|
|  | | | | The Less-Than-Virgin Mary? | | | | | found on BBC News
written by MAYORBOB, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Sun 22 Dec 2:00pm | | | | |
 | "This could be the alternate title of a BBC One television program which uses a patchwork of guesswork and some historical trolling to produce a picture of the mother of Jesus which is quite a bit out of step from the picture that organized Christianity has accepted as gospel truth. On one level, the redrawing of Mary is not all that radical; it says that the common image of her as a blue-eyed blond wearing expensive robes is probably wrong. This is not that upsetting a piece of information, as even mainstream Christian faiths allow as how the blue-eyed, blond representation of Jesus is not accurate for a Jew born in Galilee two millennia ago," MAYORBOB writes. "But it is the next level that the documentary goes to that has created a storm of protest from the Roman Catholic Church, among others.
"The documentary paints a picture of Mary as a lower class woman who entered into an arranged marriage with Joseph at the age of 13. In the most potentially inflammatory portion of the film, the filmmakers rely upon a piece of Second century trollery that speculated that the baby Jesus may have been the product of a rape by a Roman soldier. The Roman Catholic bishop of Portsmouth, Right Reverend Crispian Hollis, cries foul at the direction of the film at this point. Alleging that the film is based upon the most 'crude guesswork,' he questioned the integrity of the project. The film's producers say that their attempts to blend together the historical with the speculative render a picture of Mary, which makes her life, 'just as inspiring as the stories that have grown up around her.'
| |
| | | "The Church of England's clergy have expressed doubts about the virgin birth and the traditional story of the birth of Jesus. But wouldn't the notion that Jesus was the product of a rape by a Roman soldier rather drive a stake through the concept of Jesus as the son of God? Is there anything to be gained by the televising of something so instinctively odious and offensive to a significant portion of the public? Wouldn't this sort of thing fit better in the launching of the National Enquirer television network rather than the BBC?" |
| | |
[ more plastic... ] |
| | | | | | | | 30. Re: Blasphemous Infidels | | | | by evilhenchdyke |  | | | at Sun 22 Dec 11:32pm | score of 1 incoherent | | in reply to comment 1 | | | | | |
Good grief! The woman, if she existed, died some two thousand years ago. Who could really care about her hymen at this late date? What possible difference could it make?
Rape, possible, even probable. But perhaps Joseph wanted to make sure his intended could produce offspring before he accepted her as his wife. If I recall correctly, a female child didn't count.
Truth is stranger...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 2. Civilize-ation | | | | by anykey | | | | at Sun 22 Dec 2:28pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Just a thought... Maybe we should keep poking, and prodding people with outrageous affronts to their beliefs, until they become less sensitive, and less reactionary to the beliefs of others.
Let us devote to unselfishness the frenzy we once gave gold and underpants ~ Vonnegut
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 47. Re: Civilize-ation | | | | by jezztek | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 10:21am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
"outrageous affronts to their beliefs"
Hmmmmmm, is this really outrageous?
1,500 years ago would it have been outrageous to assert to a norse pagan that perhaps, just perhaps the sky wasn't really built from the skull of Ymir the frost giant?
5 years ago would it have been outrageous to imply to a heaven's gate cultist that perhaps, just perhaps that there wasn't really a UFO trailing comet hale-bopp, just waiting to come sweep them up?
Today would it be outrageous to imply to a scientologist that perhaps, just perhaps human souls aren't really crammed with volcano-incubated space crystals called thetans?
Lets face it, no religion has any leverage above any other. All have exactly the same amount of evidence to support them, none except the faith of their members. It becomes easy to forget just how absurd some of their suppositions are when you are so well conditioned from living in a society, that as a whole accepts them.
But lets face the facts, it the story of the religious figure of Jesus (as apposed to historical figure) surfaced today, rather then almost 2000 years ago, it would be laughed at as absurd. 2000 years ago, if someone claimed God told them to do something, the bible records them as a saint or prophet, and Christians accept them as such today. But today, if someone claims that god is ordering them to do something, we lock them up as crazy.
Why? because to assert God ordered you to sacrifice your kid/assassinate that political leader/build a giant boat, well that, that is outrageous.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 62. Re: Civilize-ation | | | | by nmiguy | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 12:46pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 47 | | | | | |
to assert God ordered you to sacrifice your kid/assassinate that political leader/build a giant boat, well that, that is outrageous.
Then what am I going to do with my big boat I've been building, huh smarty?
Maybe it is outrageous to you, but when that ice shelf falls off Antarctica and the sea level rises, all you folks living on the coast are gonna wish you didn't ignore God's voice telling you to build a boat. Or a baseball diamond.
If you build it, he will come.
So I'll be building the new Fenway in my back yard and I'll be working on my big ark. You can laugh at how absurd it is. But when the sox win the series and when the flood waters come, I'll be safe and dry.
[/sarcasm}
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 129. Re: Keep dreaming. | | | | by mad mandark | | | | at Wed 8 Jan 8:11pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 47 | | | | | |
Lets face it, no religion has any leverage above any other. All have exactly the same amount of evidence to support them, none
So the Bible (widely considered one of the most (if not the most) accurate historical documents), archaeological evidence, the Koran, etc., are no evidence whatsoever.
I could say that you will live forever if you eat string cheese on Thursdays (and that a little bird told me, too) and you would consider it as valid a theological system as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 130. Re: Keep dreaming. | | | | by jezztek | | | | at Wed 8 Jan 8:26pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 129 | | | | | |
So the Bible (widely considered one of the most (if not the most) accurate historical documents)
Actually, that's about as false a statement I have ever read.
It is not considered an accurate historical document by anyone except conservative christian "historians". By mainstream historians it is not considered accurate any more then Homer's Odyssey. Yes, they both use real historical backdrops, but that doesn't mean the stories really happened, anymore then the fact that the movie Titanic used a hisotical backdrop, proves the leo' love story fictionally included in the story really happened.
I could say that you will live forever if you eat string cheese on Thursdays (and that a little bird told me, too) and you would consider it as valid a theological system as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam?
Yes, of course? Why is that any sillier then still believing in an invisible friend who lives in the sky, or Santa, or the Easter Bunny?
Actually that string cheese belief is certainly more valid, and respectable a theory. Due to the fact that for anthing to be taken seriously as a theory it has to have testable hypothoses, and the ability to be falsified.
Your sting cheese example has both those qualities, so it is a more valid assertion then any of those theological systems (at least until someone eats string cheese every thursday and still dies).
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 3. BBC rips off Monty Python | | | | by Tashtego |  | | | at Sun 22 Dec 2:37pm | score of 4.5 brilliant | | | | | | |
We don't owe the Romans anything, Mum.
Well, that's not entirely true, is it Brian?
What do you mean?
Well, you know you were asking me about your, uh...
My nose?
Yes. Well, there's a reason it's... like it is, Brian.
What is it?
Well, I suppose I should have told you a long time ago, but...
What?
Well, Brian,... your father isn't Mr. Cohen.
I never thought he was.
Now, none of your cheek! He was a Roman, Brian. He was a centurion in the Roman army.
You mean... you were raped?
Well, at first, yes.
Liberals are always right about everything.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 4. And the Catholics Borrow from the Pagans | | | | by Norman108 | | | | at Sun 22 Dec 3:35pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
Everybody borrows from everybody else. Many of the Catholic/Christian holidays and practices are reformations (so to speak) of Pagan holidays and practices, and the Pagan holidays all have a history of borrowing as well. The worship of Mary has obvious connections to the Goddess tradition. Same with miraculous births of all sorts.
All of it is allegorical, little of it is literal. Deep thinking and traditional believers understand this from the beginning. It is the strange body of biblical literalists who insist on arguing every detail of doctrine based on some strange literal, rather than allegorical reading of scripture. It is mainly literalists who let arguing over facts get in the way of their (and other's) faith, and their (and other's) direct experience of God.
In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 5. Its about time | | | | by kiki embryonic |  | | | at Sun 22 Dec 3:44pm | score of 0.5 interesting | | | | | | |
I know that Christians are notoriously insecure and self-righteous regarding their God concepts, however, if any of you study the Christian 'faith' that you claim to be defending, you would find these very 'blasphemous' 'pokes' at your religion apparent within the texts themselves. To read the bible with a clear eye and open mind indeed reveals faith and religion to the reader, though not necessarily how one expects: remember that blasphemy is a subjective concept.
Nobody is attacking your right to worship how you will, but the rape of Mary is the ultimate in injustices.
This is about acknowledging the history of misogyny and violence against women.
Blind dogma is not faith, and your fear and anger will only serve to perpetuate insecurities.
True faith and religion has ever been founded on intolerance, fear and oppression, at least theoretically ;)
There is no need for Christians to be so angry: they can finally liberate their mother.
I can't wait for the Mary Magdalene mess to hit the theological fan :)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 64. Sing it | | | | by renny0 |  | | | at Mon 23 Dec 1:01pm | score of 2 clever | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
I know that Christians are notoriously insecure and self-righteous regarding their God concepts
Right on -- continue the crusade kiki. You and I can band together to keep others informed of what we know. I'll throw my two-cents out with yours: Jews, I know those filthy Jews are all about money -- and they drink blood just like the cannabalistic Catholics. Women -- I know that women are notoriously inferior to men. And what about negroes? I know that negroes are untrustworthy -- never turn your back. And gays -- we all know about gays -- they are watching our every move and plotting to sleep with us -- or even worse, convert us and our children.
