(December 18, 2013 at 3:09 am)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

(December 17, 2013 at 5:57 pm)Ksa Wrote: Yes but the Christians say FATHER(God) is a person, SON(God) is a person, HOLY SPIRIT(God) is a person, but they're not 3 persons but one person. So 3 personalities can be one and 3 persons are one.

LOL

One can easily be three. Read up on multiple personalities

Also... three can easily constitute one. You know... the good version of multiple personalities, where they are intelligent and work together, say... off of a vote system, and a universal 'do nothing' response when no agreement upon direction can be made.

So, from a multiple persons, singular vessel standpoint? Totally sensible. Also, from a multiple vessels, single person, standpoint: this is often referred to as a 'Hive Mind'. Which could also be looked into, since it would be well-within the lore of the religion in question.

It may well work as a singular entity forcibly separated from itself, and unable to reintegrate the experiences they've had until they again come together.

TLDR: Jesus was an alien sent on a mission to learn more about us, as a scout.

I'm just curious, where is this mentioned in the Bible, that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God but they're not 3 Gods but one God? If Jesus is God and they were the same person, it means Jesus is a motherfucker, he went in his mother's room(virgin Mary) and he had sex with her before he was born, right? It was also without her consent, he never bothered to ask so technically he raped his mother to give birth to himself so he's also a bastard, and he's the dad. Does that sound logical?

There are some boys in Brazil that might know.

It's just one of many confusing things about the bible, because Jesus certainly doesn't act like he's the exact same guy as Yahweh. Let not my will, but your will be done. The only reason I see for the belief that it's three people in one is that they really wanted to be monotheistic. Not polytheistic.

(December 18, 2013 at 9:30 am)Ksa Wrote: I'm just curious, where is this mentioned in the Bible, that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God but they're not 3 Gods but one God? If Jesus is God and they were the same person, it means Jesus is a motherfucker, he went in his mother's room(virgin Mary) and he had sex with her before he was born, right? It was also without her consent, he never bothered to ask so technically he raped his mother to give birth to himself so he's also a bastard, and he's the dad. Does that sound logical?

It's not. #Nicine

You know, I'm only being hypothetical, n'shit.

I think it's a pretty screwed up story at face value. I think it's far MORE screwed up when scrutinized. This was not written by literary genius... and if it was? It was as satire.

Consider the whole of the bible to be satire... and it's considerably more fun to read

---

(December 18, 2013 at 9:39 am)ChadWooters Wrote: There are some boys in Brazil that might know.

Annnnd... current events. Yeah. I haven't the slightest clue. Like, I could guess... and I'd probably be right... but I dunno. Seems like a waste to google tho. Sleep. Soon.

(December 18, 2013 at 10:19 am)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: You know, I'm only being hypothetical, n'shit.

I think it's a pretty screwed up story at face value. I think it's far MORE screwed up when scrutinized. This was not written by literary genius... and if it was? It was as satire.

I believe that Mary committed adultery. At first she told Joseph "it's your baby" but Joseph didn't buy that. He complained "I never touched her!". So Mary was cornered. Unless she came up with a good explanation, she was going to be stoned! This punishment is mentioned in Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

So she made up a bullshit excuse..."It came from GOD". Haha! You know, if the female forum-mate you were talking to earlier, comes to you today and says she's pregnant and her baby came from God, would you believe her? You would say what? You would say: "You taking me for an idiot? You're pregnant because you're a whore. That's why you're pregnant, you fuck the entire town and you expect to be a virgin?" I mean, she's insulting your intelligence!

But 2,000 years ago these things were taken pretty seriously, and Joseph the idiot bought the story! He bought it! If Joseph didn't buy the story Mary would have been stoned. But unfortunately she was not stoned. Unfortunately.

