Immaculate Conception

[Kapyong]

The Immaculate Conception is the conception of Mary by Anne.

Wiki :
"The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic Dogma, the conception of the Virgin Mary...
The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus on 8 December 1854."


Catholic Encyclopedia :
' In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." '


Britannica :
' Roman Catholic dogma asserting that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was preserved free from the effects of the sin of Adam (usually referred to as “original sin”) from the first instant of her conception. '


The facts are clear :

The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of MARY (by her mother Anne.)

It only became Christian dogma about 150 years ago.


But,
bishadi cannot or will not realise he is wrong.

It's quite funny really ... on and on he goes ... digging his hole deeper and deeper.


K.

 

[Bishadi]

Son, you don't get it. Why not leave it at that?

exactly why i laugh when you return;

"you aint got no legs"

ie... looks like Jesus made a 'charge' and you believe beliefs instead (pure anti-)

 

[Bishadi]

The Immaculate Conception is the conception of Mary by Anne.

Wiki :
"The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic Dogma, the conception of the Virgin Mary...
The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus on 8 December 1854."


Catholic Encyclopedia :
' In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." '


Britannica :
' Roman Catholic dogma asserting that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was preserved free from the effects of the sin of Adam (usually referred to as “original sin”) from the first instant of her conception. '


The facts are clear :

The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of MARY (by her mother Anne.)

It only became Christian dogma about 150 years ago.


But,
bishadi cannot or will not realise he is wrong.

It's quite funny really ... on and on he goes ... digging his hole deeper and deeper.


K.

if you read the beginning of the thread, the raving one did the same thing

but then if you comprehended the OP and all the thread posts in between, then without any doubt, you would know the OP has been completely cleared up

the question is not on WHAT WIKI says about a the IM, nor the church, nor your weeeeee little opinion

there was a specific questioning being invoked (inquired upon)

and then a new thread was even opened to address yours and rav1, to show, that be it wiki, the pope or even the guru's of scifi, most (the majority on the earth) would consider the terms and word combination of Immaculate Conception as being Jesus was thought to be born of a virgin, Mary.

all you doing is making yourself a fool, if any read your posts

try going back to the OP and answer the questions

didn't ask if you want to be proPopelong and educate me on the terms

why not rant on the utter thread or even post your vote (i think you would make yourself 100% correct if you voted right now)

 

[Dywyddyr]

ito show, that be it wiki, the pope or even the guru's of scifi, most (the majority on the earth) would consider the terms and word combination of Immaculate Conception as being Jesus was thought to be born of a virgin, Mary

But from the evidence of the posts so far the MAJORITY don't agree with (personal) interpretation.
In other you're STILL talking nonsense, and it's still you who's the fool.

Unless you have actual figures on what the majority on Earth really think it means.

And no inventing your own statistics, I know you have a penchant for that when you can't find genuine figures to support your insanity.

 

[Bishadi]

But from the evidence of the posts so far the MAJORITY don't agree with (personal) interpretation.
In other you're STILL talking nonsense, and it's still you who's the fool.

Unless you have actual figures on what the majority on Earth really think it means.

And no inventing your own statistics, I know you have a penchant for that when you can't find genuine figures to support your insanity.

ok dog

on this forum i am wrong for assuming what i cannot verify without a poll, and since none observed the poll i tried to enable

then i am wrong in the context of your inquiry, within this body of observers (i am used to it) (life: abuses entropy )

are any going to post up a poll on that? (not the above but the below)

that i am wrong to even consider going against the dogma of wiki and poops

 

[Dywyddyr]

ok dog
on this forum i am wrong for assuming what i cannot verify without a poll, and since none observed the poll i tried to enable
then i am wrong in the context of your inquiry, within this body of observers (i am used to it)
are any going to post up a poll on that? (not the above but the below)
that i am wrong to even consider going against the dogma of wiki and poops

A poll?
You mean you admit you've made a claim you can't substantiate?
You've told another lie?

And the fact that you use the word "dogma" suggests that you've already made your mind up what the result should be (according to you).
How scientific is that?
Don't bother answering, it's exactly at your usual "standard" of science: prejudged and prepared to ignore actual evidence.