Thanks, kiki embryonic, for keeping up the fight to keep us informed. I am relieved that great thinkers like you are helping to promote the truth to move humankind to a better place.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 85. Re: Sing it | | | | by kiki embryonic | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 7:37pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 64 | | | | | |
Oh for God's sake calm down.
As a general rule, Christians tend to be inflexible and overly defensive regarding their faith. That's all.
It is not meant as an insult or denigration, and I am sorry that you're immediate assumption is that I meant it maliciously.
When discussing religion, Jesus, Mary, God et al with Christians, what I have tended to encounter is an overly defensive, unyielding posture.
Spare me the overly histrionic hyperbole, okay?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 106. Re: Sing it | | | | by sglover910 | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 10:20am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 85 | | | | | |
You left yourself wide open to renny0's sarcasm. Hell, your tone practically invited it. In fact your original post kinda sorta reads like something intended to provoke precisely the kind of riposte that you got, which makes me think your protests are a little histrionic themselves.
An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 107. Re: Sing it | | | | by njpomeroy | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 10:23am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 85 | | | | | |
As a general rule, Christians tend to be inflexible and overly defensive regarding their faith....When discussing religion...what I have tended to encounter is an overly defensive, unyielding posture.
Ah. I see the problem, now. You have made the mistake of defining a rule based on your sampling. I would assert that your sample and statistical model are questionable, leading to a false conclusion.
Now if only those Atheists would be more flexible about their belief in Not-God; they are way too defensive about their belief in Not-Him. And if all those Muslims, Zoarastrians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Taoists, et al would be more flexible about their idea of the divine! They should yield, incorporate, or give deference to your theological insights. Then you could teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, and buy the world a Coke(tm).
What I find even more distateful than slandering (libeling in this case?) a much regarded religious figure, is the presumption to insult 2 billion Christians (33% of the world's population) and claim it wasn't an insult.
Back to the article submission. For what it's worth, this documentary is presenting something like saying, "Wow, I can't believe you revere that fat, goofy-lookin', sleepy Siddharta guy. He couldn't have been a Buddha because he used to screw livestock. Oh you never heard of that? I just made it up; it seems likely though. Wandering ascetic, he had to have liked farm-animals." This is offensive to me and I'm not a Buddhist. This is what the documentary is saying to Catholics and other Christian denominations that venerate Mary:"Your chaste, chosen 'Vessel of the Lord' was, in fact, an abused vessel of a rapist and his semen. Enjoy."
It doesn't take an "inflexible, unyielding" view of Christianity to see take offense at that. Really.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 119. Re: Sing it | | | | by kiki embryonic | | | | at Thu 26 Dec 12:11pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 107 | | | | | |
"...slandering a much regarded religious figure..."
geez...I'm sorry that rape gets in the way of your reverence for a much regarded religious figure.
I'm sorry that the idea that she isn't "a chaste chosen vessel..." somehow invalidates her contribution.
I'm sorry this challenges current ideas of what constitutes holiness but its about damn time "chasteness..." was no longer regarded as something to strive for, and the mark of a good woman.
I stand by everything I've said.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 121. You're a liar | | | | by nmiguy | | | | at Thu 26 Dec 12:34pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 119 | | | | | |
You are NOT sorry. If you stand by what you said there is no apology.
Why would you even WANT to allege that a person was raped when there is no evidence to support it? It seems to me that the goal is to antagonize. There are many who will take offense and your goal is to offend.
Speak true kiki embryonic. What are you're true goals in defending this tripe? To hurt? Certainly not to educate or "open minds". This is about peoples' faiths. You think that people will appreciate it?
What if you went to school and a classmate says to everybody that your daddy isn't your daddy that your Mommy was raped by a foreign soldier. You tell everybody it isn't true, that the person just made it up. But people say, it COULD happen because a foreign soldier lived in the neighborhood at the time. Not that it makes a difference, huh? I mean if your mama was raped and you were born of it, that wouldn't make a difference at all in your beliefs or theirs, right? To use your own word: "geez..."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 126. Re: You're a liar | | | | by kiki embryonic | | | | at Fri 27 Dec 5:00pm | score of 1.5 helpful | | in reply to comment 121 | | | | | |
Yeah, okay.
I'm a big liar and my goal is to hurt people.
God knows this just couldn't possibly be me defending MY 'faith' and what I believe in.
Just because you think this theory is tripe, that doesn't necessarily make it so, and it also doesn't make me hurtful or ignorant or antagonistic for defending it.
This is about my faith as much as it is about anyone else's. My defending my beliefs and ethics has no less legitimacy than you defending yours.
Does it occur to you that the concept of 'immaculate conception' offends me? The only 'tripe' here is stubbornly refusing to consider there may be another history we don't yet know of?
Stop disguising fear, intolerance and ignorance under the guise of faith.
Open your eyes. I am not attacking anyone.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 127. Re: You're a liar | | | | by mischief | | | | at Sat 28 Dec 12:14pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 121 | | | | | |
Why would you even WANT to allege that a person was raped when there is no evidence to support it?
Recursion at its best: lack of evidence to support an allegation about a person for whom no clear evidence exists that she ever lived.
"And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 9. Hold on to your hats | | | | by Port1080 | | | | at Sun 22 Dec 5:26pm | score of 1.5 astute | | | | | | |
Pretty soon the Bishop of Portsmouth will be calling for the death of the documentary makers, Manchester and Birmingham will be consumed by anti-Atheist riots, and Blair will have to send in troops to put them down... err, oh yeah, wrong religion.
Anyone want to take bets on whether there would be any calls for "understanding" the outrage of Christians at this? Frankly nobody should give a damn, but I think it's a bit funny that when some fundy christians get there panties in a wad over things like this, they get a lot of criticism and anyone who defends them is ripped up, while when Muslims RIOT there's usually a fair number of otherwise non-religious liberals who will jump to their defense.
/// Sick of trolls? Try Treesandthings.com ///
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 10. while we're hunting the snark | | | | by jandzero | | | | at Sun 22 Dec 6:00pm | score of 2 interesting | | | | | | |
there is no more 'historical' evidence that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier than there is that she was a virgin, from royalty, poor, an alien, (the list goes on...)
Come up with any hypothesis about Jesus' life, and you can find early texts or unearthed scrolls that support it. What I have yet seen anyone do is describe the life of Jesus (Joshua or whatever) using non-biblical texts. You can draw many conclusions about what Jesus' life might have been like from contemporary texts, but since he is not mentioned historically outside of religious texts written specifically about him years after he died and hundreds of miles away, it's all speculation.
It is possible however to trace the introduction of the virgin birth story into christian mythology. Since it only appeared consistently after the council of Nicea began to ratify the scriptures, I'd base my BBC special on something else (like whether he had kids or not...)
vacuum-formed and vacuum-sealed
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 63. Don't hunt anymore.....found the snark. | | | | by renny0 | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 12:51pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 10 | | | | | |
You can draw many conclusions about what Jesus' life might have been like from contemporary texts, but since he is not mentioned historically outside of religious texts written specifically about him years after he died and hundreds of miles away, it's all speculation.
He is mentioned outside of religious texts written specifically about him -- though not often. Scroll down to historic records here. He did exist.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 100. Re: Don't hunt anymore.....found the snark. | | | | by renny0 | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 8:11am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 80 | | | | | |
You might want to use a different source than one claiming the World Health Organization and U.S. government is using AIDS for population control, the Federal Reserve banking system killed Kennedy, and other typical conspiracy crap.
Ouch -- good point. I didn't check the credibility of the source. There are records from Jesus's lifetime that he existed -- though only a few (2-3), and I guess they are basically complaints about the trouble he was causing. I can't find them on the web -- one of my friends studying theology spoke of them. He, and I, were both surprised that there was nothing more. But as you said, there are a number of factors that indicate a "Jesus" of one sort or another lived -- His existence isn't the question, but there are many valid questions about who He was.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 11. Mary The Town Whore | | | | by RnRCircus | | | | at Sun 22 Dec 6:06pm | score of 0.5 obnoxious | | | | | | |
My personal belief that Mary was the town whore and Joseph was the most gullible man in history. Mary the whore was out having fun while poor Joe was toiling as a carpenter. Since Mary was always too sore to fuck Joe after an afternoon of whoring around she had to come with a story explaining how she was knocked up. Joe being the moron he was bought the whole "the Holy Spirit fucked me" bit. Mary had Joe move them out of town so no one would expose the bastard Jesus as the son of one of the many men Mary screwed. This way she avoided being stoned for adultry. Hence the legends of Jesus being son of God and Mary being a virgin were born.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 12. What's Important About Christianity | | | | by evie |  | | | at Sun 22 Dec 6:15pm | score of 3 brilliant | | | | | | | |
Years ago, I remember discussing with some friends at uni, the idea of Jesus. None of us were believers, nor many particularly christian, yet we all felt Jesus was an interesting character. We came up with the theory (I'm quite willing to admit its probably not original) that the story about Jesus being the son of god, and his mother a virgin, were simply there so that the superstitious would listen to what he had to say (you know, don't judge others, love everyone).
More and more I am reminded of that idea when I read of contraversies like this. If what Jesus said was valid, why does it matter if his mother was a virgin or if she was the drunken harlot? If his message was the truth does it matter if Mary and Joseph ever "got busy with it"? It seems these details are more important to so-called christians than the part about turning the other cheek, or not judging others.
