Mary

[Rhiannon]

Anchorman, do you think it would be acceptable, even beneficial, to have another idea of the divine feminine within Christianity?

I'm not sure that Christianity needs a second idea of the 'divine feminine', as you call it.  I realise that we have, elsewhere, been debating the role of the Old Testament in Christian thinking, but we need to remember that the very early church would have had this idea of the 'divine feminine' already in their minds - remember that, for the Jews, of the 144 names of God, only 72 are masculine; the rest are feminine.

I suspect that that duality became lost once the Romans took the religion over, but interestingly, in English at least, it was sort of regained as we only have one gender-marked pronominal set - and that is the feminine set.  In a way, the modern push to make English-language Bible translations 'inclusive' is actually over-egging the femininity of the deity and 'his' followers.

We aren't going to accept that 'Father' also means 'Mother'. Given that the Jewish people did indeed have both masculine and feminine terms for God, isn't it time we redressed the bs lance? Not out of political correctness or even equality, but out of the need for accuracy?

[Hope]

It's interesting, when I've been in moments of crisis in the past four or five years I've felt a strong female presence. Not Mary, I wouldn't have said, but very definitely feminine.

I'm aware that there is no evidence that this exists outside of my own mind, but it helped me when I needed it.

I suppose it has depended on the nature of the crisis.  Sometimes I feel the presence of my father, sometimes of my mother.  Dad died in 1982; Mum in 2007.

Possibly related to the areas of life that they 'represent' - Mum, who had been a nurse, was quite prevalent during my heart incident earlier this year (though I was also aware that Dad had died from a massive heart attack all those years ago).  On the other hand, when I've had difficut situations in my teaching and youth work, it's often been Dad (who started life as a teacher, and then ran the CofE's youth work nationally for 20+ years).

[Hope]

We aren't going to accept that 'Father' also means 'Mother'. Given that the Jewish people did indeed have both masculine and feminine terms for God, isn't it time we redressed the bs lance? Not out of political correctness or even equality, but out of the need for accuracy?

Many Protestant churches I've attended don't seem to have lost this balance.  Only ever been to one RC service and never been to an Orthodox service so can't speak for them.

However, I'd agree that society has - both functionally and linguistically - but then there are those here who seem to want to jemmy the church into modern social thought patterns.

[trippymonkey]

Why did God 'NEED' her to make Jesus?

[Shaker]

but then there are those here who seem to want to jemmy the church into modern social thought patterns.

Highly unlikely. That's not the same as wanting the church to keep its irrelevant and unwanted nose out of these "modern social thought patterns."

[Hope]

Well Joseph didn't appear too happy at first that Mary was in the family way, did he?

Quite, so it is unlikely that it was he who had got her into that condition.  Notice, that as you say, he didn't appear too happy - at first.  Why do you think he changed his way of thinking?  After all, he was minded to divorce her, so was clear that the child wasn't his.  Do you think he would have been happy to 'cover up' unfaithfulness with the story that we know? 

[Hope]

Highly unlikely. That's not the same as wanting the church to keep its irrelevant and unwanted nose out of these "modern social thought patterns."

If that's the case, why do so many, both here and elsewhere, insist that the church has got to come 'into the 21st century'?

[OH MY WORLD!]

Bells and smells are nice Rhi, but such popery will no be tolerated in my church. If there is a scripture verse you know of, that promotes prayers to dead people, please share it with me and I will take another look at my position. Words can be very dangerous Rhi, no matter if they are set to beautiful music.

[Gordon]

Well Joseph didn't appear too happy at first that Mary was in the family way, did he?

Quite, so it is unlikely that it was he who had got her into that condition.  Notice, that as you say, he didn't appear too happy - at first.  Why do you think he changed his way of thinking?  After all, he was minded to divorce her, so was clear that the child wasn't his.  Do you think he would have been happy to 'cover up' unfaithfulness with the story that we know?

If the story you 'know' isn't true then it really doesn't matter what speculations you ascribe to the characters that feature in the story.   

[Hope]

If the story you 'know' isn't true then it really doesn't matter what speculations you ascribe to the characters that feature in the story.

And what evidence do you have for it not being true?

[Shaker]

Highly unlikely. That's not the same as wanting the church to keep its irrelevant and unwanted nose out of these "modern social thought patterns."

If that's the case, why do so many, both here and elsewhere, insist that the church has got to come 'into the 21st century'?

What counts as "many"? Who is saying this? Not the bulk of the majority apatheistic and ignostic British population, for sure.

Doubtless you can find a few people here and there who might naively think that if the church had lent its support to, say, equal marriage - an entirely civil, secular affair which had and has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the church - it might have been seen as marginally less backward, but in actual fact they'd be no less irrelevant.

