- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 91947
03 Aug 09
Originally posted by scacchipazzoPerhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that the implications of Jesus having had intercourse would not be that Christians should think any less of Him, but rather that the idea of fornication etc. as inherently sinful should be examined...
Who said sex was dirty. You imply it is by virtue of the possible morality altering course of existence or lack therof of "virginity". What is insulting is your simplistic approach to history, theology and the suggestion that somehow or other Christians might find Jesus less worthy. Do you not see that that is the very thrust of your post? Or are you ju ...[text shortened]... why don't you go ahead and posit your musings on religion in general or Islam in particular?
Because you are a cowardly lot, content with picking on Christians, raising behavioral questions about the purest being who ever existed.
Now that is an almighty assumption. I feel more confident examining the Christian faith, because I have been brought up in a predominantly Christian society. I used to go to Church/Chapel, I have studied Christianity in many different ways, and I have a greater understanding of what the religion is trying to say, and why. I know very little of Islam, so why should I try to 'raise issues' about it? You know very little about us, so stop making assumptions.
03 Aug 09
Originally posted by HumeAThat was not directed at you but at FMF. As for assumptions, why is it that only your ilk seems to be entitled to making assumptions and no one else. That always seems to rankle you guys a lot. Please stop making foolish assumptions about Christianity and then perhaps others might stop making assumptions about you.
Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that the implications of Jesus having had intercourse would not be that Christians should think any less of Him, but rather that the idea of fornication etc. as inherently sinful should be examined...
[b]Because you are a cowardly lot, content with picking on Christians, raising behavioral questions about the purest be ...[text shortened]... to 'raise issues' about it? You know very little about us, so stop making assumptions.
Perhaps an examination of the significance of sin is in order rather than a specific behavior being connoted as sinful. Sin means departure from God and therefore from grace. Fornication is a sin not so much for the sex as for its self serving nature giving rise to self gratification through frequently exploitive behavior towards the sexual partner.
03 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by scacchipazzoAm I to understand that eating meat,for example is not exploitive behaviour but sex between 2 consenting adults is?
That was not directed at you but at FMF. As for assumptions, why is it that only your ilk seems to be entitled to making assumptions and no one else. That always seems to rankle you guys a lot. Please stop making foolish assumptions about Christianity and then perhaps others might stop making assumptions about you.
Perhaps an examination of the signi ...[text shortened]... ng rise to self gratification through frequently exploitive behavior towards the sexual partner.
As for Jesus being the most purest being ever ... what rubbish!!
How can you justify such a claim?
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 91947
03 Aug 09
Originally posted by scacchipazzoPlease point out where I have made an assumption about Christianity. You directed the post at FMF and his 'ilk'. As I agreed with what FMF was saying, does that not include me?
That was not directed at you but at FMF. As for assumptions, why is it that only your ilk seems to be entitled to making assumptions and no one else. That always seems to rankle you guys a lot. Please stop making foolish assumptions about Christianity and then perhaps others might stop making assumptions about you.
Perhaps an examination of the signi ...[text shortened]... ng rise to self gratification through frequently exploitive behavior towards the sexual partner.
Would you like to specify what you mean by our ilk?
03 Aug 09
Another point that all would need to consider is that Jesus was physically perfect in health. He had to be in order to be the sacrifice needed to take the place of Adam. He could still be alive on earth today if he hadn't been killed.
Since he was perfect and if he had been married, what would his children have been like physically? Perfect like him or some hybrid offspring?
Lots to think about here....
03 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFI implied nothing
I implied nothing of the sort. I simply asked "Did Jesus die a virgin?" And you seem to have gone off your rocker. This trembling - almost intellectually incapacitating - fury on your part has all been very revealling. What is blasphemous about the question "Did Jesus die a virgin?" Why is it mendacious? Why is it a "dishonest" question? And how is it that you are able to squeeze the word 'Islam' into your attempted answer?
