Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 5,201-5,250 of 12,463

[Shanna]

Zues is greek, if it's a planet then it's roman (in the major pantheon)

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I don't believe all of the gospels cite Mary as a virgin and Jesus as the Divine son of God through a virgin birth. I'm quite sure Mark does not."

Yes I believe that Mark and John both skip to the baptism. Matthew and Luke both make the virgin birth connection but Acts 2:30, 13:23, Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8, Hebrews 2:16 and Revelation 22:16 all claim Christ's lineage from the house of David.

Shannon wrote: "Do you get the idea that I watch a lot of shows on the History Channel?"

Well that's good ... and bad. I think the History Channel has a bit of a reputation for producing some right *******.

Shannon wrote: "Now, interestingly and sadly, I there is an actual possible rape connection."

The story of the Roman soldier is interesting and the entire concept of Mary being betrothed but pregnant by someone (whether Joseph and her played around before marriage, or she was raped, or she had a previous lover) does make sense that potentially a brazen excuse could give birth (excuse the pun) to a legend.

Yet I think that this was likely tacked on by the authors of those Gospels to fulfil the same mythological niche as Horus and other figures which was potentially astrological in origin.

However, the story sadly does involve rape, however you look at it. Let us for one moment assume that the standard Christian nativity is accurate and precise in all details. God impregnated a betrothed woman without her consent or knowledge. That is rape... and more than a little creepy. God impregnated her without her knowledge or consent (contrast with women who have been raped while drugged unconscious), she is also one of God's supposedly "beloved" children. Now leaving aside the whole creepy incest part, this still leaves us with a being that has blatantly abused his power and violated the implicit trust of a person of authority. Contrast with a Lord or Master that rapes his slaves, or a Guardian or babysitter that rapes his charges, or a Teacher that rapes their student.

Then he sends someone to tell her how lucky and blessed she is!

Shannon wrote: "I know a bunch of you say there wasn't written documentation to prove Jesus' existence ... at least by good sources at the time of his life. So, what's their proof and is it valid? Again, I don't know."

No idea either. Their is only two non-Christian accounts that I know of and they are Tacitus and Josephus who were both reporting on the new Christian cult rather than reporting directly about Jesus.

Several scholars have used textual analysis to try to analyse the likely source of the Gospels and have contemporary accounts that may or may not be related. I remember reading one account that posited that many of the acts of Jesus were originally attributed to John the Baptist who was a cult leader at the time and an anti-Roman, anti-Pharisee revolutionary who may or may not be linked to Barabas. The three figures (one being the Horus/Mithras sun god figure) were conglomerated in the early Church and when the faith spread outside of Jews the Barabas connection was repudiated by having that person allegorically rejected at the martyrdom of Jesus.

It is perhaps prudent to remember that 1 Kings 3:12 claims that God has made sure no one will exist who is wiser and more compassionate than Solomon, while Matthew 11:11 makes a great claim for the primacy of John the Baptist.

Shannon wrote: "Also, I believe some said it was a way to disprove the idea that Jesus was divine and put down the new "Christian" movement."

Actually that idea is an apologist fiction. The truth is that the divinity of Jesus was only firmly established after the founding of the Roman Church. The early Church contained a few sects that believed Jesus was mortal but the Messiah and Teacher, others that believed he was mortal until the Holy Spirit entered him when he was baptised, others that considered that he was divinely born (son of god) similar to other legendary demi-gods and heroes, some which believed that Jesus was created by God before he was born and finally those that believed Jesus and God were one.

Perhaps to fit into Roman traditions (including the scapegoat, the Trinary godhead and the established rule of the Father and Son from Augustus) the Council of Nicaea in 325AD finally confirmed the divinity of Jesus and declared all other views heterodox or heretical.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Personally, I don't have a problem in finding truths in various religious books, Christian or otherwise, gnostic books, or regular novels ... To Kill a Mockingbird, for example."

True, it is like I said (much much earlier on the thread) I can find inspiration in the pages of the "Lord of the Rings", see the courage of characters like Aragorn, respect the self-effacing tenacity of Sam or even apply the metaphor of the rape of the natural world by Mordor and Isengard for power and profit to the problems we face today. To the point were various things can be said to be spookily appropriate. (Numenor drowning as the seas rise because of their seduction by Sauron and promises of wealth and power!)

Plus we know for certain that the Bible was collated and edited by councils, we even know when and know many of the books that were left out. Though many preachers would like us to believe that it is inerrant and miraculously preserved from early times - it is just not true.

Shannon wrote: "The question here would be authentication and whether or not Mary Magdalene was actually a leader and religious teacher within the movement."

She is just as likely as any of the other figures, and her gospel is understandably and deliberately left out. After all in the New Testament 1 Corinthians 11:3, 14:34-36, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Titus 2:4-5 and 1 Peter 3:1 are all pretty clear about a woman's role in life and in the Church - so how could they then accept a gospel written by a woman?

