religion is just brainwashing

[Taz]

What "facts" am I denying?

For example the fact, that the belief of "scientists" religion tries to be a better form of natural science is not only a little stupid, even if Nobel price winners argue in such stupid ways. Some people seem to confuse empiricism and imperialism. The world all around exists not in anyone's brain - also not in your brain. If you say you are an agnostic then you have to accept that atheism is a belief. If you say you are an atheist then you are not an agnostics. Why the most people in the English speaking world are using the word agnosticism instead of atheism is a strange miracle.

It must be difficult for you to navigate the real world when your so want to live in a fantasy world. Science isn't a religion, it's an observation and discovery of the universe around us built up with real facts.

Atheists are just as deluded as theists, as there's no proof either way for or against the existence of a god. That's why agnosticism is the thinking person's position.

Your problem is you do not think. And my problem is that I am an idiot. But I know why.

Why do I not think?

I could explain this now - but it would be senseless (= without any effect) to do so. You know your results - and you will get your results - completely independent what anyone else says nor what the reality all around is.

because I can tell that there is no real proof for or against a god? Seems to me that those who believe in invisible people nobody has ever seen are the lazy thinking, who accept some fictional story without thinking the proof (or lack of it) through.

If you "think" so, brainwashed parrot, ah sorry: atheist. To believe not to believe is not a convincing "theology" in my eyes and to see in science a better form of religion or in religion a more worse form of science makes no sense too. But materialism was not only in the past a mighty ideology. Some people believe meanwhile if they think they are a women then they will become a woman and if they think they are a man they will become a man. Perhaps we reach a new "magic" period of a kind of mainstream of pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-science.

How do you think should "scientists" bring god under a microscope? And if they are able to do so, what will they see if god decides to be less little than a quantum-length or ... ? Sure scientists are also able to find god - but afterwards they have he same problem as all others: What they say in case of god others are able to believe or not to believe. Both. So god is not an object of the methods of science. Only his creation is an object of natural science. God is for example also not able to be an object of a baker - but a baker is able to believe in god. And he's able to love it to make bread, because this is what god told him to do. And I'm sure his bread tastes good, because he is an inspired baker with the help of god.

Your rantings don't add to much. You may possibly have dementia. Probably from hating Jews all your life.

 

[zaangalewa]

... but you know and I know that is impossible

Why should it be impossible to be a virgin and to become pregnant? Sounds crazy what you say here. The biology of Mary is by the way not in the center of the birth of Jesus, the Christ. Virgin means anyway only "young, unmarried woman, who is not a girl any longer". First of all it was necessary for Mary to be without sin. Sin allows us not to make fully free decision. And the decision to bear the son of god and to become the mother of god was only able because she had an absolutely free will - and so we know too she was totally without any sin.

 

[zaangalewa]

For example the fact, that the belief of "scientists" religion tries to be a better form of natural science is not only a little stupid, even if Nobel price winners argue in such stupid ways. Some people seem to confuse empiricism and imperialism. The world all around exists not in anyone's brain - also not in your brain. If you say you are an agnostic then you have to accept that atheism is a belief. If you say you are an atheist then you are not an agnostics. Why the most people in the English speaking world are using the word agnosticism instead of atheism is a strange miracle.

It must be difficult for you to navigate the real world when your so want to live in a fantasy world. Science isn't a religion, it's an observation and discovery of the universe around us built up with real facts.

Atheists are just as deluded as theists, as there's no proof either way for or against the existence of a god. That's why agnosticism is the thinking person's position.

Your problem is you do not think. And my problem is that I am an idiot. But I know why.

Why do I not think?

I could explain this now - but it would be senseless (= without any effect) to do so. You know your results - and you will get your results - completely independent what anyone else says nor what the reality all around is.

because I can tell that there is no real proof for or against a god? Seems to me that those who believe in invisible people nobody has ever seen are the lazy thinking, who accept some fictional story without thinking the proof (or lack of it) through.