[Nearly Sane]

If the story you 'know' isn't true then it really doesn't matter what speculations you ascribe to the characters that feature in the story.

And what evidence do you have for it not being true?

And another attempt to shift the burden of proof.

[Shaker]

... and an adroit deployment of Hope's beloved negative proof fallacy

[Gordon]

If the story you 'know' isn't true then it really doesn't matter what speculations you ascribe to the characters that feature in the story.

And what evidence do you have for it not being true?

I don't need any: I'm simply flagging it up that this story not being true is a risk that you who believe the NT claims have studiously avoided addressing in any meaningful or non-fallacious way.

The burden of proof here is yours! 

[Hope]

... and an adroit deployment of Hope's beloved negative proof fallacy

Gordon proposed an alternative understanding of the 'story as we know it'.  Everyone here says that it is important to have evidence for such proposals in order to properly judge them.  Where is the evidence for this one?  Simply regurgitating the much beloved 'there isn't a God' argument isn't acceptable unless there is evidence to support it.

[Hope]

I don't need any: I'm simply flagging it up that this story not being true is a risk that you who believe the NT claims have studiously avoided addressing in any meaningful or non-fallacious way.

The burden of proof here is yours!

As I said to Floo, is it likely that Joseph would have been happy with a 'cover up' (as I think she called it) of the nature that we have?  If you don't think he would have done, what other explanations would you suggest; if you feel he would have been, why?

[ad_orientem]

I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.

My aunt was 'churched after having my cousin. This notion of perpetual virginity has rendered women as dirty and childbirth as shameful, even within marriage. We are still battling against this attitude even now.

That's nonsense as well.

[Gordon]

... and an adroit deployment of Hope's beloved negative proof fallacy

Gordon proposed an alternative understanding of the 'story as we know it'.  Everyone here says that it is important to have evidence for such proposals in order to properly judge them.  Where is the evidence for this one?  Simply regurgitating the much beloved 'there isn't a God' argument isn't acceptable unless there is evidence to support it.

No I didn't - I simply pointed out that that the claimed details of the alleged pregnancy of Mary aren't items of knowledge. I haven't tried to 'understand' this tale  in any other way than point out that the risk that it not be factually correct.

I offer no explanations for this story - just doubt as to its historical veracity.

[Rhiannon]

I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.

My aunt was 'churched after having my cousin. This notion of perpetual virginity has rendered women as dirty and childbirth as shameful, even within marriage. We are still battling against this attitude even now.

That's nonsense as well.

Churching? Or viewing women and childbirth as unclean?

[ad_orientem]

Bells and smells are nice Rhi, but such popery will no be tolerated in my church. If there is a scripture verse you know of, that promotes prayers to dead people, please share it with me and I will take another look at my position. Words can be very dangerous Rhi, no matter if they are set to beautiful music.

Tha saints ain't dead for they live and reign with Christ. In the Apocalypse the saints are are of thecprayers of those in earth and present them to God.

[Gordon]

I don't need any: I'm simply flagging it up that this story not being true is a risk that you who believe the NT claims have studiously avoided addressing in any meaningful or non-fallacious way.

The burden of proof here is yours!

As I said to Floo, is it likely that Joseph would have been happy with a 'cover up' (as I think she called it) of the nature that we have?  If you don't think he would have done, what other explanations would you suggest; if you feel he would have been, why?

You're doing it again: assuming claims as being facts.

Your challenge here is no more relevant than is asking me to provide evidence that Sherlock Holmes really could play the violin.

[floo]

I don't need any: I'm simply flagging it up that this story not being true is a risk that you who believe the NT claims have studiously avoided addressing in any meaningful or non-fallacious way.

The burden of proof here is yours!

As I said to Floo, is it likely that Joseph would have been happy with a 'cover up' (as I think she called it) of the nature that we have?  If you don't think he would have done, what other explanations would you suggest; if you feel he would have been, why?

Matthew 1v19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. NIV

[Shaker]

I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.

My aunt was 'churched after having my cousin. This notion of perpetual virginity has rendered women as dirty and childbirth as shameful, even within marriage. We are still battling against this attitude even now.

That's nonsense as well.

Churching? Or viewing women and childbirth as unclean?

Place your bets ...

[ad_orientem]

I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.

My aunt was 'churched after having my cousin. This notion of perpetual virginity has rendered women as dirty and childbirth as shameful, even within marriage. We are still battling against this attitude even now.

That's nonsense as well.

Churching? Or viewing women and childbirth as unclean?

The latter.

[Hope]

Matthew 1v19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. NIV

Yeah, and ... ?  We're beyond that stage, Floo.  In the post you quoted, and previous ones, I asked why he chose not to.

Note, by the way, the use of the term 'divorce' in the passage you have quoted, something that I pointed out back in posts #27 and 56.