Virgin Mary

>sin calculus
sounds autistic

What kind of woman does such a lascivious pose?

Arnt there documented cases throughout history of virgin births?

Sure, if you're talking insects and certain types of fish. Not in humans.

sin is trigonometry tho

anyone else here who grew up catholic used to be slightly scared and creeped out by the aesthetics of catholic art?

real sex is bad and gross and icky so jesus' mom must of had magic good sex with god

Adding to this, Jesus would be a female. Virgin births results in a female every time. It's also called parthenogenesis

I've often pointed out that if Jesus is really a sin offering for the crimes of humanity, as per Leviticus 4:32, Jesus should be female. Christfags generally get butthurt when I point it out.

>i'm a christian but don't believe in the divinity of christ

checkmate Xians better pack it up

this makes sense, interesting thanks

I knew it. Damn Patriarchy keeping the truth from us.

The First Council of Ephesus laid out the doctrine of Hypostatic Union. Namely, Jesus had two distinct natures, one divine, one human, united in a single body.

This is very important, because it means the human nature of Jesus developed more or less as anyone else. He grew, had puberty, learned to speak and walk just like a normal human being. The human nature was wholly human, just as the divine nature was wholly divine.

And human nature begins at conception. Sperm and egg must unite to produce a zygote, which grows into a fetus. Now, I can almost hear someone screaming "IMMACULATE CONCEPTION" at this point, but I need to remind you all, that Immaculate Conception is a doctrine that not only is Catholic, but is also concerning Mary, mother of Christ. Rather, there was Virgin Birth, which is the divine part of the equation, the Logos becoming flesh, and the second nature in the same body.

But, speaking of Mary, it is well attested to by her mention of being perfectly favored that she was sinless. And to give in to vile lusts, even for conception, is sinful. Thus, it must be concluded that Jesus was born sans lust. And it would be impossible for a young, perhaps even teenaged girl, to see her lord and lawful husband, to feel him inside her vagina, without feeling the tremors of lust.

No, it can be pretty conclusively established that Jesus was born of Sodomy. Sodomy between man and wife, but Sodomy nonetheless. Probably a bit of ejaculate leaking out of the anus and into the vagina. And because Maria certainly did not want such sexual contact, due to her sinless nature, we must regretfully conclude that at least by modern notions (Ancient sexual notions, of course, being much different, and they were married.) that Jesus's human nature was born of rape.

Are you really trying to inject rational into an entirely irrational event and imply and it means anything?

>Believing in Semite mythology

...

lel

is her husband the biggest cuck in history

>13 yo wife gets preggo
>tells you it's God who impregnated her
>gets some old drunkards to confirm her story (they probably fucked her)
>you believe her bullshit

>jesus is the son of god
>no human material took part in his creation, mary is merely a vessel
>but he's also a descendant of David

>No, it can be pretty conclusively established that Jesus was born of Sodomy. Sodomy between man and wife, but Sodomy nonetheless. Probably a bit of ejaculate leaking out of the anus and into the vagina. And because Maria certainly did not want such sexual contact, due to her sinless nature, we must regretfully conclude that at least by modern notions (Ancient sexual notions, of course, being much different, and they were married.) that Jesus's human nature was born of rape.

you will burn in hell for such heresy, just wanted to let you know

So you think Jesus was the result of Mary getting raped in the ass?

I'm sure that'll go over well with the Sunday crowd

I miss that loon. Stupid Veeky Forums chased "her" away.

Fractal soliton of improbability.
youtube.com/watch?v=tL-33CuV5jo