If you "think" so, brainwashed parrot, ah sorry: atheist. To believe not to believe is not a convincing "theology" in my eyes and to see in science a better form of religion or in religion a more worse form of science makes no sense too. But materialism was not only in the past a mighty ideology. Some people believe meanwhile if they think they are a women then they will become a woman and if they think they are a man they will become a man. Perhaps we reach a new "magic" period of a kind of mainstream of pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-science.

How do you think should "scientists" bring god under a microscope? And if they are able to do so, what will they see if god decides to be less little than a quantum-length or ... ? Sure scientists are also able to find god - but afterwards they have he same problem as all others: What they say in case of god others are able to believe or not to believe. Both. So god is not an object of the methods of science. Only his creation is an object of natural science. God is for example also not able to be an object of a baker - but a baker is able to believe in god. And he's able to love it to make bread, because this is what god told him to do. And I'm sure his bread tastes good, because he is an inspired baker with the help of god.

Your rantings don't add to much. You may possibly have dementia. Probably from hating Jews all your life.

Normally I had said to you now only "Vade retro satana" - but let me say in your case this: Your character needs a very great change, if you ever should like not to go to hell. I lost a big part of the people of my families in the holocaust, Nazi. If you enjoy now this to hear, then you know very well how near hell is to you. Do not make a wrong decision now: Start to change your life - that's inevitable.

 

[Taz]

It must be difficult for you to navigate the real world when your so want to live in a fantasy world. Science isn't a religion, it's an observation and discovery of the universe around us built up with real facts.

Atheists are just as deluded as theists, as there's no proof either way for or against the existence of a god. That's why agnosticism is the thinking person's position.

Your problem is you do not think. And my problem is that I am an idiot. But I know why.

Why do I not think?

I could explain this now - but it would be senseless (= without any effect) to do so. You know your results - and you will get your results - completely independent what anyone else says nor what the reality all around is.

because I can tell that there is no real proof for or against a god? Seems to me that those who believe in invisible people nobody has ever seen are the lazy thinking, who accept some fictional story without thinking the proof (or lack of it) through.

If you "think" so, brainwashed parrot, ah sorry: atheist. To believe not to believe is not a convincing "theology" in my eyes and to see in science a better form of religion or in religion a more worse form of science makes no sense too. But materialism was not only in the past a mighty ideology. Some people believe meanwhile if they think they are a women then they will become a woman and if they think they are a man they will become a man. Perhaps we reach a new "magic" period of a kind of mainstream of pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-science.

How do you think should "scientists" bring god under a microscope? And if they are able to do so, what will they see if god decides to be less little than a quantum-length or ... ? Sure scientists are also able to find god - but afterwards they have he same problem as all others: What they say in case of god others are able to believe or not to believe. Both. So god is not an object of the methods of science. Only his creation is an object of natural science. God is for example also not able to be an object of a baker - but a baker is able to believe in god. And he's able to love it to make bread, because this is what god told him to do. And I'm sure his bread tastes good, because he is an inspired baker with the help of god.

Your rantings don't add to much. You may possibly have dementia. Probably from hating Jews all your life.

Normally I had said to you now only "Vade retro satana" - but let me say in your case this: Your character needs a very great change, if you ever should like not to go to hell. I lost a big part of the people of my families in the holocaust, Nazi. If you enjoy now this to hear, then you know very well how near hell is to you. Do not make a wrong decision now: Start to change your life - that's inevitable.

That's why you hate Jews, because they were the reason for your losses. But not to worry, I'll tell Adolf to save you a seat next to him in Hell. We'll have a grand ol' time!

 

[hobelim]

Why should it be impossible to be a virgin and to become pregnant?

What is impossible is that Mary became pregnant without the other 23 chromosomes required from a human father to conceive.

Either the story is complete bullshit or it conceals some deeper truth.

Those are your choices, take your pick.

If you profess a belief in the bullshit and deny the existence of a greater truth, you are already in hell.

If you don't seek the truth hidden in the fantastical stories of the gospels while you still have a body and a mind, what are the chances that you will find it without them?