Timothy goes as far to even overtly state the only purpose for women in Christian eyes, saying that Adam was not deceived but Eve was, and the only salvation for women was childbearing.

Shannon wrote: "Anyway, my mother's spin on the thing was that the women at the crucifixion were much more rebellious and brave than the men who ran ... but ... that's just the "gospel" according to my mom. "

Since the gospels cannot decide between them, who saw Jesus or what their reactions were, I think that is a rather wistful interpretation of text. Mary Magdalene was said to have been full of fear and joy in one text, but full of grief in another, though it could be said that she was grief stricken until she realised he was risen and then she was filled with fear and joy.

Her only reaction seemed to be to run and tell the men.

Still the only reaction I respect is Thomas.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "However, the story sadly does involve rape, however you look at it. Let us for one moment assume that the standard Christian nativity is accurate and precise in all details. God impregnated a betrothed woman without her consent or knowledge. That is rape... and more than a little creepy. God impregnated her without her knowledge or consent (contrast with women who have been raped while drugged unconscious), she is also one of God's supposedly "beloved" children. Now leaving aside the whole creepy incest part, this still leaves us with a being that has blatantly abused his power and violated the implicit trust of a person of authority. Contrast with a Lord or Master that rapes his slaves, or a Guardian or babysitter that rapes his charges, or a Teacher that rapes their student. "

Okay. If you'd like to take a moment to assume that what is written regarding the impregnation of Mary is accurate, we can. That would mean we'd take the scripture as accurate.

I read the above and thought, "Whoa! Why didn't I know God raped Mary?!" So, I got out my Bible again. Then, I thought, "Oh, I didn't know God raped Mary, because God didn't. The story in the Bible is markedly different from Gary's"

Gary ...

Luke gives the "detailed" virgin birth story. The angel appears to Mary and states, "You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High." Mary asks how. The angel says, "The Holy Sprit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

By the way, I'm using the NIV version. Anyway, please notice this is written in the future tense ... will, will, will ... it hasn't happened yet.

At that point, Mary says, "May it be to me as you have said."

Again, Mary speaks as if it hasn't happened yet and ... gives consent.

How did you get the rape you described from the scripture, Gary?

Now, Matthew doesn't go into as much detail. Matthew only states, "she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit" and "an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David, do to be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.'"

Matthew lacks details, huh? So, then, I looked to see which was thought to be written first. Luke. In my mind, therefore, "Matthew" likely based his ideas on "Luke" ....

So, the angel reportedly said ... this will be done ... future tense ... and Mary allegedly said ... let it be done ... giving consent.

A bit confused, Gary, a bit confused ....

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Sort of like with Greek myth ... though I'm never sure whether or not I'm using the Greek or Roman names. The whole Zeus thing, having sex with women ... I think unwillingly sometimes ... so, in those instances it was rape, while in animal form. Nasty."

The big difference between polytheistic traditions and monotheistic is that Zeus's behaviour was not seen as "good". The gods were seen as fallable, almost human, they were to be feared and respected - but people didn't suffer under the illusion that the Gods were always right.

If you look at the bible you see God acting remarkably like other flawed Gods, and indeed a particularly insecure and jealous one at that. However, when you then define that as your only god and that god is both right and good, then you define all of those actions as right and good. This is the recipe for injustice and conflict that then dominated the next millennia.

Shannon wrote: "Her daughter was taken and she wouldn't give up looking for her. I remember getting into that story when I was little ... appreciating the loyalty and determination. "

You are talking about Demeter's search for Persephone who had been abducted by Hades. Demeter was the Earth goddess of harvest and crops and her absence searching for her daughter caused a huge famine. Finally she took her back from Hades but not before Hades had fed her a pomegranate that bound her to the Underworld. Zeus finally interceded and arranged that Persephone would spend a third of the year with her husband in the underworld, which is why for a third of the year Demeter mourns and therefore the ground is infertile during winter.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Anyway, my mother's spin on the thing was that the women at the crucifixion were much more rebellious and brave than the men who ran ... but ... that's just the "gospel" according to my mom. "

Since the gospels cannot decide between them, who saw Jesus or what their reactions were, I think that is a rather wistful interpretation of text. Mary Magdalene was said to have been full of fear and joy in one text, but full of grief in another, though it could be said that she was grief stricken until she realised he was risen and then she was filled with fear and joy."

Ummm.... My mother was talking about the crucifixion. The events leading to the crucifixion and the crucifixion. The men ran. The men hid. The men weren't present. Peter denied Jesus. Whereas, the women were there, witnesses to the crucifixion. They clearly acknowledged their relationship to Jesus and claimed him, literally. She considered that to be brave. I don't recall my mother discussing the alleged reactions to the "appearance" of Jesus after his death.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "A bit confused, Gary, a bit confused .... "

Well I must admit that perhaps yes you can say that one account does indicate that she was warned beforehand, but there is no indication that consent was sought and the other account shows that Joseph had to be told after the fact, meaning that he was at least not consulted before the fact or didn't believe her until an angel showed up.

