Zone1 Mary's sinlessness

[ding]

He had brothers. You have to reinterpret Scripture to mean something other than brothers to hold onto that.

Nope. He did not. That's why he had John assume that duty. If he had brothers, then by Jewish custom, the care of Mary would have been their obligation, not John's.

 

[ding]

And yes, Mary sinned

Nope. What sin do you believe she committed?

Are you bearing false witness?

 

[Donald H]

Nope. What sin do you believe she committed?

Are you bearing false witness?

All indications point to Mary having sexual relations out of wedlock. There's no strong or valid evidence to say otherwise.

If the whole ruse failed, she would have been stoned to death!
In the minds of hardcore Christians, the punishment still fits the crime. That at least can't be denied.

 

[ding]

All indications point to Mary having sexual relations out of wedlock. There's no strong or valid evidence to say otherwise.

If the whole ruse failed, she would have been stoned to death!
In the minds of hardcore Christians, the punishment still fits the crime. That at least can't be denied.

The good news is that I'm going to pray for you. The bad news is that prayers aren't always answered in ways we think they will be answered. For example if I pray for someone to become compassionate, some people will have to experience being treated without compassion for them to gain compassion. Progress isn't always a straight line thing. Sometimes you have to go backwards before you can go forward. Many a saint has pondered this.

Nonetheless I'm praying for you.

 

[Meriweather]

Did Leonardo have any basis to go on for his portrayals of all the characters in the Last Supper?

Or was his portrayals based on bible rhetoric alone?

Why the distinctly feminine protrayal of John?

Art historians noted that Leonardo DaVinci often blurred the lines between the sexes. They use the picture of St. John as a possible example. If Leonardo DaVinci had a style for blurring lines between the sexes, I haven't heard theories for his reasons for doing this. But then, I know little of art.

 

[Meriweather]

All indications point

What indications? Who wrote them? When? Were there witnesses?

 

[Donald H]

The good news is that I'm going to pray for you. The bad news is that prayers aren't always answered in ways we think they will be answered.

Do whatever you think is necessary, but the most obvious answer to the question is still the same

For example if I pray for someone to become compassionate, some people will have to experience being treated without compassion for them to gain compassion. Progress isn't always a straight line thing. Sometimes you have to go backwards before you can go forward. Many a saint has pondered this.

What saints can be trusted to be worthy of the title. Christopher Hitchens even blew the whistle on Mo Theresa and no reputable Christian has offered a rebuttal.

Nonetheless I'm praying for you.

Progress doesn't have to be a straight line, but for an understanding of a liberal bible, it can be overlaid with a straight line in a downward direction. eg. The big fish story's resurrection to becoming the truth again, is not accepted by the flock. You yourself can't do that. The Catholic church still though, allows a variety of beliefs as being acceptable. You're in no direct peril if you decide to run with jonah instead of the amended versions.

I can't send you hateful prayers but I 'can' send you loving thoughts! You can't make me angry and you can't make me hate you.

 

[ding]

Do whatever you think is necessary, but the most obvious answer to the question is still the same

What saints can be trusted to be worthy of the title. Christopher Hitchens even blew the whistle on Mo Theresa and no reputable Christian has offered a rebuttal.

Progress doesn't have to be a straight line, but for an understanding of a liberal bible, it can be overlaid with a straight line in a downward direction. eg. The big fish story's resurrection to becoming the truth again, is not accepted by the flock. You yourself can't do that. The Catholic church still though, allows a variety of beliefs as being acceptable. You're in no direct peril if you decide to run with jonah instead of the amended versions.

I can't send you hateful prayers but I 'can' send you loving thoughts! You can't make me angry and you can't make me hate you.

I'm happy for you to believe anything you want. I'm even happy for you to do things that are wrong or bad. Do you know why? Because I won't be the one who has to experience those consequences. You will. I can try to show you the error of your ways but only you can decide if you want to be better.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because I won't be the one who has to experience those consequences. You will.

Unless God's feeling saucy.

And you happen to be caught in one of those gay-punishing hurricanes or something like that.

 

[ding]

Unless God's feeling saucy.

And you happen to be caught in one of those gay-punishing hurricanes or something like that.

Don't put your shit on me. I'm not the droid you are looking for.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Don't put your shit on me. I'm not the droid you are looking for.

None of those are my ideas. They come directly from the religioso.

And from God, who decided to punish all humans for the sins of 2 people.

 

[Donald H]

Art historians noted that Leonardo DaVinci often blurred the lines between the sexes. They use the picture of St. John as a possible example. If Leonardo DaVinci had a style for blurring lines between the sexes, I haven't heard theories for his reasons for doing this. But then, I know little of art.

Thank you for your explanation on blurring the lines.

But my question was on what Leonardo's unblurred picture could have been. Explicitely, why would he blur John's physical appearance?

So far you haven't said whether or not he had previous depictions of the characters or you envision their physical appearances being formed in his mind by rhetoric alone. Could anyone have passed on verbal evidence to him?

It's not a trick question. I would like to know your opinion but I can also accept that you might not know. Does anybody?

Maybe Ding has an opinion?

 

[Donald H]

I'm happy for you to believe anything you want. I'm even happy for you to do things that are wrong or bad.

But how can you say that I'm bad?

You want me to believe that your opinion of 'bad' is correct, when in fact the majority of people living on our planet don't proclaim a lack of Christian beliefs to be bad. Or good for that matter.

Do you know why? Because I won't be the one who has to experience those consequences. You will. I can try to show you the error of your ways but only you can decide if you want to be better.

I don't think you can even say that Osama was bad? Would the majority of the world's people disagree?

 

[hadit]

Name them. The ones usually named can be shown via scripture and other early Christian writings to be the sons of Mary (who was also at the foot of the cross) and Clopas. Further, this Mary was said to have been a close relative of Mary, the mother of Jesus; Clopas was said to have been a close relative of Joseph.

Since you already know who they are, start with James, or as the Aramaic Bible names him, Jacob, known as the Lord's brother. You can find out about him in Galatians. Stick with Scripture.

 

[hadit]

Nope. He did not. That's why he had John assume that duty. If he had brothers, then by Jewish custom, the care of Mary would have been their obligation, not John's.

None of them were at the cross for Him to ask.

 

[Meriweather]

Since you already know who they are, start with James, or as the Aramaic Bible names him, Jacob, known as the Lord's brother. You can find out about him in Galatians. Stick with Scripture.

Son of Mary and Clopas

 

[hadit]

Son of Mary and Clopas

How? He was known as the "Lord's brother". He could not be that if he was not the son of Mary. Are you calling Clopas the Lord?

 

[ding]

None of those are my ideas. They come directly from the religioso.

And from God, who decided to punish all humans for the sins of 2 people.

And you think I am obligated to accept that as the truth why?

Do you really think it makes sense that I should accept the opinion of a militant atheist on what I must believe?