 

[Windparadox]

`
`
I have absolutely no problem with religion per se, it's the abuse of religion my men, for personal and secular purposes, I am against.

 

[harmonica]

... but you know and I know that is impossible

Why should it be impossible to be a virgin and to become pregnant? Sounds crazy what you say here. The biology of Mary is by the way not in the center of the birth of Jesus, the Christ. Virgin means anyway only "young, unmarried woman, who is not a girl any longer". First of all it was necessary for Mary to be without sin. Sin allows us not to make fully free decision. And the decision to bear the son of god and to become the mother of god was only able because she had an absolutely free will - and so we know too she was totally without any sin.

it's impossible--that's why
what about the rising from the dead? the testimony is ridiculous--it's laughable--..they find the body missing???!!!?? and deduce he rose from the dead??!

 

[zaangalewa]

Your problem is you do not think. And my problem is that I am an idiot. But I know why.

Why do I not think?

I could explain this now - but it would be senseless (= without any effect) to do so. You know your results - and you will get your results - completely independent what anyone else says nor what the reality all around is.

because I can tell that there is no real proof for or against a god? Seems to me that those who believe in invisible people nobody has ever seen are the lazy thinking, who accept some fictional story without thinking the proof (or lack of it) through.

If you "think" so, brainwashed parrot, ah sorry: atheist. To believe not to believe is not a convincing "theology" in my eyes and to see in science a better form of religion or in religion a more worse form of science makes no sense too. But materialism was not only in the past a mighty ideology. Some people believe meanwhile if they think they are a women then they will become a woman and if they think they are a man they will become a man. Perhaps we reach a new "magic" period of a kind of mainstream of pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-science.

How do you think should "scientists" bring god under a microscope? And if they are able to do so, what will they see if god decides to be less little than a quantum-length or ... ? Sure scientists are also able to find god - but afterwards they have he same problem as all others: What they say in case of god others are able to believe or not to believe. Both. So god is not an object of the methods of science. Only his creation is an object of natural science. God is for example also not able to be an object of a baker - but a baker is able to believe in god. And he's able to love it to make bread, because this is what god told him to do. And I'm sure his bread tastes good, because he is an inspired baker with the help of god.
7

Your rantings don't add to much. You may possibly have dementia. Probably from hating Jews all your life.

Normally I had said to you now only "Vade retro satana" - but let me say in your case this: Your character needs a very great change, if you ever should like not to go to hell. I lost a big part of the people of my families in the holocaust, Nazi. If you enjoy now this to hear, then you know very well how near hell is to you. Do not make a wrong decision now: Start to change your life - that's inevitable.

That's why you hate Jews, because they were the reason for your losses. But not to worry, I'll tell Adolf to save you a seat next to him in Hell. We'll have a grand ol' time!

Okay - brain defect, no brain at all or drugs. Whatelse could excuse your criminal stupidity now? To have a chance to go to hell and not to use it seems to be impossible for a Nazi like you.

 

[Taz]

Why do I not think?

I could explain this now - but it would be senseless (= without any effect) to do so. You know your results - and you will get your results - completely independent what anyone else says nor what the reality all around is.

because I can tell that there is no real proof for or against a god? Seems to me that those who believe in invisible people nobody has ever seen are the lazy thinking, who accept some fictional story without thinking the proof (or lack of it) through.

If you "think" so, brainwashed parrot, ah sorry: atheist. To believe not to believe is not a convincing "theology" in my eyes and to see in science a better form of religion or in religion a more worse form of science makes no sense too. But materialism was not only in the past a mighty ideology. Some people believe meanwhile if they think they are a women then they will become a woman and if they think they are a man they will become a man. Perhaps we reach a new "magic" period of a kind of mainstream of pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-science.

How do you think should "scientists" bring god under a microscope? And if they are able to do so, what will they see if god decides to be less little than a quantum-length or ... ? Sure scientists are also able to find god - but afterwards they have he same problem as all others: What they say in case of god others are able to believe or not to believe. Both. So god is not an object of the methods of science. Only his creation is an object of natural science. God is for example also not able to be an object of a baker - but a baker is able to believe in god. And he's able to love it to make bread, because this is what god told him to do. And I'm sure his bread tastes good, because he is an inspired baker with the help of god.
7

Your rantings don't add to much. You may possibly have dementia. Probably from hating Jews all your life.

