 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Assuming Jesus had a child... |
New poll |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Jomb Deddorokku                   Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| Bio.exe - Dont give up posting, I for one agree with you more often than not.
I got bored for a moment so i looked into the origional sin and sex = evil stuff. It turns out that the origional christians had no problems with sex and dont appear to consider it evil or anything. Infact what i read said that there was no concept of origional sin till a few hundred years after jesus. Then a fellow named St Augustine came along and decided that humans are inherantly evil because of eve eating the apple and thats origional sin. He also felt that the only way to be close to God was to abstain from sex. His teachings got worked into christian theology because he was infuential. So maybe the early christians would have had no problem with Jesus having children of his own, but later on the church may have had problems with such an idea because they believed "The only way to obtain God's grace is to avoid having sex.” Thats what i read anyhow, and it seems to make sense to me, but like i said before, i'm not a christian, so these teachings are'nt sacred works to me. I can view them with more detachment than a christian would, i imagine. (edited by Jomb on 06-14-06 11:22 PM) |
|||
Billiards Koopa Red Paratroopa    Since: 04-21-06 From: Far away from a carnival, one ride tried to kill me (no lie) Last post: 6502 days Last view: 6502 days |
| ||
| My belifs right there. On a side note, I like the attraction my thread has generated. | |||
Sin Dogan   860  Uoodo Original Blend Armored Trooper Votoms Canned Coffee! Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6300 days Last view: 6299 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield Seconded for the yes. Dan Brown isn't even clever. People are just attracted to religious conspiracy even if there's no possibility of the said instance being true. |
|||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6310 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| well, it's not even as much religious conspiracy as it is Catholic Church conspiracy.
You don't hear spooky tales about the Baptists do you  |
|||
|
Silvershield 580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Which leads me to wonder why Catholicism is so frequently targeted, to the exclusion of most other Christian sects. And I mean that legitimately, not just as some sort of indignant comment: why is anti-Catholic sentiment more accepted, or at least more widespread, than criticism that targets Protestantism or even most other mainstream religions? | |||
MathOnNapkins 1100  In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Because being catholic is anti-american. duh. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Thank you for contributing nothing.
 |
|||
ziffhasnoaim/password Snifit Since: 06-07-06 Last post: 6487 days Last view: 6487 days |
| ||
| ...It's actually one of the valid reasons there is a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment in your neck of the woods. It was seen as un-American at times and under modern dispensationalism there are virulent strains that preach that the Catholic hierarchy is the WORK OF SATAN. Things along those lines. | |||
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
It probably prove that he occupied a human shell and may or may not have been influenced by his natural male instincts, regardless of his soul's natural integrity and physically altering aspects (The blood in the Holy Grail, supposed spear of destiny, etc). (edited by Rom Manic on 06-20-06 08:01 PM) |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| POPERY | |||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| If Jesus had a child, then is it possible that over 2000 years of mixed breeding with other races maybe have diluted whatever it is Jesus was into just your average joe? | |||
|
Schweiz oder etwas [12:55] (Dr_Death16); I swear, the word drama needs to be stricken from the dictionary, for I've heard it so many times, it will permanently be imprinted on my brain  Since: 11-17-05 From: Kingston, Rhode Island Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| That was somewhat covered in the deleted scenes of Kevin Smith's Dogma...
Er, now Jomb, I have to thank you very much for something: Your looking into the idea of sex=sin saved me a hell of a lot of convincing. I'd like to know where you got your information from on that aspect, as nowadays the idea of sex not being a sin could definitely use some pounding into a lot of peoples' heads.  It's a much better idea to abstain from sex via responsibility or lack thereof to accept the consequences than it is to abstain from sex purely because you think you'll be sent to hell for it. |
|||
|
ziffhasnoaim/password Snifit Since: 06-07-06 Last post: 6487 days Last view: 6487 days |
| ||
| The Jews of Israel wouldn't have been all that dark. They would've been olive skin and run the gamut from very European appearances to stereotypical Arab appearances. There really hasn't been all TOO much population turmoil in that region. I mean, the Roman invaded. Then it was reclaimed. Then the Crusades occured. Then it was reclaimed again. The population also was fairly commonly interacted with with Europeans.