Originally posted by FMF
What comes to mind is not the "meekness of Christians", as you put it, but instead this furious intellectual fumbling of some Christians triggered by what you presumably feel is the traumatizing and intrinsic dirtiness of sex - a form of conflicted repression with which Catholics, in particular, seem so deeply inculcated.
very disingenous of you to pretend this was just a normal question with nothing lurking behind it.
it just the same old religious bigotry from FMF, who rarely ask questions about other religions but insists on attacking christianity.
03 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFYour ilk: Those who practice passive apostasy at best, outright heresy at worst. Christian baiting, blashpeming persons who hide under a veil of pseuodintellectualism to pose questions without regard to their blashpemous implications or as to whether said questions may be found utterly insulting and foolish. To question the purity of Jesus as you do in your thread says it all. You perceive your wild speculation as legitimate exploration when the reality is you would do or say anything to undermine faith, or people of faith as you sit atop your high horse of superiority to those you ridicule. I think you sincerely believe you merely posted a legitimate query and that said query is nothing but innocent. It isn't. It is dishonest, mendacious and repugnant! If you do not believe you engaged in blasphemy by definition any statment derogatory or speaking against God in a contemptuous, scornful, or abusive manner. You have done so by the very title of your thread. Passive apostasy takes place when an alleged holder of the faith undermines the faith without doing so overtly but does so covertly as you do. Heresy commonly refers to a doctrinal belief held in opposition to the recognized standards of an established system of thought. Theologically it means an opinion at variance with the authorized teachings of any church, notably the Christian, and especially when this promotes separation from the main body of faithful believers. If you fail to recognize yourself in any of these descriptions then there's truly is nothing further to say.
Really?
What does your expression "You and others of your ilk" mean then?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
03 Aug 09
Originally posted by galveston75You are assuming that Jesus was perfectly healthy. You have nothing to back up this claim. Anyone that would claim Jesus was not perfectly healthy also would be engaging in a rich course of conjecture.
Another point that all would need to consider is that Jesus was physically perfect in health. He had to be in order to be the sacrifice needed to take the place of Adam....
What is telling is that you are assuming he needed to sacrifice to take the place of Adam. There is no evidence that is the case, either. It's convenient for your Christological viewpoint, but that is all.
03 Aug 09
Originally posted by scacchipazzoGood grief. "Spirituality" a la Stalin. Charming.
Your ilk: Those who practice passive apostasy at best, outright heresy at worst. Christian baiting, blashpeming persons who hide under a veil of pseuodintellectualism to pose questions without regard to their blashpemous implications or as to whether said questions may be found utterly insulting and foolish. To question the purity of Jesus as you do in ...[text shortened]... recognize yourself in any of these descriptions then there's truly is nothing further to say.
scacchipazzo, I ask you here and now, in public, stop PM-ing me. Stop the harrassment. Keep it on the forum. The PMs are unwelcome.
03 Aug 09
Originally posted by generalissimoWhat you quoted was here not a "question" by me but a response to a sneering, highly personal attack by the deeply troubled scacchipazzo. My question was "Did Jesus die a virgin?" and there was nothing lurking behind it.
very disingenous of you to pretend this was just a normal question with nothing lurking behind it.
04 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by scacchipazzoI think it is a legit question as there has been questions about it since the Davinci Code. Why not explore it and the consequences if it were true jesus had children. May not be true at all but fun to think about. I remember when that book was popular, people at work sure talked about it alot.
Your ilk: Those who practice passive apostasy at best, outright heresy at worst. Christian baiting, blashpeming persons who hide under a veil of pseuodintellectualism to pose questions without regard to their blashpemous implications or as to whether said questions may be found utterly insulting and foolish. To question the purity of Jesus as you do in recognize yourself in any of these descriptions then there's truly is nothing further to say.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by joe beyserHis only children are spiritual children.
I think it is a legit question as there has been questions about it since the Davinci Code. Why not explore it and the consequences if it were true jesus had children. May not be true at all but fun to think about. I remember when that book was popular, people at work sure talked about it alot.