Zone1 Belief in God drops to 81 percent

[Hollie]

Mary was born without original sin. She is the immaculate conception. I didn't know about Romulus and Remus. We're they conceived supernaturally?

Yep. The god Mars was their father.

Fratricide: The Mythology of Romulus and Remus and the Founding of Ancient Rome - Brewminate: A Bold Blend of News and Ideas

There is no evidence concerning the historicity of the Romulus and Remus mythology. Introduction The Romulus and Remus

brewminate.com

None of the bibles support the notion that Mary was born without original sin. Romans, and elsewhere, claims otherwise.

 

[surada]

None of the bibles support the notion that Mary was born without original sin. Romans, and elsewhere, claims otherwise.

You should read the Bible.

Where Is the Immaculate Conception in the Bible?

Protestants claim that Scripture has no evidence of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. But in fact, the evidence is all over the place.

www.catholic.com

 

[Hollie]

You should read the Bible.

Where Is the Immaculate Conception in the Bible?

Protestants claim that Scripture has no evidence of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. But in fact, the evidence is all over the place.

www.catholic.com

You should read the Bible. Read Romans.

 

[surada]

You should read the Bible. Read Romans.

You didn't read any of the link I posted. There was tradition before there was a Bible...and there was no original sin until the 3rd century AD.

 

[Hollie]

You didn't read any of the link I posted. There was tradition before there was a Bible...and there was no original sin until the 3rd century AD.

You didn't read Romans. I may have missed it but nothing in the verse includes, ".... but, ... but, ... but, ... but ... Mary".

 

[surada]

You didn't read Romans. I may have missed it but nothing in the verse includes, ".... but, ... but, ... but, ... but ... Mary".

Give me the verse.

 

[Hollie]

Give me the verse.

Romans 3:23. You never read the Bible?

 

[Meriweather]

Romans 3:23. You never read the Bible?

Context...Paul was not talking about inherited sin (Original Sin) but of personal sin. When he was speaking "All have sinned" he could not have been including Jesus (who was fully man), children who have died before committing any sin. Paul was talking to the Romans about the Israelites who were known to be God's Chosen. Romans have sinned, but so have the Jews...all have sinned, meaning all nations.

 

[Hollie]

Context...Paul was not talking about inherited sin (Original Sin) but of personal sin. When he was speaking "All have sinned" he could not have been including Jesus (who was fully man), children who have died before committing any sin. Paul was talking to the Romans about the Israelites who were known to be God's Chosen. Romans have sinned, but so have the Jews...all have sinned, meaning all nations.

Context. Nothing in the context of the verse identifies anything you wrote. Context would have included a qualifier. There was none.

One would think that the gods would have demanded editing rights / right of first refusal as a means to clearly delineate context that all are sinners and in need of salvation through Jesus.

 

[Meriweather]

Context. Nothing in the context of the verse identifies anything you wrote. Context would have included a qualifier. There was none.

Read the verses around it. Romans 3:1 leads to 3:23, wouldn't you agree? Paul starts with question: What advantage is there then in being a Jew?

 

[BreezeWood]

Mary was born without original sin. She is the immaculate conception. I didn't know about Romulus and Remus. We're they conceived supernaturally?

Yep. The god Mars was their father.

Fratricide: The Mythology of Romulus and Remus and the Founding of Ancient Rome - Brewminate: A Bold Blend of News and Ideas

There is no evidence concerning the historicity of the Romulus and Remus mythology. Introduction The Romulus and Remus

brewminate.com

there was no original sin - for there to be an original sin and therefore a fallacy for that particular chronology of 1st century events.

they were exemplars chosen for their purity during their time of notoriety, mary - jesus -mary magdalene, living without the constraints of paterfamilias the false religion / govt coalition of oppression and servitude ... mary and joseph lived together happily without sacrimonial marriage as the initial attribute for the forthcoming events.

the chronology of the crucifiers, c bible only exists through their success by their concluding act of despotism and false claim their crime resulted in a resurrection.