Your comment scores 100 on the Flesch scale of reading ease, making it comparable to selections from Dr. Seuss.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 42. Re: What's Important About Christianity | | | | by Saint Nobody | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 9:20am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 12 | | | | | |
If what Jesus said was valid, why does it matter if his mother was a virgin or if she was the drunken harlot? If his message was the truth does it matter if Mary and Joseph ever "got busy with it"?
it matters to a lot of people because they believe that jesus is litterally the son of god and that his teachings come directly from god. if jesus's parentage is called into question, so is the source of his teachings.
if jesus isn't the son of god, then he's a man like everybody else, and therefore fallible. nevermind that there's countless other theological frameworks through which one can attain divine inspiration -- if jesus isn't the son of god, then the foundation of faith is shaken for many (but hardly all) christians.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 65. Re: What's Important About Christianity | | | | by nmiguy | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 1:07pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 42 | | | | | |
I believe your argument does cover the opinions of many Christians.
The Catholic faith believes that Christ was the son of God and Mary. It also believes that the nature of God is a trinity, Jesus the Son, God the Father/creator, and the Holy Spirit which comes from the father and the son. Catholics differ from many other branches of christianity as it believes Christ was a miracle birth and that Mary conceived by becoming handmaiden to the holy spirit sent by God. The teaching is that Mary was a virgin and that her conception was a miracle of God's doing.
Many other faiths don't have a problem with Jesus. Muslims are taught Jesus was a holy man and a prophet, but just a man and not the son of God. One of the key arguments was that why would the son of God be a Jew, why would the son of God be allowed to die such a grisly death?
And the idea of a virgin Mary is an affront to many cultures and the concept of women. The Catholic faith does idealize the Mother of Christ, and I don't see any problem with that. It doesn't make a lick of difference whether she was the virgin or not, but it is important to realize that Jesus is the son of God.
One modern twist is to think of all births as miracles, and that we are all children of God(in a more abstract sense.) But whatever. I can buy the whole story from the New Testament because to believe in an omnipotent God, you have to allow for miracles, and these miracles do nothing to tarnish the reputation and legacy of important people (historically as well as religiously.)
But if proof was found that proved Mary was raped by a Roman soldier and Christ was born of this, my faith would not be "shaken". My faith and the faith of Christianity is not about the minute details of Christ's life and traditions. The meat of the faith is about his teachings and beliefs. If he believed himself the son of God that is as important than if he really is the son of God. But that's just my opinion.
Merry Christmas everybody (and Happy Birthday Jesus Christ. By the way, what does the H. stand for? Jesus H. Christ...)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 70. Re: What's Important About Christianity | | | | by Norman108 | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 1:42pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 65 | | | | | |
"By the way, what does the H. stand for? Jesus H. Christ...)"
Easy enough to find a couple google links.
I'll stick with the Holy idea, even though it's probably not right. It is Christmas, afterall.
In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 101. Re: What's Important About Christianity | | | | by fulminouscherub | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 8:34am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 65 | | | | | |
nmiguy wrote:
what does the H. stand for? Jesus H. Christ
This important question was resolved by the Synod at Nikaia in 325AD, when the opinion that the H stood for homoousios, "same substance," was confirmed as orthodox and the contending opinion, H for homoiousios, "similar substance," anathematized as heretical, along with its most celebrated proponent, the bishop Arian.
The question hinged on the place of mankind in creation and whether a man without sin could exist in the presence of God. Arian's moderate view was rejected by the more extreme opinion that Jesus could be both 100% God and 100% human at the same time, with the corollary that humanity, properly sanitized (purged of sin by the power of God's grace), could once again take its rightful place in the presence of God.
So, the H stands for homoousios.
fulminouscherub
quisque dies melior postero
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 46. Re: What's Important About Christianity | | | | by hk | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 10:20am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 12 | | | | | |
If what Jesus said was valid, why does it matter if his mother was a virgin or if she was the drunken harlot?
Some centuries ago Europe gave the church a collective kick in the butt for all the mess they made by meddling with politics (so much mess that this period of religious rule is still referred to as the Dark Ages).
Its high time someone gives religion another kick in the butt for meddling with peoples private sexual life. If this helps to undermine the moral authority religion assumes with respect to sex, that's all good in my book.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 78. Re: What's Important About Christianity | | | | by blamanj | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 3:07pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 12 | | | | | |
the story about Jesus being the son of god, and his mother a virgin, were simply there so that the superstitious would listen to what he had to say
Actually, this goes back almost to Jesus's time. There are those who say that the story of the virgin birth came about because of a misinterpretation. That the attempt to trace Jesus's appearance to Old Testament prophecy is based on text that could merely state "behold, a young woman shall conceive."
Of course, the Roman Catholic church has invested a good deal in the virgin birth part, and now the whole explanation of Jesus could be born without sin (which already required another miracle, the Immaculate Conception of Mary) would really be problematic.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 13. ::shrug:: | | | | by poetofadean | | | | at Sun 22 Dec 6:22pm | score of 2 compelling | | | | | | |
Perhaps the Virgin Mary was a virgin, and perhaps she wasn't. It is true that a birth from a virgin would be a miracle, and it is true that rape of people by soldiers, while I do not think it common, does occur.
Christians, especially Catholics, have a history of taking the Bible quite literally, and it has gotten them into trouble in the past. While the Bible is an excellent source for morals and a great book of stories, I have my doubts regarding its literal value. Whether or not Mary was a virgin is only a big deal because the Roman Catholic Church is making it one. I think it would be wise for the Church to think about this one...to think about the probabilities involved, and perhaps to take the Bible as less dogma than collection of stories.
Humans, not God, wrote the Bible. Cannot a human be flawed?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 14. Re: ::shrug:: | | | | by kilroy | | | | at Sun 22 Dec 6:27pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 13 | | | | | |
it is true that rape of people by soldiers, while I do not think it common, does occur.
Wonderfully sarcastic, the way you managed to get that out with a straight face.
You think people will still be using napkins in the year 2000? Or is this mouth vacuum thing for real?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 15. Re: ::shrug:: | | | | by evie | | | | at Sun 22 Dec 6:32pm | score of 2 astute | | in reply to comment 13 | | | | | | |
The Roman Catholic Church actually has a weird relationship with how literal the bible is. The idea is that the bible is too complex for the average person to understand and priest undergo years of study in order to know what parts are literal, what parts are Jewish cultural history, what parts are allegorical etc.
The problem comes down to the issue of what is important. To the RC church, Mary's virginity is a big deal. It claims that she lived and died a virgin. Other christian groups seem to only insist on the idea that she was a virgin when she gave birth. Why is this important? It comes down to how much christianity believes humanity is flawed, a normal human can't teach us anything worthwhile, it has to be god-as-man. And that god-as-man can't even appear the normal way, Mary had to be born without sin, so that she could conceive with out the taint of sexual intercourse in order to produce said god-as-man.
and it is true that rape of people by soldiers, while I do not think it common, does occur.
Unfortunately it is all too common, to the point of being a systematic means of torture and intimidation.
Your comment scores 100 on the Flesch scale of reading ease, making it comparable to selections from Dr. Seuss.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 110. Re: Question | | | | by slavdude | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 11:30am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 50 | | | | | |
I suppose it probably belongs to the same category as the question, "If all people are descended from Adam and Eve, where did the wives of Cain and Abel come from?"
I've run into plenty of biblical literalists. I just haven't gotten around to asking them this question.
Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be ugly.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 128. Re: Question | | | | by MustWork | | | | at Fri 3 Jan 5:58pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 110 | | | | | |
I suppose it probably belongs to the same category as the question, "If all people are descended from Adam and Eve, where did the wives of Cain and Abel come from?"
Actually, the Bible does not record a wife for Abel. As for Cain, we have no idea how old he was when he slew Able. It is certainly a possibility that he married one of his sisters. (This is back before the commandments about sibling marriage.)
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat History class.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 33. Re: ::shrug:: | | | | by nmiguy | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 7:54am | score of 1.5 nuanced | | in reply to comment 13 | | | | | |
I am a Catholic and one of the beliefs we have is that there was an immaculate conception of Mary by the holy spirit. While it is one of our beliefs, I personally find this "virgin Mary" thing inconsequential. If she remained a virgin throughout her life matters not. We believe Jesus is the son of God. Mary's virginity is only an issue to those who believe virginity is some kind of virtue.
Personally, I do not think that virginity is some extreme virtue, nor do I believe that abstenance is always a sign of strength. But while I can believe the whole virgin thing, I do not think it really matters so much. Much of the Old Testament is allegory and a re-hashing of monotheist histories and folklore.
The main idea of the belief in Jesus as the son of God is important because it frees Christians from enslavement to the Old Testament. We no longer needed the book (as St Paul would say) because now we have the Christ, a direct link to God.
I guess I can believe that Mary conceived from an angel of God. After that her sex life is not really my business.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 41. Re: ::shrug:: | | | | by Ernest333 | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 9:14am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 13 | | | | | |
It is true that a birth from a virgin would be a miracle,
Technically, no. In fact I'd be willing to bet birth from a virgin in the most literal sense has happened many in recent history, if not earlier. The technique is really quite low-tech, and surely somewhere at sometime a woman "untouched by man" has utilized it. And if the papers are to be believed, in a few weeks we'll witness the world's first truly immaculate conception made possible by science.
government + religion = taliban
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 16. hmm... | | | | by Puzzeled | | | | at Sun 22 Dec 6:34pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Well, I feel that as a Catholic I should say something. I guess i'm not quite sure what to say about this. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post, belong to me, they are in no way a majority held belief amongst the Catholic church.
I dont care so much about what Mary looked like. I've seen paintings of her with brown and hair and big doey brown eyes. But i've never seen a blonde haired blue eyed Mary. So i'm not quite sure if that is just another facet of Britains culture.
