nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ISAW

seeskaskooch wrote: »

I can't believe I am answering this one! We don't need big brother to tell us what to think here. You can follow where your own reason will take you.

You made the claim
"Who did Jesus Christs actual disciples follow? What did Jesus' brother James the Just follow? Who were the ebionites/nazarenes? [b)The early church fathers simply labels them as a bunch of heretics. [/b]"

I asked you WHERE did the Early church fathers make this statement?

Obviously, if the Ebionites had different opinions of what Jesus thought than the Universal church, they would be heretics - those of opinion that is not with orthodox belief. Otherwise, all the Christians of todays world would be holding onto Ebionite views.

no they wouldnt but different issue. WHERE did the Early church fathers labels them as a bunch of heretics as you claimed?

ISAW

seeskaskooch wrote: »

Thanks again. I completely listed the wrong council I won't do that again! I meant the Council of Constantinople, the one whiched caused the schism in the church because the east and west couldn't agree on the nature of Jesus.

*
FYI you are mixing up the first and third councils of Constantinople
The First Council of Constantinople (second Ecumenical Council, AD 381)

The third Council at Constantinople ( sixth Ecumenical Council, 680 – 681)
By this time,Islam had taken over much of the Middle East and thus the Churches of east and west became split.

of course the above is based on the first being
Council of Nicaea (first Ecumenical Council, AD 325)

One could argue that Jerusalem on Pentecost was the first and add one to all the rest.

The Eastern Orthodox churches recognise only the first seven councils as ecumenical, the Roman Church adds an eighth before the Schism of 1054. This schism, ever since, has divided Eastern and Western Christianity. The eighth Council at Constantinople (869 – 870) ‘excommunicated’ Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the head of the eastern establishment, so it was rather bound to be unpopular in the East.

PDN

Wh1stler wrote: »

From http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Ireland_society__economy_1870-1914

"But even in the early decades of the twentieth century, childbirth was life-threatening for many mothers. Geographical location and social class were major determining factors in mortality. Irish infant mortality rates as a whole were fairly low by European standards, but babies born in urban areas were almost twice as vulnerable as those born in the country: the urban infant mortality rate was 150 per 1,000 live births, rural mortality was 74. A baby born into the family of a labourer was seventeen times more likely to die within a year than the child of a professional."

That does seem to mean a lot of devout Catholics were losing children.

And that has what relevance to First Century Ephesus?

You think that Timothy was pastoring a congregation of Irish Catholics?

As for all the rest of your stuff about Genesis - I haven't the slightest interest in derailng this thread by debating your idiosyncratic interpretations.

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

And that has what relevance to First Century Ephesus?

It was you who suggested that faith will protect mothers in childbirth:

PDN wrote: »

We know that Timothy was at Ephesus, and the cult of Artemis in that city exalted her as a fertility goddess and as the protector of women. Paul is saying, in contrast to the claims of the Artemis cult, that faith in Christ will preserve the mother during childbirth (an understandable preoccupation given the rather horrific mortality rate during childbirth in the First Century).

It does not and you cannot show any evidence to the contrary.

PDN wrote: »

You think that Timothy was pastoring a congregation of Irish Catholics?

Pastoring? You consider the vilification of women 'pastoring'? And yes, that attitude toward women prevailed in Ireland.

Do you suggest that Jesus was not speaking to me?

PDN wrote: »

As for all the rest of your stuff about Genesis - I haven't the slightest interest in derailng this thread by debating your idiosyncratic interpretations.

You used this same tactic of evasion on Penn as he dismantled your argument concerning what happened at the tomb after Jesus was crucified by use of a deeply flawed analogy about a 'plane journey. I intend to come back to that later.

So much for your willingness to discuss contradictions in the Bible.

However, your refusal to engage in this discussion leaves me winning the argument by default. This is not a satisfactory way to win but it is a win none the less.

PDN

Wh1stler wrote: »

It was you who suggested that faith will protect mothers in childbirth:

No, I suggested that Paul saw faith in Christ as protecting mothers in childbirth. The discussion was about what Paul meant in a certain passage. I really couldn't give a rat's ass whether you personally happpen to think Paul was right or wrong.

It does not and you cannot show any evidence to the contrary.

I don't need to show any evidence - that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand which was what Paul meant.