 

[Bishadi]

A poll?
You mean you admit you've made a claim you can't substantiate?
You've told another lie?

hey dog,

i can substantiate it, but just not to you (you are about as dishonest by intent, then any on this site)

nothing i say is of dishonesty, as i share what any can see for themselves

so this group don't wanna vote... so what.

but if i walk down the street and tap on every door for a vote from just people, i bet my claim (about IM) is found correct

And the fact that you use the word "dogma" suggests that you've already made your mind up what the result should be (according to you).

i got it from the locals use (i rarely even use the word as to me beliefs of people being born perfect and stay that way until having a child, is not only nuts by itself but STUPID to even consider ...dogma is being nice)

How scientific is that?

you have no idea what integrity is let alone comprehend the idea of IM being completely NON-scientific across all boards

Don't bother answering, it's exactly at your usual "standard" of science: prejudged and prepared to ignore actual evidence.

what evidence is there of an IM? answer the question mutt.

any can discount the STUPID DOGMA of IM because scientifically it is rediculous

but that is not what the thread was for or inquiring (it was trying to substantiate the possibility that the old writers were conveying something of truth but it may have been misinterpreted)

 

[Dywyddyr]

hey dog,

Still with the insults?
Is that because you have difficulties finding actual replies to my questions?

i can substantiate it, but just not to you

So you can't.

nothing i say is of dishonesty, as i share what any can see for themselves

Apart from the actual quoted examples of your lies that I've pointed out in other threads you mean?

but if i walk down the street and tap on every door for a vote from just people, i bet my claim (about IM) is found correct

That's right!
Betting is the true scientific method.

you have no idea what integrity is let alone comprehend the idea of IM being completely NON-scientific across all boards

Wrong again.

what evidence is there of an IM?

None, of course.

but that is not what the thread was for or inquiring (it was trying to substantiate the possibility that the old writers were conveying something of truth but it may have been misinterpreted)

Yup, but you screwed up royally didn't you?

 

[Bishadi]

Is that because you have difficulties finding actual replies to my questions?

your easy

a troll

None, of course.

so is the belief dogma, or is your previous post the typical trolling?

Yup, but you screwed up royally didn't you?

how?

suggesting what people believe is not what is written

i made the point as clear as rendering you a troll

 

[Dywyddyr]

your easy
a troll so is the belief dogma, or is your previous post the typical trolling?

You're erecting strawmen, as usual.
Whether or not the actual Immaculate Conception is real, your understanding of it is flawed.

suggesting what people believe is not what is written
i made the point as clear as rendering you a troll

Wrong again.
You were incorrect as to what the Immaculate Conception meant, and then compounded your error by claiming that the majority of people understood it to mean the same as you do, with no evidence.

Keep on trolling.

 

[GeoffP]

Bishadi, where exactly does your real expertise lie? (Or is it "lies?" ) It's not math, it's not theology, and it doesn't look like reading is panning out either. What's your bag, as they used to say?

 

[Bishadi]

ok

i am the bad guy, u2 are great

dan 7:8

a band

 

[Dywyddyr]

ok
i am the bad guy, u2 are great

Not really.
You're not bad, just clueless.
But Geoff and I are great.

 

[GeoffP]

We are. I've often thought that.

 

[earth]

Shall we declare you two Gods?

In a similar fashion concerning Alexander the Great. And Caesar Augustus declaring him a God after his death or Jesus after his death.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Shall we declare you two Gods?

I would have thought such a declaration was self-evidently redundant.

 

[earth]

I would have thought such a declaration was self-evidently redundant.

I await your walking on water.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I await your walking on water.

Pfft, only if there's a pint of Guinness waiting for me on the opposite bank!

 

[earth]

Pfft, only if there's a pint of Guinness waiting for me on the opposite bank!

A God isn't worth his/her salt if he/she can't turn water into wine.

 

[Dywyddyr]

A God isn't worth his/her salt if he/she can't turn water into wine.

I didn't say I couldn't, but I am considerate of the possible damage to cash flow in society if I do it...