Now as to the Virgin Mary being raped. The bible (Which can neither be confirmed nor denied) states that it was a miraculous birth. Not to say that there is absolutely no other way this could have happened, but if you are going to believe in Christianity you need to believe in the bible. That's part of the religion. I believe that the thought of Mary being raped is appaling, because when people think of the Holy Mother, they think of her after she had jesus. Most paintings of her, are generally after she had the child, or at his crucifixion. After she was raised to being the Mother of God. To portray her as a young poor downtrodden women seems absolutely ridiculous to most Catholics, as they have only seen her as the Mother of God. Which leaves out the trinity. She is also the wife, and daughter of God. But in the same sense she is also portrayed however that artist wanted to conceptualize her. IE; if a german painted her, she would most likely be blonde haired and blue eyed, dark hair and dark eyed for spanish, or jewish. Now the concept of skin color, I do believe is something of debate. The only problem that I think i've seen is in the conceptualization of Mary as a pale white woman. Most of the bible takes place in the Middle East. Which does not lend to pasty white complexions. When people generally conceptualize Jesus, he he is a slightly tan man, with red hair. So if one were to go completely with what the bible said and history, we would have to change all of our preconceptions about our faith. Which is a terrible difficult thing to do.
Now, I'm Catholic, so I have some loyalty here, but all at the same time, I am an interested student of the world. And if someone has something new to say pro or con one of my beliefs I am always more than interested to discuss them. Now when it comes to my trying to push my religion on them, NO. When it comes to them doing the same NO. But if it is an honest discussion, or in the case in this story documentary, it's alright, but for a Catholic to watch, they would have to put aside some of the preconceptions just to think about it for a second.
For all we know, Jesus could have been a Native American, and Mary was a Puerto Rican woman. It doesn't matter what they look like, just what they did, and how we want to see them.
No one gets too old to learn a new way of being stupid.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 18. Re: hmm... | | | | by gem | | | | at Sun 22 Dec 6:48pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 16 | | | | | |
When people generally conceptualize Jesus, he he is a slightly tan man, with red hair.
I for one have never thought that Jesus was a ginger.
But, I agree that it isn't important what Mary and Jesus etc actually looked like. I've always thought that as God made man in his own image, so we make God, Jesus, Mary etc in our own.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 25. Re: hmm... | | | | by kiki embryonic | | | | at Sun 22 Dec 8:47pm | score of 0.5 incoherent | | in reply to comment 16 | | | | | |
..."It doesn't matter what they look like, just what they did, and how we want to see them."
It does matter who they were, yes it does.
Consider this, okay?
If you live in North America, you live in a Christian nation, whether you want to or not (whether you are Christian or not).
All of our popular mass media/beauty ideals/gender concepts, taboos and customs are borne of Christian ideals (if you are any kind of minority, this becomes painfully clear very early on)
We don't "chose to see them" so much as the archetypes that they have come to embody, create us inasmuch as they create the enviornment, or context which we must view ourselves in.
And if these archetypes that guide and create so much of Western Culture are regarded and employed factually when they are not the correct facts then, YES it actually DOES matter who they were and what they did, since these things are what created the archetypes in the first place.
This story of Mary makes a profound statement regarding the silence and shame of rape that is still predominant today.
It most certainly matters what the facts are if people are going to behave as if they are, indeed, facts.
And NO, there is no accurate doccumented 'historical data' to verify, well...much of anything...but COME ON...Mary gets pregnant before every marrying Joseph and having intercourse. Now, color me cynical, but I hardly believe that in that culture and era there were too many women, betrothed, having sex with random men.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 68. Re: hmm... | | | | by nmiguy | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 1:24pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 25 | | | | | |
Now, color me cynical, but I hardly believe that in that culture and era there were too many women, betrothed, having sex with random men.
Not cynical, kiki. But lacking information. In the times you describe and in the place where this is all said to have happened and with the documented political history of the time, you can only make so many inferences. The New Testament is a document that claims to have actual data of the situation. You may, of course choose whether or not to believe it. But the assertion that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier or was a whore or anything like that is wild speculation with NO evidence. Sure it is worthwhile to investigate the hypothesis. But to assert it as a fact would be wrong. There is contrary evidence against it (although the evidence is somewhat incredible).
History of the region and culture.
The region and culture in the middle east was predominantly tribal. Whether bedouin Arabs or farther west Syrian Jew, it was for the most part tribal. The Roman Empire conquered and enforced Roman law and collected taxes.
I have not heard of documented tales of Roman soldiers raping women. The story of Mary and Jesus tells us that the Emperor required a census so he could assess taxes. He ordered all men to return to their birth place. Joseph married an already pregnant Mary and they trekked to Joseph's birth place. Mary gave birth to Jesus in Bethehem. As far as women having sex with random men, there were prostitutes in those days. There is evidence of that.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 94. Re: hmm... | | | | by kiki embryonic | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 1:54am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 68 | | | | | |
okay, yes the culture and religion in the middle east WAS indeed tribal, before Mohammed in the 400s.
Of course you have not heard of documented tales of Romans raping women...you have not heard documented tales of anything biblical.
(You have not heard of documented Califorians raping women either, but it happens!)
I am not saying the Mary rape myth is fact, I am simply saying that it needs to be considered as as much of a viable 'mythological' part of the bible story as anything else.
"...there were prostitutes in those days.."
I can only assume your documentation is more relevant and contextual than mine, otherwise I would accuse you of assumption and bias.
But Far be it from me.
Don't patronize me by attempting to placate my theory by claiming I lack information.
A theory IS a lack of information, and that is all the bible stories are. I don't claim fact, never will and never have. My argument is that the fact that is accepted as such is errant...not that mine is the truth.
Ultimately: I don't want to be right so much as I want to show you that YOU may not be.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 96. Re: hmm... | | | | by nmiguy | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 7:03am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 94 | | | | | |
I don't want to be right so much as I want to show you that YOU may not be.
Please pardon my patronizing tone. I very well may be wrong. There are certainly many possibilities about what happened in History. I was only trying to offer up evidence in support of the theory that had been accepted for almost 2000 years by Christians. The theory that Mary was raped by a Roman Soldier has no evidence that I can see. Doesn't mean it never happened, but I certainly see nothing to support such a claim.
I think that it would be a much more credible theory if it gave the name of the offender here. Usually, people want to know the father of their savior. Christians have been comfortable accepting that the father of Christ is God himself. If his father is not God, we'd really like to know who it is.
Again, I apologize for offending you with a patronizing tone. People tend to get that way when their beliefs are challenged, I think it is a natural thing.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 109. Re: hmm... | | | | by sglover910 | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 10:36am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 94 | | | | | |
...the culture and religion in the middle east WAS indeed tribal, before Mohammed in the 400s...
Don't patronize me by attempting to placate my theory by claiming I lack information.
Once piece of information you seem to be lacking is an elementary grasp of Classical and post-Classical history. For instance, Mohammed lived in the 7th Century AD, a couple of hundred years after the generally accepted demise of the Roman Empire.
Factual errors aside, I have a difficult time making sense of your sentences and the non sequitars that they contain. You would be doing yourself an immense favor by doing a little research first, and then thinking critically before you write.
An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 67. Re: hmm... | | | | by renny0 | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 1:24pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 16 | | | | | |
but if you are going to believe in Christianity you need to believe in the bible.
I'm Catholic too, but I've been taught by different priests not to believe the Bible -- at least all of it, literally. Since I was a child, I've been told that this story is of historical importance, that this story tells of past laws that no longer apply (many of the Old Testament laws, before the new covenant of Christ), that this story is just that, a story, which I can apply to my life, and that most of the Bible -- no one knows whether it is fact or whether it was written as stories to guide and inspire us. I think the center of the Christian religion is the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and He is our saviour, and that the greatest commandment is to love Him above all things, with the second greatest commandment being to love all others. As for the rest of it -- I'm not going to get pulled down by the details. Christianity is a religion of love -- of loving God and loving others. People who use Christianity as a tool to divide themselves from others or as a tool for hate are missing the point.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 17. balanced broadcasting corporation | | | | by gem | | | | at Sun 22 Dec 6:36pm | score of 2.5 novel | | | | | | |
I doubt that this programme will have caused wide-spread distress in Britain.
Firstly the press coverage probably warned off those who were most likely to be offended. It was also well balanced in the schedules by 1.5 hours of Christian programming earlier in the day.
To be honest I don't think the suggestion that Mary wasn't a virgin would shock anybody. They may not agree with it, but it is a concept that has been discussed enough over the years as to be commonplace. I mean, if a quarter of vicars don't believe in the virgin birth, what do you think is going through the minds of their congregations?
Non-Britons might want to bear in mind that here Anglicans outnumber Catholics (to whom the Virgin Birth is seemingly more important) 5 to 1.
The BBC is paid for by every British television-watching household, so it should aim to produce programmes to appeal to every audience, not just practicing Christians (and only around 10% of Britons are churchgoers). I was pleased to see this speculative documentary in the schedules. I would not like to see the BBC always forced to be the most conservative British broadcaster, just because of how it is funded.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 95. Re: balanced broadcasting corporation | | | | by Dop | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 6:22am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 17 | | | | | |
However the BBC still refuse to let Atheists onto 'Thought for the Day'.
Apparently, the BBC had 500 complaints about this programme before it was shown, and a protest outside the BBC while the programme was airing.
Nothing like informed protest. And that was nothing like informed protest.
To quote the late lamented "Father Ted"
"Down with this sort of thing"
"Careful now!"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 26. Take a deep breath... | | | | by mandigirl | | | | at Sun 22 Dec 9:05pm | score of 1.5 brilliant | | | | | | |
... Now relax. I don't understand why people always get upset about this sort of thing. No one is asking you to BELIEVE that Mary was raped. It seems the people who produced the documentary merely wanted to put another IDEA forward.
