Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The only "evolution" they have exhibited is the kind where most of the species is killed off and the rest struggle for survival.look who's talking ...
your visual response to their post - only proves the depravity of your christo-fascism you would attempt to disguise using others as your foil ...
they were wrong - all three are political derision's disguised as religions ... abraham-fascism. as it has evolved.
Fair question. I'm sure many find a measure of comfort and security in religious belief. However, to state with any assurance that unknown authors writing about matters that occurred 100 years after the supposed events are true and inerrant is beyond the bounds of reliable or believable. I dont consider the bible to have any supernatural influence. It is, in my opinion, a work written by men with perhaps ignoble motives but that doesnt require anyone to accept it as literal. And, it just so happens that we know with certainty that many of the described events are simply not true clearly contradicts the scientific truths we do know. Life wasn't created in six days at the whim of a magical being; at least not by what the overwhealming mountains of evidence tell us. We proceed from there with events that beg the question. "say what"?Then why bother at all?
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.
LMAO. That's not God. It's the periodic table of elements which keeps growing.Exactly
You are willing to admit God always existed but not the elements of the universe
THIS is God
View attachment 659734
You don't find it odd that you are making assessments in absolute terms regarding events that are impossible to verify by "in depth" studies? Studying events that are nothing more than hearsay accounts written by unknown authors and to then insist that those events are accurate with the "correct" subjective interpretation is just not defendable.I understand that. What is odd is the interest in taking one verse from the Letter to the Romans and declaring to people who have done an in depth study of the letter that this one verse definitely includes Mary.
The following oddity is stating a lack of acceptance that Paul actually wrote anything.
mary was a swinger as were all three of the heavenly exemplars - and remained pure of heart was why they were chosen ... your latent argument is paterfamilias, and what led to the crucifixion of the main character. and its reaffirmation written in their c bible.
do you refer to mary magdalene as a prostitute ... as claimed, same as sin - by the crucifiers.
Mary was born without original sin. That's why SHE is the immaculate conception.
Most people don't take the Bible literally. In fact, taking the Bible literally is a more modern idea.It is, in my opinion, a work written by men with perhaps ignoble motives but that doesnt require anyone to accept it as literal.
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.
Learn Hebrew.Life wasn't created in six days at the whim of a magical being; at least not by what the overwhealming mountains of evidence tell us. We proceed from there with events that beg the question. "say what"?
Where does it say that in Scripture?
That's because G-d's Word is THE final authority on morals and ethics, contrary to what you Reprobate excuse for a human being think. His ways are unchanging.The only "evolution" they have exhibited is the kind where most of the species is killed off and the rest struggle for survival.
160 years ago they were arguing that God wants us to own slaves. 100 years later they were arguing that God hates interracial marriage and independent women. 20 years ago, they were arguing that God hates gay marriage.
Society has evolved. Our species has evolved. They have not.
I don't know about you, but I was simply reading what is known as the Letter to the Romans. You took one verse and said that one verse proved Mary sinned because it said "all". The letter never mentions Mary, so who was the "all" the letter referenced? Was it children too young to sin? No, the letter doesn't mention children sinning. It doesn't even seem to exclude Jesus. Who is it talking to? Jews and Gentiles, specifically those in the early Christian church in Rome. That is the context.You don't find it odd that you are making assessments in absolute terms regarding events that are impossible to verify by "in depth" studies? Studying events that are nothing more than hearsay accounts written by unknown authors and to then insist that those events are accurate with the "correct" subjective interpretation is just not defendable.
LMAO. That's not God. It's the periodic table of elements which keeps growing.
That's because G-d's Word is THE final authority on morals and ethics, contrary to what you Reprobate excuse for a human being think. His ways are unchanging.
Such an absurd statement, contradicted by literally ALL of history.Most people don't take the Bible literally. In fact, taking the Bible literally is a more modern idea
I agree that most people don't take the Bible literally. It does seem that a lot of people have varying interpretations of the Bible and they tend to believe their interpretation is the correct one. None of the believers can make an authoritative case for their subjective opinions. What separates 900 year old Noah from fat naked babies playing harps in heaven?Most people don't take the Bible literally. In fact, taking the Bible literally is a more modern idea.
The roots of taking the Bible literally could arguably begin with the Reformation in the fifteen hundreds, but it didn't even take hold until the late 1800s. Evangelicals beat that drum again in the 1970s, but even so, sixty percent did not take the Bible literally. It has gone up to seventy percent today.
Thanks to reformation of the west by superior, secular ideas.I agree that most people don't take the Bible literally.
Nope. The secular world is evil, reprobate and doomed. And G-d does NOT allow slavery, nor rape, but they are pointed out in scripture as historical fact. Plus since you are not born again, your "understanding" of G-d's infallible Word is zero!The secular world has more morality than your Biblical God who allows slavery, rape, Capital Punishment, child beating, wife beating, abuse of gays.
