Immaculate Conception.
- Thread starter Cyclonic
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
There are some accusations of rape. Whether that's normal rape or up the midnighter I don't know.
what is it you want wee man? This love sick puppy act you've got going on got tired a long time ago.SavileBhoy well and truly pwned by Mr T...as per
huge lie exactly, Theres the "Q" documents the church doesnt even deny exists. Supposed to contain personal diary entrys
of the actual birth and how it came to be....she was a wee dirty.
The word church as im sure every fker on here might know comes fae the word kirk, kirk was a godes who could take over the minds of men to control them as she seen fit.
whats that.....god feels natural you say ??? ofcourse he does we evolved with the concept of him.
do i believe in Immaculate Conception ? hmmm that is where science takes over not this so called god.
I think the existence of Q is probably a non runner here. There seems to be no real evidence that the works really exist. The church in not refuting a document that doesn't exist, is paying to it's own strengths. If it is an imaginary piece of work, then the church by not denying it, fosters a hope in believers that it might just be tucked away some place safe.
Does it exist though? Probably not. Why would the early fathers of the religion not promote such a seminal piece of work if it existed? As a gathering of sayings from Jesus himself, they would have been the backbone of the bible.
Does it exist though? Probably not. Why would the early fathers of the religion not promote such a seminal piece of work if it existed? As a gathering of sayings from Jesus himself, they would have been the backbone of the bible.
So are we dealing with two negatives here T? First that God gave Mary a life free of sin, and then tat she gave birth a son without sex? Or is it excepted by the church that Joseph was the physical father?
Mary was absolved of 'Original Sin' because she was conceived through intercourse presumably because the big man had big plans for her so he removed the 'sin' that hung over her from the point of conception.
She was still seeminlgy a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus so Joseph was not the father.
More or less insane than pretending a brand new football club is the same as the old one?
Or are you the sole arbiter of what is and isn't insane?
The notion is that Mary was born without the predisposition to sinning.
Joseph is not considered to be the physical father.
Oh good. The resident bore has arrived.
Obviously the 'insane' comment is an opinion based on my view that an unborn/newly born child is incapable of sin.
Very evidently it is not me who is having that problem.Ye just canny let go of Rangers, can ye?
This clown gives a running commentary on other peoples 'insane' and 'laughable' beliefs as though he were some kind of paragon of rationality. Yet his own beliefs can be considered insane and laughable as well.
Like I have always said. I am not preaching to anyone. If I were, I would have corrected the numerous theological misconceptions on this thread. Equally I have always said that you Sevco fans are free to pretend whatever the hell you want about your new club. However when an arrogant hypocrite sees fit to criticise peoples beliefs then they should be prepared to have their own 'insane' and 'laughable' beliefs pointed out to them also.
Fair is fair aint it?
Webel, why don't you just address the points put forward rather than keep trying to change the debate to one about Rangers? Can't see the point in you doing that plus there is an entire forum devoted to the discussion of Rangers:
http://www.not606.com/forumdisplay.php/6-Rangers
http://www.not606.com/forumdisplay.php/6-Rangers
What points are they?
Somebody doesn't believe the same thing as me? Big ****ing deal.
i was called 'narrow minded' by the same clown who in his previous post had dismissed a belief set as 'laughable'. Imagine that? Hypocrisy from a hypocrite.
What I object to is the abject hypocrisy on the topic.
Notice that I never dug anyone else out on this topic only the one person. Why is that? The debate isn't about Rangers, it was about the hypocrisy of dismissing people's beliefs because they are not rational whilst simultaneously holding irrational beliefs of their own.