Pastoring? You consider the vilification of women 'pastoring'? And yes, that attitude toward women prevailed in Ireland.

I'm unaware of Timothy ever vilifying women - but I'm certainly open to correction if you've found some long lost document written by Timothy.

Do you suggest that Jesus was not speaking to me?

I have no comment whatsoever to make on whatever conversations you might claim to have had with Jesus. But I don't see their relevance to the subject I was addressing, which is what Paul meant in a letter to Timothy.

You used this same tactic of evasion on Penn as he dismantled your argument concerning what happened at the tomb after Jesus was crucified by use of a deeply flawed analogy about a 'plane journey. I intend to come back to that later.

It's hardly evasion if I choose not to discuss half-baked notions about Genesis with someone who appears to be deeply ignorant of the subject.

So much for your willingness to discuss contradictions in the Bible.

I'm still waiting for any of those so-called contradictions. So far, I must say, the efforts to produce them are less than impressive.

However, your refusal to engage in this discussion leaves me winning the argument by default. This is not a satisfactory way to win but it is a win none the less.

If you think you've won something and that makes you happy then I'm very glad for you.

Toby Take a Bow

PDN wrote: »

Not really. I don't think that the faith of those in a so-called 'Christian' country is necessarily anything like the faith practiced in apostolic times.

Regardless of the type of faith practiced, if knowledge and acceptance of Christ is the prime factor in affecting childbirth survival rates, surely the two aren't in any way opposed?

PDN

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Regardless of the type of faith practiced, if knowledge and acceptance of Christ is the prime factor in affecting childbirth survival rates, surely the two aren't in any way opposed?

I'm unaware that I ever argued that knowledge and acceptance of Christ is the prime factor in affecting childbirth rates. I believe that Paul may well have been arguing that women, by abandoning the rites of Artemis and trusting Christ instead, would be at least equally protected during childbirth.

If you wish to present evidence that those who abandoned Artemis worship in Ephesus and had faith in Christ instead somehow suffered higher mortality rates then please feel free to present it. Then you can argue that you've proved Paul wrong - which I doubt will bother him much.

Toby Take a Bow

PDN wrote: »

I'm unaware that I ever argued that knowledge and acceptance of Christ is the prime factor in affecting childbirth rates. I believe that Paul may well have been arguing that women, by abandoning the rites of Artemis and trusting Christ instead, would be at least equally protected during childbirth.

If you wish to present evidence that those who abandoned Artemis worship in Ephesus and had faith in Christ instead somehow suffered higher mortality rates then please feel free to present it. Then you can argue that you've proved Paul wrong - which I doubt will bother him much.

I'm more curious in your reasoning rather than trying to argue against you. Looking back over what you wrote, specifically:

PDN wrote: »

In my view the key to understanding this is in the next bit that follows on from what you quoted: "Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."

I can see that there are other factors to look at. I would've thought that Christ would be a primary factor in preventing infant mortality in any period, as knowledge and acceptance of Christ would be the primary factor in anything to do with Christianity. I get that it's dependent on other factors, but again, I would've thought accceptance of Christ as the primary factor.

PDN

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I can see that there are other factors to look at. I would've thought that Christ would be a primary factor in preventing infant mortality in any period, as knowledge and acceptance of Christ would be the primary factor in anything to do with Christianity. I get that it's dependent on other factors, but again, I would've thought accceptance of Christ as the primary factor.

I think the primary factor would be the kind of faith in Christ that Paul was constantly urging Christians to have. And, in so-called 'Christian' countries, I believe only a small minority of people have that kind of faith.

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

No, I suggested that Paul saw faith in Christ as protecting mothers in childbirth. The discussion was about what Paul meant in a certain passage. I really couldn't give a rat's ass whether you personally happpen to think Paul was right or wrong.

And that is the problem. It is your duty to give a 'rat's ass' whether Paul was right or lying!

PDN wrote: »

I don't need to show any evidence - that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand which was what Paul meant.

Yes you do. You said, "I suggested that Paul saw faith in Christ as protecting mothers in childbirth."

On what did you base that suggestion? Faith in Christ does nothing for malnutrition; nothing for inadequate health-care. The idea that faith in Jesus will protect women in child-birth is misleading and untrue.

