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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
So you employ the scientific method in every decision you make? I highly doubt this, in fact, I know you don't, there is a degree of faith in nearly every decision we make. You are pushing a flawed worldview, where action or belief is "unethical" unless one has the all the facts at their disposal immediately.How does parthenogenesis refute the possibility of a virgin birth?Look, I can't help it if you are socially autistic and can't understand the value of such narratives outside of whether there is physical verification for them and ignore the moral teachings and significance of the story.Most atheists are just clever sillies, and threads like this prove it. They celebrate the dark nihilistic abyss that exists without a creator as though it is somehow a good thing. They haven't seriously thought out the dark consequences of their worldview, and think they are intelligent for merely being contrarian.
"Atheists"?
Describing how silly a story is means you don't believe any stories huh?
Binary thinkers .... SMH
What, Mary conceived a child as a virgin? Impossible, was this verified through the scientific method? BEEP BOOP
No, not at all impossible.
You need to look up parthenogenesis.
The inconvenient truth about parthenogenesis is that it can only result in female offspring.
If you're going to preach, you might want to know just a little bit about what you're praching about.
One is science.
One is faith.
You have made your choice and I have made mine.
LOL, who cares about being a virgin, that is SOOO 19th century you repressive and sexist republican shitlords. It isn't as though sleeping around with multiple partners effects one's ability to be in a functioning relationship at all. Free love is great!
You are the only confused one, you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of logic and logical fallaciesYou are engaged in a logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.
If Jesus is a woman, than she can be conceived of a virgin birth
Jesus is a man
Thus Jesus was not of a virgin birth
You sound more confused than usual. Can't say I blame you and I'm glad I was able to educate you about the facts of virgin birth.
Apparently you believe Mary was raped by an invisible, magical, sky fairy kind of thing.
K
Luke 1 38 - Bible Gateway"Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word"
The
Only one posting bizarre things is you. On one hand you assert how scripture in invalid because Virgin birth isn't scientifically possible, then you claim the Nativity Story said no such thing.See, even YOUR BIBLE doesn't say Jesus was of virgin birth, so why am I mocking the virgin birth again?LOL, who cares about being a virgin, that is SOOO 19th century you repressive and sexist republican shitlords. It isn't as though sleeping around with multiple partners effects one's ability to be in a functioning relationship at all. Free love is great!
The Social Pathologist Sexual Partner Divorce Risk
Cheeses Christ, he wants to take "virgin" literally....
"Virgin" comes to us from an errant Greek translation. The original word was almah, meaning "a young unmarried woman" or more accurately a woman who had not yet had children. The Greek translation rendered that as parthenos, meaning "virgin" (in the sexual sense). Had the original meant parthenos, it would have said bethulah, which means "virgin". But it didn't. It simply said a young woman gives birth.
A more accurate translation for English might be "maiden".
Sorry if I buzzkilled your moralistic fantasy.
Hehe pwned again you silly christard.
****
LOL, you need to get your story straight.
These posts get increasingly more bizarre. Can't wait to see where it goes next.
So what are you claiming, that the Nativity story is wrong because virgin birth is impossible or the nativity story didn't speak of a virgin birth and that modern Christians misinterpret it?
No I didn't, only in your mind.The
Only one posting bizarre things is you. On one hand you assert how scripture in invalid because Virgin birth isn't scientifically possible, then you claim the Nativity Story said no such thing.See, even YOUR BIBLE doesn't say Jesus was of virgin birth, so why am I mocking the virgin birth again?LOL, who cares about being a virgin, that is SOOO 19th century you repressive and sexist republican shitlords. It isn't as though sleeping around with multiple partners effects one's ability to be in a functioning relationship at all. Free love is great!
The Social Pathologist Sexual Partner Divorce Risk
Cheeses Christ, he wants to take "virgin" literally....
"Virgin" comes to us from an errant Greek translation. The original word was almah, meaning "a young unmarried woman" or more accurately a woman who had not yet had children. The Greek translation rendered that as parthenos, meaning "virgin" (in the sexual sense). Had the original meant parthenos, it would have said bethulah, which means "virgin". But it didn't. It simply said a young woman gives birth.
A more accurate translation for English might be "maiden".
Sorry if I buzzkilled your moralistic fantasy.
Hehe pwned again you silly christard.
****
LOL, you need to get your story straight.
These posts get increasingly more bizarre. Can't wait to see where it goes next.
So what are you claiming, that the Nativity story is wrong because virgin birth is impossible or the nativity story didn't speak of a virgin birth and that modern Christians misinterpret it?
And the bizarritude just keeps on comin'.