Why are people so afraid of other peoples' ideas. Some people (like my grandmother - strict Irish Catholic) don't want to hear a word against their own beliefs. They tend to get rather emotional if that desire is breached. Many others (and I used to be one) might enjoy arguing, but for what? Conversion? When one has embedded beliefs, does he typically listen to the opposing argument more than he needs to in order to speak against it? I never did.
That's probably why I'm agnostic now. I realized that, if I wanted to, I could probably argue any point under the sun - but it's better (IMHO) to learn from other peoples' beliefs. My friends and I disagree completely on many issues, but we discuss them openly. Sometimes one of us changes our ideas, often times no one does - but we learn to be more understanding, tolerant, and knowledgeable.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 37. Re: Take a deep breath... | | | | by Cool Hand Luke | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 8:28am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 26 | | | | | |
I'm not sure it's "fear" of the idea that Mary was raped, more like anger over the (perceived) motives behind this TV production.
Why would someone offer an alternative to the Virgin Mary story where Mary was raped? The producers very well may just want to explore this alterate view of Mary, one that is "just as inspiring as the stories that have grown up around her." Or they could, as the write-up's author suggests, being trying to "drive a stake through the concept of Jesus as the son of God."
Think about this: What are the most common objections about Catholism (or any religion, for that matter)? Its morals, or its semantics and syntax? Compare how many people argue that Jesus wasn't the Son of God, or Mary wasn't a Virgin, to people who argue everyone should "love their neighbor"? And, as others in this thread have pointed out, if it doesn't matter that Mary was or was not a virgin, then why bring it up?
The fact of the matter is the vicars see this TV-show as a first step of an attack against their religion:
- Mary was raped by a Roman solider.
- Jesus was the product of that rape.
- If God was all-good and powerful, his Son would never be the product of a rape.
- Jesus is not the Son of God, thus is discredited.
- Burn your bible, because your God is dead.
In an idea world, whether someone believes in Christ on a stump, Moses on the mountain, Buddha at the 7-11, God the unifying theorem of everything, etc. should matter as long as live a life most people can agree to as "good". Alas, it seems that what myths we believe in does matter. After all, we root for sports teams, why not Gods?
Cool Hand Luke
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 49. Close, but no cigar | | | | by hk | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 10:43am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 37 | | | | | |
- Mary was raped by a Roman solider.
- Jesus was the product of that rape.
- If God was all-good and powerful, his Son would never be the product of a rape.
- Jesus is not the Son of God, thus is discredited.
- Burn your bible, because your God is dead.
The flaw in your argument is that you forget the great excape clause of christianity (and most other religions): God works in mysterious ways.
I wish I could use that. Imagine if I ever cheated on my girlfriend, I could just respond with:
Blue-eyes, I work in mysterious ways...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 61. Re: Close, but no cigar | | | | by Cool Hand Luke | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 12:13pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 60 | | | | | |
Steadfast, my good man (are you good, man?). There's plenty of stereotypes to choose from:
- The pious Catholic
- The Hollywood liberal
- The well-spoken President
- The astute Plastican
- The dot-com millionaire
- and so many more!
Cool Hand Luke
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 69. Re: Close, but no cigar | | | | by nmiguy | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 1:31pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 49 | | | | | |
The flaw in your argument is that you forget the great excape clause of christianity (and most other religions): God works in mysterious ways.
I wish I could use that. Imagine if I ever cheated on my girlfriend, I could just respond with:
Blue-eyes, I work in mysterious ways...
Why don't you try it and tell us all how it works out for you. I really want to know.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 32. This shows the Beeb... | | | | by rdww | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 7:45am | score of 3 astute | | | | | | |
... doing its bit to turn Britain into a post-Christian nation. More intriguing, though, is that I haven't heard of them producing any programs pointing out that Muhammad was a murderous pedophile. Pissing off vicars is one thing, but setting yourself up for a fatwa quite another.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 35. Figure of speech | | | | by lifeform | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 8:13am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
I seem to remember from a college-level religion class that 'born of a virgin' was likely just a figure of speech used to describe just how upstanding and holy a person was, not a literal description of the person's conception.
In fact, accounts of Jesus's life exist in what is called 'intertestamental literature' (which, although it was written in the same era and perhaps even by the same authors, is not considered by Christians to be inspired by God). In some of this 'intertestamental literature', Mary is also said to be born of a virgin, and it is implied that even Mary's mother was a virgin. Persumably, this is meant to imply that Jesus was exceptionally holy and pure.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 90. Re: Figure of speech | | | | by RnRCircus | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 11:29pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 35 | | | | | |
Perhaps Mary and her mother were both virgins. They had their respective husbands shoot their load into a turkey baster. After insertion into the virginal vagina and squeeze or two on the baster bulb, voila instant immaculate conception.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 36. Ironic complaint | | | | by ksu93 | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 8:21am | score of 1.5 clever | | | | | | |
The Roman Catholic bishop of Portsmouth, Right Reverend Crispian Hollis, cries foul at the direction of the film at this point. Alleging that the film is based upon the most "crude guesswork," he questioned the integrity of the project.
Hey, I can understand his point. After all, every Christian belief I can think of is based only on the most solid evidence that has been subjected to rigorous scientific standards. It's only fair that other people should play by the same rules, right?
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -Ambrose Bierce
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 38. Ancient Myths | | | | by Ben Bridenbaugh | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 8:32am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
No, I'm not bashing Christianity here.
Anyone read ancient mythology, in this case the Greek and Roman stuff?
If you did, you might notice how many of the heroes were demigods, mainly from Zeus playing around. Some teachers of mine pointed out that it had become a tradition for a woman with an unexplained pregnancy to claim a 'vision' or whatever, for the stories mentioned the gods horrible wrath for someone who would do injury to even one of their illigetamate children. That served a social purpose, keeping pointless feuds from forming over natural adolescent lust.
So, how does this apply to Christianity?
Well, with Rome's influence all over the world, these stories would be commonplace. Not that they would keep a young lady from a Jewish background from being chased out of her home by her mother with a broom. Something she might try, however.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 40. sacred topic? | | | | by Ernest333 | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 8:45am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Is there anything to be gained by the televising of something so instinctively odious and offensive to a significant portion of the public?
Frankly what I find truly offensive is the suggestion that an open and honest questioning of traditional dogma is offensive.
When someone is afraid to subject their ideas to a full discussion and debate, that can only be seen as a sign even they aren't so sure about the idea's validity.
The questioning of accepted beliefs has been the force behind virtually every advance humanity has ever made. Without the acceptability of heresy and dissent a society will never stagnate forever at the level of the taliban.
government + religion = taliban
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 44. She only had to be virgin at marriage. | | | | by jeffbiss | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 10:06am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
The concept of "son of god" is totally Jewish and merely means one who is close to god, NOT one born of god. This is important if Jesus was to be accepted as a legitimate Jewish Messiah in the tradition of David. What support do the gospels offer that Jesus was the prophesied Jewish Messiah?
1. Isaiah 7:14 proclaims that Immanual would be born of a virgin. Therefore, Jesus was claimed to be born of a virgin, to satisfy this requirement. The Jewish sense of virgin meant that the mother of the Messiah had only to be a virgin up to her marriage to her husband.
2. The Messiah must be of the House of David. Matt 1 and Luke 3:23-38 list Jesus' lineage to prove he was of the house of David. Mark 10:47 explicitly states Jesus was a son of David.
3. The prophesy also required that the Messiah come out of Bethlehem. The gospels contrived this fulfillment through the census (Rome did not require people to report to the town of their birth).
Jesus' Messiahship can be understood purely within its Jewish context. A Jewish Messiah is merely a righteous human being, selected by god to do his work on earth. This is obvious when one looks at the Davidic lineage stated in the gospels. Jesus is tied to David and Bethlehem through Joseph. No christian virgin birth was required for a Jewish Messiah, only that god had selected the person to be the Messiah and to do his work.
Paul was selling Jesus to Gentiles and had to make certain Jewish concepts understandable to Gentiles. Since Gentiles understood heros who were sons of a god and a human woman, Paul extended this concept to Jesus. He cleaned this up a bit by making up the immaculate part.
If Jesus was a Pauline son of god, then stating the lineage through Joseph is irrelevant, which it obviously wasn't. What we see in the current gospels is the corruption of Jewish writings by Pauline christians to better support a gentile misunderstanding of Jewish theology.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 104. Re: She only had to be virgin at marriage. | | | | by fulminouscherub | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 9:38am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 44 | | | | | |
jeffbiss wrote:
1. Isaiah 7:14 proclaims that Immanual [sic] would be born of a virgin.
Isaiah uses the word parthenos, which usually means a virgin but can mean, more generically, a young or unmarried girl.
Parthenos is also a title of the goddess Athena. She, too, was a mother (of Erichthonius, sort of) with the reputation of never having had sex.
But a more interesting comparison for Mary is Asherah. Before the cult of Jah(ovah) was monotheized in the post-exilic period, Asherah was Jah's consort. As a near eastern fertility goddess, she enjoyed the power of ever-renewing virginity. Among her duties included interceding with the divine men in her life on behalf of mortals. Sound familiar?
Mary's cult is rife with the syncretic accumulation of forerunner goddesses. Look where she retired. Ephesus had already been a cult center for a major virgin goddess for thousands of years.
When Constantine moved the Imperial capitol to Constantinople, he built Mary's church of the theotokos, the patron goddess/saint of the city, right on top of the main temple of the former patron, Athena.