The passage from Timothy adequately demonstrates that there was an active campaign to undermine the credibility of women due to the 'fact' that the most powerful angel ever created, Lucifer, managed to seduce the most naive woman who ever lived, Eve!

And again, you should give a 'rat's ass'.

PDN wrote: »

I'm unaware of Timothy ever vilifying women - but I'm certainly open to correction if you've found some long lost document written by Timothy.

'Women should be seen and not heard' is not condusive to equality of the sexes. Christianity is not as inclusive as it would have us believe.

PDN wrote: »

I have no comment whatsoever to make on whatever conversations you might claim to have had with Jesus. But I don't see their relevance to the subject I was addressing, which is what Paul meant in a letter to Timothy.

Wasn't Paul largely responsible for the codifying of Christianity? Isn't the book of Timothy supposed to reflect the hopes of Jesus? Perhaps Paul expected us to adopt a newer improved version in the 21st Century.

PDN wrote: »

It's hardly evasion if I choose not to discuss half-baked notions about Genesis with someone who appears to be deeply ignorant of the subject.

Yes it is!

PDN wrote: »

I'm still waiting for any of those so-called contradictions. So far, I must say, the efforts to produce them are less than impressive.

'He gives them eyes and yet they do not see.'

PDN wrote: »

If you think you've won something and that makes you happy then I'm very glad for you.

Thank you.

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

I believe that Paul may well have been arguing that women, by abandoning the rites of Artemis and trusting Christ instead, would be at least equally protected during childbirth.

LOL. Priceless. This puts me in mind of Lisa Simpson's tiger repelling rock.

I believe that Paul may well have been arguing that women, by abandoning the rites of Artemis and trusting Christ instead, would be at least equally un-protected during childbirth.

PDN

Wh1stler wrote: »

LOL. Priceless. This puts me in mind of Lisa Simpson's tiger repelling rock.

I believe that Paul may well have been arguing that women, by abandoning the rites of Artemis and trusting Christ instead, would be at least equally un-protected during childbirth.

Good for you. You're entitled to believe whatever you want.

I, however, was answering a question that Morbert had asked, in the Christianity Forum, about what Christians think Paul was saying in that passage.

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

I, however, was answering a question that Morbert had asked, in the Christianity Forum, about what Christians think Paul was saying in that passage.

No, you weren't; you were giving your own personal, non-evidentially based, misleading and patently untrue opinion of what Paul was saying.

You have suggested that an improved mortality rate was a selling point that was used to attract new customers to Christianity but have offered no reason whatsoever for thinking so.

Paul was quite obviously a misogynist as well as a murderer.

PDN

Wh1stler wrote: »

No, you weren't;

Yes I was. Morbert asked what Christians thought Paul meant by that passage, and I answered and told him what I thought. I also stressed that it was my subjective opinion and might be wrong.

you were giving your own personal, non-evidentially based, misleading and patently untrue opinion of what Paul was saying.

Yes, it was personal, because that what Morbert asked for. He asked Christians to share what they thought.

It was evidentially based, in that my opinion was based on the evidence of what we know about Artemis worship in First Century Ephesus, on the fact that we know there was a clash between Paul and devotees of the Artemis cult in Ephesus, and on an understanding of Paul's theology that is pretty standard and accepted in the area of biblical studies.

You, of course, are free to disagree if you think you know better than me what Paul meant - although your posts so far in this forum don't give the impression that Biblical Studies or Theology are an area of expertise for you. However, I think it is grossly inaccurate to say that my opinion is misleading or patently untrue. My opinion was a straightforward answer to Morbert's question, and it reflects the opinion of a good number of scholars.

You have suggested that an improved mortality rate was a selling point that was used to attract new customers to Christianity but have offered no reason whatsoever for thinking so.

Actually I haven't. I never mentioned anything as being a selling point. I suggested that Paul was telling Timothy to teach women in the Ephesus church that they should trust in Christ for protection in childbirth rather than have any involvement with the Artemis cult.

That is a very unremarkable and uncontroversial claim. It's similar to how a preacher today might tell people to trust in Jesus rather than crossing their fingers, carrying a rabbit's foot or a similar superstition.

If you want to know the reasons why I think so then I would advise you to read up on Artemis. Google is your friend.

Paul was quite obviously a misogynist as well as a murderer.

