Mark, you must be confused. My original statment was: "If men were the ones having abortions, I'd still be against them."
I stand by that statement.
is your usage of the word "wrong"here to be taken in the sense of "murderous", or maybe "not criminally punishable but morally over-the-line anyway" or something else still, perhaps?
And the people who are against its legalization are voyeurs who prefer see other suffer in the name of their adoration of the bastard son of a whore and adulteress!
Piti, this is your one warning.
It's one thing to have an opinion, and you're welcome to it.
It's quite another to intentionally offend people.
When you speak of the mamser as the messiah, you offend me! When you speak of the whore as the "mother of god", you offend me...
Where did he do or say that ? He never brought up your religion or your faith. Seems to me that you are the one constantly bringing ones religion into it and then urinating all over it.
There is no justification for calling Jesus Christ a mamzer. At the time Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph (his foster father or father, depending on your point of view) were wed. This is a fact, whether or not you accept the virgin birth. Also, there is no justification for calling Mary a whore. Some Christians believe she had sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus was born, while other Christians hold that she was forever virgin. A woman who has sexual relations with no man or with her husband only certainly cannot be considered a whore.
Obviously, your intent in posting the trash which you post is to offend others. There is no evidence extant that Mary was a whore, and calling Jesus a mamzer is contrary to the definition of mamzer. You know this very well, but you post your trash anyway.
You deserved the warning you received, and if you are banned, you will have no one to thank for it but yourself.
I've been away for a while due to an onrush of personal life, but I've lurked a bit and seen some of what has been posted over last month. There were some posts I saw from Pitiricus that I thought made some good points. However I have to believe that anyone who is serious about making their point will refrain as much as possible from resorting to hate tactics. Making your opponent angry and defensive only makes them close their ears to anything worthwhile you have to say and all they will hear is the attack. No progress can be made under such circumstances.
Consequently one can only assume that the person who continually spews venom does so out of purely selfish motives. Whether the hope is to simply garner attention or to prop up some false sense of self-esteem by trying to put others down in order to raise themselves up, their actions typically only serve to hurt the cause they purport to defend.
If you (Pitiricus) really have such a disdain of Christianity, you're going to accomplish nothing by calling Mary a whore. The untruth of that particular claim is so obvious that no one will take that, or anything you say after that seriously. You're simply thought of as the lunatic that thinks Mary is a whore. And indeed, from what I've read, people do dismiss your points, however valid they may be, without any serious contemplation simply because they have no faith in the source. If you really want to undermine Christianity as a source for people's position on abortion, you'd do better by simply presenting facts in a perfectly calm, rational manner. Because it is the person who acts calm that comes across as feeling assured they are correct in what they are saying, while those who make a lot of noise generally do so to make up for their lack of a real point.
I truly believe people have every right to believe whatever they wish, no matter how bigoted or hateful it may be.
They also have a right to voice that belief.
I can't allow my personal feelings to influence my judgement on this issue.
However, if I get too many complaints about someone being too disruptive, they will be banned. That way I'm not basing it strictly on my personal beliefs.
Pitiricus dear, you fly the flag of Israel, yet you disrespect the beliefs of those who support you, those who are respectful of your beliefs. By these actions you do harm to the relationship between America and Israel on a very personal basis. Please consider whether this is what you truly wish to do.
Hi Mark! And then there are those of us who know from reading other sources that Mary and Joseph were in fact married for quite awhile before Jesus was born, and that Jesus had older brothers, sons of Mary and Joseph. Also, Mary and Joseph were Jews, and Jesus was a Jew.
So Pitiricus, not only were Mary and Joseph and Jesus relatives of yours, all of the people spoken of in every holy book were heros just for being here, just for being our ancestors. And fighting over who was better or worse than who two thousand years ago is a sophmoric waste of time. Let us make the world better, not worse. Consider your approach.
Hi Allison! May I say that you are a particularly enjoyable read, concise, fair, and articulate! Well done!
Me concise? Probably just because I've been too busy to write my usual novel. hehe.
I knew Jesus had siblings, but I was pretty sure they were younger siblings? Had they been older siblings I don't know that anyone at all would have bought the virgin birth story. I've heard some theories that say Thomas and Jesus were actually twin brothers (though the idea that twins were born and only one was the son of God wouldn't have flown too well so that fact was left out by the Pauline Christians).
And thanks for the compliment. It's always nice to be appreciated. The members of the singles club I run tell me they usually skip over my posts because they're too long.
