|
Post by kls on Nov 25, 2018 1:39:58 GMT
The angel Gabriel announced God's plan for bringing into this world via Mary. She said 'Let it be done to me as you have said, behold the handmaid of the Lord.' Part of Luke's Gospel. You can choose not to believe. That (and how foolish you may see it) doesn't effect my faith. I don't need you to confirm anything for me. Interesting how you didn't quote me directly. Hmmmm!
I am only asking about why you would have faith, whatever this is supposed to mean, in something that is asinine and cultish? This is not about me confirming anything, only for Catholic followers to give some reasonable and rationale explanation for their own confirmation.
I don't need to justify it. That's not how faith works. Feel free to take it or leave it.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Nov 25, 2018 1:43:27 GMT
If you don't believe in the Gospel do you really care about me citing it? Why bring God or consent into it? Yes, because this is a discussion debate thread on the RFS board. It is interesting to know people's perception of things and especially if they don't have much credibility associated with what they believe and why they believe it. I believe it because it would be ridiculous and nonsense to deny it. It is the most objective bit of History ever recorded before the middle ages. That much only a moron would deny. It's objective because there were no rewards or incentives for the writers or for the witnesses, and there were more identified witnesses to the events of the life of Jesus than of anyone else. Not just dignitaries and "upwardly mobile" individuals, but of people whose very lives were struggles, and whom could not have survived past adolescence had they not struggled. It's objective because the apostles were mostly fishermen on the sea of Galilee, and tax collectors, and men who would doubt themselves. One can make the case that Saul of Tarsus was sado-masochistic enough to enjoy martyrdom without reason, but not the fishermen. Fishermen on the hostile sea of Galilee who had any suicidal tendency or self destructive tendency would not only have perished within three voyages, but would have cost the lives of their companions most likely. It's objective because all the apostles knew that by simply fabricating the stories of resurrection and virgin birth, their rewards would be A. Beheading B. Burning alive C. Flayed alive D. Crucifixion E. Any nasty thing as such It's objective because the apostles knew they would have better rewards simply telling stories of Jesus as a poor loser, and magnifying themselves. Yet they didn't do this. It's objective because if they simply wanted a Messiah from the seed of David, they had at least four brothers of Jesus to choose from, and no doubt they would looked in that direction if not for the resurrection AND the virgin birth. I don't have enough FAITH not to believe.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Nov 25, 2018 4:52:29 GMT
I believe it because it would be ridiculous and nonsense to deny it.
It is the most objective bit of History ever recorded before the middle ages. That much only a moron would deny.It's objective because there were no rewards or incentives for the writers or for the witnesses, and there were more identified witnesses to the events of the life of Jesus than of anyone else. Not just dignitaries and "upwardly mobile" individuals, but of people whose very lives were struggles, and whom could not have survived past adolescence had they not struggled. It's objective because the apostles were mostly fishermen on the sea of Galilee, and tax collectors, and men who would doubt themselves. One can make the case that Saul of Tarsus was sado-masochistic enough to enjoy martyrdom without reason, but not the fishermen. Fishermen on the hostile sea of Galilee who had any suicidal tendency or self destructive tendency would not only have perished within three voyages, but would have cost the lives of their companions most likely. It's objective because all the apostles knew that by simply fabricating the stories of resurrection and virgin birth, their rewards would be A. Beheading B. Burning alive C. Flayed alive D. Crucifixion E. Any nasty thing as such It's objective because the apostles knew they would have better rewards simply telling stories of Jesus as a poor loser, and magnifying themselves. Yet they didn't do this. It's objective because if they simply wanted a Messiah from the seed of David, they had at least four brothers of Jesus to choose from, and no doubt they would looked in that direction if not for the resurrection AND the virgin birth. I don't have enough FAITH not to believe. Your ludicrous notions and lack of understanding of objectivity, which is only born out of subjectivity, is staggering. There is nothing but moronic nonsense in your thread, in an inane attempt to pass off your belief as real and objective. Witnessing events is not the same as believing in an ideal of God, the son of God and the Virgin Mary which is all archaic and antiquated fabrications of the subjective mind of man. It does not exist. That's okay, brother. Jesus and the Holy Ghost understand your need for denial of logic and Science, and realize that you aren't one of the educated ones who come to the lord via education, research, and wisdom. Like other poor deluded souls who rely on emotion, you need to come in by Faith, and deny the Faith you have in being one of the sheep of the uneducated masses. That bodes quite well for you. The blessings for those who "believe but have not seen", those who come in by Faith, are always greater than those few for those of us who are educated and use reason and logic. I envy you when you finally break loose of the bonds of the fear you have of reality.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Nov 25, 2018 11:12:06 GMT
And who created those works of art? The story was created in ancient Rome. It was depicted in art during The Renaissance. So for at least two thousand years this "rape" was glorified. Well it certainly wasn’t those evil Feminazis was it?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 25, 2018 15:04:28 GMT
I don't need to justify it. That's not how faith works. Feel free to take it or leave it. So how does faith work, if it doesn't need to be justified? Does this mean there isn't any rationale behind your faith?The fact that she doesn't feel the need to justify it to you doesn't mean that there isn't any rationale behind her faith... Jus' sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Nov 25, 2018 16:34:17 GMT
Saying she was "raped" is a bit of stretch. I would say she was nonconsentually impregnated though. According to the story.... It was consensual: Of course.... "The Holy Spirit will come on you"
I'll just let that one slide without a pun......
