Posts: 8239
Threads: 40
Joined: March 18, 2014
Reputation:
54
RE: Biblical Date Rape
July 28, 2016 at 11:58 pm
(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)
So, you've got evidence that the Jesus described in the buy-bull (son of gawd, able to work miracles, etc...) actually existed?!? I would fucking
love to see it.
Please don't bother with allegory, testimonials, the buy-bull, etc... Give me real, testable, verifiable and repeatable evidence.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
Posts: 33052
Threads: 1412
Joined: March 15, 2013
Reputation:
152
RE: Biblical Date Rape
July 29, 2016 at 12:15 am
It was less date rape and more akin to her being a liar because she knew what would happen if she informed her family that she was a pregnant ho. So she concocted a story about being pregnant by a divine being, not a far stretch from the times of Greek Mythology where gods would regularly seduce and impregnate mortal women.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Posts: 28389
Threads: 226
Joined: March 24, 2014
Reputation:
185
RE: Biblical Date Rape
July 29, 2016 at 12:21 am
Getting pregnant out of wedlock doesn't make her a ho
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay
0/10
Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
Posts: 33052
Threads: 1412
Joined: March 15, 2013
Reputation:
152
RE: Biblical Date Rape
July 29, 2016 at 12:35 am
(July 29, 2016 at 12:21 am)Losty Wrote: Getting pregnant out of wedlock doesn't make her a ho
Not today.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Posts: 13901
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: Biblical Date Rape
July 29, 2016 at 10:35 am
(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?)
Has some new evidence for the existence of jesus come in because I thought that there was insufficient reason to claim it as a fact.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.