Normally I had said to you now only "Vade retro satana" - but let me say in your case this: Your character needs a very great change, if you ever should like not to go to hell. I lost a big part of the people of my families in the holocaust, Nazi. If you enjoy now this to hear, then you know very well how near hell is to you. Do not make a wrong decision now: Start to change your life - that's inevitable.

That's why you hate Jews, because they were the reason for your losses. But not to worry, I'll tell Adolf to save you a seat next to him in Hell. We'll have a grand ol' time!

Okay - brain defect, no brain at all or drugs. What else could excuse your criminal stupidity? To have a chance to go to hell and not to use it seems to be impossible for you.

So what do I have to do to not go to hell? Obey a book?

 

[zaangalewa]

... but you know and I know that is impossible

Why should it be impossible to be a virgin and to become pregnant? Sounds crazy what you say here. The biology of Mary is by the way not in the center of the birth of Jesus, the Christ. Virgin means anyway only "young, unmarried woman, who is not a girl any longer". First of all it was necessary for Mary to be without sin. Sin allows us not to make fully free decision. And the decision to bear the son of god and to become the mother of god was only able because she had an absolutely free will - and so we know too she was totally without any sin.

it's impossible--that's why

What is impossible? Artificial insemination? Clone reprodcution? A creation ouf of nothing of a complete universe? ... For heavens sake - in which time of history do you live? Even with most stupid methods its in our time easily possible to make evrey virgin to a mother - and in case of mother Mary we speak about a wonder god made. God is the almighty entity who created the whole universe all around you. And you say "impossible"? Nothing is impossible with the help of god. Nevertheless the sex-aspect is not important in this context. Joseph solved with the help of god this collateral psychological problem in one dream in one night. And never again it was a problem for him afterwards.

what about the rising from the dead?

Why "what about"? A rising from the death is a rising from the death. I was once nearly dead after an accident - but the doctor was pretty good, so I survived. I had a dream where I was in a wonderful place and Jesus asked me to go back. I was not very happy about, because of the risk never to come back to this wonderful place where I was and perhaps to have to go to hell, if I will kill someone in this life. I asked Jesus about - but he said to me I have indeed the full risk. Nevertheless I did it - I came back.

the testimony is ridiculous--it's laughable--..they find the body missing???!!!?? and deduce he rose from the dead??!

And it were only women, who gave this testimony. A testimony of women was worth nearly nothing in those days. Yes - it's a very weak testimony - nearly no testimony - and yes - we believe this. You see this correct. I understand very well that this is a big problem for everyone who likes to become a Christian. It's only possible to be inspired from this women when we read this story with our hearts. But then this story shows us this confusing reality and this very astonishing moment of an intuition which leads to this only possible solution. There is no other way. The women were right. It were only women and their testimony was weak, but Peter was the first who understood the spiritual consequences and the mosaic of the life of Jesus became clearer and clearer.

But if you are not able to believe this I'm able to understand it very easy. Who likes to be crazy? But the other question is also existing: Who likes to be normal? And in the end perhaps no one is normal, who is not a little crazy too.

 

[zaangalewa]

I could explain this now - but it would be senseless (= without any effect) to do so. You know your results - and you will get your results - completely independent what anyone else says nor what the reality all around is.
If you "think" so, brainwashed parrot, ah sorry: atheist. To believe not to believe is not a convincing "theology" in my eyes and to see in science a better form of religion or in religion a more worse form of science makes no sense too. But materialism was not only in the past a mighty ideology. Some people believe meanwhile if they think they are a women then they will become a woman and if they think they are a man they will become a man. Perhaps we reach a new "magic" period of a kind of mainstream of pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-science.