Too bad you can't run some kind of mythological tissue test on divinities to confirm such connections.
fulminouscherub
quisque dies melior postero
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 112. Re: She only had to be virgin at marriage. | | | | by Norman108 | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 11:50am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 104 | | | | | |
"Isaiah uses the word parthenos, which usually means a virgin but can mean, more generically, a young or unmarried girl."
Did Isaiah write in Greek, or did you mean the Greek translation of Isaiah uses the word parthenos? If the latter is the case, isn't it a Greek translator possibly making a connection to Athena, and not Isaiah?
Though I do think it's obvious the Mary cult has deep roots in classic Goddess worship, I am wondering about this one referent to Isaiah.
In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 45. Celsus | | | | by moof1138 | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 10:14am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
The account was not presented as a fact, but as "a ploy to discredit the early Christian church." If you want to understand the ancient world and the birth of Christianity, learning what its ancient critics have to say is not a bad idea. There were rumors regarding Jesus being the bastard son of a Roman soldier floating around the ancient world which Celsus (the philosopher/historian the show quotes) reported. As a Pagan, Celsus had quite a few other fascinating, though critical, things to say about Jesus and the Christians that make for an interesting read. If you are offended by knowing what people were critical of Mary (and Jesus) in the ancient wold, you will be pleased to know that all copies of Celsus' work were destroyed by Christians, and only survive due to Origen's commentary that attempted to refute some of that work (though we still have lost much of it).
Bene agere et laetari
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 51. The birth story | | | | by tlon_uqbar | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 10:46am | score of 1.5 scholarly | | | | | | |
The whole Jesus birth story is wrapped in contradiction and when you read the gospels that deal with it in parallel, you can't help but come to the conclusion that quite a bit was inserted later on after some careful combing of old testament texts. Going through the claims made in Matthew/Luke (Mark, the oldest gospel, and John, are silent on the issue, starting with Jesus' baptism by John), it's possible to make an educated guess as to what was really going on:
The first issue is the geneologies contained in Matthew and Luke. Both seek to trace Jesus' lineage back to David (and even to Abraham). The odd thing here is that the two use different lineages. Even stranger is that they both use Joseph as the starting point of the lineage. Why would that matter if Joseph were not the father? Obviously somebody realized that somewhere in the old testament it said that the Messiah was to be a descendant of David. In the 1st Century, that had to be done through the dad, even though we're told Joseph isn't really the dad.
There are other parts of the birth story that look like attempts to match up with old testament prophecy. The thing about being born in Bethlehem doesn't make much sense. The story we're told is that Jesus is from Galilee (at least in Luke, Matthew seems to assume Joseph and Mary were always in Bethlehem and moved to Galilee later on), and that while Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem for census purposes, Jesus was born. Why on earth would Joseph and Mary go from Galilee to Bethlehem for a census? It's supposedly because Joseph had to go to the city of his ancestors (Bethlehem) for the census. Well, that doesn't make any sense, you sure as hell don't want to take a census by forcing the population to undergo a mass migration to wherever their ancestors were from. But the old testament is clear that the Messiah comes out of Bethlehem so Luke comes up with a reason to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem in time for the birth. Therefore, it's pretty safe to guess that Joseph and Mary were actually from Nazareth in Galilee and that the whole Luke version is suspect. Matthew's version is even more suspect because he has them conveniently in Bethlehem from the get go, with the family later moving up to Galilee (after a Moses-parelles story where they go to Egypt) to avoid Herod. (Here there are some other problems with rulers and dates, but that's a whole other story).
That brings us to the question of, why not just go with Joseph as the dad? That's a hell of a lot easier to explain than the whole "virgin" thing, especially since a non-believer's natural reaction upon hearing the virgin birth story would be, "oh, yeah, right...so the guy's a bastard?" We all know that the thing about the Messiah coming from a virgin may have been a mistranslation of the hebrew word for "young maiden" or something like that. But there's lots of other prophecies regarding the Messiah in the old testament that were ignored by the gospel writers, why the big deal about Joseph not really being the dad? The answer is, most likely, that Joseph wasn't the dad and people knew that. The gospels couldn't just gloss over the fact that Joseph wasn't the dad so they instead combed through the old testament and found the passage about the "young maiden" which they read as "virgin"....presto, you've got a reason why Joseph and Mary weren't married at the time Jesus was born, it's because she was still a virgin and Jesus was immaculately conceived.
Obviously the writers felt it was more important to explain why Joseph wasn't the father than to tie Jesus back to David geneologically. Otherwise you leave Joseph as the dad and you've got your (two different) lineages going back to David and fulfilling the prophesy. From that, we can assume it was common knowledge (at least to Jesus' early followers and other contemporaries) that Joseph and Mary were not married at the time of Jesus' birth and that Joseph was not the father. Otherwise, why not just ignore an otherwise insignificant (and mistranslated) passage in the old testament?
I'm probably glossing over (or even mistating) a lot of what's in the gospels and old testament about this stuff. There are plenty of good books out there which look into the issue from a historical and critical perspective which I would recommend if you're interested in this. The bottom line is that for some reason Luke and Matthew needed to explain Jesus' being born to someone not married and pulled a rather suspect passage out of the old testament to do it. Given the number of other, more concrete, prophesies in the old testament which were glossed over, this was obviously important enough for them to make a big deal out of.
Or he might simply be the son of God. I don't have much of a problem either way.
-- gh
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 52. Humanist CofE? | | | | by matty | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 10:50am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
There's nothing wrong with worshipping Jesus as something like a Catholic Saint, but by doing so you strike at the very fundamentals of the Christian faith. As MayorBob notes, by not worshiping Christ as the son of God, what makes you a CHRISTian? Is the CofE now something else entirely? A new religion maybe? One where the spirit and compassion of Christ as Human - and not God or the Holy Ghost - is celebrated? To me, Christ represents the best of Human compassion and potential, and he should be Celebrated accordingly. However, not perceiving him as the Human embodiment of God presents an irreconcilable paradox for the CofE as a Christian institution. It will be interesting to see how they reconcile this to not only their parishoners but also to themselves.
In anycase, I find it not a little hypocritical that the same sort of documentary isn't being aired about the fallibility of Siddartha or the Prophet Mohammed as the humans they most certainly were.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 57. Re: Humanist CofE? | | | | by hk | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 11:16am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 52 | | | | | |
In anycase, I find it not a little hypocritical that the same sort of documentary isn't being aired about the fallibility of Siddartha or the Prophet Mohammed as the humans they most certainly were.
Are you sure that the BBC as NEVER aired the same sort of documentary about other religious icons? I haven't searched the archives of BBC-programmes-past, but I find that rather hard to believe.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 115. Re: Humanist CofE? | | | | by wabishi | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 4:42pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 52 | | | | | |
> As MayorBob notes, by not worshiping Christ as the son of God, what makes you a CHRISTian?
Christians were first called "Christians" at Antioch because they were "little Christs." It had nothing to do with the late belief that Jesus was divine--this thought wasn't elevated to dogma for hundreds of years. They were called Christians because the continued Jesus' work of preaching the Kingdom of God.
I don't see why this wouldn't be as valid today as during the Apostolic age. Christians are those who follow Jesus by assuming his ministry.
Steal this tagline!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 53. Act of God | | | | by oysterboysal | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 11:03am | score of 1.5 | | | | | | |
Perhaps it is just my love of irony but I can think of no other way of describing how the rape of a nameless peasant in some tiny corner of the empire by a soldier would lead to the eventual downfall of the empire than to call it an Act of God. That this act of violence and subjugation would lead to the non-violent destruction of the empire can also work to reaffirm my belief that God works in mysterious ways.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 59. Re: Act of God | | | | by nathanTeske | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 11:24am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 53 | | | | | |
The problem with that is you're only looking at an isolated, specific case which is sympathetic to your viewpoint. Is the fact that a young homosexual man conquered the majority of the known world also an act of God? Is Hitler getting kicked out of Art School proof of the devil?
But can you hit me with your bust of Kant and at the same time will it a universalizable maxim?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 92. Re: Act of God | | | | by 74westy | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 12:57am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 53 | | | | | |
I love irony too but give the devil his due. The western Roman Empire lasted well into the 5th century after adopting the offspring of that rapist Roman soldier as the founder of its official religion.
I'm having a hard time blaming old Jesus for something that happened more than 400 years after His death.
I am Sparticus!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 56. Immaculate Conception | | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 11:16am | score of 0.5 | | | | | | |
re: the phrase "immaculate conception," that does not refer to the conception of jesus but the conception of mary. catholics believe mary was conceived without sin and was the only human to ever have been. the phrase often causes confusion.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 86. Re: Immaculate Conception | | | | by Lakaien | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 8:28pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 72 | | | | | |
Nope, it means Mary's mother was impregnated by God, hence...the conception of mary(reference the original post), not that Jesus was impregnated at any point. Good try though.
if you had a funeral- i'd be there with bells on- Chris Murphy
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 73. BBC not as anti-Christian as CofE | | | | by Mighty Ponygirl | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 1:57pm | score of 1.5 compelling | | | | | | |
It reports a version of the event put forward by a second-century historian, who claimed Mary was raped by a Roman soldier.
But the programme said this was likely to have been a ploy to discredit the early Christian church.