Then you imagine the terror in the child's eyes when Mary told Jesus, "you're the son of God, lead your people!" That child must have been terrified! To be given such great responsibility, without any guidance? Imagine what a shitty person she was to do this to her own child. What a shitty person she was for watching her child scream on the cross, and pay dearly for HER adultery, because she couldn't keep her twat to herself until marriage when she was young. You know, if I was Mary I would have told Jesus, relax man, I'm a whore you know, I spread legs before marriage and told people you came from God or else they would have stoned me. Relax, go to a bar, have fun.

What a shitty fucking person. Absolutely disgusting, makes me vomit. Worst then Hitler.

I, on the other hand, believe it was made up. The whole lot of it.. and that 'virgin births' were just the 'in thing' that people expected of demigod characters.

And... considering that a certain Mr. Hitler is not really a very good example for 'the worst!'... imma agree, and also say that it is obvious

Oh, you were talking about Mary? *titters* Oh my God, that is hilarious Wait, wait... you're... you're serious!?

Really... of all the things to get angry about in the story, you're angry about a pregnancy that we know nothing about, and a woman's success at saving her life from a horrible culture? If that were a rape-baby, how do you think she, already feeling such considerable shame (especially in her culture, and especially at her very young age likely 12-14), would feel about it?

I'm not really the kind of person who calls a teenager's desperate attempt at saving their life (and, conversely, the life of their baby) "the worst", "worst then Hitler". You know... the 40ish year old bloke who killed millions of people on the basis of sexuality, race, and... i'm sure some other things? Yeah... I really don't see it.

And with how utterly marginalized women in that story, and that time in history, were? It's much more likely that it was Joseph's attempt to save his woman, and that Jesus's mother was only showing her support for him when he went on that book's version of Death Row. I mean... I'd have come to see my son or daughter being hung upon the torture device. It's support, whether that makes sense to you or not, I can't know.

(December 18, 2013 at 10:42 am)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: I, on the other hand, believe it was made up. The whole lot of it.. and that 'virgin births' were just the 'in thing' that people expected of demigod characters.

And... considering that a certain Mr. Hitler is not really a very good example for 'the worst!'... imma agree, and also say that it is obvious

Oh, you were talking about Mary? *titters* Oh my God, that is hilarious Wait, wait... you're... you're serious!?

Really... of all the things to get angry about in the story, you're angry about a pregnancy that we know nothing about, and a woman's success at saving her life from a horrible culture? If that were a rape-baby, how do you think she, already feeling such considerable shame (especially in her culture, and especially at her very young age likely 12-14), would feel about it?

I'm not really the kind of person who calls a teenager's desperate attempt at saving their life (and, conversely, the life of their baby) "the worst", "worst then Hitler". You know... the 40ish year old bloke who killed millions of people on the basis of sexuality, race, and... i'm sure some other things? Yeah... I really don't see it.

And with how utterly marginalized women in that story, and that time in history, were? It's much more likely that it was Joseph's attempt to save his woman, and that Jesus's mother was only showing her support for him when he went on that book's version of Death Row. I mean... I'd have come to see my son or daughter being hung upon the torture device. It's support, whether that makes sense to you or not, I can't know.

A mother's top priority is? To take care of her child. Getting her child killed to cover up her "crimes" is not being a mother. Doesn't matter if it was wrong to punish adultery back then, she knew the law, she broke the law and that makes her a criminal. What tells you that our laws in 2013 are correct? Maybe our grand-children will laugh at our law in 2,100 and think it was barbaric! Doesn't suddenly mean that breaking the law now is not crime.

A mother can't do that to her child. Putting so much responsibility on him, getting him in trouble and getting him killed to cover up her crime, so she alone could benefit. It's disgusting. Would you like that, if your mother did that to you? Lie and say that a dope dealer is your father so she can get all the dope she wants for her own benefit? Exposing you to abuse, crime and getting you killed, for her benefit? Is that a mother? And then someone in 2,100 like you comes to argue, "imprisoning people for drug use was barbaric back then so it was righteous for the mother to get what she rightfully deserved". Would that be fair to you?

