|
Post by Winter_King on Jun 5, 2018 18:36:59 GMT
Never the less, and despite all the dogma, logic dictates that at some point Mary's egg must have been fertilised by other than 'spirit'. It takes two to tango. If holy spirit was the means to create life in the first place, then why would a penis be involved. It's not like God boinked dirt. Good old Navaros thought God had a Holy Righteous Penis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 18:49:10 GMT
Well I doubt that Joseph would've stayed with Mary if she remained a virgin for the rest of her life. How was Mary supposed to be a virgin if she was married? Was Joseph not up to his manly duties or something? Little performance anxiety in the trouser department?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 19:38:50 GMT
Well if i am not mistaken the bible does say that Jesus had brothers and sisters. So clearly Mary was not a virgin for her entire life.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jun 5, 2018 19:42:40 GMT
Well if i am not mistaken the bible does say that Jesus had brothers and sisters. So clearly Mary was not a virgin for her entire life. The Bible also says that James, "the brother" Of Jesus, was the "son of Alphaeus." So obviously They were not siblings, but, cousins.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 5, 2018 19:47:14 GMT
kls
Let's not get trapped in a false dichotomy here - "Either Mary was a perpetual virgin OR she had a normal sexual relationship with Joseph." Why not both? Just a little willingness to think outside the box, and we realize that, for God, miraculously and repeatedly mending a torn membrane is as easy as making a miraculous pregnancy. Obviously, if medical science can do it, as this video proves it has, then God can do it too. www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbBQGshNyRU
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Jun 5, 2018 19:55:59 GMT
God is the ultimate alpha, therefore he couldn’t allow some pansy carpenter like Joseph to cuck him.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 5, 2018 20:22:54 GMT
Well if i am not mistaken the bible does say that Jesus had brothers and sisters. So clearly Mary was not a virgin for her entire life. The Bible also says that James, "the brother" Of Jesus, was the "son of Alphaeus." So obviously They were not siblings, but, cousins. Yes, because there is only one James in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jun 5, 2018 20:33:24 GMT
the whole concept of a horny male dominating a virgin girl is so over used in literature.
of course coming from a male dominated world where women were considered nothing more than property i can see why the original authors felt the need to gratify the current status quo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 20:46:56 GMT
Well if i am not mistaken the bible does say that Jesus had brothers and sisters. So clearly Mary was not a virgin for her entire life. The Bible also says that James, "the brother" Of Jesus, was the "son of Alphaeus." So obviously They were not siblings, but, cousins. Or Mary slept with Alphaeus.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jun 5, 2018 20:56:18 GMT
you all have to understand these stories were told from one person to another and one person omitted something and added something else. the next person added one more hair to the story and omitted something else...
its not like someone was there writing this shit down.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 5, 2018 21:00:52 GMT
Common sense dictates that the brothers were younger brothers, or the gospels would be ridiculous when told. It wasn't until centuries later that some morons wanted to say the brothers were from a previous marriage of Joseph for many reasons. For example, the virgin birth gives no account of other kids hanging around
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jun 5, 2018 21:02:08 GMT
The Bible also says that James, "the brother" Of Jesus, was the "son of Alphaeus." So obviously They were not siblings, but, cousins. Or Mary slept with Alphaeus. well, Wikipedia is talking about him and others [???] from joseph's 'other marriage'. wtf??? and brothers in quotes could mean anything from brutha from another mutha to that shit maury povich does when he welcomes a male guest on his video brothel show. in any event no one knows what the fuck really happened back then.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 6, 2018 0:16:13 GMT
Never the less, and despite all the dogma, logic dictates that at some point Mary's egg must have been fertilised by other than 'spirit'. It takes two to tango. If holy spirit was the means to create life in the first place, then why would a penis be involved. It's not like God boinked dirt. It has always been my creationist theory, that God created the turkey baster for this purpose.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jun 6, 2018 0:18:31 GMT
Or Mary slept with Alphaeus. well, Wikipedia is talking about him and others [ ] from joseph's 'other marriage'. wtf??? and brothers in quotes could mean anything from brutha from another mutha to that shit maury povich does when he welcomes a male guest on his video brothel show. in any event no one knows what the fuck really happened back then. The language did allow different words for different levels of relationship. Not sure why if brother and sisters weren't meant the other terms weren't used.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 6, 2018 0:39:47 GMT
well, Wikipedia is talking about him and others [ ] from joseph's 'other marriage'. wtf??? and brothers in quotes could mean anything from brutha from another mutha to that shit maury povich does when he welcomes a male guest on his video brothel show. in any event no one knows what the fuck really happened back then. The language did allow different words for different levels of relationship. Not sure why if brother and sisters weren't meant the other terms weren't used. Even now in some cultures and languages there is usage of the same word for cousin and sibling. Polish is one example I know of because my son in law is an only child yet calls his first cousin his 'brother'!
