>I WILL raise my wife's son for you, O' YHVH

>I WILL raise my wife's son for you, O' YHVH
Was it a cuck fetish thing?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Adoption is a cuck fetish
    Touch grass.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Adoption

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You sound like a woman. You really are an effeminate religion

        Yes. It's called "virgin birth" so God never once had sex with Mary.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He inserted his "Holy Spirit" into her womb and left his seed

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Holy Spirit enters all christians equally

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why christians want to be penetrated by it and jizzed with God's grace?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That e-girl got DIVINE'd without her consest. The cuck was the ordered by bull (who was his literal God) to raise the child to adulthood. There's no way you can spin that as ''adoption''

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > Northern Israel worshipped El/YHWH in the form of a golden bull. The Bible mocks this graven representation of the divinity by describing it as a calf.
            This shit writes itself.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            God chose Mary because he knew she would agree.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ascended-tier cope

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Isn't God omniscient? If he knows everything, that would mean that he would also have to know what Mary's reaction would be to being chosen to be the mother of the Messiah, the fact that he know she would consent and accept it is probably part of why God chose Mary.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're implying that it's true in the first place, but have you considered that she would have said yes regardless, you know, because of the implication?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You're implying that it's true in the first place,
            Are you engaging with the Christian conception of God or not?
            >but have you considered that she would have said yes regardless, you know, because of the implication?
            Elaborate.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Elaborate.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The implication.
            What implication?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Think about, this little virgin girl is out in the middle of nowhere, Nazareth, with some angel who shows up. She looks around and what does she? Nothing but open desert.
            >Ah, there's nowhere for me to run, what am I gonna do, say no?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Think about, this little virgin girl
            Mary wasn't a little girl.
            >is out in the middle of nowhere,
            She wasn't in the middle of nowhere lol. She was at her home.
            >>Ah, there's nowhere for me to run, what am I gonna do, say no?
            What makes you think that Mary wanted to say no?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What makes you think that Mary wanted to say no?
            She wouldn't say no, you know, because of the implication.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Again, God already knew that Mary would consent, he knew that even before Gabriel was sent to meet her. So the point you're trying to make is moot.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's my point, in the book he knew that it was the case because of well, the implication, you know?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >he knew that it was the case because
            Because he's omniscient, therefore he knew she would consent without any need for coercion. In fact Mary is so happy for the news that she even writes a song.

            And Mary said,
            “My soul magnifies the Lord,
            and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
            for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
            For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
            for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
            and holy is his name.
            And his mercy is for those who fear him
            from generation to generation.
            He has shown strength with his arm;
            he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
            he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
            and exalted those of humble estate;
            he has filled the hungry with good things,
            and the rich he has sent away empty.
            He has helped his servant Israel,
            in remembrance of his mercy,
            as he spoke to our fathers,
            to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”

            Luke 1:46-55

            Come on man, be honest.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            She sang the song because of the implication.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Prove it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Think about, this little virgin girl is out in the middle of nowhere, Nazareth, with some angel who shows up. She looks around and what does she see? Nothing but open desert.
            >"Ahhh, there's nowhere for me to run, what am I gonna do, say no?"
            >Writers write a song about that very eventful night later

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession of defeat.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I consneed nothing. The implication is still there.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I already told you that your point is completely moot if God already knew what Mary's reaction would and that she would consent fully without the need of coercion.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How could she possibly say no to God? You have no way of knowing that. The implication is always there, you cannot deny it. Just admit it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How could she possibly say no to God?
            Plenty of people say no to God all the time, look around you.
            >You have no way of knowing that.
            God does.

            How can He possibly know that?
            Mary has free will, means she can choose to say yes, or, no.

            God knows she will say yes, so that somehow makes it impossible for her to say no? Nonsense.

            How can He possibly know that?
            Because he's omniscient.
            >Mary has free will, means she can choose to say yes, or, no.
            And God knew she would say yes. How can you not get this?
            >so that somehow makes it impossible for her to say no?
            Who said that it was impossible for her to say no? God knew that she would say yes, that's all there's to this. You're just pearl-clutching at this point.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If God know she will she say yes. And is never wrong.
            It's literally impossible for her to say no. It would entail a contradiction (God being wrong)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >C*lvinist.
            Away with you, heretic.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Please explain how it's possible for Mary to say no

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Free will.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            She couldn't say no because of the implication, fool.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            God already knew that there would be no need for "implications", fool.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Listen goy, the implication would always be there. It doesn't matter if she would say yes every time, it's still there and a factor to account for

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it's still there and a factor to account for
            Does "muh implications" negate her enhusiastic consent, yes or no?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, since the implication is always there

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're saying it like it's a magic spell to make the problem go away.
            What a thoughtstopper.

