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.
Well, there is no ‘god’ – so ‘god’ didn’t encourage anything.God encouraged slavery, rape, incest and torture in the Bible
The secular world has laws against it
This is a lie.You have zero evidence to defend your pathetic position. Christians, OTOH, have mountains of historical and archaeological PROOF of G-d's existence.
Yea, I've read the beginning of Chapter 3. No Greek reference.Did you read the beginning of Chapter 3? Greeks are specifically mentioned and while all non-Jews are Gentiles, not all non-Jews are Greek. Paul speaks of the universal bondage of sin.
This is a lie – the ‘left’ is likewise pro-life.Like the violence that has increased on the far left towards pro life advocates?
I will point out I made no suppositions in the verse I posted. I believe it was you making suppositions about what you want the verses to "really mean" in the context you really want.Shrug. I was merely pointing out how your suppositions about one verse did not mesh with the all the words in Chapter 3.
The argument in favor of Mary sinning is not helped by that one verse in that particular context.
Besides, a better question is, Why just one woman? All women cannot be the mother of Jesus, but what is wrong with more women being born full of grace, and therefore without sin?
Well, they can't be honest and call their movement "anti choice". Doesn't make for a good bumper sticker.This is a lie – the ‘left’ is likewise pro-life.
It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while defending a woman’s right to privacy.
And any act of violence committed against those to seek to take from women their right to privacy are alone responsible for their acts – representative of no one and nothing.
I don't think that's ever been confirmed.It was written in 164 AD long after Nebuchadnezzar.
True.And, for all of their flaws, the ancient religions were still our first (and, naturally, therefore worst) attempts at codifying morality and ethics, at philosophy, at science, at social engineering, etc.
We don't begrudge alchemists for trying to advance science based on what they knew. We thank them for their progress toward the scientific enlightenment that was and is chemistry.
But we don't read or adhere to alchemical texts anymore, other than as an academic exercise to highlight them as an obsolete curiosity of history.
It's time to put away the childish toys of our ancient past.
It was the Hellenistic influences facilitated by ‘Paul’ that allowed the Jewish sect of Jesus to become Christianity, which previous messiah sects lacked.Yes, and therin lies the fraughtness of the topic of history for the Christians.
Jesus was basically the leader of a small, apocalyptic Jewish sect.
How many of the Christians can rattle off names of others who actually led larger sects and who also claimed to be the messiah?
They can only name one. And that is because their particular set of mythologies was chosen as "the true one" by a Roman emporer for the sole purpose of political expedience.
One can draw a straight line from that one historical event to every gaudy church in America.
Of course. Look at the Alamo that almost every single religioner retreats to:True.
But fear and ignorance are powerful motivators for religion – we see examples of that fear and ignorance in this very thread.
Yep.It was the Hellenistic influences facilitated by ‘Paul’ that allowed the Jewish sect of Jesus to become Christianity, which previous messiah sects lacked.
I don't think that's ever been confirmed.
I know, though, that Jesus wasn't referring to any abomination of desolation committed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
Do you believe she was favored or endued with grace as Luke writes the angel said? Or perhaps there was no angel, or perhaps Luke was using hyperbole? Maybe Luke got it all wrong and the angel said, "Hey, you! Lowly peasant girl!" and Mary said, "Hey"? And, that being the case, Mary certainly wouldn't have said future generations would call her blessed, so she must have really said they would call her sinful above all others?
And violence on both sides is wrong and I also disagree with your premise but that isn't the topic. .Not mentioned:
One side is denying a right tied directly to the sovereignty over one's own body for fully half the population, and one side is fighting for that right.
So we can focus on the similarities, but the differences also matter.
Yes, violence is wrong.And violence on both sides is wrong and I also disagree with your premise but that isn't the topic. .
Violence is wrong, you trying to justify it is also wrong. Both extremes are contemptible to God.This is a lie – the ‘left’ is likewise pro-life.
It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while defending a woman’s right to privacy.
And any act of violence committed against those to seek to take from women their right to privacy are alone responsible for their acts – representative of no one and nothing.
Two sides to every story, two views to every subject. Extremist on both sides are wrong.Yes, violence is wrong.
But intelligent adults understand nuances. They understand eanations are not excuses.
And whether or not you agree with the premise is 100% irrelevant to the fact that that the ones on the side of pro choice do. That it is their intent. Their cause.
Were it so important it would be in Scripture, it isn't. Yes she was blessed by God but it in no way makes her sinless.
Tradition sufficed for 300 years. You don't understand the Bible. You read it as if it was a canned presentation without regard for the contemporaneous events or symbolism. You read it as a Darbyite.
Original sin is inherited sin. It's contradicted 5 times in scripture. Some verses say children suffer for the sins of the father unto the 10th generation..other verses say they don't.
