Poor Hugster...so uptight about sex he can't even imagine it!

Give me Zeus any day.  That guy knew how to get it on.

(July 28, 2016 at 9:21 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 9:09 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Here's the thing, the conception of Jesus was an A-sexual event (which is a thing in nature, look it up). God doesn't need help to create, but reason that God used Mary in this manner is that way back in Genesis he said that the woman would have a seed, I suppose that i don't have to tell you guys that only men have "seed". Jesus was the woman's seed.

The scriptures cannot be broken.

This was to fulfill the law of the kinsman redeemer. In Hebrew law, if a person lost his possessions, or sold himself into servitude, then a relative could come and buy it or him back.

Jesus is our kinsman redeemer, he came to buy back all that Adam had lost with his own blood (Jesus was neither Jew or Gentile, his blood was the creative blood of God), there for he had to be born of a woman just like we were, which makes him human and therefore related to us, if he'd just came down from heaven, then he'd have no relation to us, and that would break the scriptures.

Here is the thing! God date raped Mary to get the job done. Oh , and by the way , I was born free. I need no redeemer. All any man or god can do is try and take my freedom away. So were all women born free. Why you think we are beholden to the curses and superstitions of iron aged desert nomads is beyond me. Let the dead sleep with the dead  , man. We are alive today!

Since you want to continue along this silly notion of "rape" despite me explaining how sex was in no way, shape or form involved, how about this.

If you read crossless's post you'd see that Mary clearly gave her consent

Quote:38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her

It's not rape if there was consent given... right?

Oh, yeah, like anyone would turn down a horny all powerful eternal and infinite being.

(July 28, 2016 at 9:51 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Oh, yeah, like anyone would turn down an all powerful eternal and infinite being.

*edit mine*
You seem to have done exactly that...

(July 28, 2016 at 9:09 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Here's the thing, the conception of Jesus was an A-sexual event (which is a thing in nature, look it up). God doesn't need help to create, but reason that God used Mary in this manner is that way back in Genesis he said that the woman would have a seed, I suppose that i don't have to tell you guys that only men have "seed". Jesus was the woman's seed.

The scriptures cannot be broken.

This was to fulfill the law of the kinsman redeemer. In Hebrew law, if a person lost his possessions, or sold himself into servitude, then a relative could come and buy it or him back.

Jesus is our kinsman redeemer, he came to buy back all that Adam had lost with his own blood (Jesus was neither Jew or Gentile, his blood was the creative blood of God), there for he had to be born of a woman just like we were, which makes him human and therefore related to us, if he'd just came down from heaven, then he'd have no relation to us, and that would break the scriptures.

The scriptures were written after the fact, Huggy. God was perfectly capable of forgiving a debt without having his son killed for it.

Back to the OP, asexual or not why would it be okay for God to impregnate a woman without her knowledge or consent?

(July 28, 2016 at 9:49 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 9:21 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Here is the thing! God date raped Mary to get the job done. Oh , and by the way , I was born free. I need no redeemer. All any man or god can do is try and take my freedom away. So were all women born free. Why you think we are beholden to the curses and superstitions of iron aged desert nomads is beyond me. Let the dead sleep with the dead  , man. We are alive today!

Since you want to continue along this silly notion of "rape" despite me explaining how sex was in no way, shape or form involved, how about this.

If you read crossless's post you'd see that Mary clearly gave her consent

Quote:38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her

It's  not rape if there was consent given... right?

She was deathly afraid of refusing the advances of a boss that held her life, eternal comfort, and very survival on her submission to him. Name me one instance in the Bible where God took any lip from a woman? With such a homicidal maniac in charge what choice did the poor girl have?

(July 28, 2016 at 9:51 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Oh, yeah, like anyone would turn down a horny all powerful eternal and infinite being.

Take a shower, V!

(July 28, 2016 at 9:53 pm)Losty Wrote: The scriptures were written after the fact, Huggy. God was perfectly capable of forgiving a debt without having his son killed for it.

So what you're saying is that a man named Jesus (who did in fact exist), who was prophesied to be hung on a tree and not a bone of his would be broken but he would be pierced through (keep in mind that that the Romans broke crucifixees legs for maximum suffering, yet they didn't brake Jesus legs, were the Roman in on this whole prophecy thing also?)

(July 28, 2016 at 9:53 pm)Losty Wrote: Back to the OP, asexual or not why would it be okay for God to impregnate a woman without her knowledge or consent?

I just showed where Mary actually did give consent.

(July 28, 2016 at 10:13 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 9:53 pm)Losty Wrote: The scriptures were written after the fact, Huggy. God was perfectly capable of forgiving a debt without having his son killed for it.

So what you're saying is that a man named Jesus (who did in fact exist), who was prophesied to be hung on a tree and not a bone of his would be broken but he would be pierced through (keep in mind that that the Romans broke crucifixees legs for maximum suffering, yet they didn't brake Jesus legs, were the Roman in on this whole prophecy thing also?)

How the hell is that what I was saying!? You quoted my post but did not read it...

(July 28, 2016 at 10:18 pm)Losty Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 10:13 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: So what you're saying is that a man named Jesus (who did in fact exist), who was prophesied to be hung on a tree and not a bone of his would be broken but he would be pierced through (keep in mind that that the Romans broke crucifixees legs for maximum suffering, yet they didn't brake Jesus legs, were the Roman in on this whole prophecy thing also?)

How the hell is that what I was saying!? You quoted my post but did not read it...

I read what you wrote.

I took what you said about the scriptures being written after the fact (by which you can only be referring to the new testament) to mean the Jesus's story was written to conform to old testament prophecy, my point was that there are too many outlying factors for that to be possible, unless your attributing those factors to coincidence, which would be absurd.