Originally posted by howardgeeWhy should I answer your questions? You never answer mine.
What are you talking about?
Perhaps if you were more concerned with answering questions on your own thread about freewill, then casting aspersions, we would all benefit.
As far as antichrist goes, I have little doubt you opened that account. In antichrist's second post ever on RHP, he confused himself with you. He thought one of your posts was his own, though he had not posted before in that particular thread.
I have a challenge for you. Do you claim there is an entity, separate from yourself, who operates the antichrist account? I challenge you to prove that this entity exists.
If you do believe the claim but cannot prove it, then you are unsane.*
If you do not actually believe your claim that antichrist is separate from yourself, then you are lying.
If it can be proven that someone else opened the antichrist account and pretended to be you, by pretending to think one of your posts was his own, then I will apologize to you sincerely and publically.
If you admit that you are antichrist I'll never speak of this again.
* If you believe an entity exists, other than yourself, who operates the antichrist account, then you are at least unsane if you cannot prove it. It is, of course, possible that you are fully insane and suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder. I will greatly regret agitating you if this is the case, but quite frankly I believe you are lying.
Originally posted by nemesioYou learn something new everyday!
Once again, please refer to my post above. The Immaculate
Conception is about Mary's conception in Anna's womb, not
about Jesus' conception in Mary's womb.
Two different things. Two different doctrines. Separate
them in your head.
Nemesio
Originally posted by huntingbearThis amuses me my friend. You see, I made a similar claim a while back (both in regards to "unsane" and I inferred atleast once that he had multiple accounts). Based on my experience, I project two things:
Why should I answer your questions? You never answer mine.
As far as antichrist goes, I have little doubt you opened that account. In antichrist's second post ever on RHP, he confused himself with you. He thought one of your posts was his own, though he had not posted before in that particular thread.
I have a challenge for you. Do y ...[text shortened]... ill greatly regret agitating you if this is the case, but quite frankly I believe you are lying.
1.) He will ignore your challenge completely. He will simply insult you and attempt to steer the discussion somewhere else. He will not go with this flow, but rather will attempt to divert the point. If/When you do not go with this flow, he will insult you and insist that you are missing the point (never mind that it was YOUR point).
2.) He will refute the "unsane" label. He will insist that the term only applies to theists. Granted, being that it is his term I suppose he has some liberty to clarify its definition. Regardless though, he will ignore and refute the irreconciliable fact that he refuses to hold himself to his own standards.
I think I shall have to add a #3 to this list, as another wave of insight has just come to me.
3.) He will now insult me for posting this.
This will come to pass. Either that, or he will simply not reply to any of this at all.
Originally posted by Moldy CrowThere is a theory among historians that Christianity is obviously completely false, because "virgin" Mary, simply cheated on her husband. These historians argue that Joseph and Mary recently wed, and never had sex yet, yet Mary somehow got pregnant, and in any other time period, everyone knows scientificly what happened, but this was 2000 years ago, and the cheating wife had to cover her tracks, and wrote a story about her being the carrier of god's only son, and back then, people wanted to beleive in such things. This is the whole basis of Christianity, baby Jesus. Jesus did in fact turn out to be a very kind man, despite most likely being a b**tard child, but that certainly doesn't prove or make him the son of god, but it was a desperate time, and ppl wanted to beleive it. They couldn't see how such a sweet boy could be created by cheaters, so they beleived, and hence comes the Bible.
What has any of this got to do with god and mary doing the monkey dance ?
I'm sure this will make people angry that I think the world's most practiced religion is the result of adultry/sex, especially when Christians beleive strongly in the need to seperate themselves from lust for flesh. I don't honestly care, I'm telling it how I see it. You can't prove I'm right/wrong anymore then you can prove Jesus is the son of god right/wrong.
Originally posted by mateuloseI tend to give mary the bennifit of the doubt .(Why , I don't know). I think she and Jo were going for broke long before they were married . He was given the opportunity to stone her for being unfaithful if I remember correctly . Obviously he passed on it . Revisionist writers put it down to him somehow knowing it was devine implantation , and believing her story because she was such a good woman . (I'll bet she was "good" !) She was probably his 1st slice o' cake (and she could probably do more tricks than a monkey with 20 feet of rope).Can anyone immagine standing there with a rock in his hand and your first sitting in front of you ; and a crowd saying go ahead and put her lights out ? So he decides to 'accept her' cause he was moved by the spirit to believe her . I think the little spirit in his pants called that one .
There is a theory among historians that Christianity is obviously completely false, because "virgin" Mary, simply cheated on her husband. These historians argue that Joseph and Mary recently wed, and never had sex yet, yet Mary somehow got pregnant, and in any other time period, everyone knows scientificly what happened, but this was 2000 years ago, and ...[text shortened]... ou can't prove I'm right/wrong anymore then you can prove Jesus is the son of god right/wrong.
So history once again altered by the whim of a flesh puppet and those who don't want to believe that people's natures will sooner or later get the better of them .
Originally posted by Moldy CrowSo basicly she was poor, had to survive, was a whore, but from the sounds of it, pretty smart. I'll give her some credit, 2000 years ago whoring usually meant certain death, especially when married, but she got good money from it, and she managed to make everyone beleive she was a saint carrying god's baby and even fooled her own husband, wow, that's impressive work. Heck, she fooled everyone and the woman has been dead several thousand years and she is still fooling, that's one smart sexy woman, lol.
I tend to give mary the bennifit of the doubt .(Why , I don't know). I think she and Jo were going for broke long before they were married . He was given the opportunity to stone her for being unfaithful if I remember correctly . Obviously he passed on it . Revisionist writers put it down to him somehow knowing it was devine implantation , and believing ...[text shortened]... who don't want to believe that people's natures will sooner or later get the better of them .