The sources you read are not reliable if they state Mary had a bunch of children before Jesus. She was only about 13 when Jesus was born, so it would not have been possible for her to have had a bunch of children before him. On the other hand, Joseph was older, in his 30's, and it would have been possible for him to have had children before Jesus was born. Some believe Joseph had children from a prior marriage; however, others recognize that the references to "brethren" or "brothers" of Jesus were references to cousins. In the original language in which the Scriptures were written, the same word was used for both "brothers" and "cousins". Some of the Scriptures contain references to who one's parents are, and this helps in deciphering the precise relationships.
Hi Allison! Well, I get verbose sometimes too, but for the most part I don't mind medium length posts, it's the ones that run on for pages of the same thing over and over that annoy me.... I seem to recall that theory too, but I tend to doubt it. And I really don't know why....
Hi Mark! It doesn't say "bunches" of children, it speaks of two older brothers, who very well may have been sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, or cousins of his. But my main point to Pitiricus being that they were in fact married when Jesus was born, and had a family stable enough to support two older boys before Jesus was born. And Mary could easily have had two children before the age of 13. As soon as a girl begins menstration she is ready to produce children, and on average girls start menstrating around 10 years old.
Hi Paula! Good to see you! No Mark is not Pitiricus.
The classification of Mary as a whore is completely unrealistic due to the fact that in biblical times women were mere property of men, and were givin by their families into marriage as soon as they began menstration. Whores have a choice. Mary had no choice. Your lable is invalid.
There's a story that's gone around the noble houses of Europe for hundreds of years that at the time of Christ there was an elite priesthood among the Jews where the priests would adopt the names of angels. The story says that Mary was simply one of the young virgins among a pool of suitable virgins of noble blood who was ritualistically impregnated by one of these priests in an attempt to produce the messiah (in the royal rather than religious sense). The priests did not marry the virgins though, but instead married them off to other men. So supposedly Jesus came about this way and at the time of his birth, all the signs pointed to the arrival of the new king. John and Jesus were both born into this elite priesthood with the idea that John would be the High Priest and Jesus would be king. But after John was killed Jesus assumed the role of both king and high priest until he too was killed. Later on, after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, this elite priesthood fled to Europe, hid their Jewish roots and ended up starting many of the noble houses of Europe. They kept in touch with one another and were part of an organization called "Rex Duex". The families involved in this group were also some of the principal players behind organizing the crusades (an attempt to reclaim their ancient lands) and the formation of the Knights Templar. But then the Knights Templar are yet another story.
At the time the mamzer was conceived, Mary was betrothed to Joseph... The fact is that she had sex with the local equivalent of the postman and invented a tall tale in order not to be stoned for adultery... Jesus was exactly a mamzer, the adulterine son of a woman who was engaged to anhother... and she should have been stoned according to the law!
All the rest is of no account: a betrothed woman had a child from a man other than her betrothed. This child is a mamzer and of course no messiah!
I am angry that in the name of a false creed and a misinterpretation, people try to impose things on women...
As to Mark Driscoll (aka John Kirsh) he is one of the hackers that made life so bad on the WOT... I am sure that now that you hear his misinterpretatioon of the Bible, you are ready to forgive him all!
You show ignorance of the English language... One of the use of "whore" is of a woman who has any illegal sexual relationship... as she had when she conceived jesus...
You show ignorance of the English language... One of the use of "whore" is of a woman who has any illegal sexual relationship... as she had when she conceived jesus...
An obscure use, and I'm sure you didn't choose the word because of it's technical correctness but rather for it's inflammatory nature.
Would you prefer "adulteress" or in the old expression "a woman who was no better tha she should be"? because when all is said and done, this is EXACTLY what Mary was...
Because Joseph was an idiot... A lot of them around as Mary's cousin Elizabeth tried probably with success the same gambit...
Yes, she should have been stoned... and it would have saved the world a lot of trouble...
And of course, because of his status of mamzer, jesus wasn't the messiah (of course if he ever existed, another point not proven...)
And the reason of the opposition of the xian churches to abortion is this tale which has nothing to do with reality,. a lot to do with paganism, and nothing to do with facts!
"There is abundant evidence that these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, even innocent men mistaken for divine, and there was no end to the fools and loons who would follow and praise them. Placed in this context, the gospels no longer seem to be so remarkable, and this leads us to an important fact: when the gospels were written, skeptics and informed or critical minds were a tiny minority. Although the gullible, the credulous, and those ready to believe or exaggerate stories of the supernatural are still abundant today, they were vastly more common in antiquity, and taken far more seriously."
