Jesus' Foreskin: a Holy Relic

magicbastarder

Penn wrote: »

Aaaaaannnnnyyyway, the concept of your actual body as it is being resurrected points out a huge flaw in heaven; if you're disabled during life, you'll be disabled in Heaven. You could also still be blind, deaf etc.

I mean, if you were hugely morbidly obese, you hated your body shape, then you die and get to Heaven and you're still morbidly obese... that's gotta suck. Or you develop MS or similar and die, is your resurrected body still suffering from the level of MS you had when you died?

so let's say i live to be 90 and die of old age.
what form do i take in heaven? am i who i was immediately before dying? i.e. my 'presence' would be that of a 90 year old man an instant away from death?
or do i take the form i was when i was hale and hearty at 30?

Kidchameleon

Cabaal wrote: »

To get back to your question



Jesus is god, God is Jesus. As such the foreskin is gods foreskin. This means this thread relevant to the forum.

Thanks for clearing that up I understand now. Yeah stupid religious people bla bla bla (am I doing it right?)

Shrap

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Yeah stupid religious people bla bla bla (am I doing it right?)

Bleating? Yes.

Bristolscale7

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up I understand now. Yeah stupid religious people bla bla bla (am I doing it right?)

It's not our foreskin, don't blame us!

Dyr

Cabaal wrote: »

No, its true because its actually true

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/12/jesus-relic-calcata-opinions-book-review-holy-foreskin.html

This is yet another thing that the Vatican has tried to white wash from history because it embarrassed them in the end. Not the first and won't be the last,
.

So on this topic you could say the church are quite...circumspect

*dons sunglasses*

Cabaal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up I understand now. Yeah stupid religious people bla bla bla (am I doing it right?)

You think the Vatican as an organization was intelligent when it thought this foreskin was such an important thing?

By all means please share your thoughts on something that the church celebrated so much but has since decided to white wash from history, might be more interesting then your post above.

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Yeah stupid religious people bla bla bla (am I doing it right?)

Not quite right - not enough offence has been registered for your complaint to be taken seriously.

I'd suggest getting in touch with La Quinn to find out more about claims of persecution and how to submit them correctly. Quinn's pretty good at the whole "sackcloth and ashes with a loudhailer from the top of the tallest building while live-tweeting how persecuted he feels" thing.

I'll give you a five out of ten for persistence, but only two out of ten for application.

Bristolscale7

I checked on what Anselm had to say about resurrection in _City of God_. This would have been canonical for most of christian history, right? To confirm: resurrection for Anselm is "in the flesh." Book 22 contains Anselm's lengthy discussion about the issue of deformities and resurrection, and also whether or not a child would be resurrected in his or her immature body or the grown up version, and lots more details on resurrection (hair, toe nails). "Deformities" according to Anselm get "fixed." Does that mean that the circumcision was reversed?

Cabaal

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Does that mean that the circumcision was reversed?

Logically yes you would think so,
But then logic and religion don't really join up very well, so with that said....god works in mysterious ways!?!

robindch

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I checked on what Anselm had to say about resurrection in _City of God_.

"City of God" was written by Augustine of Hippo.

Bristolscale7

robindch wrote: »

"City of God" was written by Augustine of Hippo.

Oops. I'm always getting those two confused. Anyways, City of God, book 22--longest discussion of resurrection you'll ever want to read.

The Randy Riverbeast

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I checked on what Anselm had to say about resurrection in _City of God_. This would have been canonical for most of christian history, right? To confirm: resurrection for Anselm is "in the flesh." Book 22 contains Anselm's lengthy discussion about the issue of deformities and resurrection, and also whether or not a child would be resurrected in his or her immature body or the grown up version, and lots more details on resurrection (hair, toe nails). "Deformities" according to Anselm get "fixed." Does that mean that the circumcision was reversed?

There's a comic this reminded me of where God is freaked out because of all the aborted fetuses. Cant find it now.

Bristolscale7

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

There's a comic this reminded me of where God is freaked out because of all the aborted fetuses. Cant find it now.

Randy, augustine discusses that too. (Abortions not the comic)

smacl

looksee wrote: »

I suppose if Jesus could multiply loaves and fishes, foreskins wouldn't have been a problem at all. Unless he had...:eek:

... a cousin by the name of Spider Dijon :pac:

Fleawuss

Threads like this are superb because they expose the utter bollix that is religion. Pun intended. It's like communion: who gets an arm who gets leg who gets a piece of the foreskin. Jesus wept.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

I want BLOOD !!