That is fair enough.
That is no more than defending ur beliefs.
But do it with out being provoked and its Preaching.

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and the right to defend them, just as i am doing so now.
but saying others are wrong for disagreeing is just moronic . . . . .

Oye. One of these arguments. truefusion's right in one aspect, since it has been proven scientifically in many aspects although myself being a former athiest and now agnostic ( since nobody really knows what is or is not ), I have some doubts and skepticism about all religions in general. It might be a general bias, but whatever. Anyway, all in all, nobody knows what religion is right and what's wrong and calling any religion superior is arrogant and ignorant. An above post states that Christianity does not teach about superiority and that's correct, since if I recall correctly, it's stated that judging others is a bad thing.

Wow. I almost do not want to reply to this topic. Of course Christianity is not superior to any other religion. And where is the scientific proof that a virgin can give birth to someone?

Mind you, just cause you've been taught that the only way to make a "baby" is by the sperm to be inserted into an egg, doesnt mean that's the ONLY way. But, rather than asking, go find the answer yourself. Here's something you might find interesting...

This post has been edited by truefusion: Apr 2 2006, 02:44 PM

'Reproduction' and 'birth' are not necessarily the same things. Sure there are other ways to reproduce, but when people refer to 'birth' they're talking about the sperm & egg method of procreation.

The fact that no religion is innately supperior has already been covered. I'd like to add two things.
First, Christianity is not more inclusive than other religions. If anything, many of its sects are much more exclusive than liberal sects of other dominant religions (Judiasm and Islam).
Second, truefusion I have to state pretty strenuously that the article you linked to is so dubious as to not really merit any consideration. As far as I know, there has never been a case of a man (xy genes) not recognizing testosterone, or indeed a woman (xx) not recognizing testosterone. That's because both men and women need testosterone to develop -- it's an essential hormone. I think what the author meant to point out when they were talking about an androgenous person was someone with XXY chromosomes, who displays secondary female characteristics but is infertile. Even if we accept the scientifically implausable supposition that such an individual could be fertile, there is no research, anywhere (according to my knowledge) that shows that two gametes in the same individual could fuse to produce a viable zygote. That's because humans and our ancestors chose sexual reproduction for more genetic diversity over asexual reproduction.
Let me be specific that I'm not attacking or disputing your religious beliefs, but I do call in to question their scientific backing. If you would like to show me a credible study proving asexual reproduction in humans, with accessable test data, I might change my mind.

This post has been edited by WindAndWater: Apr 4 2006, 04:55 AM

It is, indeed, a rare occurance. Like i've said, it also happens in nature. And it just so happens the births that happen in nature are all female. How would we know it happens in nature, if there were no findings? It just so happens, that we humans are different than all other animals. So, that should increase the possibility of a female, of our race, to be able to give birth to a male.

But tell me something, would you know if you had stuff of the opposite sex inside you, if it did not appear so on the outside?

Even science has taken the Bible into consideration for its studies. Since, it's been proven to be true many times. Assuredly, the teachings of the Bible is ahead of its time.

I understand what you are saying, but is there any scientific proof instead of you assuming there is? If so, can you please give me a credible source such as Wikipedia/Encyclopedia Brit. as opposed to something like the Christian Research Center which would be bias.

The link i provided in this topic is a Christian Research Center? Strange, it doesnt look like