However I still maintain that arguing over the values of people who died over 2000 years ago is a great waste of time, and gives absolutely no credibility to any arguement you may have about anything.
Try basing your arguements on something more relevant.
Personally it seems more plausible to me that the pregnancy was orchestrated by the priests than it does that a young girl would get pregnant, claim she was impregnated by God, and everyone would believe her.
Jesus did exist. There's enough historical evidence for that and his life did create a stir. After he died his brother James took over the Church of Jerusalem until 66AD when he too was killed. But at that time the followers of Jesus were still very Jewish and more of a political movement. Paul picked up the story and changed it to suit his tastes which were more along the lines of Greek mysticism. James and Paul fueded greatly and the Dead Sea Scrolls often referred to him as "the spouter of lies". But what happened was when the Romans came into Jerusalem in 70AD and destroyed it, they also destroyed the core Jewish following of Jesus, leaving only the Pauline variation to carry on unopposed.
That to me is a more damaging argument than your vague and unsupported attacks on Mary. Like anyone is going to question their faith because you call Mary a whore.
The explaination I was given and base my belief is this:
Jesus coming was fortold about since the begining of time. God chose a time when many tales of Gods (Greek/Roman) impregnating women had been a tradition of belief. To introduce Jesus into our world in a way that the old world people could understand at that particular time makes perfect sense to me.
And the fact that Jesus was NOT aborted is a perfect example of a girl and the perfect way to handle events looked upon by others as unacceptable such as a pregnancy out of wedlock. And Joseph was a stand up kinda guy for sticking with Mary and being a father in a time when he and she just had their faith to guide them.
Whoa, oh, livin' on a prayer.... take my hand, and we'll make it I swear, whoa, oh, livin' on a prayer!
sorry, that song just popped in my head.... divine inspiration?
Are you the alter-ego of Piti? No offense meant, it just seems like nice strangers seem to show up when Piti gets a little out of control.
hahaha! No, I'm not the alter ego of Piti, but I have read her hate-filled postings for quite some time now on a number of different boards. She's really a WACKO!
First of all, you have posted on numerous occasions that you do not believe Jesus even existed. If you truly believe this, then Mary certainly could not be guilty of having conceived Jesus through sex with a man other than Joseph.
Secondly, I strongly suspect you do not believe Mary existed. If she did not exist, then she certainly could not have been a whore.
Why don't you just stick to your usual senseless babble and tell it like you really see it --- i.e., that you do not believe Jesus and Mary existed???
Jesus was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. Obviously, you do not believe this. Why don't you just say so, rather than spouting all the other trash you spout?
Mark Danowski 8/26/02 2:36pm
Mark, you must be confused. My original statment was:
"If men were the ones having abortions, I'd still be against them."
I stand by that statement.
is your usage of the word "wrong"here to be taken in the sense of "murderous", or maybe "not criminally punishable but morally over-the-line anyway" or something else still, perhaps?
I see abortion as murder.
And the people who are against its legalization are voyeurs who prefer see other suffer in the name of their adoration of the bastard son of a whore and adulteress!
Piti, this is your one warning.
It's one thing to have an opinion, and you're welcome to it.
It's quite another to intentionally offend people.
THX 1138 8/26/02 4:55pm
Sorry... When you speak of the mamser as the messiah, you offend me! When you speak of the whore as the "mother of god", you offend me...
Pitrcus,
Where did he do or say that ? He never brought up your religion or your faith. Seems to me that you are the one constantly bringing ones religion into it and then urinating all over it.
THX 1138 8/26/02 4:55pm
You are right. Pitiricus/Alma is purposely trying to offend people. This has been her modus operandi on all boards on which I have encountered her.
Pitiricus. 8/26/02 5:30pm
There is no justification for calling Jesus Christ a mamzer. At the time Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph (his foster father or father, depending on your point of view) were wed. This is a fact, whether or not you accept the virgin birth. Also, there is no justification for calling Mary a whore. Some Christians believe she had sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus was born, while other Christians hold that she was forever virgin. A woman who has sexual relations with no man or with her husband only certainly cannot be considered a whore.
Obviously, your intent in posting the trash which you post is to offend others. There is no evidence extant that Mary was a whore, and calling Jesus a mamzer is contrary to the definition of mamzer. You know this very well, but you post your trash anyway.