I don't understand this giant fight over the colour of Christ's skin. Any basic look at the population of the region would reveal that he could've looked in any great range of appearances. I've always seen it as an extension on the battle against the Church. It opens a whole new venue of persecution against Christians in the modern theological battleground for racism. |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| Grey - I put "origional sin" into google and read through a bunch of the results. Also i looked up St Augustine in the encyclopedia we have in our attic. The whole sex= sin thing is very much a part of the Christianity around where i live. So i was surprised to discover its not something that came from christ himself or even his time period, it was a few hundred years later that that was decided. | |||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| It would make sense, to say the least. Though I'm pretty sure in Exodus, God does in fact go against the whole Procreation thing in the ten commandments (Thouh shall not commit adultery), but since it really only applies to a married person having an affair, I'm not really sure if it should or could be used against single people having sex and the like. | |||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| Isn't the commandment "thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife"? That sounds more like "dont lust after someone else's woman". If it was no sex till marriage, would'nt the commandment be more like "though shall not covet any other than they wife"? | |||
|
Sin Dogan 860 Uoodo Original Blend Armored Trooper Votoms Canned Coffee! Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6300 days Last view: 6299 days |
| ||
| It's called adultery. Why would lusting of any sort even be allowed(especially after your own wife) if it's a sin to begin with? | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JombIt's not as if every sin there is is covered directly in the Ten Commandments. Just because it doesn't appear specifically does not mean it's perfectly alright. I don't recall "thall shall not torture kittens," but you can be fairly certain that our God is not a god that delights in the suffering of adorable little animals. Essentially, sex is not itself a sin, but it becomes one if abused or if performed outside of allowable boundaries. Specifically, extramarital sex is forbidden, not because of the act but because of the context; contact of that sort is disallowed without the commitment of marriage. |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| "thall shall not torture kittens,"
would'nt that violate the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" rule? I'm just curious, but where does it say that sex of any sort outside of marriage is not allowed? I'm not saying its not there, i'm just curious about it. I've seen all kinds of things about adultery and seen that used as justification for an absolutely no sex what-so-ever outside marriage attitude. To me though, it's not adultery if no participant is married. I completely agree with the no adultery rule, thats words to live by. Another question. What is the justification for the no adultery rule in the 1st place? Its obviously not love, because back then that was not a reason to get married. Must have something to do with property rights. |
|||
|
Deleted User Banned    Since: 05-08-06 Last post: None Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Neitzluber wants to make these points:
1) Religious groups (local churches, the Vatican, religious blabbermouths, bible publishers, etc.) benefit from scientific ignorance, because it is easier to impose creationism into an individual who knows nothing about the theory of evolution. (Neitzluber learned the theory of evolution at age 7 and started going to church at 8, so Neitzluber wasn't idiotized into believing the church) 2) The church gives this image of God/Jesus as a creator, and a loving father of humanity, but if he loves us so much, who does he place so much suffering, problems, wars, illness, etc., when he could effortlessly solve it all? 3) The Bible has been changed many times, which makes it untrustworthy, besides, each church has it's own version. The bible has been changed many times before reaching it's first English version, here are some examples: Translated from Hebrew to Latin (what happens when a Hebrew phrase didn't exist in Latin, or the translator didn't like the idea?), Translated from Latin to Greek (same problem as before), Translated from Greek or Latin into Galish [galish is old French], from Galish to Visigothic [old spanish], translated into German (same problem as before), translated into English (same problem as before). 4) All Christian sects derive from the Catholic Church, no matter how much they try to deny it, and there is no original bible, because it was destroyed by Jewish religious leaders for the safety and prolonged power of themselves. 5) If God exists, why would he look like a human? 6) Local churches have enough influence on ignorant people's minds to make them ignore scientific proof, with the stupid excuse of ''having faith''. There is even a church that makes their followers believe the sky is white but they devil tries to trick humans into thinking it's blue. 7) Churches use ignorance to gain power, the same way a parent would tell his little kid to don't sleep in late or the boogeyman will eat them, but if the little kid knows the boogeyman does not exists, the little kid will not care, therefore would not obey. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Assuming Jesus had a child... |
| Thread closed |
