No.317112
>>317110No, this is not a forum for pathetic losers. It is a forum for wizards - adult men who choose to remain virgins. If that makes us pathetic in your eyes, then you're the faggot.
No.317116
>>317115>>317112If you have a true choice in the matter, then yes, as a principle someone sticking to it shows willpower and resilience.
But for a far balding geek who couldn't even match a transgender dwarf on Tinder let alone talk to succubi, it isn't like they're "choosing" to be virgins.
And for every tall handsome Bruce Wayne who has his life together but abstains from sex, there are at least a million fat weird neckbeards who are virgins simply because succubi find them disgusting.
And the latter type to me isn't wizardly in any way.
I'm an ugly, short guy but at least I try to maintain hygiene and feed myself through honest work. I've never tested if my virginity is voluntary, but based on my previous life experiences with succubi, I'm pretty sure not a single one of them in this country would have sex with me.
No.320658
According to Raymond E. Brown’s The Gospel according to John X–XII (New York: Doubleday, 1979, 2nd ed.), the identifier “God” is not used of Jesus to any real degree, if at all, in the New Testament (p. 24), and to the extent that it appears is primarily functional rather than an ontological designation (p. 408). Even when Jesus is said to bear the Divine Name, in reality he is consecrated by God and so makes Him known, being His Messianic agent (pp. 536–7), and indeed in Jewish thought the agent and sender were regarded as one in agency or purpose, even if the Sender were God Himself. So when Jesus says that he and the Father are one, he is speaking in terms of agency or purpose, rather than presupposing ontological equality. In relation to this, the Law was said to spiritually prepare men for the requirements of the Messianic advent, to instil in their very being the spiritual character that would one day become necessary (p. CXV). So in this sense Jesus’ advent does not abolish the Law, but rather fulfils its purpose.
In his Christology in the Making (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989, 2nd ed.), James D. G. Dunn explains that even the Gospel of John, with its concept of the Logos (Word), does not presuppose the personal preexistence of Christ, but actually describes a transition from an impersonal personification to a human existence, so that the Logos conceptualises God’s eternal Divine Plan becoming realised—that is, enfleshed or Incarnate—in the birth and life of Jesus (p. 243). This echoes the Qur’ān’s conception of Jesus as embodying God’s Word or Divine Plan being actualised in human, concrete terms; indeed, the human Jesus, as in the New Testament, comes into personal existence by God’s utterance, “Be!”—hence the virginal conception in the womb of Mary via Gabriel’s transmission of spirit. So in neither the New Testament nor the Qur’ān is the Divine Word or Logos characterised as a separate “Person” from God or as anything more than a personification in primeval time. It is clearly an impersonal utterance and/or Plan.
No.320661
>>320658>According to Raymond E. Brown’severy time i read a mention of Raymond E. Brown’s i realize that Paul of Tarsus ruined or created a
fake christianity.
I can't even believe in the trinity, it sound so stupid.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleversiondiscussionboard/the-comma-johanneum-and-raymond-brown-t5746.htmlacademicism is interesting, surely there is something like that with the early Buddhists or Islamics.
No.320692
Religion is bullshit and for the weak minded