He was a murderer of Christians before his conversion - that is quite true. I'm not sure why that should be an issue or what it's relevance is to this thread. Christians believe in redemption, and murderers can repent and turn to Christ. In fact, when my wife and I got married our wedding ceremony was conducted by a minister who was a loyalist gunman and a murderer before his conversion. A very nice and gentle chap he was.

As for Paul being a misogynist - that is a view held by many.

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

Yes I was. Morbert asked what Christians thought Paul meant by that passage, and I answered and told him what I thought. I also stressed that it was my subjective opinion and might be wrong.

No, no, no. That is not the discussion at hand.

Morbet saw a number of problems with that passage which is associated with Genesis and that raises a number of other issues.

And in my opinion, your view is based on a faulty interpretation of both Timothy and Genesis. And that is what I'm tackling in the context of the OP.

The 'Fall of Man' occurred because God was caught out in a lie. That is what the words actually written in the Genesis account describe. Blaming Eve, or the serpent for that matter, is misleading and untrue.

PDN wrote: »

Yes, it was personal, because that what Morbert asked for. He asked Christians to share what they thought.

It may be a personal one but it is still a misleading view. That is if it is actually what you believe.

PDN wrote: »

It was evidentially based, in that my opinion was based on the evidence of what we know about Artemis worship in First Century Ephesus, on the fact that we know there was a clash between Paul and devotees of the Artemis cult in Ephesus, and on an understanding of Paul's theology that is pretty standard and accepted in the area of biblical studies.

No, the evidence suggests that Paul considered women as inferior to men; the source of original sin. He was not trying to help women, he was trying to poach devotees from the Artemis cult in order to swell the ranks of Christianity and in your opinion, he used infant mortality as a selling point.

Why would God punish Adam for Eve's transgression? Paul was effectively saying that God was wrong to punish Adam and that Christianity should proceed on that basis.

This is not reflective of what Jesus taught; it was Paul corrupting the message of Jesus.

PDN wrote: »

You, of course, are free to disagree if you think you know better than me what Paul meant - although your posts so far in this forum don't give the impression that Biblical Studies or Theology are an area of expertise for you. However, I think it is grossly inaccurate to say that my opinion is misleading or patently untrue. My opinion was a straightforward answer to Morbert's question, and it reflects the opinion of a good number of scholars.

But it cannot reflect the opinion of a number of good scholars.

PDN wrote: »

Actually I haven't. I never mentioned anything as being a selling point. I suggested that Paul was telling Timothy to teach women in the Ephesus church that they should trust in Christ for protection in childbirth rather than have any involvement with the Artemis cult.

You may not have called it 'a selling point' but that is what it is.

PDN wrote: »

That is a very unremarkable and uncontroversial claim. It's similar to how a preacher today might tell people to trust in Jesus rather than crossing their fingers, carrying a rabbit's foot or a similar superstition.

You are still swapping one superstition for another superstition.

PDN wrote: »

If you want to know the reasons why I think so then I would advise you to read up on Artemis. Google is your friend.

Not necessary.

Unless of course you concede that the Bible was written to be misleading; that the words contained therein were meant to hide their true meaning; that only those who have studied for years are meant to be able to have access to what God, and Jesus, actually meant by what they actually said or wrote.

Which is ironic since many preachers will direct those looking for answers to the raw text of the Bible.

PDN wrote: »

He was a murderer of Christians before his conversion - that is quite true. I'm not sure why that should be an issue or what it's relevance is to this thread. Christians believe in redemption, and murderers can repent and turn to Christ. In fact, when my wife and I got married our wedding ceremony was conducted by a minister who was a loyalist gunman and a murderer before his conversion. A very nice and gentle chap he was.

In my view, Christianity represented an opportunity for Paul to convert from being a 'little fish in a big pond' to a 'big fish in a little pond'.

PDN wrote: »

As for Paul being a misogynist - that is a view held by many.

Then any directives from him concerning women should be completely disregarded.

tommy2bad

Wh1stler on Paul;
Then any directives from him concerning women should be completely disregarded.

Well not disregarded but approached to find what they tell us about God.
This is the problem with revelation when you assume revelation is a kind of spirit writing. You forget that people are people and God works through them not uses them like puppets. Yes some of Pauls stuff can be left behind in the light of what we now know but the message that God wants us to be sinless must not be lost.
Paul is a hard one anyway, he was a terrible writer, prone to sarcasm, hyperbole and sneering contempt. Understandable considering the pressure he was under, the amount of stray ideas he had to correct and his total belief in his message and the simplicity of it.