I posted nothing about the nativity story being "wrong"; I posted nothing about "virgin birth being impossible". I posted about how you took off with a bad translation, took it literally, and went on a one-man socio-moralistic crusade.
Which I find hilarious in a pathetic way.
In other words, the latter.
No I didn't, only in your mind.The
Only one posting bizarre things is you. On one hand you assert how scripture in invalid because Virgin birth isn't scientifically possible, then you claim the Nativity Story said no such thing.See, even YOUR BIBLE doesn't say Jesus was of virgin birth, so why am I mocking the virgin birth again?Cheeses Christ, he wants to take "virgin" literally....
"Virgin" comes to us from an errant Greek translation. The original word was almah, meaning "a young unmarried woman" or more accurately a woman who had not yet had children. The Greek translation rendered that as parthenos, meaning "virgin" (in the sexual sense). Had the original meant parthenos, it would have said bethulah, which means "virgin". But it didn't. It simply said a young woman gives birth.
A more accurate translation for English might be "maiden".
Sorry if I buzzkilled your moralistic fantasy.
Hehe pwned again you silly christard.
****
LOL, you need to get your story straight.
These posts get increasingly more bizarre. Can't wait to see where it goes next.
So what are you claiming, that the Nativity story is wrong because virgin birth is impossible or the nativity story didn't speak of a virgin birth and that modern Christians misinterpret it?
And the bizarritude just keeps on comin'.
I posted nothing about the nativity story being "wrong"; I posted nothing about "virgin birth being impossible". I posted about how you took off with a bad translation, took it literally, and went on a one-man socio-moralistic crusade.
Which I find hilarious in a pathetic way.
In other words, the latter.
But you clearly take offense to my criticism of regular pre-marital sex, and went on some crusade to prove Mary didn't conceive Jesus through a virgin birth or wasn't a virgin at all. Why you are so insistent on this is odd, it just exposes your deviancy and dysfunctional attitudes towards sex more than anything else.
So you employ the scientific method in every decision you make? I highly doubt this, in fact, I know you don't, there is a degree of faith in nearly every decision we make. You are pushing a flawed worldview, where action or belief is "unethical" unless one has the all the facts at their disposal immediately.How does parthenogenesis refute the possibility of a virgin birth?Look, I can't help it if you are socially autistic and can't understand the value of such narratives outside of whether there is physical verification for them and ignore the moral teachings and significance of the story."Atheists"?
Describing how silly a story is means you don't believe any stories huh?
Binary thinkers .... SMH
What, Mary conceived a child as a virgin? Impossible, was this verified through the scientific method? BEEP BOOP
No, not at all impossible.
You need to look up parthenogenesis.
The inconvenient truth about parthenogenesis is that it can only result in female offspring.
If you're going to preach, you might want to know just a little bit about what you're praching about.
One is science.
One is faith.
You have made your choice and I have made mine.
I am not suggesting there isn't value in the scientific method, but to suggest it is the be all and end all is a fallacy.
No I didn't, only in your mind.The
Only one posting bizarre things is you. On one hand you assert how scripture in invalid because Virgin birth isn't scientifically possible, then you claim the Nativity Story said no such thing.See, even YOUR BIBLE doesn't say Jesus was of virgin birth, so why am I mocking the virgin birth again?Cheeses Christ, he wants to take "virgin" literally....
"Virgin" comes to us from an errant Greek translation. The original word was almah, meaning "a young unmarried woman" or more accurately a woman who had not yet had children. The Greek translation rendered that as parthenos, meaning "virgin" (in the sexual sense). Had the original meant parthenos, it would have said bethulah, which means "virgin". But it didn't. It simply said a young woman gives birth.
A more accurate translation for English might be "maiden".
Sorry if I buzzkilled your moralistic fantasy.
Hehe pwned again you silly christard.
****
LOL, you need to get your story straight.
These posts get increasingly more bizarre. Can't wait to see where it goes next.
So what are you claiming, that the Nativity story is wrong because virgin birth is impossible or the nativity story didn't speak of a virgin birth and that modern Christians misinterpret it?
And the bizarritude just keeps on comin'.
I posted nothing about the nativity story being "wrong"; I posted nothing about "virgin birth being impossible". I posted about how you took off with a bad translation, took it literally, and went on a one-man socio-moralistic crusade.
Which I find hilarious in a pathetic way.
In other words, the latter.
But you clearly take offense to my criticism of regular pre-marital sex, and went on some crusade to prove Mary didn't conceive Jesus through a virgin birth or wasn't a virgin at all. Why you are so insistent on this is odd, it just exposes your deviancy and dysfunctional attitudes towards sex more than anything else.