Saying she was "raped" is a bit of stretch. I would say she was nonconsentually impregnated though. She consented. Well then that does beg the question, what would have happened if she said "No, I don't want to be impregnated". Would God have just done it anyways against her will? Or did he already know in advance she would have said yes (then that just brings up the "free will" issue) Even if Mary had consented there was obviously a mighty power imbalance there. It's like when a child thinks "how can I tell daddy no?" That being said, you politically correct feminized atheists take the concept of consent and sex to whole new levels of absurdity. Almost every religion on earth has a myth of a woman (or a man) who was the sexual consort of god. Only liberal feminist idiots in the West would call that rape. I don't see where it's consensual in what Vegas posted. When a man forces his seed into a woman and she gets pregnant, if you are not going to call it rape, what else would you call it?
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Nov 25, 2018 17:31:17 GMT
Well it certainly wasn’t those evil Feminazis was it? The point is, the idea that divine conception is rape is only something which was invented in the past 50 years by pseudo-intellectuals who are influenced by feminist thinkers. Or it’s just a way to troll an internet message board.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 25, 2018 18:31:11 GMT
WarrenPeaceThen you are just blinded by your own stubbornness. - "Good news! You have been chosen to give birth to the savior of the world... You lucky girl" - "Yes! That thing that you just said.. Let that happen!!" How the hell do you not see that as her consenting/being a willing participant? If that even remotely hinted at in the story... You might have a point... But, as it stands?... You're just making shit up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2018 18:49:34 GMT
WarrenPeaceThen you are just blinded by your own stubbornness. - "Good news! You have been chosen to give birth to the savior of the world... You lucky girl" - "Yes! That thing that you just said.. Let that happen!!" How the hell do you not see that as her consenting/being a willing participant? If that even remotely hinted at in the story... You might have a point... But, as it stands?... You're just making shit up.
This is God we're talking about... He was coming at this having murdered 3-25 million people for no good reason. If he said he was going to get you up the duff at that point, you would think twice before saying 'No thank you, it's not for me'.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Nov 25, 2018 18:58:50 GMT
Well as Mary was 13 at the time, it was at least statutory rape.
God is a pedophile.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Nov 25, 2018 19:00:03 GMT
Well as Mary was 13 at the time, it was at least statutory rape. God is a pedophile. According to what statute of the 1st century?
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Nov 25, 2018 19:02:47 GMT
Well as Mary was 13 at the time, it was at least statutory rape. God is a pedophile. According to what statute of the 1st century? Good point, although the pedophile thing still stands. Especially since the average girl at the time didn't get into puberty before the about the age of 16.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 25, 2018 19:05:17 GMT
According to what statute of the 1st century? Good point, although the pedophile thing still stands. Especially since the average girl at the time didn't get into puberty before the about the age of 16. Where does it say that she was 16?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 25, 2018 19:07:48 GMT
This is God we're talking about... He was coming at this having murdered 3-25 million people for no good reason. Those people of Atlantis know what they did.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Nov 25, 2018 19:35:48 GMT
Good point, although the pedophile thing still stands. Especially since the average girl at the time didn't get into puberty before the about the age of 16. Where does it say that she was 16? I didn't say she was 16, I said she was 13. The number is 12 because that was the age girls where considered to be eligible to marry. Allow nine months for her belly to swell...