How do you think should "scientists" bring god under a microscope? And if they are able to do so, what will they see if god decides to be less little than a quantum-length or ... ? Sure scientists are also able to find god - but afterwards they have he same problem as all others: What they say in case of god others are able to believe or not to believe. Both. So god is not an object of the methods of science. Only his creation is an object of natural science. God is for example also not able to be an object of a baker - but a baker is able to believe in god. And he's able to love it to make bread, because this is what god told him to do. And I'm sure his bread tastes good, because he is an inspired baker with the help of god.
7

Your rantings don't add to much. You may possibly have dementia. Probably from hating Jews all your life.

Normally I had said to you now only "Vade retro satana" - but let me say in your case this: Your character needs a very great change, if you ever should like not to go to hell. I lost a big part of the people of my families in the holocaust, Nazi. If you enjoy now this to hear, then you know very well how near hell is to you. Do not make a wrong decision now: Start to change your life - that's inevitable.

That's why you hate Jews, because they were the reason for your losses. But not to worry, I'll tell Adolf to save you a seat next to him in Hell. We'll have a grand ol' time!

Okay - brain defect, no brain at all or drugs. What else could excuse your criminal stupidity? To have a chance to go to hell and not to use it seems to be impossible for you.

So what do I have to do to not go to hell? Obey a book?

Let it be to speak with me. You are totally absurde.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To believe not to believe is not a convincing "theology" in my eyes and to see in science a better form of religion or in religion a more worse form of science makes no sense too.

No wonder it makes no sense, as every word of what you just said is absurd. It's not a convincing "theology", because it is not a theology at all. Nor is science a religion. In fact, it is the opposite.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you profess a belief in the bullshit and deny the existence of a greater truth, you are already in hell.

Shaman Hobelim has spoken! Heed his words, all ye who value your eternal souls!!!! Ignore his words, all ye who laugh at magical bullshit!

 

[harmonica]

... but you know and I know that is impossible

Why should it be impossible to be a virgin and to become pregnant? Sounds crazy what you say here. The biology of Mary is by the way not in the center of the birth of Jesus, the Christ. Virgin means anyway only "young, unmarried woman, who is not a girl any longer". First of all it was necessary for Mary to be without sin. Sin allows us not to make fully free decision. And the decision to bear the son of god and to become the mother of god was only able because she had an absolutely free will - and so we know too she was totally without any sin.

it's impossible--that's why

What is impossible? Artificial insemination? Clone reprodcution? A creation ouf of nothing of a complete universe? ... For heavens sake - in which time of history do you live? Even with most stupid methods its in our time easily possible to make evrey virgin to a mother - and in case of mother Mary we speak about a wonder god made. God is the almighty entity who created the whole universe all around you. And you say "impossible"? Nothing is impossible with the help of god. Nevertheless the sex-aspect is not important in this context. Joseph solved with the help of god this collateral psychological problem in one dream in one night. And never again it was a problem for him afterwards.

what about the rising from the dead?

Why "what about"? A rising from the death is a rising from the death. I was once nearly dead after an accident - but the doctor was pretty good, so I survived. I had a dream where I was in a wonderful place and Jesus asked me to go back. I was not very happy about, because of the risk never to come back to this wonderful place where I was and perhaps to have to go to hell, if I will kill someone in this life. I asked Jesus about - but he said to me I have indeed the full risk. Nevertheless I did it - I came back.

the testimony is ridiculous--it's laughable--..they find the body missing???!!!?? and deduce he rose from the dead??!

And it were only women, who gave this testimony. A testimony of women was worth nearly nothing in those days. Yes - it's a very weak testimony - nearly no testimony - and yes - we believe this. You see this correct. I understand very well that this is a big problem for everyone who likes to become a Christian. It's only possible to be inspired from this women when we read this story with our hearts. But then this story shows us this confusing reality and this very astonishing moment of an intuition which leads to this only possible solution. There is no other way. The women were right. It were only women and their testimony was weak, but Peter was the first who understood the spiritual consequences and the mosaic of the life of Jesus became clearer and clearer.