Either way I would have to say that impregnating a woman who is under your ultimate power is tantamount to rape whether she submits or protests. For example a recent case of marital rape was re-opened after originally being dismissed because the husband claimed that it was a religious matter and his religion said that his wife must submit to sex whenever the husband saw fit, and the consent to marry him was then implied to be implicit consent throughout the marriage.

So at worst it was rape, at best it was adultery and taking advantage of ones exalted position.

Though in the interests of Feminism perhaps it is a progressive tale since her betrothed's permission was never sought?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Well I must admit that perhaps yes you can say that one account does indicate that she was warned beforehand, but there is no indication that consent was sought and the other account shows that Joseph had to be told after the fact, meaning that he was at least not consulted before the fact or didn't believe her until an angel showed up.

Either way I would have to say that impregnating a woman who is under your ultimate power is tantamount to rape whether she submits or protests. "

That's a stretch, Gary. First, there's no perhaps. You said we were to take the nativity story, etc, as authentic. When you read the account in Luke, it does not, in any way, read as you set forth. She's told. She gives consent.

And, by the way, who cares whether or not Joseph is told beforehand? Who cares whether or not he gives his permission? He didn't figure into your narrative, first of all. Secondly, it's not his body. So, really? To promote seeking his permission prior would buy into the idea that Mary, as his betrothed, was his property, an object belonging to him. I know that's not the side you're on. Women as property. So, ....

Your narrative dealt with God's rape of Mary ... she didn't know what he was going to do and he raped her and got her pregnant without her knowledge. That's just not how it's written.

(Had I not looked it up for myself, I might have walked away thinking your narrative was accurate. Had I not written it here, people might have taken your narrative as the truth ... thinking, man, those Christians are even more whacked than I thought ... celebrating rape, what the heck. That's problematic, in my opinion.)

Now, if you want to talk about the difference in power, ... sort a like President Clinton having an intern service him in the Oval Office, Travis, avert your eyes, we can talk about that. But, that's a different issue ... a different story than the one you first put forth.

Personally, I think it's a problem when one's boss, who has power over you, asks you for sex. For me, it goes beyond the fact that it's illegal in my country. It goes to, as you mentioned, the difference in power and the fact that the employee might feel s/he can't say no. It ticked me off when Clinton was caught up in that; I thought he was smarter than that and I thought he stood for women and women's rights, which, I believe he truly did ... however, his actions with regard to ML could have been seen by misogynists as a wink and a nod to treating women like sexual objects and only sexual objects. It ticked me off when a former administrator was allegedly coming on to teachers ... totally enraged me, as the union president at the time, when the women wouldn't allow me to act ... though I understood .... They were within their first two years and could be fired without cause. So, while they said no and while they came to me in order to have a witness and in order for me to document it, they were too afraid to let me take steps to whack the jerk. Enraged by the situation. Ended up having a meeting with everyone and saying no one was to meet alone with administration. It was a dictate on my part. I hated that, giving a dictate, and I hated not being able to tell them why. Lawyers at the head shed of the NEA said I was absolutely not to tell them why; if I did so, I'd be open to liability. I had to fight the urge not to beat the blank senseless. (I believe I mentioned blood-thirstiness as one of my faults.)

So, as you see, I'm not okay with power differentials and "forcing" sex on individuals in any way. But, like I said, that narrative would be very, very different, if not totally different, than the one you put forth. And, your initial narrative did discuss consent and the fact that Mary hadn't given it. To discuss whether or not a subject of God could truly give consent, now, is changing the initial story you gave.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "The big difference between polytheistic traditions and monotheistic is that Zeus's behaviour was not seen as "good". The gods were seen as fallable, almost human, they were to be feared and respected - but people didn't suffer under the illusion that the Gods were always right.

If you look at the bible you see God acting remarkably like other flawed Gods, and indeed a particularly insecure and jealous one at that. However, when you then define that as your only god and that god is both right and good, then you define all of those actions as right and good. This is the recipe for injustice and conflict that then dominated the next millennia."

Yup. You've got a point. My point, though, was not that God is good and that Zeus is bad. My point was only that ... when I read stories from the Bible, I see some that are truly horrid and nasty and some that inspire me. Just like Greek myth. When I was a little girl, Zeus turning into animals and forcing himself on women freaked me out. But, when it came to the story of Demeter and Persephone, thank you for the names, I really got into the loyalty and determination Demeter showed. That's all.

Except for the fact that, as a 4th grader, I remember telling the class and the teacher that I, if I were Demeter or Persephone, would have killed Hades. The teacher or one of the kids reminded me that Hades was a god and immortal. I remember sitting there, stewing, thinking ... I'd damn have found a way. It could be said, I think, that I'm one of the most violent non-violent people around. Sigh ....