But the real reason is because the word "virgin" is an early mistranslation from Aramaic to too Greek. The original Aramaic word don't mean virgin, but a girl too young to get children, in other words prepubescent.
There are other non-canonical texts known as the apocryphal writings that support this. Namely the text that concerns Joseph that also mentions she's prepubescent.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 25, 2018 19:57:13 GMT
I thought it was achieved through mythical IVF. Well, I had always been TOTALLY sure that it was a turkey baster conception, until some smartarse pointed out that turkeys were endemic to the Americas until Columbus and none would have been in the middle East around 31AD when this alleged event would have taken place (it also makes me smile that he was born 32 years after he was born) butt this could perhaps explain that it took God 31 years to get a turkey across to the Middle East from America and give or take a few decades for the invention of the 'baster' from a pig's bladder or papyrus reed (ouch). In Biblical terms it all makes sense and it might have been that there were a couple of stray turkeys left over from Noah's flood hanging about somewhere closer ready to assist with this important deed. Turkeys are like that!
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Nov 25, 2018 20:33:47 GMT
I thought it was achieved through mythical IVF. Well, I had always been TOTALLY sure that it was a turkey baster conception, until some smartarse pointed out that turkeys were endemic to the Americas until Columbus and none would have been in the middle East around 31AD when this alleged event would have taken place (it also makes me smile that he was born 32 years after he was born) butt this could perhaps explain that it took God 31 years to get a turkey across to the Middle East from America and give or take a few decades for the invention of the 'baster' from a pig's bladder or papyrus reed (ouch). In Biblical terms it all makes sense and it might have been that there were a couple of stray turkeys left over from Noah's flood hanging about somewhere closer ready to assist with this important deed. Turkeys are like that! I do believe that God loved eating turkeys and didn't want to share them with humanity which is why he hid them on the American Continent.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 25, 2018 20:57:59 GMT
Well, I had always been TOTALLY sure that it was a turkey baster conception, until some smartarse pointed out that turkeys were endemic to the Americas until Columbus and none would have been in the middle East around 31AD when this alleged event would have taken place (it also makes me smile that he was born 32 years after he was born) butt this could perhaps explain that it took God 31 years to get a turkey across to the Middle East from America and give or take a few decades for the invention of the 'baster' from a pig's bladder or papyrus reed (ouch). In Biblical terms it all makes sense and it might have been that there were a couple of stray turkeys left over from Noah's flood hanging about somewhere closer ready to assist with this important deed. Turkeys are like that! I do believe that God loved eating turkeys and didn't want to share them with humanity which is why he hid them on the American Continent. We are genius! In the last two posts we have just saved Americans from millions of $$$ expenditure and time saving by combining Thanksgiving with Christmas. It is high time that the turkeys of America were given their FULL due for their role in the creation of Christ and universal deliciousness!
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 25, 2018 22:02:46 GMT
But the real reason is because the word "virgin" is an early mistranslation from Aramaic to too Greek. The original Aramaic word don't mean virgin, but a girl too young to get children, in other words prepubescent.
Holy Bullshit!! It literally means the exact opposite... It is a word used to describe a young girl who CAN "get" children..... but, yes, it does not mean "virgin".
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Nov 25, 2018 23:45:32 GMT
WarrenPeace Then you are just blinded by your own stubbornness. - "Good news! You have been chosen to give birth to the savior of the world... You lucky girl" - "Yes! That thing that you just said.. Let that happen!!" How the hell do you not see that as her consenting/being a willing participant? If that even remotely hinted at in the story... You might have a point... But, as it stands?... You're just making shit up.
Well, to be fair the bible is nothing but made up shit. No, I'm not being stubborn. There is a lot of discussion with a planned pregnancy. From the bible story you posted, I don't see a lot of choice for Mary. There is not a lot of wiggle room, if any, for her to opt out of it. Even in the example you gave it's like, "You gonna get knocked up even if you don't want it." On a side note: Of course whoever made up the story has her be married and a virgin. LOL That is just ridiculous.
|
|