 

[Meriweather]

One would think that the gods would have demanded editing rights / right of first refusal as a means to clearly delineate context that all are sinners and in need of salvation through Jesus.

That wouldn't resolve the problem of someone taking a single verse and claiming it applies to something--or someone--else entirely.

Take your single verse: Was Paul talking about little children? Was he talking about Jesus? No. He was referencing two peoples: Jews and Gentiles. Generally speaking, both groups have sinned. I am quite certain Paul didn't have those he was speaking to standing up and saying, "How can you claim my three-year-old has sinned?" This wouldn't have happened, because all knew what Paul was saying. Both Jews and Gentiles sin.

 

[Hollie]

Read the verses around it. Romans 3:1 leads to 3:23, wouldn't you agree? Paul starts with question: What advantage is there then in being a Jew?

Did you read the verse, in context? Nothing excludes Mary from the curse of original sin.

 

[Hollie]

That wouldn't resolve the problem of someone taking a single verse and claiming it applies to something--or someone--else entirely.

Take your single verse: Was Paul talking about little children? Was he talking about Jesus? No. He was referencing two peoples: Jews and Gentiles. Generally speaking, both groups have sinned. I am quite certain Paul didn't have those he was speaking to standing up and saying, "How can you claim my three-year-old has sinned?" This wouldn't have happened, because all knew what Paul was saying. Both Jews and Gentiles sin.

It's fine by me if you want to retroactively rewrite/ interpret the Bible to conform to a preferred version, but to ignore what is written dismantles any "authority" you ascribe to the text.

 

[surada]

there was no original sin - for there to be an original sin and therefore a fallacy for that particular chronology of 1st century events.

they were exemplars chosen for their purity during their time of notoriety, mary - jesus -mary magdalene, living without the constraints of paterfamilias the false religion / govt coalition of oppression and servitude ... mary and joseph lived together happily without sacrimonial marriage as the initial attribute for the forthcoming events.

the chronology of the crucifiers, c bible only exists through their success by their concluding act of despotism and false claim their crime resulted in a resurrection.

We're not talking about whether original sin is a real thing. ( It doesn't make much sense to me) we're talking about Romans 3: 23 and the immaculate conception. Mary was conceived without original sin ( by Grace) but she wasn't free of sin.

 

[there4eyeM]

I believe it is a heads up that the thread is for civil discourse. Here is a link about it.

Welcome RACE RELATIONS and RELIGION to Zone 1!

You read that right! Zone 1 is expanding, which means some of you are going to need to brush up on how to discuss issues civilly. Race Relations/Racism and Religion & Ethics are now part of Zone 1. Recap of the Forum Rules for Zone 1: Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic...

www.usmessageboard.com

That is very welcome.

 

[there4eyeM]

Rationally speaking, how could a creator of the entire universe and everything in it be encapsulated in the modest human capacities for understanding? Such things as the Bible, or, indeed, anything that tried to discuss such a deity could only ever do so in the most roundabout fashion. Metaphor would be the most we could hope to achieve. It is an insult, in fact, to "God" to express even the possibility of reduction to human language. Pointing to truth is all we are able to do; defining it is ridiculous at best, blasphemy at worst. Naturally, if one does not even believe in such a creator, religious texts are merely tomes dealing with regulation of society.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Did you read the verse, in context? Nothing excludes Mary from the curse of original sin.

It's the same fallacy that Catholics believe Mary was a perpetual virgin, when Biblical accounts have Christ with siblings.

 

[surada]

It's the same fallacy that Catholics believe Mary was a perpetual virgin, when Biblical accounts have Christ with siblings.

Tradition came 300 years before the Bible.

 

[Meriweather]

Did you read the verse, in context? Nothing excludes Mary from the curse of original sin.

Paul isn't talking about original sin.