Speaking as a Christian who has actually read the article, I see this as a zero-sum equation in every way but one. First, 90% of us don't particularly care about Mary's complexion and hair color. Those of us who know how young she was when she conceived don't particularly care that she's depicted as being in her late teens/early twenties, because the artist is usually trying to convey the beauty of the holy mother (similarly, we do care if she's depicted covered in feces and sex organs). Second, those of us who believe in the miracle of the virgin birth are not being told otherwise by this documentary. They are putting a thought out there simply as a counterpoint in a documentary, and then going so far as to say that this was merely a bit of disinformation spread by enemies of the early church... so Christians are hardly being told that we've been living a lie and our savior was the product of one of the most evil acts one human can do to another. And even if we were... most of us would have the good sense to cry "bullshit" and go on with our happy lives.
However, I do have to take issue with the timing of this production... it's quite insensitive to air something that even "puts out there" that Mary might have been raped by a Roman soldier during the season of Advent. Will the BBC air a special on Muhammad touching on his pedarastic tendencies during next year's Ramadan? What about an enlightening bit on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion during next year's Hannukah? For that matter, imagine a documentary on Martin Luther King's infidelities being played during Black History Month here in the States. It's just insensitive.
As for the Church of England, well, I think the name says it all, they stopped being a Church of God a while ago.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 83. Re: BBC not as anti-Christian as CofE | | | | by gem | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 5:49pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 73 | | | | | |
You make some very reasonable points, however you say some things which need to be addressed.
I really don't think that the timing of this documentary was particularly insensitive. Christmas is the time that we naturally think of the birth of Christ, and (balanced by many hours of programming which in no way challenged the traditional story) it was therefore an appropriate time to examine other possible theories. This programme in fact considered three alternatives to Jesus' conception:
[1] by a secret lover, a possibility the programme dismisses as unlikely [2] after being raped by a Roman soldier. One later writer suggested this, but it appears even less likely, [3] having been made pregnant by Joseph, to whom she was engaged. This seems quite possible, as engaged couples often did live together at the time. The sensationalized rape claim was not even their central hypothesis.
Although I did not watch the programme, the BBC 'Virgin Mary' website's balanced approach, including suggestions for further reading, leads me to believe that the subject matter was handled sensitively, and with due regard for the feelings of Christians.
As for your summary dismissal of the Church of England, and the millions of Christians who belong to it, you offer no justification or evidence. Except, that is, for some facile word play, which would work as well for most Christian groups (the Roman Catholic Church for example), and mean as little.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 102. Re: BBC not as anti-Christian as CofE | | | | by Mighty Ponygirl | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 8:56am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 83 | | | | | |
...While I don't argue that now is an appropriate time for a documentary, the BBC can't expect to produce a "documentary" hinting that she might have just been an adulterous little tart during a time when she is revered and expect no criticism. Like I said--imagine what would happen if a special on Muhammad were aired during Ramadan that hinted that he was just a Schizophrenic Epileptic.
My blanket dismissal of the Church of England was in fact because I am a Reformed Episcopalian. I was trying to be +1 succinct because all of our +1 astute Plasticians would know that the Church was founded during the rule of Henry VIII as a means for him to achieve a divorce. Fortunately, the Church thrived because of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, who almost singlehandedly wrote the Book of Common Prayer still used by the church today. It was Cranmer et al who helped nurture the Protestant philosophy in the church, and kept it from becoming some flash-in-the-pan sect. The beauty of the CofE was that it adhered to the same hierarchical structure as the Catholic Church, however the Pope was replaced with the current ruler of England--and there's the problem. While I don't doubt that there are still devout Anglicans belonging to the PCofE, (Protestant rather than Reformed), the hierarchy has been "going Unitarian" for a while, divorcing the church from its spiritual foundation in favor of social proseletyzing. Not particularly surprising when you don't have a man of God at the helm. I'm not saying that a liberal church is a bad thing--and it certainly speaks of Christ's compassion when a church becomes a voice for equal rights and world peace. But to pull the rug out from under it by saying that all the miracles that prove that God is good did not happen does a disservice to Christians everywhere. The reasons are theological and messy, but it basically boils down to the fact that Christians believe in the dirty rags philosophy--that all good works are justified by God and it is through him that we are able to do Good. If you can't believe that God is powerful enough to cause a woman to give birth without having known the touch of a man, or to bring a man back from the dead, you are diminishing the power of God. If you choose not to believe in God, fine. But to speak for one of the largest Protestant denominations and basically say there is no God ... well, do I need go on.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 122. Re: BBC not as anti-Christian as CofE | | | | by nmiguy | | | | at Thu 26 Dec 12:49pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 83 | | | | | |
I have not seen the production, nor do I plan to, but one of the questions that bothers me is why do they assert that she might have been raped by a Roman Soldier? Why not a relative, or a neighbor, or a common criminal or a Jewish Rabbi? It sounds offensive to single out some unknown Roman soldier for a crime with no evidence to support it. A terrible claim to make. It slanders the Roman military. Why would one ferment a theory that slanders the greatest, most discliplined army of the time?
Is there evidence to support the customs of the Roman military, or incidences of rape by the Roman army? I'm not saying they didn't do this, what I'm asking is if there's any evidence of it.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 117. Re: BBC not as anti-Christian as CofE | | | | by gem | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 5:43pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 102 | | | | | |
Perhaps you know more about the history or the Church of England than the reality of its current teachings and services.
It is ridiculous to say that the Church of England is anti-Christian. All the vicars that I have heard speak have been passionate in their love of God and Christ, and in the following of Christ's teachings. Does it really matter that the Queen has an official status in the Church? She does not wade in on theological debate, or direct the teaching of the Church in any way.
It is not the Church's official policy to cast doubt on the miracles recorded in the bible, nor in my experience have they ever done so.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 74. Old theory, still no basis. | | | | by wallfly | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 2:41pm | score of 1.5 intriguing | | | | | | |
There's so much to respond to here. I'm not sure where to begin. I guess I'll just speak to this generally and see where it takes me.
The virgin birth of Jesus is important and not just one other theory for the origin of Christ. Jesus' identity, words, and actions all must be taken into account when discovering who he is. Not only do the New Testament writers attribute Godhood to him, but so does the Old Testament. Details of his life were predicted many years prior to his birth and he fulfilled them all. If you think that's easy, take a good look at the list of prophecies concerning Him sometime.
What I'm getting at is the core of Christian faith. We believe that he was God incarnate, died for our sins, and came back to life, etc. etc. etc. We also believe he predicted these things about himself (specifically his own crucifixion and resurrection). Now, I realize many don't like to look at Jesus as more than just a good moral teacher or a very good man, but that's not really an option. Martin Luther King was a great moral teacher but he didn't claim to be God. Jesus made claims about himself that made him an egomaniac if nothing else (if He truly is not God in the flesh).
If you want to decide that the Gospel writers and Paul (or later contributors) simply added the parts about his divinity because they made them up, then how do you know Jesus existed at all? Apparently, according to these theories, the early texts we have about his life are unreliable so we can't believe anything they say. If that's the case, how can we follow Jesus as a good teacher? Taking away his divinity "creates" contradictions rather than removing them.
People have always been free to make up their own ludicrous little theories about how they'd like history to have been, but if the facts and evidence don't support it, it's just another wild speculation, no better than fiction. I know you're going to try to turn that around on me, but I've looked into it and there's more evidence for Christianity than against. And frankly, most of the new claims about Jesus identity and character seem more like what people want to believe (the easy way out) rather than the person that is discovered by really studying his life.
So unless you can convince me that Jesus really didn't exist, I'm going to keep on believing what common sense tells me and rationale and reason bear out. If, on the other hand, you can disprove either of the grand claims made by Christianity (Deity of Christ, Resurrection) then I will happily agree with you that religion is a farce and not worth my time.For me, there either is or there is not a God. There is no in between.
I would be glad to discuss this topic with any of you. However, if you simply want to poke fun or throw out bizarre claims with no evidence, please don't bother.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 81. Re: Old theory, still no basis. | | | | by Kurtz | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 4:45pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 74 | | | | | |
If, on the other hand, you can disprove either of the grand claims made by Christianity (Deity of Christ, Resurrection)...
As you've quite politely offered to consider an opposing viewpoint, I point you to the numerous similarities between the Jesus myth and other ancient mythical heroes. The god-men and resurrection myths of Jesus you mention were fairly common in the time period and don't look quite as impressive when considered alongside their contemporaries.
To be frank, I don't suppose this will change your mind as faith can be a pretty intractable thing, but perhaps it will give you some food for thought.
--What Would Azathoth Do?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 82. Re: Old theory, still no basis. | | | | by jandzero | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 4:49pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 74 | | | | | |
So unless you can convince me that Jesus really didn't exist, I'm going to keep on believing what common sense tells me and rationale and reason bear out
HELLO, you are talking about FAITH when you ask people to prove a negative. There is no evidence of Jesus' existence or facts about his life seperate from church texts and doctrine .
All written accounts of his life, the basis of the new testament, were written in Rome or Greece a minimum of sixty years after his death, by people with a specific political agenda.
If you want to get logical (whithin the context of what we know about the Roman rule of Judea), Jesus was a Nazarene (religious sect, not a city) prophet, probably from a aristocratic family (hence the Davidian bloodline) who tried to start a popular rebellion against the Romans, claimed he was King (messiah means nothing more than this in Hebrew) and was crucified for it.
This seems pretty logical to me, but to prove or disprove any of this I would have to cite use the Bible to refute the Bible. I might as well use Grimm's fairy tales to prove the existence of Snow White.
vacuum-formed and vacuum-sealed
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 103. Re: Old theory, still no basis. | | | | by wallfly | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 9:19am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 74 | | | | | |
To respond to all of you, I have to disagree with several points.