You deserved the warning you received, and if you are banned, you will have no one to thank for it but yourself.
I've been away for a while due to an onrush of personal life, but I've lurked a bit and seen some of what has been posted over last month. There were some posts I saw from Pitiricus that I thought made some good points. However I have to believe that anyone who is serious about making their point will refrain as much as possible from resorting to hate tactics. Making your opponent angry and defensive only makes them close their ears to anything worthwhile you have to say and all they will hear is the attack. No progress can be made under such circumstances.
Consequently one can only assume that the person who continually spews venom does so out of purely selfish motives. Whether the hope is to simply garner attention or to prop up some false sense of self-esteem by trying to put others down in order to raise themselves up, their actions typically only serve to hurt the cause they purport to defend.
If you (Pitiricus) really have such a disdain of Christianity, you're going to accomplish nothing by calling Mary a whore. The untruth of that particular claim is so obvious that no one will take that, or anything you say after that seriously. You're simply thought of as the lunatic that thinks Mary is a whore. And indeed, from what I've read, people do dismiss your points, however valid they may be, without any serious contemplation simply because they have no faith in the source. If you really want to undermine Christianity as a source for people's position on abortion, you'd do better by simply presenting facts in a perfectly calm, rational manner. Because it is the person who acts calm that comes across as feeling assured they are correct in what they are saying, while those who make a lot of noise generally do so to make up for their lack of a real point.
Sorry... When you speak of the mamser as the messiah, you offend me! When you speak of the whore as the "mother of god", you offend me...
Buh bye
I've changed my mind.
I'd be a hypocrite if I banned Piti.
I truly believe people have every right to believe whatever they wish, no matter how bigoted or hateful it may be.
They also have a right to voice that belief.
I can't allow my personal feelings to influence my judgement on this issue.
However, if I get too many complaints about someone being too disruptive, they will be banned. That way I'm not basing it strictly on my personal beliefs.
That being said, Piti. You're right on the edge.
Pitiricus dear, you fly the flag of Israel, yet you disrespect the beliefs of those who support you, those who are respectful of your beliefs.
By these actions you do harm to the relationship between America and Israel on a very personal basis.
Please consider whether this is what you truly wish to do.
Hi Mark!
And then there are those of us who know from reading other sources that Mary and Joseph were in fact married for quite awhile before Jesus was born, and that Jesus had older brothers, sons of Mary and Joseph.
Also, Mary and Joseph were Jews, and Jesus was a Jew.
So Pitiricus, not only were Mary and Joseph and Jesus relatives of yours, all of the people spoken of in every holy book were heros just for being here, just for being our ancestors.
And fighting over who was better or worse than who two thousand years ago is a sophmoric waste of time.
Let us make the world better, not worse.
Consider your approach.
Hi Allison!
May I say that you are a particularly enjoyable read, concise, fair, and articulate!
Well done!
he always has been, t3.
Me concise? Probably just because I've been too busy to write my usual novel. hehe.
I knew Jesus had siblings, but I was pretty sure they were younger siblings? Had they been older siblings I don't know that anyone at all would have bought the virgin birth story. I've heard some theories that say Thomas and Jesus were actually twin brothers (though the idea that twins were born and only one was the son of God wouldn't have flown too well so that fact was left out by the Pauline Christians).
And thanks for the compliment. It's always nice to be appreciated. The members of the singles club I run tell me they usually skip over my posts because they're too long.
Titania Three 8/26/02 7:10pm
The sources you read are not reliable if they state Mary had a bunch of children before Jesus. She was only about 13 when Jesus was born, so it would not have been possible for her to have had a bunch of children before him. On the other hand, Joseph was older, in his 30's, and it would have been possible for him to have had children before Jesus was born. Some believe Joseph had children from a prior marriage; however, others recognize that the references to "brethren" or "brothers" of Jesus were references to cousins. In the original language in which the Scriptures were written, the same word was used for both "brothers" and "cousins". Some of the Scriptures contain references to who one's parents are, and this helps in deciphering the precise relationships.
Mark Driscoll 8/26/02 7:35pm
Mark Driscoll, you make an excellent point. I think it more realistic to believe Jesus had cousins.
Are you the alter-ego of Piti? No offense meant, it just seems like nice strangers seem to show up when Piti gets a little out of control.
Allison Wonderland 8/26/02 7:29pm
Allison, I too thought you said that very well.
Piti, what has made you so angry and bitter that you would speak with such hatred constantly?