[Dina]

God's rape of Mary? I suppose that's better than claiming it never happened. He impregnated her and the Bible never states how.

[Hazel]

How is someone, anyone, being raped better than it being a made up story? You've got your morals skewed a bit there. Its far better that it never happened, than someone was raped.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "She's told. She gives consent."

To be honest it was a while since I read the account and I was thinking of the account where Mary is discovered to be pregnant. I had missed the 'consent' part of Luke but to be honest my reading of the same text did not give me the same message of consent, but of submission. However, she was still told - by a third party - that God will do this. At no point do you get the impression this was a negotiation.

Shannon wrote: "And, by the way, who cares whether or not Joseph is told beforehand?"

Permission? May be not. However, one would expect that in such an arrangement with a couple due to be married he would be at least consulted? I think you realise that my comments about his permission being sought was just observing irony compared to the usual male dominated slant of the bible and the clear injunction against adultery.

Shannon wrote: "Your narrative dealt with God's rape of Mary ... she didn't know what he was going to do and he raped her and got her pregnant without her knowledge. That's just not how it's written."

Fair enough, he sent an angel to tell her first. I don't see this as much better.

Shannon wrote: "thinking, man, those Christians are even more whacked than I thought ... celebrating rape, what the heck. That's problematic, in my opinion."

I did make a mistake on when one account says she was informed, however I stand by my point. Plus rape was never a particular issue for god according to the old testament, as long as he gave permission. One could also point out the many times that the New Testament tells women to submit to their husbands is supportive of marital rape.

Shannon wrote: "But, that's a different issue ... a different story than the one you first put forth."

This sounds like the difference that Republicans were recently trying to make in trying to separate rape from "violent rape", and also trying to reclassify rape victims as rape accusers until the crime was proven.

I think it is dangerous to consider degrees of acceptability in rape.

Shannon wrote: "So, as you see, I'm not okay with power differentials and "forcing" sex on individuals in any way. But, like I said, that narrative would be very, very different, if not totally different, than the one you put forth."

I would only really see a difference if the narrative showed that Mary's consent was sought, not assumed. I would also expect that if Mary was as good a person as presented she would not have consented before consulting with the person that she had a prior arrangement and consensual promise with.

Shannon wrote: "And, your initial narrative did discuss consent and the fact that Mary hadn't given it. To discuss whether or not a subject of God could truly give consent, now, is changing the initial story you gave."

As I said I admit that I hadn't noticed the submission or the exact timing of Luke, but I am not convinced it changes the story much.

[Gary]

Dina wrote: "God's rape of Mary? I suppose that's better than claiming it never happened. He impregnated her and the Bible never states how."

Well when it comes down to it rape is rape, whether it is done with a penis or by magic.

[Hazel]

I think to sum up Gary's point, at no point was it said "Mary, god wants to impregnant you, are you ok with this idea?", and her being given the choice to say no, or even being portrayed as thinking she was allowed to say no. It was simply "Mary, gods going to impregnate you" and mary bows her head and submits.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "But, that's a different issue ... a different story than the one you first put forth."

This sounds like the difference that Republicans were recently trying to make in trying to separate rape from "violent rape", and also trying to reclassify rape victims as rape accusers until the crime was proven.

I think it is dangerous to consider degrees of acceptability in rape. "

Actually, the analogy isn't fair or accurate. There is often a difference between sexual harassment and rape.

Let's take a look ... at what I said ... in context ...

"Now, if you want to talk about the difference in power, ... sort a like President Clinton having an intern service him in the Oval Office, Travis, avert your eyes, we can talk about that. But, that's a different issue ... a different story than the one you first put forth."

Right? I'm not talking about considering degrees of the acceptability of rape. Am I? No, I am not. Not even close. I'm saying, if you want to talk about power and sexual harassment, like what happened between President Clinton and the White House intern, we can do that, but it's a different story than the one you mentioned.

The one you mentioned was one of rape. Let's take a look. You said,

Gary wrote: "However, the story sadly does involve rape, however you look at it. Let us for one moment assume that the standard Christian nativity is accurate and precise in all details. God impregnated a betrothed woman without her consent or knowledge. That is rape... and more than a little creepy. God impregnated her without her knowledge or consent (contrast with women who have been raped while drugged unconscious), she is also one of God's supposedly "beloved" children. Now leaving aside the whole creepy incest part, this still leaves us with a being that has blatantly abused his power and violated the implicit trust of a person of authority. Contrast with a Lord or Master that rapes his slaves, or a Guardian or babysitter that rapes his charges, or a Teacher that rapes their student. "

Very different. One deals with sexual harassment, which is illegal in my country and which I take a stand against, but which is different. Regarding the specific example I gave, by all accounts, ML was a willing participant. She gave consent. But, when dealing with power differentials, employer and employee, consent becomes a little tricky and comes into question. Your example deals with rape, pure and simple, also illegal in my country and also something I take a stand against. "God impregnated her without her knowledge or consent (contrast with women who have been raped while drugged unconscious)" That's a very different thing. At the very least, Gary, it would be considered different in a court of law, as you're aware.