PDN

Wh1stler wrote: »

No, no, no. That is not the discussion at hand.

It is precisely the discussion at hand.

Morbet saw a number of problems with that passage which is associated with Genesis and that raises a number of other issues.

I would be more inclined to let Morbert state what he thinks - I don't think he needs your help in doing that, particularly since he comes across as being intellligent and articulate.

Wh1stler

tommy2bad wrote: »

Understandable considering the pressure he was under, the amount of stray ideas he had to correct and his total belief in his message and the simplicity of it.

I would say, "Understandable considering the kind of man he was."

And if his message is so simple, how come it is so intractable; how come there are so many different types of Christian?

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

I would be more inclined to let Morbert state what he thinks - I don't think he needs your help in doing that, particularly since he comes across as being intellligent and articulate.

Which comes across as a personal attack on my intelligence and articulation.

And makes you no less wrong.

tommy2bad

Wh1stler wrote: »

I would say, "Understandable considering the kind of man he was."

And if his message is so simple, how come it is so intractable; how come there are so many different types of Christian?

As I said;
This is the problem with revelation; when you assume revelation is a kind of spirit writing, you forget that people are people and God works through them not uses them like puppets.

Wh1stler

tommy2bad wrote: »

As I said;
This is the problem with revelation; when you assume revelation is a kind of spirit writing, you forget that people are people and God works through them not uses them like puppets.

Then the Bible, being written by humans, is useless in helping to understand God.

I mean, there are many 'puppets' depicted in the Bible.

PDN

Wh1stler wrote: »

Then the Bible, being written by humans, is useless in helping to understand God.

I mean, there are many 'puppets' depicted in the Bible.

Not at all. I don't think you've quite grasped what Christians believe about the Bible.

The Christian understanding of inspiration is that God guided and superintended the biblical writers so that, without overruling their personalities, what they wrote still reflected His will, reveals Him to men, and can quite properly be designated 'the Word of God'.

Christians also understand that God is a being who makes himself known through His ways with men, through His relationships with us. So the Bible is a record of history, poems, songs, and letters that deal with very human situations (such as what was going on in the churches at Ephesus or Corinth).

So we do not see the Bible as being a list of propositions, each stating an attribute about God, or giving a command.

The Bible is much more like a scrapbook that has been kept by a married couple over the years. In that scrapbook you find old love letters, photographs, ticket stubs from when they went to the theatre etc. You might also find more official documentation like a marriage certificate or a cutting from the newspaper of an obituary for a child lost in infancy.

A grandchild of this couple, by going through this scrapbook, can see what is important to that couple. They can appreciate their love for each other. They appreciate the struggles their grandparents went through. Sometimes, by seeing photographs of themselves as children, photographs they themselves had long forgotten, (or even faded certificates from infant school that have been proudly kept) they reflect afresh on how their grandparents love them too.

And that is how Christians see the Bible as being the Word of God. They see it as being a multi-layered record of God's love story with His people. They see parts of it as being so simple that a tiny child can understand it. And they see other parts as requiring deep study to prise out deep truths - justifying many of us spending long hours learning Greek or Hebrew, or studying Ancient History and philosophy so we can better appreciate God's relationship with man.

And, coming back to your objection, the way that God used flawed and imperfect characters to write the Bible is a great encouragement to us. It reminds us that God can also use us, even if we are flawed and imperfect.

PDN

Wh1stler wrote: »

Which comes across as a personal attack on my intelligence and articulation.

And makes you no less wrong.

No it doesn't. It was a comment about Morbert, who asked a question from Christians as to what they thought, received an answer from me as a Christian explaining what I thought, and comes across as being intelligent and articulate enough to respond if he wishes, or to explain if he meant something else.

I have made absolutely no comment on what I think of your intelligence and articulation, nor would I breach the Forum Charter by doing so.

tommy2bad

Wh1stler wrote: »

Then the Bible, being written by humans, is useless in helping to understand God.

I mean, there are many 'puppets' depicted in the Bible.