But if you are not able to believe this I'm able to understand it very easy. Who likes to be crazy? But the other question is also existing: Who likes to be normal? And in the end perhaps no one is normal, who is not a little crazy too.

even if it was artificial insemination--that would mean jesus was not god's son--but someone else's !!!
where's the '''testimony'' [ ] of insemination in that era?

AND that's not what the bible said what happened--is it?

 

[harmonica]

... but you know and I know that is impossible

Why should it be impossible to be a virgin and to become pregnant? Sounds crazy what you say here. The biology of Mary is by the way not in the center of the birth of Jesus, the Christ. Virgin means anyway only "young, unmarried woman, who is not a girl any longer". First of all it was necessary for Mary to be without sin. Sin allows us not to make fully free decision. And the decision to bear the son of god and to become the mother of god was only able because she had an absolutely free will - and so we know too she was totally without any sin.

it's impossible--that's why

What is impossible? Artificial insemination? Clone reprodcution? A creation ouf of nothing of a complete universe? ... For heavens sake - in which time of history do you live? Even with most stupid methods its in our time easily possible to make evrey virgin to a mother - and in case of mother Mary we speak about a wonder god made. God is the almighty entity who created the whole universe all around you. And you say "impossible"? Nothing is impossible with the help of god. Nevertheless the sex-aspect is not important in this context. Joseph solved with the help of god this collateral psychological problem in one dream in one night. And never again it was a problem for him afterwards.

what about the rising from the dead?

Why "what about"? A rising from the death is a rising from the death. I was once nearly dead after an accident - but the doctor was pretty good, so I survived. I had a dream where I was in a wonderful place and Jesus asked me to go back. I was not very happy about, because of the risk never to come back to this wonderful place where I was and perhaps to have to go to hell, if I will kill someone in this life. I asked Jesus about - but he said to me I have indeed the full risk. Nevertheless I did it - I came back.

the testimony is ridiculous--it's laughable--..they find the body missing???!!!?? and deduce he rose from the dead??!

And it were only women, who gave this testimony. A testimony of women was worth nearly nothing in those days. Yes - it's a very weak testimony - nearly no testimony - and yes - we believe this. You see this correct. I understand very well that this is a big problem for everyone who likes to become a Christian. It's only possible to be inspired from this women when we read this story with our hearts. But then this story shows us this confusing reality and this very astonishing moment of an intuition which leads to this only possible solution. There is no other way. The women were right. It were only women and their testimony was weak, but Peter was the first who understood the spiritual consequences and the mosaic of the life of Jesus became clearer and clearer.

But if you are not able to believe this I'm able to understand it very easy. Who likes to be crazy? But the other question is also existing: Who likes to be normal? And in the end perhaps no one is normal, who is not a little crazy too.

''nearly'' dead---not dead---so your argument is dead

 

[Taz]

Your rantings don't add to much. You may possibly have dementia. Probably from hating Jews all your life.

Normally I had said to you now only "Vade retro satana" - but let me say in your case this: Your character needs a very great change, if you ever should like not to go to hell. I lost a big part of the people of my families in the holocaust, Nazi. If you enjoy now this to hear, then you know very well how near hell is to you. Do not make a wrong decision now: Start to change your life - that's inevitable.

That's why you hate Jews, because they were the reason for your losses. But not to worry, I'll tell Adolf to save you a seat next to him in Hell. We'll have a grand ol' time!

Okay - brain defect, no brain at all or drugs. What else could excuse your criminal stupidity? To have a chance to go to hell and not to use it seems to be impossible for you.

So what do I have to do to not go to hell? Obey a book?

Let it be to speak with me. You are totally absurde.

So which is better, The Bible or Mein Kampf?