Hi T3! Hi Mark! Glad to see you visiting over here!
THX 1138 8/26/02 6:56pm
I for one am glad you are giving a warning to Piti. I feel that inflammatory comment was way over the line.
Thanks!
Hi Allison!
Well, I get verbose sometimes too, but for the most part I don't mind medium length posts, it's the ones that run on for pages of the same thing over and over that annoy me....
I seem to recall that theory too, but I tend to doubt it. And I really don't know why....
Hi Mark!
It doesn't say "bunches" of children, it speaks of two older brothers, who very well may have been sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, or cousins of his. But my main point to Pitiricus being that they were in fact married when Jesus was born, and had a family stable enough to support two older boys before Jesus was born.
And Mary could easily have had two children before the age of 13. As soon as a girl begins menstration she is ready to produce children, and on average girls start menstrating around 10 years old.
Hi Paula! Good to see you!
No Mark is not Pitiricus.
The classification of Mary as a whore is completely unrealistic due to the fact that in biblical times women were mere property of men, and were givin by their families into marriage as soon as they began menstration.
Whores have a choice.
Mary had no choice.
Your lable is invalid.
i'm here? oh yeah. i did post here tonite :)
There's a story that's gone around the noble houses of Europe for hundreds of years that at the time of Christ there was an elite priesthood among the Jews where the priests would adopt the names of angels. The story says that Mary was simply one of the young virgins among a pool of suitable virgins of noble blood who was ritualistically impregnated by one of these priests in an attempt to produce the messiah (in the royal rather than religious sense). The priests did not marry the virgins though, but instead married them off to other men. So supposedly Jesus came about this way and at the time of his birth, all the signs pointed to the arrival of the new king. John and Jesus were both born into this elite priesthood with the idea that John would be the High Priest and Jesus would be king. But after John was killed Jesus assumed the role of both king and high priest until he too was killed. Later on, after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, this elite priesthood fled to Europe, hid their Jewish roots and ended up starting many of the noble houses of Europe. They kept in touch with one another and were part of an organization called "Rex Duex". The families involved in this group were also some of the principal players behind organizing the crusades (an attempt to reclaim their ancient lands) and the formation of the Knights Templar. But then the Knights Templar are yet another story.
Luv2Fly 8/26/02 5:39pm
Isn't that the standard xian message? Jesus as messiahand Mary as "mother of God"?
Mark Driscoll 8/26/02 5:55pm
False dear...
At the time the mamzer was conceived, Mary was betrothed to Joseph... The fact is that she had sex with the local equivalent of the postman and invented a tall tale in order not to be stoned for adultery... Jesus was exactly a mamzer, the adulterine son of a woman who was engaged to anhother... and she should have been stoned according to the law!
All the rest is of no account: a betrothed woman had a child from a man other than her betrothed. This child is a mamzer and of course no messiah!
Allison Wonderland 8/26/02 6:33pm
By calling Mary a whore (in the sense of a woman who had sex outside of the permitted) I only reestablish the truth...
Titania Three 8/26/02 7:10pm
Nice... and now for a bit of blackmail...
This seems to be the attitude of the followers of the xian god... My way or else!
Paula I 8/26/02 7:43pm
I am angry that in the name of a false creed and a misinterpretation, people try to impose things on women...
As to Mark Driscoll (aka John Kirsh) he is one of the hackers that made life so bad on the WOT... I am sure that now that you hear his misinterpretatioon of the Bible, you are ready to forgive him all!
Titania Three 8/26/02 8:09pm
You show ignorance of the English language... One of the use of "whore" is of a woman who has any illegal sexual relationship... as she had when she conceived jesus...
Allison Wonderland 8/26/02 8:20pm
A complete invented story, as the messiah must come from the line of David through his father and the cohenim aren't from the line of David!
You show ignorance of the English language... One of the use of "whore" is of a woman who has any illegal sexual relationship... as she had when she conceived jesus...
An obscure use, and I'm sure you didn't choose the word because of it's technical correctness but rather for it's inflammatory nature.
Allison Wonderland 8/26/02 9:33pm
Would you prefer "adulteress" or in the old expression "a woman who was no better tha she should be"? because when all is said and done, this is EXACTLY what Mary was...
If that were true, do you think anyone would have bought that story? You say she should have been stoned. So explain why she wasn't?
Allison Wonderland 8/26/02 9:53pm
Because Joseph was an idiot... A lot of them around as Mary's cousin Elizabeth tried probably with success the same gambit...