Did God ask for her consent? No. Did the angel ask for her consent? No. But, then, I didn't claim God or the angel did. I wrote what was in the text. The angel said God will do this and Mary said ... let it be done. When one reads the words, one must admit Mary knew and Mary gave her consent.

Now, as I said, yes, Gary, and now, yes, Hazel, we can talk about whether or not a subject can give consent. Was it consent or was it submission? Yup. We can talk about that. But, that wasn't your original point, Gary, or your memory of the situation, as you've admitted.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Actually, the analogy isn't fair or accurate. There is often a difference between sexual harassment and rape."

Sexual harassment involves someone using overt pressure to secure consent. In the gospel consent is not sought, it is assumed, and submission is given to the angel. There is no indication that god was allowing Mary a choice. So perhaps we can quibble about whether consent can be given, but if god intended to impregnate her anyway that is the moral equivalent of rape.

Of course we can turn around and make claims such as god is omniscient and knew she would consent, or god was all powerful and made her consent. All of which touches on the whole "Free Will" thing that most Christians say we have and the bible says we don't.

Seems poor planning on his behalf too. Why use a betrothed woman at all? Why use a virgin? In fact why not simply will his flesh into existence without all the messiness and fluids?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Sexual harassment involves someone using overt pressure to secure consent. In the gospel consent is not sought, it is assumed, and submission is given to the angel. There is no indication that god was allowing Mary a choice. So perhaps we can quibble about whether consent can be given, but if god intended to impregnate her anyway that is the moral equivalent of rape.

Of course we can turn around and make claims such as god is omniscient and knew she would consent, or god was all powerful and made her consent. All of which touches on the whole "Free Will" thing that most Christians say we have and the bible says we don't.

Seems poor planning on his behalf too. Why use a betrothed woman at all? Why use a virgin? In fact why not simply will his flesh into existence without all the messiness and fluids? "

I actually have no desire to make any of those arguments or defend the ideas behind the virgin birth concept and don't tend to take the gospels as fact. Indeed, I'm more than comfortable believing Jesus was a regular human being who, if he lived and taught as is said, had some pretty progressive ideas, which I sorta dig. I know ... sort of ... but I'm in a sorta mood today.

But, at this point, it's less about discussion for the sake of growth and understanding and more about argument for the sake of argument, in my opinion. I don't dig that as much.

On another note, sorta, I just got back from The Avengers, Travis. Plans didn't work out last week. Now, keep in mind, I've not seen all of the corresponding movies, if there have been movies ... think there have been. Was a little creeped out, given today's discussion, when Stark referred to the woman, who I thought was his significant other, as Miss ----. Please tell me he's not really her boss.

Now, while it wasn't the best movie I've ever seen, I did like it, though it could have been greatly improved had Sean Bean been cast. I'm almost cross; however, that no one warned me about the scene in the hut/house between the doctor and "Tasha" ... when he screams at her. The people in the theater were a bit distraught when I screamed and literally jumped out of my seat. And, later, I was distraught when I started bawling over Phil's death. I didn't expect to go to The Avengers and start bawling. The Help. Yes. The Avengers. No. Sigh. It's a good thing I'm such a crybaby when people get hurt; I think it curbs my bloodthirsty tendencies, fortunately.

My favorite part was in Germany when golden-horn boy told everyone to kneel ... and the older man did but then stood. "There have always been men like you ...." Yup. That was my favorite part and line ... even liked it better than drooling over Thor.

[Travis]

Avengers is a brilliant film. So much good stuff. Just the right mix of character moments and huge, freaking action.

Though, you had to remind me about Coulson dying...sniff...gonna need a moment here...Luckily, if I think about shawarma, I feel better.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Avengers is a brilliant film. So much good stuff. Just the right mix of character moments and huge, freaking action.

Though, you had to remind me about Coulson dying...sniff...gonna need a moment ..."

Don't think replacing the image of the bloody Captain America cards with a huge hunk of meat about to be turned into a sandwich is going to make me less weepy, Travis, though I'm glad it works for you.

Hmmm....

What will make me feel better?

Oh, that's right. I know .... Oh, S-e-a-n!

[Shanna]

Dina wrote: "God's rape of Mary? I suppose that's better than claiming it never happened. He impregnated her and the Bible never states how."

How is it better? It only add that god himself rapes in to the mix, a stronger divine mandate to rape...

God creates a faulty world
God gets angry with his faulty world
God decides that all he previous attempts (ie: the flood, encouragement of his chosen people to annihilate all those who don't believe, Sodom And Gomorrrah ect ect)to improve it have failed (pretty poor for an onmipotent omniscient god).
God decides to rape a woman to conceive himself, to sacrifice himself to himself to appease his anger at his own faulty creation, which need not have been faulty because he is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent... yep thats improving things...