 

[hobelim]

... but you know and I know that is impossible

Why should it be impossible to be a virgin and to become pregnant? Sounds crazy what you say here. The biology of Mary is by the way not in the center of the birth of Jesus, the Christ. Virgin means anyway only "young, unmarried woman, who is not a girl any longer". First of all it was necessary for Mary to be without sin. Sin allows us not to make fully free decision. And the decision to bear the son of god and to become the mother of god was only able because she had an absolutely free will - and so we know too she was totally without any sin.

it's impossible--that's why

What is impossible? Artificial insemination? Clone reprodcution? A creation ouf of nothing of a complete universe? ... For heavens sake - in which time of history do you live? Even with most stupid methods its in our time easily possible to make evrey virgin to a mother - and in case of mother Mary we speak about a wonder god made. God is the almighty entity who created the whole universe all around you. And you say "impossible"? Nothing is impossible with the help of god. Nevertheless the sex-aspect is not important in this context. Joseph solved with the help of god this collateral psychological problem in one dream in one night. And never again it was a problem for him afterwards.

what about the rising from the dead?

Why "what about"? A rising from the death is a rising from the death. I was once nearly dead after an accident - but the doctor was pretty good, so I survived. I had a dream where I was in a wonderful place and Jesus asked me to go back. I was not very happy about, because of the risk never to come back to this wonderful place where I was and perhaps to have to go to hell, if I will kill someone in this life. I asked Jesus about - but he said to me I have indeed the full risk. Nevertheless I did it - I came back.

the testimony is ridiculous--it's laughable--..they find the body missing???!!!?? and deduce he rose from the dead??!

And it were only women, who gave this testimony. A testimony of women was worth nearly nothing in those days. Yes - it's a very weak testimony - nearly no testimony - and yes - we believe this. You see this correct. I understand very well that this is a big problem for everyone who likes to become a Christian. It's only possible to be inspired from this women when we read this story with our hearts. But then this story shows us this confusing reality and this very astonishing moment of an intuition which leads to this only possible solution. There is no other way. The women were right. It were only women and their testimony was weak, but Peter was the first who understood the spiritual consequences and the mosaic of the life of Jesus became clearer and clearer.

But if you are not able to believe this I'm able to understand it very easy. Who likes to be crazy? But the other question is also existing: Who likes to be normal? And in the end perhaps no one is normal, who is not a little crazy too.

even if it was artificial insemination--that would mean jesus was not god's son--but someone else's !!!
where's the '''testimony'' [ ] of insemination in that era?

AND that's not what the bible said what happened--is it?

According to the story the angel Gabrielle showed up at Mary's window in the middle of the night with the news that the Holy Spirit decided that she was going to get knocked up and give birth to a special child.

I heard that temple priests took on the name of angels and had a thing for virgins.I also heard that they felt a religious obligation to pass on the holy seed.

but thats just what I heard.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I heard that temple priests took on the name of angels and had a thing for virgins.I also heard that they felt a religious obligation to pass on the holy seed.

but thats just what I heard

So you agree with the Pharisees that Jesus was really just a bastard child.

The Bible doesn't speak kindly of the Pharisees.

 

[hobelim]

I heard that temple priests took on the name of angels and had a thing for virgins.I also heard that they felt a religious obligation to pass on the holy seed.

but thats just what I heard

So you agree with the Pharisees that Jesus was really just a bastard child.

The Bible doesn't speak kindly of the Pharisees.

The pharisees accused Jesus of being a sinner and keeping company with prostitutes and from their point of view he was, and according to the Bible he didn't deny it. According to Jesus the Pharisees were sinners and from his point of view they were and according to the Bible they didn't admit it.

If Joseph wasn't his father and Jesus was of a priestly line then its more likely that a Temple priest, a Sadducee, raped her than it is that God was smitten by a 14 year old and crawled through a window in the middle of the night to diddle a specially chosen virgin...

What do you think?

She sat on an unclean public toilet?

 

[ding]

....all the Catholics I know, including my father's family, grew up Catholic
since they were babies, their parents took them to church and school where they were taught, from their earliest childhood--about Catholicism
...this is like brainwashing kids to believe in ''something''
..sure, they ask them if they want to ''renounce satan, follow jesus, etc--later!--but even this is ''forced'' on them
isn't this the way most religions are?

if I were born in Indonesia, chances are very, very great I would not be Catholic--but Islamic---

That's because since the beginning man has believed in God and continues to do so.