For one, there is much extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus (and none for him being an aristocrat). Also, many many scholars date the earliest writings of the New Testament (from Paul) as early as less than 30 years later, meaning those who were alive to know Jesus would have been able to confirm or refute the claims made about him; especially his resurrection.
When I said bizarre claims, I meant things that are completely out of left field. I'll grant that theories that a) Jesus wasn't really dead or b) his disciples stole his body are interesting to ponder, but don't really work when you think it through, given the context.
As for Jesus' contemporaries already having myths concerning God-children, etc., this is interesting, but completely ignores the Old Testament prophecy about Christ, which predates these other religions.
And to be fair, I'll admit that proving a negative (Christ's existence or not) would be impossible. I should have phrased it that if the evidence 'for' Jesus' existence is without foundation and false, then I will switch my views. However, I believe the evidence proves the opposite.
The thing of it is, my faith is not based on a feeling or what I'd prefer to believe because it's comfy and cozy. Christianity is not compromising in many things and if I believe in the truth of Jesus, then I must adhere to its core, which is not an easy thing to do in a world of relativistic attitudes. I've been forced to re-asses my beliefs and see why I believe what I believe. Really looking into it has strengthened my faith, not weakened it. It seems like many people believe that an 'honest' look at the Bible and history will completely dispel the Christian myth, but that's just not true at all. The Bible is the most well preserved group of documents in history and is supported by many external things, including archaeology and other historical documents.
God Bless
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 105. Re: Old theory, still no basis. | | | | by mischief | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 9:52am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 103 | | | | | |
much extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus
That's a big claim. How about backing it up?
"And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 123. Re: Old theory, still no basis. | | | | by nmiguy | | | | at Thu 26 Dec 1:18pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 103 | | | | | |
I've been forced to re-asses my beliefs and see why I believe what I believe. Really looking into it has strengthened my faith, not weakened it. It seems like many people believe that an 'honest' look at the Bible and history will completely dispel the Christian myth, but that's just not true at all.
I feel the same way as you do on that. When I was a younger man and in my late teens I was swaying from my faith. But a deeper look into has strengthened my beliefs. Questioning my faith and looking for answers and being critical has not made me turn away and dismiss it all. It brought me closer in. And although there are some things that still trouble me or cause some doubt, my faith is stronger for my efforts.
I have a friend who is very smart. I mean the type of guy who gets the best SAT scores in the school but gets average grades and never went on to College. (That kinda smart.) He is totally non-religious and disbelieves in God and Christianity or any faith. His beliefs are that needing a religion is a crutch for the weakminded. I feel that needing NO religion is also a crutch for the weakminded. Everyone needs a little support for their beliefs, one way or the other. Most people do NOT enjoy having those core beliefs challenged.
Right now, I'm taking a class that studies the history of Islam. It is eye opening and I'm enjoying the class immensely. But more knowledge hasn't really changed my core beliefs much. I still believe that Christ was the son of God and our savior. I still believe he had a message and a path for humanity.
I just can't understand how Christianity grew so different from Judaism. Christ was a Jew. And in the Old Testament the Jews were God's Chosen People. Moses said that God wanted Pharoah to "Let My People Go." Something is fishy about all this. The Jews are not just a religious group, but an ethnic and cultural group as well. Not so in Islam or Christianity. Christians are a religious group broken into dozens of sects. Same with Muslims. There are many different types of Muslims, Sunnis, Shi'ites, Sufist, etc.
I need to take a class that teaches me the history of Judaism. I need more knowledge.
But I wanted to say that I feel the same way you do in your last paragraph.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 118. Re: Old theory, still no basis. | | | | by wallfly | | | | at Thu 26 Dec 8:55am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 105 | | | | | |
I'd be happy to. However, I am not a scholar in the matter so I do not have on hand a list of documentation that I can quote to you citing each individual instance. So I'll just give you the evidences that I use when judging for myself.
First of all, looking at lack of evidence to the contrary is a good start. For instance, there were many claims of Jesus' actions during the early church, not the least of which being that he was raised from the dead. So, if the Jewish leaders and Romans had anything to gain at all from disproving (or merely refuting) these claims, it makes sense that they would have done so. Why allow a bunch of troublemakers to run around making wild claims that you know are untrue and still not deny their most basic foundation for the claims?
Secondly, as many strange and bizarre theories I hear about who Jesus was or what he really said (or meant), I can not for the life of me remember hearing or reading anything claiming that the man we call Jesus (that Christians claim is the only son of God) did not even exist. It's just not a popular claim because even the biggest critics of Christianity realize it's just not a credible theory.
There are many books discussing (amongst other things) evidence of Jesus life besides just biblical texts. One such book is The Case for Christ which includes interviews with top scholars on various topics such as whether Archaeology supports the New Testament and if there are other historical claims for His existence.
I must be honest however in wondering just what evidence would be compelling for you, or anyone. I could cite the supposed Gospel of Thomas as extra-biblical evidence, but I'm sure many would say that "even the early Christian church" didn't count that as being reliable. So which writings would be good enough? People discuss Eusebius and Constantine but the staunchest skeptic wouldn't rely on them as a basis for faith (nor would I).
Therefore, I have to maintain that the Bible is the best evidence and that it is reliable.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 125. Re: Old theory, still no basis. | | | | by wallfly | | | | at Thu 26 Dec 2:03pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 123 | | | | | |
nmiguy, those are very good questions; ones which i've dealt with in the past and am still dealing with, on top of all the other issues. here's my take:
Jesus was a Jew (at least his human manifestation, being born with Jewish upbringing made him so). But in reality, he is (or should be) the core of the Jewish faith. That's where the fuzziness comes into play between Christianity and Judaism. Christ was a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. In theory, the religion should not have changed or sprouted off into another one so much as culminated in what they already believed. However, since (I guess) so many people were looking for a militant Messiah to free them from Roman oppression, Jesus didn't fit what they'd envisioned, so mainline Jews stayed the same as they are and Christianity developed in the void left by Judaism.
Now, as to your other questions, I really can't say anything helpful. It's always been a bit of a strange concept for human minds to wrap around that God had a chosen people, kind of like a favorite child. A theologian trained in either Christianity or Judaism would probably be able to explain it much better than I.
As for the Muslims, I really have no idea. From what I can tell, Mohammed took the history of the Bible through Abraham, and the descendants of Ishmael are the Muslims whereas the Jews are the descendants of Isaac. (Look back at Genesis for that to be elaborated on) The rest of it is beyond me and I haven't taken the time yet to study Islam. They acknowledge Jesus (I think) as a prophet (but nothing else) and Mohammed as his last (and most important?) one.
Sorry I can't be more help. All I can suggest is when researching these 3 religions keep your faith in God and common sense about you.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 116. Re: Old theory, still no basis. | | | | by chemthree | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 5:39pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 74 | | | | | |
So unless you can convince me that Jesus really didn't exist, I'm going to keep on believing what common sense tells me and rationale and reason bear out
It would seem to me that you have placed the burden of proof on the wrong party. It is in fact up to christians to prove their "extraordinary claims"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 75. Joseph Campbell once said... | | | | by charlies | | | | at Mon 23 Dec 2:56pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
...that the Promised Land is not about a real estate deal, and the Virgin Birth is not an obstetrical issue. To the extent we think they are, we miss the point.
We're fighting in a war we lost before the war began.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 91. Common sense | | | | by Resonance | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 12:12am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
It's notable that in relation to myths, particularly religious ones, believers suspend simple judgements that they would never suspend otherwise. This is referred to as "faith". This is valued as a core aspect of Christianity. Because they are myths, they feel exempt from the reasoning that governs everyday interactions. Let's say for example your daughter was clearly pregnant and when you asked her who the father was, she told you that she was a virgin. It would take a great act of faith not to slap her upside the head and keep probing till she spills it.
C'mon....
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 113. Or... | | | | by wabishi | | | | at Tue 24 Dec 2:40pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
...more likely, Jesus was the son of Mary's husband (whoever that might have been). Maybe it was Joseph, maybe not. I sometimes wonder if the traditional character of Joseph as an old--and presumably impotent--man was developed to substantiate the pious legend of Jesus' supernatural nativity.
The townspeople portrayed in the New Testament certainly don't treat Jesus as if he were a miracle child. They show him little respect at all.
The rabbinic slander that Jesus was a bastard is myth answering myth. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Pity we can't just receive Jesus for what he was. Elevating him to some semi-human titan debases his real ministry, along with the potential of our own humanity.
Steal this tagline!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 124. Re: Or... | | | | by nmiguy | | | | at Thu 26 Dec 1:31pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 113 | | | | | |
Pity we can't just receive Jesus for what he was.
You have evidence of what he really was? Come on, share it...
Elevating him to some semi-human titan debases his real ministry, along with the potential of our own humanity.
Unless he really was some semi-human titan.
How does it debase his ministry? How does it debase the potential of our own humanity?
His ministry was monotheistic, with teachings to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. His ministry often potrayed roles of sheppard and flock, about loving and caring for the flock makes one closer to God. His ministry and teachings seem to have been greatly publicized and taught around the world, and I think that the part of him being elevated as some God character has helped disseminate his ministry, not debased it. As for the potential for our own humanity, the divination of Christ does not debase our potential, but quite the opposite. Christ by trade was a carpenter. A blue collar worker of wood. He came from a small family, not a wealthy family. His story of being the son of God shows that anyone could be called upon by God to do His works, rich or poor. Mankind has the Potential to be closer to God, less sinful, and to have eternal bliss. I don't see how his divine nature in any way debases the potential for humankind or his ministry.
Rather than just making a soundbite claim, I'd prefer if you explain your point. I may learn something important.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
|
| | Member Login | | | |
|