Yes, she should have been stoned... and it would have saved the world a lot of trouble...
And of course, because of his status of mamzer, jesus wasn't the messiah (of course if he ever existed, another point not proven...)
And the reason of the opposition of the xian churches to abortion is this tale which has nothing to do with reality,. a lot to do with paganism, and nothing to do with facts!
This http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.htmlexplains the stupidity of Joseph...
"There is abundant evidence that these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, even innocent men mistaken for divine, and there was no end to the fools and loons who would follow and praise them. Placed in this context, the gospels no longer seem to be so remarkable, and this leads us to an important fact: when the gospels were written, skeptics and informed or critical minds were a tiny minority. Although the gullible, the credulous, and those ready to believe or exaggerate stories of the supernatural are still abundant today, they were vastly more common in antiquity, and taken far more seriously."
However I still maintain that arguing over the values of people who died over 2000 years ago is a great waste of time, and gives absolutely no credibility to any arguement you may have about anything.
Try basing your arguements on something more relevant.
Personally it seems more plausible to me that the pregnancy was orchestrated by the priests than it does that a young girl would get pregnant, claim she was impregnated by God, and everyone would believe her.
Jesus did exist. There's enough historical evidence for that and his life did create a stir. After he died his brother James took over the Church of Jerusalem until 66AD when he too was killed. But at that time the followers of Jesus were still very Jewish and more of a political movement. Paul picked up the story and changed it to suit his tastes which were more along the lines of Greek mysticism. James and Paul fueded greatly and the Dead Sea Scrolls often referred to him as "the spouter of lies". But what happened was when the Romans came into Jerusalem in 70AD and destroyed it, they also destroyed the core Jewish following of Jesus, leaving only the Pauline variation to carry on unopposed.
That to me is a more damaging argument than your vague and unsupported attacks on Mary. Like anyone is going to question their faith because you call Mary a whore.
Titania, I hope you do realize that it's hard to concentrate on the subject at hand while your picture is on the screen. :-P
Why would my picture cause a loss of concentration dear?
Aren't you a girl?
Or is Allison Wonderland a stage name?
LOL!!!
Allison is my last name. David is my first.
Sorry about that!
Here all this time I thought you were a girl!
LOL!!!!
You're not the first. Don't worry about it.
Allison Wonderland 8/26/02 10:29pm
No historical corroboration whatsoever... We have for John the Baptist biut not one for Jesus!
The lack was so obvious that xians had to fabricate them in the 4th century CE...
LOL!
Ok Piti, time for you to go.
I tried, but you refuse to show one ounce of respect for others.
It's a shame.
btw: Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian around the time of Jesus, stated that Jesus existed in his writing, "Antiquities of the Jews".
Bye Bye Piti.
Don't let the door hit you in the hairy ass on the way out you zionist, racist bigot.
Thanks T3
The explaination I was given and base my belief is this:
Jesus coming was fortold about since the begining of time. God chose a time when many tales of Gods (Greek/Roman) impregnating women had been a tradition of belief. To introduce Jesus into our world in a way that the old world people could understand at that particular time makes perfect sense to me.
And the fact that Jesus was NOT aborted is a perfect example of a girl and the perfect way to handle events looked upon by others as unacceptable such as a pregnancy out of wedlock. And Joseph was a stand up kinda guy for sticking with Mary and being a father in a time when he and she just had their faith to guide them.
Whoa, oh, livin' on a prayer.... take my hand, and we'll make it I swear, whoa, oh, livin' on a prayer!
sorry, that song just popped in my head.... divine inspiration?
Pitiricus. - (PFID:1f186cca)
cca= ca ca .......LOL!
i love that song paula! :)
Paula I 8/26/02 7:43pm
hahaha! No, I'm not the alter ego of Piti, but I have read her hate-filled postings for quite some time now on a number of different boards. She's really a WACKO!
Pitiricus. 8/26/02 9:05pm
First of all, you have posted on numerous occasions that you do not believe Jesus even existed. If you truly believe this, then Mary certainly could not be guilty of having conceived Jesus through sex with a man other than Joseph.
Secondly, I strongly suspect you do not believe Mary existed. If she did not exist, then she certainly could not have been a whore.
Why don't you just stick to your usual senseless babble and tell it like you really see it --- i.e., that you do not believe Jesus and Mary existed???
Jesus was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. Obviously, you do not believe this. Why don't you just say so, rather than spouting all the other trash you spout?