Religions have succeeded

[jeremyp]

That Mary's consent is from one point of view the most important historical decision any believer has had to make

How many women did God appear to in a dream and ask to have sex with before Mary said yes?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Mary is used by a male patriarchal god as a breeding mare in the Bible. Pregnancy was quite dangerous in those days, not to mention there would have been severe social repercussions for a woman pregnant out of wedlock. This is not a contradiction of the men ruling over women passage in Genesis, it is an affirmation.

Bollocks and wankfantasy

[jeremyp]

Bollocks and wankfantasy

So you can't refute the point.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How many women did God appear to in a dream and ask to have sex with before Mary said yes?

More bollocks and wankfantasy...hoping for likes Jeremy?

[jeremyp]

More bollocks and wankfantasy...hoping for likes Jeremy?

Hoping you might have a coherent response. But sadly, it appears not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you can't refute the point.

Of course, how can conceiving by the holy spirit be described as sex? It's like talking about ''raunchy cloning''. Absolutely potty notion. Breed mare, a mysoginistic sleight on Mary perhaps.

[Aruntraveller]

but most people are happy to let the tories win or vote for them to win

Bluntly, bollocks.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bluntly, bollocks.

I sincerely hope you're right at the next election.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I've already covered that there is a metaphorical idea of life that doesn't mean that that is commonly regarded as 'existence that has real effects on real people without the need of human intervention beyond its original authorship'
 And you've now added 'real time' and assumed it as an entity.

That’s wrong I think. Take the example of Beethoven’s fifth again. Clearly a person authored it, but centuries later people are still affected by it. Or, to put it another way, it has an “existence that has real effects on real people without the need of human intervention beyond its original authorship”. Call that a meme, call it a life of its own, call it what you like – it’s still unarguably the case though.     

[Udayana]

Violence is a part of some peoples lives. They just need an excuse.  There is violence within some families...doesn't mean that families by their very nature encourage violence or are responsible for it. Families are a unifying and essential unit...violence is just an aberration.  Similarly with religions.

Violence an aberration? It is part of our animal nature and origins... a major component of the universe itself. Religion seems to arise out of a need to justify or accommodate us to its necessity. 

Religions have been responsible for a feeling of oneness among diverse groups across geography and other differences. The feeling of kinship among people within a religion is far more pervasive and far more powerful than any differences or violence among them.

Also, many of the modern humanistic values that civilized people (including atheists) promote has been taught and enforced by religions. These values are today an essential part of civilized societies because of the social control brought about by religions.  The transition from tribal values to universal values of humanism, love, honesty, non-violence, charity, service above self and so on....have been possible largely because of religions.

Today many of these values could exist outside religions but they have been enforced and spread across the world largely by religions, over the centuries.

This is fantasy ... better to look at the development of emotional behaviour and instincts of cooperation, fairness, love ... etc - again, from our animal nature.

[jeremyp]

Of course, how can conceiving by the holy spirit be described as sex? It's like talking about ''raunchy cloning''. Absolutely potty notion.

What about having to carry God's child for nine months?

Breed mare, a mysoginistic sleight on Mary perhaps.

That is the point. That is exactly how God treated her, according to Matthew and Luke, at any rate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What about having to carry God's child for nine months?

That is the point. That is exactly how God treated her, according to Matthew and Luke, at any rate.

I don’t get a male misogynistic God from the NewTestament, rather a radical move of women into positions of great import in God’s plan.

9 months describes a duration of a pregnancy not a sex act. Are you one of these folks who think Jesus should have come on earth as a grown up?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Violence an aberration? It is part of our animal nature and origins... a major component of the universe itself. Religion seems to arise out of a need to justify or accommodate us to its necessity. 

This is fantasy ... better to look at the development of emotional behaviour and instincts of cooperation, fairness, love ... etc - again, from our animal nature.

You seem to be saying we are violent but loving with it, but isn’t there a conflict here?

[jeremyp]

I don’t get a male misogynistic God from the NewTestament, rather a radical move of women into positions of great import in God’s plan.

The point was about the message in the Nativity story.

9 months describes a duration of a pregnancy not a sex act. Are you one of these folks who think Jesus should have come on earth as a grown up?

The phrase I used was "knocked up" which means "made pregnant". The method by which this happened is not the point. In fact, you seem to be denying that Mary had sex with God, which means he must have used artificial insemination instead. Sounds even more like treating her as a breeding mare.

