then the Eve, after placing the Adam in the Garden of Eden. Eve sinned alright, by having the intelligence to listen to the 'Serpent' and then having the guts to pass on the knowledge to the Adam...who then shirked his manhood by telling his god that it was all Eve's fault.

From thereon, woman's lot was to be downtrod as the original sinner. From what I have read, women were treated as second-class citizens, used and abused, while YHWH had his chosen people slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children...unless he deemed that the females and children could be spared and taken as 'property'...or slaves, if you like.

YHWH??
What a total bastard he was.

a reply to: fromtheskydown

i am a man, but i believe that if women weren't held back for centuries, we would be equal, hell they might even be better than us, if it wasn't for the menstrual cycle.

originally posted by: Davg80
a reply to: fromtheskydown

i am a man, but i believe that if women weren't held back for centuries, we would be equal, hell they might even be better than us, if it wasn't for the menstrual cycle.

That's where we differ, my friend...I am a man and I believe women are our equal...in fact, they excel us in many, many things...as we excel them in many, many things. Therefore, we are equal as human beings and excel each other as human beings.