You are the only confused one, you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of logic and logical fallaciesYou are engaged in a logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.
If Jesus is a woman, than she can be conceived of a virgin birth
Jesus is a man
Thus Jesus was not of a virgin birth
You sound more confused than usual. Can't say I blame you and I'm glad I was able to educate you about the facts of virgin birth.
Apparently you believe Mary was raped by an invisible, magical, sky fairy kind of thing.
K
You don't even understand what rape is. But given you are a warped person that probably thinks their needs to be an affirmative statement of consent codified in a contract before one can have sex, I am not surprised.
But you obviously haven't read scripture.
Luke 1 38 - Bible Gateway"Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word"
You are the only confused one, you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of logic and logical fallaciesYou are engaged in a logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.
If Jesus is a woman, than she can be conceived of a virgin birth
Jesus is a man
Thus Jesus was not of a virgin birth
You sound more confused than usual. Can't say I blame you and I'm glad I was able to educate you about the facts of virgin birth.
Apparently you believe Mary was raped by an invisible, magical, sky fairy kind of thing.
K
You don't even understand what rape is. But given you are a warped person that probably thinks their needs to be an affirmative statement of consent codified in a contract before one can have sex, I am not surprised.
But you obviously haven't read scripture.
Luke 1 38 - Bible Gateway"Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word"
Was it a legitimate rape? LOL!
You are the only confused one, you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of logic and logical fallaciesYou are engaged in a logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.
If Jesus is a woman, than she can be conceived of a virgin birth
Jesus is a man
Thus Jesus was not of a virgin birth
You sound more confused than usual. Can't say I blame you and I'm glad I was able to educate you about the facts of virgin birth.
Apparently you believe Mary was raped by an invisible, magical, sky fairy kind of thing.
K
You don't even understand what rape is. But given you are a warped person that probably thinks their needs to be an affirmative statement of consent codified in a contract before one can have sex, I am not surprised.
But you obviously haven't read scripture.
Luke 1 38 - Bible Gateway"Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word"
Was it a legitimate rape? LOL!
Clearly it was "something God intended to happen"...
Cafeteria Christian?So you employ the scientific method in every decision you make? I highly doubt this, in fact, I know you don't, there is a degree of faith in nearly every decision we make. You are pushing a flawed worldview, where action or belief is "unethical" unless one has the all the facts at their disposal immediately.How does parthenogenesis refute the possibility of a virgin birth?Look, I can't help it if you are socially autistic and can't understand the value of such narratives outside of whether there is physical verification for them and ignore the moral teachings and significance of the story.
What, Mary conceived a child as a virgin? Impossible, was this verified through the scientific method? BEEP BOOP
No, not at all impossible.
You need to look up parthenogenesis.
The inconvenient truth about parthenogenesis is that it can only result in female offspring.
If you're going to preach, you might want to know just a little bit about what you're praching about.
One is science.
One is faith.
You have made your choice and I have made mine.
I am not suggesting there isn't value in the scientific method, but to suggest it is the be all and end all is a fallacy.
You're really all over the place on this. That's often the case with Cafeteria Christians. They seem to go whichever the wind blows them without really thinking through their choices.
And yes, you're trolling, lying about what I actually wrote.
I've made it a point to say I'm not pushing you to believe differently than you choose. Believe whatever you need to believe. It doesn't touch my world, makes no difference to me in any way.
Have a nice xmas.
I am sure you think I said all this, in your mind.No I didn't, only in your mind.The
Only one posting bizarre things is you. On one hand you assert how scripture in invalid because Virgin birth isn't scientifically possible, then you claim the Nativity Story said no such thing.See, even YOUR BIBLE doesn't say Jesus was of virgin birth, so why am I mocking the virgin birth again?
Hehe pwned again you silly christard.
****
LOL, you need to get your story straight.
These posts get increasingly more bizarre. Can't wait to see where it goes next.
So what are you claiming, that the Nativity story is wrong because virgin birth is impossible or the nativity story didn't speak of a virgin birth and that modern Christians misinterpret it?
And the bizarritude just keeps on comin'.
I posted nothing about the nativity story being "wrong"; I posted nothing about "virgin birth being impossible". I posted about how you took off with a bad translation, took it literally, and went on a one-man socio-moralistic crusade.
Which I find hilarious in a pathetic way.
In other words, the latter.
But you clearly take offense to my criticism of regular pre-marital sex, and went on some crusade to prove Mary didn't conceive Jesus through a virgin birth or wasn't a virgin at all. Why you are so insistent on this is odd, it just exposes your deviancy and dysfunctional attitudes towards sex more than anything else.