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Indeed, I'm more than comfortable believing Jesus was a regular human being who, if he lived and taught as is said, had some pretty progressive ideas, which I sorta dig. "

Now that I can agree with. The concept of Jesus (Yeshua, John or whoever he was) as a man who was a radical reformer against the social injustice and theocratic dominion of the time is one I can get behind.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/85...

In fact it cheapens the story when you think that this man who apparently lived and died according to his principles didn't really die but instead suffered an agonising but transient death (but not nearly as horrific as the torment some people have endured before and since, some of that in the name of Jesus) then had three days of inconvenience before being reinstated in a senior managerial role.

[Dariennefye]

as God creates us people with brain and freedom, so there we can see that He creates us along with science..so i dont think theres a conflict between religion and science..

[Gary]

Dariennefye wrote: "as God creates us people with brain and freedom, so there we can see that He creates us along with science..so i dont think theres a conflict between religion and science.."

Well you have just conflicted with science by assuming a hypothesis (God creates people) without any evidence or rationale.

And you have just conflicted with the Christian religion at least. According to the Bible god chooses your destiny (Acts 13:48, Romans 8:29-30, 2 Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 1:4-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, Romans 9:11-22)

Of course if god is omniscient and also your creator, then he always knew whether you would be good or bad and indeed deliberately created you to be good or bad. Hence you don't get a say in it.

[[deleted user]]

The book I'm reading ... The Case for God .... Well, the author of the book, I should say, makes the argument that our ancestors, even our Christian ancestors, didn't take the stories in the Bible as the Divine word of God ... that they saw them more as, well, allegories, I guess ... to be thought about and used in order to learn lessons and become better people. She claims they would be quite shocked at the idea that, now, "we" take our holy books as 100% truth, literal truth.

I've never heard this argument before. I don't know if it's true or not. And, of course, I'm not very far into the book.

[Hp]

Shannon wrote: "She claims they would be quite shocked at the idea that, now, "we" take our holy books as 100% truth, literal truth."

So either the holy books for your particular religion are all allegory and there is no such thing as god; some is allegory but we don't know which so your holy books are totally pointless; or your holy books are truly inspired by your god and we shouldn't believe them because of all the contradictions, downright lies and terrible moral examples that your god has provided us with.

Umm, How do we know which one to choose?

Or the original Christians did believe the bible to be the inerrant word of god and modern apologists say they didn't because they realise what a crock it is!

[[deleted user]]

Hp wrote: "So either the holy books for your particular religion are all allegory and there is no such thing as god; some is allegory but we don't know which so your holy books are totally pointless; or your holy books are truly inspired by your god and we shouldn't believe them because of all the contradictions, downright lies and terrible moral examples that your god has provided us with.

Umm, How do we know which one to choose?"

Just reading a book, Hp, and mentioning what the author is claiming. As I said, I'm not very far into it. Also, as I said, I've never heard that claim and don't know if it's true. By true, I mean historically accurate.

Now, if you're interested in the point she was making, I can try to give more information ... regarding your statement about allegory and there being no such thing as God.

She was saying, whether true or not, that people believed one couldn't know God ... couldn't grasp God and couldn't understand God ... God existed but was beyond human understanding. So, the stories were there to try to teach lessons and inspire certain behavior and rituals were developed in order to find transcendence and attempt to come closer to this God that humans can't truly wrap their brains around.

Now, in the introduction, she said, I believe, that Christians also had these thoughts ... it wasn't until modern times that Christians adopted the belief that the Bible was the Divine word of God. I'd never heard that claim and questioned it, which is clear from my post. The author's comment was fairly fleeting.

This morning, I've been reading the first chapter. When she talks along these lines, she's largely talking about Hinduism. Then, she goes into different religious beliefs pre-Judiasm and pre-Christianity. She goes into that in detail. Interspersed, once in awhile, is a sentence like ... even the early Christians didn't believe the creation story was to be taken literally.

I don't know. When she talks about Hinduism and the idea of Brahmin and the thought that it's this energy source that can not be understood, I get it. The way she writes that portion makes me think she's talking about something that is historically accurate. Further, things start pinging in my head. I start to recall things I've learned and read about ancient religions, India forever ago, Hinduism, etc....

But, when she throws out the idea in a quick sentence that Christians felt the same way, well .... Nothing is pinging. I'm not recalling anything that I've learned or read that would indicate that Christians of pre-modern times considered such stories as allegory or thought of God as an unknown energy source.

But, like I said, I'm not very far into the book ... haven't gotten to the Judaism and Christianity chapters.

Just find it interesting, Hp, that's all ....