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 6, 2018 9:45:26 GMT
I'm not arguing the notion of fertilization, but the regular channels is an assumption tied to no part of the creation account, so why would it be tied to Mary having sex with God? When I ever use the emotive phrase "having sex with God", then feel free to raise this point again. One, for instance does not "have sex" with a test tube when in vitro fertilisation takes place. See my note immediately above. The issue here is whether Mary was fertilised or not. The Bible, it may be observed is rather coy about the details, even if the mechanics of the biological process involved are not. Given that she followed a normal pregnancy, why would one not assume that the start of the process was due to normal process, if not from a normal source? Given that the sacrifice only occurred when he was long grown, this point is moot. In fact we know next to nothing about Jesus' childhood. You are the one who seems to be concerned with "God's penis" (a holy-genital fascination I have only heard once before, and that was from a notoriously weird fundamentalist, I might add) and God "having sex", not me. I merely note what is necessary to form a child in the womb - and that something, at some point, must be biological and practical in nature rather than exclusively spritual. Personally I am sceptical about the whole story which is without evidence and precedent, apart from appearing in classical myth. Since this appears to be said sarcastically, I will take it as a QED, thank you lol
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 6, 2018 15:43:38 GMT
Even now in some cultures and languages there is usage of the same word for cousin and sibling. Polish is one example I know of because my son in law is an only child yet calls his first cousin his 'brother'! Well, there are many Kentuckians who do that, of course.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 6, 2018 22:35:42 GMT
I'm not arguing the notion of fertilization, but the regular channels is an assumption tied to no part of the creation account, so why would it be tied to Mary having sex with God? When I ever use the emotive phrase "having sex with God", then feel free to raise this point again. One, for instance does not "have sex" with a test tube when in vitro fertilisation takes place. See my note immediately above. The issue here is whether Mary was fertilised or not. The Bible, it may be observed is rather coy about the details, even if the mechanics of the biological process involved are not. Given that she followed a normal pregnancy, why would one not assume that the start of the process was due to normal process, if not from a normal source? Given that the sacrifice only occurred when he was long grown, this point is moot. In fact we know next to nothing about Jesus' childhood. You are the one who seems to be concerned with "God's penis" (a holy-genital fascination I have only heard once before, and that was from a notoriously weird fundamentalist, I might add) and God "having sex", not me. I merely note what is necessary to form a child in the womb - and that something, at some point, must be biological and practical in nature rather than exclusively spritual. Personally I am sceptical about the whole story which is without evidence and precedent, apart from appearing in classical myth. Since this appears to be said sarcastically, I will take it as a QED, thank you lol I don't know if you remember on the old board, when I started a thread entitle something like 'What was Jesus' DNA? ' and it went for endless pages and got rather heated. The shroud of Turin made a guest appearance and various other scientific oddities. Good times. This thread reminds me of it, and the fact that the religious who believe the story of the virgin birth, are not only skating on thin ice with all that this topic involves, butt a charge of ' in lack of agreement of the facts of the case, the whole case is weakened'.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 7, 2018 9:12:19 GMT
When I ever use the emotive phrase "having sex with God", then feel free to raise this point again. One, for instance does not "have sex" with a test tube when in vitro fertilisation takes place. I don't know if you remember on the old board, when I started a thread entitle something like 'What was Jesus' DNA? ' and it went for endless pages and got rather heated. The shroud of Turin made a guest appearance and various other scientific oddities. Good times. This thread reminds me of it, and the fact that the religious who believe the story of the virgin birth, are not only skating on thin ice with all that this topic involves, but a charge of ' in lack of agreement of the facts of the case, the whole case is weakened'. Good times, indeed!
|
|