Make up your mind. In one post, you say she was a virgin. In another you say virgin birth is scientifically impossible. Then, when I corrected you, you said she wasn't a virgin.
You also incorrectly said Jesus was born in the 19th century and then went off on some unrelated rant about modern day premarital sex.
Maybe you should take notes so you can remember your own beliefs.
You are the only confused one, you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of logic and logical fallaciesYou are engaged in a logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.
If Jesus is a woman, than she can be conceived of a virgin birth
Jesus is a man
Thus Jesus was not of a virgin birth
You sound more confused than usual. Can't say I blame you and I'm glad I was able to educate you about the facts of virgin birth.
Apparently you believe Mary was raped by an invisible, magical, sky fairy kind of thing.
K
You don't even understand what rape is. But given you are a warped person that probably thinks their needs to be an affirmative statement of consent codified in a contract before one can have sex, I am not surprised.
But you obviously haven't read scripture.
Luke 1 38 - Bible Gateway"Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word"
Was it a legitimate rape? LOL!
Clearly it was "something God intended to happen"...
And her body didn't shut the whole thing down....
Many Christians are surprised when told that nowhere in the Bible, either Old Testament or New, does any writer say that a woman’s consent is necessary or even desirable before sex.
Cafeteria Christian?So you employ the scientific method in every decision you make? I highly doubt this, in fact, I know you don't, there is a degree of faith in nearly every decision we make. You are pushing a flawed worldview, where action or belief is "unethical" unless one has the all the facts at their disposal immediately.How does parthenogenesis refute the possibility of a virgin birth?No, not at all impossible.
You need to look up parthenogenesis.
The inconvenient truth about parthenogenesis is that it can only result in female offspring.
If you're going to preach, you might want to know just a little bit about what you're praching about.
One is science.
One is faith.
You have made your choice and I have made mine.
I am not suggesting there isn't value in the scientific method, but to suggest it is the be all and end all is a fallacy.
You're really all over the place on this. That's often the case with Cafeteria Christians. They seem to go whichever the wind blows them without really thinking through their choices.
And yes, you're trolling, lying about what I actually wrote.
I've made it a point to say I'm not pushing you to believe differently than you choose. Believe whatever you need to believe. It doesn't touch my world, makes no difference to me in any way.
Have a nice xmas.
Your rant is becoming more incoherent by the minute...
It wasn't a rape at all, at least how the Bible tells it.You are the only confused one, you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of logic and logical fallaciesYou are engaged in a logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.
If Jesus is a woman, than she can be conceived of a virgin birth
Jesus is a man
Thus Jesus was not of a virgin birth
You sound more confused than usual. Can't say I blame you and I'm glad I was able to educate you about the facts of virgin birth.
Apparently you believe Mary was raped by an invisible, magical, sky fairy kind of thing.
K
You don't even understand what rape is. But given you are a warped person that probably thinks their needs to be an affirmative statement of consent codified in a contract before one can have sex, I am not surprised.
But you obviously haven't read scripture.
Luke 1 38 - Bible Gateway"Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word"
Was it a legitimate rape? LOL!
I am aware of what a cafeteria christian is, which is why your rant makes no sense, particularly in this context.Cafeteria Christian?So you employ the scientific method in every decision you make? I highly doubt this, in fact, I know you don't, there is a degree of faith in nearly every decision we make. You are pushing a flawed worldview, where action or belief is "unethical" unless one has the all the facts at their disposal immediately.How does parthenogenesis refute the possibility of a virgin birth?
One is science.
One is faith.
You have made your choice and I have made mine.
I am not suggesting there isn't value in the scientific method, but to suggest it is the be all and end all is a fallacy.
You're really all over the place on this. That's often the case with Cafeteria Christians. They seem to go whichever the wind blows them without really thinking through their choices.
And yes, you're trolling, lying about what I actually wrote.
I've made it a point to say I'm not pushing you to believe differently than you choose. Believe whatever you need to believe. It doesn't touch my world, makes no difference to me in any way.
Have a nice xmas.
Your rant is becoming more incoherent by the minute...
Are you now saying you believe ever single word of the bible? Every single word of your religion?
Nope. Like a cafeteria, you pick and choose what is convenient and gits your agenda.
Not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. Just saying that no one would/could actually believe and LIVE every word of the bible.
One can’t help but notice that a large number of high-profile cases involve high-status males: fraternity members, a famous actor, a radio host, small-town football stars and big-league professional athletes—men, in other words, who think they are gods. These men are so convinced of their own deific qualities, they believe the object of their attentions has gotta want it—and if she doesn’t, well, that's fine too, because when a god wants a woman, consent isn’t really part of the story.