[Hp]

Shannon wrote: "Just reading a book, Hp"

Sorry, I just jumped at the idea that early Christians didn't think their holy books to be inspired by their god. That is just nonsense - the whole New Testament (and Old) is rife with fulfilment of god's holy word. Jesus's very existence was due to the "borrowed" Babylonian myth in Genesis which was believed by early Christians to be god's inspired word!

I must admit the book looks dreadful...

[Maria]

I don't think of it as rape as much as artificial insemination.

As far as consent/submission - if Mary had vehemently told the angel, "NO, THIS IS HORRENDOUS AND I DON'T WANT TO DO IT..." I think god would have let her off the hook and found another worthy virgin to bear his son.

Just my .02

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "I don't think of it as rape as much as artificial insemination.

As far as consent/submission - if Mary had vehemently told the angel, "NO, THIS IS HORRENDOUS AND I DON'T WANT TO DO IT..." I thi..."

If who gave birth to Jesus was a choice, then why didn't god pick a single girl?
Why was his first pick a married woman?
Makes god sound as sketchy as Charlie Sheen.

[Maria]

Well, first off, she was single. She was engaged. I know in Bible times that was considered as good as being married, but still, not exactly married yet.

Also, Mary was from the tribe of Judah, the lineage of David, which Jesus was prophesied to come from. Mary knew and believed this prophecy and more than likely considered it an honor to be a part of the ancestry of the Messiah. Joseph likely believed the same way - evidenced by the fact that he could have used the "unexplained" pregnancy, obviously not his baby - to get out of the engagement contract - but chose not to do so.

[Felicia]

Every religion, at its core preaches just love for all and humility .
Science, on the other hand, helps one to understand our marvelous world. It helps us to answer questions, find cures and lead a healthy life.
Thus, I think to lead a balanced life, we need both, equally. But if I had to choose, I would choose science because I think science is a religion in itself.

[Maria]

You can have love for all and humility without religion. You just don't have to tithe for it.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "Well, first off, she was single. She was engaged. I know in Bible times that was considered as good as being married, but still, not exactly married yet.

Also, Mary was from the tribe of Judah, ..."

So, if mary was a chosen one', then she didn't have a choice and I don't feel any better that god knocked up a guys fiance, instead of his wife.

still makes the foundation of christianity feel as creepy as the romance in 'Twilight'.

[Maria]

I guess if you look at it like that, then yeah, it could be seen as creepy. But I still think that she could have thrown a fit over it and god would have let her off the hook. I'm sure he would rather have a willing participant, and surely she was not the only virgin from the tribe of Judah. Just my own belief, not to change yours.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "I guess if you look at it like that, then yeah, it could be seen as creepy. But I still think that she could have thrown a fit over it and god would have let her off the hook. I'm sure he would r..."

Well, then we get into the discussion of how easy going god would be to someone who told him no.
Never struck me as the kind of guy to just shrug something off.

And I'm still bugged by the idea of his first pick being some other guys wife/fiance.
How is that a good start to a 'family values'/ marriage is sacred religion?
You have to accept an awful lot of 'do as I say, not as I do' for that to work.

[Maria]

Gary said

"You have to accept an awful lot of 'do as I say, not as I do' for that to work."

True, that. But that is the case with lots of other stuff in the Bible, isn't it. How about "thou shalt not kill"? God kills or has people killed.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "Gary said

"You have to accept an awful lot of 'do as I say, not as I do' for that to work."

True, that. But that is the case with lots of other stuff in the Bible, isn't it. How about "thou sh..."

and apparently he was also coveting his neighbor's wife.

[Maria]

That is a little creepy. Although I doubt seriously that any sexual attraction was involved, although to think about it that way is comical. He simply wanted a womb to carry the baby. I doubt he had any feelings of attraction for her, especially seeing how he is (supposedly) a spirit creature and has no body.

[Hazel]

He simply wanted a womb to carry the baby

so, she was simply an object, which is part of what Gary was saying. God didn't care about Mary the person, just that she had a womb to carry out his will with. Now he sounds like a sociopath as well as a rapist...

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "as creepy as the romance in 'Twilight'. "

Ahahaha.... That romance is fairly creepy.

Regarding Mary and being chosen ....

(Remember, I'm not making an argument for the virgin birth or taking the gospels as gospel ....)

This is when I wish I spoke Hebrew and understood the history and nuances of Hebrew words, etc....

My copy of the Bible doesn't say Mary was chosen. The angel allegedly appeared to Mary and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you." It continues, "Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child ....'"

Now, does being "highly favored" and having "found favor with God" mean the same thing as being chosen. We could argue semantics, but I think we'd have to understand Hebrew and the mind of the person or people who originally wrote and read Luke's gospel in order to be sure. (Of course, Luke wasn't Jewish, if he existed, and the followers of Luke were ... I don't know ... I think he supposedly spread the word and ministered to Gentiles, right .... Hmmm....) So, then, I start really wondering about how many of those who started the movement that became Christianity believed God impregnated Mary to begin with .... Anyway ....