God is the author of the bible, His hand can be seen all through the books.
Characters get things wrong, misunderstand what He wants even misrepresent His will when it should be as clear as day, but God isn't controlling them. He works away with what He has and if you read the stories to see what the author is saying rather than asking the characters what is the author saying it's easier to 'get' the message.

Wh1stler

tommy2bad wrote: »

God is the author of the bible, His hand can be seen all through the books.
Characters get things wrong, misunderstand what He wants even misrepresent His will when it should be as clear as day, but God isn't controlling them. He works away with what He has and if you read the stories to see what the author is saying rather than asking the characters what is the author saying it's easier to 'get' the message.

Who told you this? Gabriel?

If God is the author of Genesis and Genesis is written the way that God intended, the His was the deceit, not the serpent's. God transgressed before the serpent by lying, yes l-y-i-n-g, to Adam.

You may argue that God may be a hypocrite if He chooses to be but you cannot argue that the God of Abraham is not a hypocrite. He is jealous, possessive; He incites violence.

God is so omnipotent that He needs men to do His blood-letting for Him: He is so omnipresent that He failed to witness the first murder; He is so omniscient that Joseph realised that Herod's son succeeded the throne before He did.

As I have already said, in order to interpret the Bible as religionists do, the actual words written in the Bible must be be ignored.

Personally, I think that you are all batting for the wrong side; you have sold your souls cheaply.

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

No it doesn't. It was a comment about Morbert, who asked a question from Christians as to what they thought, received an answer from me as a Christian explaining what I thought, and comes across as being intelligent and articulate enough to respond if he wishes, or to explain if he meant something else.

I have made absolutely no comment on what I think of your intelligence and articulation, nor would I breach the Forum Charter by doing so.

Do you think that faith in Jesus lowers infant mortality rates?

Do you think that Jesus Himself in any way implied such a thing?

Christianity is by an large the Doctrine of St. Paul. If you think that Paul said, or meant, that faith in Jesus would lower infant mortality rates then you must believe that Paul implied that faith in Jesus is an antidote to malnutrition and poor healthcare.

Did you really tell Morbet what you think or did you tell him what you wanted him to think?

You seem to be protecting Paul who in actuality lied in order to sell more of his product.

You see, I am intelligent and articulate.

And I can smell BS a mile off.

philologos

I take it there's no way we can do this discussion without being obnoxious towards the other?

Wh1stler

philologos wrote: »

I take it there's no way we can do this discussion without being obnoxious towards the other?

Unfortunately, attacking the person is the only tool available to some when they cannot attack the argument.

I prefer to think of it as evasiveness rather than obnoxiousness though.

Wh1stler

PDN wrote:

I'm quite sure you can smell it - but I think you've over-estimated the distance between your lips and your nose by about 1759 yards and 34 inches.

LMAO. That has to be one of the best comebacks I have ever read.

Brilliant.

@ philologos; I think you may be correct.

PDN

Wh1stler wrote:

Do you think that faith in Jesus lowers infant mortality rates?.

I wouldn't make any grandiose statements about mortality rates. I do, as a Christian, believe that faith in Jesus can indeed change the outcome in individual cases.

I'm not quite sure why you're banging on about mortality rates. The only thing I said about mortality rates was that they were horrific during childbirth in the First Century - a rather unremarkable statement that most people would agree with.

Do you think that Jesus Himself in any way implied such a thing?

I don't think Jesus made any statements about mortality rates, or indeed actuarial tables. I do think that Jesus encouraged individuals to have faith in Him, to have faith in God, and that our prayers can be answered.

Therefore Paul, by encouraging women to put their faith in Christ during childbirth, would be teaching in way that is entirely consistent with the teaching of Jesus.

Christianity is by an large the Doctrine of St. Paul. If you think that Paul said, or meant, that faith in Jesus would lower infant mortality rates then you must believe that Paul implied that faith in Jesus is an antidote to malnutrition and poor healthcare.

I really cannot comment on what you think would be the case if I had said something that I didn't say.

Did you really tell Morbet what you think or did you tell him what you wanted him to think?

I've already said on several occasions that I told Morbert what I think. It is considered poor etiquette on boards.ie to suggest that someone is lying.

You seem to be protecting Paul who in actuality lied in order to sell more of his product.

Unfortunately you saying it doesn't make it true.

You see, I am intelligent and articulate.

I'm glad you think that about yourself.