At least Hitler didn't kill his own son, so you can't say he was a bad father. He never got the chance to prove himself in this matter so we give him the benefit of the doubt. You can't use 2013 ethical logic to justify someone from 2,000 years ago. 2013 ethical logic justifies people from 2013. 2,000 years ago, there is NO justification for what I assume she did and if Joseph helped with the cover-up then he's a worst father in the world. I would have said, NO, I'm not jeopardizing my son so you can get away with this. This is MY son. What ball-less father would sacrifice his son to rescue his mother from her whoring?

(December 18, 2013 at 10:48 am)Ksa Wrote: A mother's top priority is? To take care of her child. Getting her child killed to cover up her "crimes" is not being a mother. Doesn't matter if it was wrong to punish adultery back then, she knew the law, she broke the law and that makes her a criminal. What tells you that our laws in 2013 are correct? Maybe our grand-children will laugh at our law in 2,100 and think it was barbaric! Doesn't suddenly mean that breaking the law now is not crime.

* Violet laughs hysterically.

I'm sorry, was this not intended to be taken seriously? I could write a damn thesis on how utterly ridiculous the lot of that was. But I'm sure that you already knew that

Quote:A mother can't do that to her child. Putting so much responsibility on him, getting him in trouble and getting him killed to cover up her crime, so she alone could benefit. It's disgusting. Would you like that, if your mother did that to you? Lie and say that a dope dealer is your father so she can get all the dope she wants for her own benefit? Exposing you to abuse, crime and getting you killed, for her benefit? Is that a mother? And then someone in 2,100 like you comes to argue, "imprisoning people for drug use was barbaric back then so it was righteous for the mother to get what she rightfully deserved". Would that be fair to you?

Right, and Joseph didn't benefit? The kid *seems* to have benefitted, I mean: disciples, having been given gold, and some other very very expensive shit around the time he was, say, 12. That seems pretty benefactory to me. Not to mention being popular enough to give the Sermon of the Mount.

I wouldn't imprison people for simply using drugs, even today. Now me? I don't see why you've got such a boner for this witch-hunt. Seeing you try to justify it is fairly funny, though... so please continue

Quote:At least Hitler didn't kill his own son, so you can't say he was a bad father. He never got the chance to prove himself in this matter so we give him the benefit of the doubt. You can't use 2013 ethical logic to justify someone from 2,000 years ago. 2013 ethical logic justifies people from 2013. 2,000 years ago, there is NO justification for what I assume she did and if Joseph helped with the cover-up then he's a worst father in the world. I would have said, NO, I'm not jeopardizing my son so you can get away with this. This is MY son. What ball-less father would sacrifice his son to rescue his mother from her whoring?

You realize how pointless it is to compare anything to Adolf Hitler, yes?

I use 'ethical logic' independent of any time. What kind of 'ball-less' father lets his child die before it's born? Seems to me to be the greatest risk to defend his woman and his son. One could not ask for a better father.

(December 18, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: I'm sorry, was this not intended to be taken seriously? I could write a damn thesis on how utterly ridiculous the lot of that was. But I'm sure that you already knew that

Sister, I challenge you to produce that theses in this topic so we may all read it and learn from you

(December 18, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: I wouldn't imprison people for simply using drugs, even today.

So you do admit that the law today is wrong?

(December 18, 2013 at 4:07 am)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

(December 18, 2013 at 4:01 am)feeling Wrote: Now you hurt my feelings

You had it coming, hooker. You should count your stars lucky that you aren't crying in a ditch somewhere, your knife by the wrist, ready to do the deed.

I need to completely stay clear of him for a few days. He's moving out this week, and he's only got the bed left in the house. I say this, because if I don't? I could very well blow up at him, in a fit of anger, malice, and bloodlust. Probably with a chef's knife, or my own bare hands, teeth, and elbows.

I'm serious... I could kill him. His actions are absolutely inexcusable.

Violet lily adorable killer

http://i.imgur.com/IefSUfk.jpg