Regarding Mary's reportedly betrothed state and God allegedly impregnating a betrothed woman, .... Two things.

First, when were Jewish girls betrothed at the time? I don't know the answer to that question. Would God have been able to find a woman who wasn't betrothed ... and at an age when she could give birth?

(Yeah, we could go into the ... why would God impregnate a woman anyway ... thing ... but ... I'm tired and the virgin birth isn't my thing.)

Second, I don't believe Joseph is mentioned in the Qur'an. Am I right? Yeah, I know I'm switching religions, but ... why not. I remember when taking a course in college almost dropping on the floor, DEAD, when the professor said there are more writings in the Qur'an about Mary than in the Bible. No way! I remember saying, "NO WAY!" I don't think the professor said, "WAY!" ... but she went on a bit about how revered Mary was/is in Islam. Now, I've not read the Qur'an and don't own a copy. Maybe if any Muslims or former Muslims are following they could help us out. But, I have a memory, which may be WAY wrong, of Mary being simply Mary in the Qur'an ... not a betrothed woman. I think the story is somewhat different. She has Jesus in the desert and he's raised there, by her, for a certain amount of time. I don't think there's a Joseph. Like I said, though, I could be wrong.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "as creepy as the romance in 'Twilight'. "

Ahahaha.... That romance is fairly creepy.

Regarding Mary and being chosen ....

(Remember, I'm not making an argument for the virgin bir..."

Still feels like a lot of hoops to jump through to justify/explain this thing. While some of the looking at the history and language is interesting, it doesn't make this whole thing feel any less weird or questionable.

If god can do anything, heck we know he can make people, why all the shenanigans?

[Maria]

I've never heard about the Muslim thing, and would also like to know more, from someone well versed in the Qur'an.

I think "chosen" is not the right word necessarily - "highly favored" or "full of grace" (sound familiar?)means that she was a virgin of the correct tribe and lineage who was living a decent life and so given this opportunity.

And, correct me if I'm wrong - as if no one would, LOL - but rape is forcing someone to have sex or having sex with someone after being told no... god didn't have sex with Mary. He's a spirit for god's sake (pun intended). So sociopath, maybe, but this rape thing is just too far out there for me.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "why all the shenanigans?"

Don't know ....

But, I do LOVE the word "shenanigans" for some reason! Good word!

[Maria]

Hazel wrote: "He simply wanted a womb to carry the baby

so, she was simply an object, which is part of what Gary was saying. God didn't care about Mary the person, just that she had a womb to carry out his will..."

So, you're saying maybe he should have taken her out to dinner and romanced her first? Just kidding.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "I've never heard about the Muslim thing, and would also like to know more, from someone well versed in the Qur'an.

I think "chosen" is not the right word necessarily - "highly favored" or "full of..."

So, god is a weird spirit energy thing that planted a spark of life into mary that grew into a child...?
Now, it's not just 'Twilight' creepy, it's bad sci-fi movie creepy.

[Maria]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "why all the shenanigans?"

Don't know ....

But, I do LOVE the word "shenanigans" for some reason! Good word!"

I think maybe, if I remember correctly, that he had to be "born from a woman" for some reason. Maybe to prove that he was actually a human being, not just a materialized angel, alien or robot who just simply showed up one day. He had to have human qualities. At least that's what I remember being taught...

[Maria]

Travis wrote: "Maria wrote: "I've never heard about the Muslim thing, and would also like to know more, from someone well versed in the Qur'an.

I think "chosen" is not the right word necessarily - "highly favore..."

Creepy, maybe, but that's what Christianity teaches - the spark of life thing, that is. Maybe similar to the "spark of life" that evolutionists think made the whole universe and all that's in it come to be....

Actually just being facetious, let's don't do the whole evolution dance again, although it was rather interesting.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "Hazel wrote: "He simply wanted a womb to carry the baby

so, she was simply an object, which is part of what Gary was saying. God didn't care about Mary the person, just that she had a womb to carr..."

A few candles and some sweet nothings couldn't have hurt.
I bet god didn't call mary the next day either.

[Hazel]

Maria wrote: "Hazel wrote: "He simply wanted a womb to carry the baby

so, she was simply an object, which is part of what Gary was saying. God didn't care about Mary the person, just that she had a womb to carr..."

heh, could you imagine that date? :P

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "And, correct me if I'm wrong - as if no one would, LOL - but rape is forcing someone to have sex or having sex with someone after being told no... god didn't have sex with Mary."

I don't think you're wrong, no. Rape is about forcing someone to commit a sexual act or having a sexual act forced upon someone. But, I decided to go to Google for a definition, since people here often do. Imagine my SHOCK when the first definition said ... an English herb!

Here we go ...

rape [reyp] Show IPA noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.
noun

1.
the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

3.
statutory rape.

4.
an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.

5.
Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force.