[Udayana]

You seem to be saying we are violent but loving with it, but isn’t there a conflict here?

We have both behaviours (and others). This is what tribal and ancient mythologies, the origin of most current day religions, codify and relate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The point was about the message in the Nativity story. The phrase I used was "knocked up" which means "made pregnant". The method by which this happened is not the point. In fact, you seem to be denying that Mary had sex with God, which means he must have used artificial insemination instead. Sounds even more like treating her as a breeding mare.

More and more ridiculous. You are confusing getting pregnant with being pregnant. Of course God didn't have sex with Mary, I don't think you know what a breeding mare is( bad analogy again) and how Mary signally fails to meet the requirements of being one.

You are treating God as a man. How is conceiving by the Holy Spirit sex or artificial insemination?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We have both behaviours (and others). This is what tribal and ancient mythologies, the origin of most current day religions, codify and relate.

So what happens now we are free from the constraints of religion in terms of the tension and contradictions of being violent and loving?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don’t get a male misogynistic God from the NewTestament, rather a radical move of women into positions of great import in God’s plan.

9 months describes a duration of a pregnancy not a sex act. Are you one of these folks who think Jesus should have come on earth as a grown up?

You think non-consensual impregnation of a minor is ok? Wow.

Lucky for all concerned that it’s a myth then I guess, albeit a morally unpleasant one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So what happens now we are free from the constraints of religion in terms of the tension and contradictions of being violent and loving?

Sweden?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You think non-consensual impregnation of a minor is ok? Wow.

The burden of proof is on you to justify the accusations contained in here

Lucky for all concerned that it’s a myth then I guess, albeit a morally unpleasant one.

another burden of proof required here too, waiter


Now I know where you come from in Essex........Strawmanningtree.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The burden of proof is on you to justify the accusations contained in here

You never have understood the principle of the burden of proof have you. The “God impregnated Mary” account is a story – the only burden of proof here therefore is to show that the Christian story is that God impregnated Mary, something I assume you accept to be the case? 

another burden of proof required here too, waiter

Now I know where you come from in Essex........Strawmanningtree.

Wrong again. The story has the characteristics of a myth, not of historical fact. Therefore it’s right to call it a myth until and unless that status ever changes – starting I guess with some evidence that there was a “god” to start with.   

[jeremyp]

More and more ridiculous.

Not really. I seem to have hit a nerve judging by your posts.

You are confusing getting pregnant with being pregnant. Of course God didn't have sex with Mary, I don't think you know what a breeding mare is( bad analogy again) and how Mary signally fails to meet the requirements of being one.

If Mary was pregnant, she must first have got pregnant. How are you going to explain that. Not that it matters, the point is that she was made pregnant by God and had to carry his baby with all the risks and and problems any woman would have had at that time, especially when getting pregnant out of wedlock.

You are treating God as a man.

Why should God get a free pass to treat women badly just because he is a god?

How is conceiving by the Holy Spirit sex or artificial insemination?

You are the one claiming it wasn't normal sex, not me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You never have understood the principle of the burden of proof have you. The “God impregnated Mary” account is a story – the only burden of proof here therefore is to show that the Christian story is that God impregnated Mary, something I assume you accept to be the case? 

Wrong again. The story has the characteristics of a myth, not of historical fact. Therefore it’s right to call it a myth until and unless that status ever changes – starting I guess with some evidence that there was a “god” to start with.   

You've taught me enough Hillside to know that you need to justify your recent accusation. Justify or retract.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You never have understood the principle of the burden of proof have you. The “God impregnated Mary” account is a story – the only burden of proof here therefore is to show that the Christian story is that God impregnated Mary, something I assume you accept to be the case? 

Wrong again. The story has the characteristics of a myth, not of historical fact. Therefore it’s right to call it a myth until and unless that status ever changes – starting I guess with some evidence that there was a “god” to start with.   

No, saying something is a myth is a positive assertion therefore justify.

[jeremyp]

Wrong again. The story has the characteristics of a myth, not of historical fact. Therefore it’s right to call it a myth until and unless that status ever changes – starting I guess with some evidence that there was a “god” to start with.   

Stories - plural. There are two birth narratives. They both have God getting Mary up the duff but in most other respects they cannot be reconciled. They are clearly mythical.

Anyway, that's not relevant. This all stems from PD's nativity play in which a composite of the two stories was presented to/by young children. The church is still teaching that women must be subservient to men.