            How can she possibly choose no?
            God knows she will choose yes, and is never wrong.

            You need for 'no' to at least be a possible option, in order for Mary to have a choice.
            As it stands, 'no' is impossible.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly, the implication is always there.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Talk normally please, if you people to understand you

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's an implication in my inability to speak normally.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you under threat or something? The frick?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Help me

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How can He possibly know that?
            Mary has free will, means she can choose to say yes, or, no.

            God knows she will say yes, so that somehow makes it impossible for her to say no? Nonsense.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That does not make Joseph any less cucked, in fact it makes it worse.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How is Joseph a cuck if they hadn't gotten married yet? Also Joseph had children of his own from previous marriages.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They were married. Betrothal meant that the contract (ketubah) was already signed, just that it wasn't consumnated. This is why he had to write up a bill of divorce.
            >He had children of his own from previous marriages
            That makes it even worse. Getting prime dicky just to have it stolen from you and then FORBIDDEN

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >dicky
            Frick off, pedo.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >he hasn't read protoevangelium of james where mary is literally 12
            ngmi

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You mean the one that is a false gospel that nobody accepts?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Did Mary remain a virgin after giving birth to Jesus?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Mary got a superpower that makes it so she's virgin forever

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, how do you know that? Doesn't Matthew say that she and Joseph had sex after she gave birth? The only reason you can accept that is the Protoevangelium.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Okay, how do you know that?
            https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
            >Doesn't Matthew say that she and Joseph had sex after she gave birth?
            Lol no.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Catholic.com
            Like I said, your faith in the perpetual virginity of marry is based on the Protoevangelium and you cannot even accept it.
            >Lol no.
            >"But he [Joseph] did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son."
            They fricked, he came inside of her, she had other children with him.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >is based on the Protoevangelium
            Ok, show me where in Catholic doctrine does it accept the protoevangelium of James as a reliable source.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-reliable-is-the-protoevangelium-of-james
            >The Protoevangelium of James is particularly reliable in affirming the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother.
            Also
            >The source of the perpetual virginity of Mary is the “Protoevangelium of James,” generally conidered to have been written in the middle of the second century. It also is the source of the names of Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna, and the Josephite marriage. The document is very detailed about Marys’s early life and “marriage” to Joseph, an aged widower who didn’t want the marriage.
            I promise you, all the lore about Mary cannot be found anywhere else. It came from this book.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nowhere in that article does it say it is accepted that Mary's age was 12 when she was pregnant with Jesus, just that the protoevangelium is accepted, among many other, as a source for supporting the perpetual virginity of Mary.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Find me another source that's not based on it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's right there in your source.
            Origen

            Hilary of Poitiers

            Athanasius

            Epiphanius of Salamis

            Jerome

            Didymus the Blind

            Ambrose of Milan

            Pope Siricius I

            Augustine

            Leporius

            Cyril of Alexandria

            Pope Leo I

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Don't you think it's strange that most of the proponents of this supposed ancient doctrine held universally were in the Latin West?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What are you talking about? Orthodox Christians also believe in Mary's virginity.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They do now, but did they back then? Hmm.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Would you say that to God?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Coincidentally, that's also how I choose my victims

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's not adoption.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Would you call it adoption when it's just a kid forced on you from your wife's loose and wayward ways. Joseph never wanted to adopt.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >loose and wayward
        Virgin birth

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wasn't Maria 12 years old?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >south American seething at Christianity
      Many such cases

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >south American seething at Christianity
      Many such cases

      That e-girl got DIVINE'd without her consest. The cuck was the ordered by bull (who was his literal God) to raise the child to adulthood. There's no way you can spin that as ''adoption''

      Mary wasn't 12, we can't know how old she was since the Bible doesn't say.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don't you mean Mary?

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do atheists obsess over muh wife’s son shit so much? Neurosis?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You sound like a woman. You really are an effeminate religion

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >White (Greek) fan fiction
    Definitely a cuck fetish.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    IQfy chuds stop thinking about cuckold fetishism challenge (impossible)

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So, like, was Joseph also a perpetual virgin. Or did he cheat on Mary?

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was israelite thing

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *