Super Moderator florduh Posted April 27, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted April 27, 2009 You know i have been going all over the net looking at all kind of forums (christain,ex-christain,non-christain,atheist,agnostic) and i have to say that everyone says that christains are are the evil ones because of the God that they believe in is evil. I do under stand the mind set many here have against christiainity and christains, just look at the nonscence End3 wrote. but you guys look like all the hate is coming from you, I really don't under stand all the bashing, (and a few of you guys), i was really supprised to see you jump in on it, but i think that the, "mob rule thing", even holds on the net. Christians like to come to this NON-CHRISTIAN site and tell us where we went wrong. Every Bible follower has his own interpretation of the book, and to call End3's take on it "nonscence" is absurd coming from you. You are convinced you have the correct understanding of "what the Bible really says" and "what "Jesus really meant" as does every other Christian (or Bible believer, Jesus follower, or whatever they want to label themselves). The greatest "nonscence" of the Bible is literal interpretation. A lesser "nonscence" is attempting to see it as allegory and symbolism in the tradition of all the earlier mythologies it was derived from. Just another "mob"opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 You DO know that we're all *EX* Christians, right? That we've heard all those analogies and symbolic links before, right? Yes...but I find it hard to believe you have viewed all interpretations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Errrmm...you understand that a hymen can be torn without having sex? How do you KNOW hers was intact at the time of Jesus birth? It could have broke before god raped her. I would assume Vix that Mary was chosen because she was unwed and had not had sex. I am also assuming she was intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 So we're going the ol' sin gene route, eh? I know you didn't say sin gene specifically, but that's where you're going with your explanation for why Jesus HAD to be born of a virgin, I'm sure. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Jesus HAD to be born of a virgin, and nowhere does Jewish legend say that he must be. Furthermore, I don't recall any reason for the virgin birth to be due to the male's fallen nature, requiring that a woman must not be defiled in such a way, for Jesus to be born. Also... If Jesus was god, and all good anyway, why would it matter if man was the defiled one or not? Couldn't he have been conceived naturally and still been Jesus? wouldn't it be impossible for man to pass on a trait to females if it can only be passed by males? If not, why don't females carry the "sin nature"? Eve ate the fruit first after all. And if Mary was conceived naturally, how could she have given birth to a sin-free Jesus, if Jesus couldn't otherwise defeat the sin nature? Some people assert that Mary was also immaculately conceived, though that only pushes the problem back a little from where I stand. Also, If Jesus was meant to experience life as a human, and experience temptation, wouldn't being incapable of sinning defeat the purpose? If sin is some sort of heritable trait, why would god have left Adam and Eve to reproduce? Wouldn't it have been wiser and more humane to kill them after they sinned? Or at the very least avoid the rigmarole of this convoluted Salvation Plan, and just fix the problem internally in every person? He's not actually fixing the problem, anymore than pouring Robitussin on a broken leg will help it heal. On the other hand, since the fruit itself didn't bring sin into the world, but the act of disobeying God, that would mean that sin was actually present from the beginning, meaning that God intentionally created us to be capable of sin. So it would seem that fixing sin isn't the point at all. Incidentally, this leads to the conclusion that God, though all-powerful, is by no means all-good. He created a world where we would eventually harm each other, and try to kill one another, for whatever purpose. He also created vast amounts of plagues and natural disasters to do us in, and in time, people who would find ways to blame all these things on powerless humanity. I don't know that she was chosen because she was somehow sinless by the sin gene Dham....I think it said she found favor with God. I could speculate if you would like......(wasn't Noah favored, but why)? 1) She was unwed and a virgin. 2) She was still young enough to not have been influenced by Satan....(the age of accountability thing) 3) She seemed to have faith in God. In other words, she was unknown by man in Satan's environment. But yeah, an all everthing God could have done it anyway he desired.....shown up as Casper if he wanted... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 In other words, she was unknown by man in Satan's environment. That is an interesting statement End3. Do you consider the earth to be "Satan's environment" now, or have things changed since Christ came? I mean, changed for everyone, not just those who believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Who could make up a story like this and be so consistent? Let's look at this story through END3's rose colored lenses. The virgin birth: Suppose you have the realm of Heaven (no sin), and the realm of Earth (sin).....for Jesus to enter this realm to save man, I am assuming that his entry would not be like that of the "fallen" man, that is, the union between a woman and a "fallen" man (no pun intended), again, his birth by a defiled means. So I am saying, along with a few crackpots, that the union between Mary and the HS was from the Heaven side of the two realms. And when Jesus was born, he broke the curtain (hymen), to allow access to God symbolically through a woman (the church). Now, it seems to reason that his death would not be that of a conventional man. And there in we find the resurrection. Edited for sperring. End3 you are trying to make God tiny and limited. How pray tell could two little humans defile God's creation(a unimaginably large universe) by eating some fruit he told them not to? If such a being created and has control over everything, it is impossible to "defile" anything of his. Christians say that God cannot stand to be in the presence of sin. If he is also as the christians say, everywhere, then why aren't all of us sinners dead? Surely, we'd all be lightning bolted on sight by this vengeful god. Were we human beings in need of forgiveness, God, supposedly being the Creator and Lord of all things could easily do so without such a torturous endeavour as the bloody crucifixion. If there be an omnipotent god, you surely cannot put he, the infinite, into a finite container. It would be as much a fool's errand as trying to contain all the world's oceans in a teacup. If there be a god, his name is neither Yahweh, Al-lah, or Jesus. For the attributes, and accounts given to them make them too petty and small to truly be "GOD". You are one of the people that I find some resonance with TR....for when I look at the story, sometimes I see what could be more of men's beliefs at the time, and as you say, limiting the larger god, the one you profess. For now though, I am still a Christian, but I wanted to let you know I have more than once considered your perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 I do under stand the mind set many here have against christiainity and christains, just look at the nonscence End3 wrote. Hard for me Today to accept you previous retraction when you then put this statement forth. I remember when you first arrived here that you said you knew the truth. My advice would be at this point to either put it out there or "please hush" as my grandmother would ask us to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 In other words, she was unknown by man in Satan's environment. That is an interesting statement End3. Do you consider the earth to be "Satan's environment" now, or have things changed since Christ came? I mean, changed for everyone, not just those who believe. Yes, Ms. D, I consider it currently Satan's environment. I hope I am answering your question, but I don't think the environment changed after Christ's birth regardless of belief. I am of the belief that it will someday be an environment without evil, but I would have to get Revelation straight in my mind.....if that is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 1) She was unwed and a virgin. 2) She was still young enough to not have been influenced by Satan....(the age of accountability thing) 3) She seemed to have faith in God. In other words, she was unknown by man in Satan's environment. Virgin? Still young enough? Below the age of accountability? Sound's like you just described a little pre-teen girl, not even yet an adolescent. This of course would make God a pedophile, selecting little girls still too naive to know any better. Damn End. If the church still had power to boil people in lead for blasphemy you would be a pencil right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 1) She was unwed and a virgin. 2) She was still young enough to not have been influenced by Satan....(the age of accountability thing) 3) She seemed to have faith in God. In other words, she was unknown by man in Satan's environment. Virgin? Still young enough? Below the age of accountability? Sound's like you just described a little pre-teen girl, not even yet an adolescent. This of course would make God a pedophile, selecting little girls still too naive to know any better. Damn End. If the church still had power to boil people in lead for blasphemy you would be a pencil right now. No, see, you can't go there.....the age of accountablility can potentially vary between people, so Mary could have well been over "preteen" as you put it. Obviously, your mind went to preteen you liberal pervert. Heck, even in our enlightenment, 18 years is it. I am also understanding no one to know Mary's age.....you? Tell me you have something better Edit: Question to you....you are claiming societal laws supersede Gods laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Looking4Answers Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 1) She was unwed and a virgin. We only have the Gospel accounts on this. Joseph seemed to think that she became pregnant by natural means and was ready to put her away, but a dream stopped him (or so the story goes). So how do we know that the virgin birth story was not just some elaborate myth created by a betrothed husband to protect his bride? Or by his betrothed bride trying to protect herself? Since adultery was punishable by death (and, yes, betrothal was a legal marriage, so it would have been considered adultery) perhaps Mary, being quick on her feet, came up with the lie of god visiting her and conceiving a child within her. Who knows what a young lady would say to keep her life? And this sort of speculation is no more far fetched than claiming that Mary's hyman was a symbol of the curtain that separated the holy place from the holie of holies. In fact, my speculation may even be more plausible. 2) She was still young enough to not have been influenced by Satan....(the age of accountability thing) Not according to most theologians. Most would state that ALL are born into the world under the influence of Satan. And who is more likely to be under Satan's influence than a teen or a pre-teen? Do you have any in your home? Have you seen how they act? 3) She seemed to have faith in God. Again, as the story goes. None of us knows how she acted, what she really believed or really anything about her. In fact, the Mary of the Bible may not even have been a real person, though probably based on one. So we are stuck with trusting what the Gospels say about her. And if it is all some sort of bizarre symbolism, then it really doesn't matter if Mary was real or if she was faithful or not. She was only a symbol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Looking4Answers Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 I know you did not direct the following question at me, but I thought I would throw my hat into the ring anyway: Edit: Question to you....you are claiming societal laws supersede Gods laws? Yes. In the same way that societal laws supersede Mother Goose, Aesop's Fables and any other myth or fictitious story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 In other words, she was unknown by man in Satan's environment. That is an interesting statement End3. Do you consider the earth to be "Satan's environment" now, or have things changed since Christ came? I mean, changed for everyone, not just those who believe. Yes, Ms. D, I consider it currently Satan's environment. I hope I am answering your question, but I don't think the environment changed after Christ's birth regardless of belief. I am of the belief that it will someday be an environment without evil, but I would have to get Revelation straight in my mind.....if that is possible. That answers my question, thanks End3. It just seemed like a more orthodox position than you normally express. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
today Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 You know i have been going all over the net looking at all kind of forums (christain,ex-christain,non-christain,atheist,agnostic) and i have to say that everyone says that christains are are the evil ones because of the God that they believe in is evil. I do under stand the mind set many here have against christiainity and christains, just look at the nonscence End3 wrote. but you guys look like all the hate is coming from you, I really don't under stand all the bashing, (and a few of you guys), i was really supprised to see you jump in on it, but i think that the, "mob rule thing", even holds on the net. Christians like to come to this NON-CHRISTIAN site and tell us where we went wrong. Every Bible follower has his own interpretation of the book, and to call End3's take on it "nonscence" is absurd coming from you. You are convinced you have the correct understanding of "what the Bible really says" and "what "Jesus really meant" as does every other Christian (or Bible believer, Jesus follower, or whatever they want to label themselves). The greatest "nonscence" of the Bible is literal interpretation. A lesser "nonscence" is attempting to see it as allegory and symbolism in the tradition of all the earlier mythologies it was derived from. Just another "mob"opinion. I have stated that I view the words of the bible differantly than christains do, and most of all i don't think or believe because you or anyone else that is a non-christain, went wrong or did anything wrong, i cannot not make any judgements like that. End3 has a lot of knowledge, it is very evident in his post and replies and when he posted "Jesus in and Jesus out" I thought, what? There are many writtings besides the bible that have truth, love, hope, faith ect... and no i have not read everthing and no i do not know everything, there is a lot more to know than i have life left. "what the Bible really says" and "what "Jesus really meant" you know on my first post this guy name shantona gave me a web site to go to and the writtings on that web site reads a whole lot like the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
today Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 You know i have been going all over the net looking at all kind of forums (christain,ex-christain,non-christain,atheist,agnostic) and i have to say that everyone says that christains are are the evil ones because of the God that they believe in is evil. I do under stand the mind set many here have against christiainity and christains, just look at the nonscence End3 wrote. but you guys look like all the hate is coming from you, I really don't under stand all the bashing, (and a few of you guys), i was really supprised to see you jump in on it, but i think that the, "mob rule thing", even holds on the net. It's amazing how like people we are. There is so much in this world that we do not know. Some systems of understanding work better for some individuals and groups than other systems of understanding and function. That causes a lot of conflict when the groups mix and a compromise can't be found, or when individuals with difference come up in the group. That gets a pretty big "fuck you" if I'm forced into interaction, or if it results in laws that effect my life in a way that is meaningful to me. If the Christians were off in their own corner, and the other people who are rigid in their thinking in another, etc., it might be different. But we blend and interact. Groups of humans don't like the anxiety of saying "I don't know....let's try some stuff, and if it works, call it good for us, and not worry about putting extra meaning on it...or at least stay flexible to changing our meaning as we learn and grow." We like answers! Order! And if a group that is functioning pretty darned well in a different way grows too physically close to us, and we find ourselves in conflict, and can't get away from one another, it is natural (I'm thinking of self-organizing system theory here) to need to get even righter. Polarization spurs greater order and hierarchy within the opposing groups. And there is no better way to get really right and ordered than to invoke an all-powerful entity that is in itself intangible, perfect, and providing us with all the guidelines for living that we could ever need to know. And then to get very holy about and centered around that entity. Who can argue with that? WHO? Not me. I find working and talking with most radical Christians, if there is conflict, like coming up against a brick wall. "Because God says so" is without compromise. It's pretty frustrating. Phanta P.S. I'm open to suggestions as to how to address this conflict as a non-believer. I'm pretty sick of being angry. Phanta Bless you (notice that i did not say God bless you) you don't have to be God, or a God, or a christain to bless someone. Isaac blessed his sons and he was just a man, just thought i better give a wittness to my statement and there are other wittnesses God did say to be open minded and i have yet to find any christains that are truly open minded, and God did compromise in the desert for forty years and with abraham and again there are more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 1) She was unwed and a virgin. 2) She was still young enough to not have been influenced by Satan....(the age of accountability thing) 3) She seemed to have faith in God. In other words, she was unknown by man in Satan's environment. Virgin? Still young enough? Below the age of accountability? Sound's like you just described a little pre-teen girl, not even yet an adolescent. This of course would make God a pedophile, selecting little girls still too naive to know any better. Damn End. If the church still had power to boil people in lead for blasphemy you would be a pencil right now. No, see, you can't go there.....the age of accountablility can potentially vary between people, so Mary could have well been over "preteen" as you put it. But you said she was below the age of accountability, which by very definition makes her a child - not yet old enough to make responsible choices sexually. Now lets say you have some little girl, The Virgin Mary in this case, who is by your standards below the age of consent no matter what age scale you use, then you have God, who is considerably older than her - quite literally by an ETERNITY. Now you have this eternally old man.... you get the picture. So you still want to stick with this "below the age of accountability" theory? It might be better to say it was consensual between a young woman, and said really, really old ghost of a man, than to view it as you do. You think? Edit: Question to you....you are claiming societal laws supersede Gods laws? Question back at you... are you claiming God's laws are lower than societal laws, just because he can? Actually I don't believe societal laws supersede God's laws. I believe they are God's laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
today Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 I do under stand the mind set many here have against christiainity and christains, just look at the nonscence End3 wrote. Hard for me Today to accept you previous retraction when you then put this statement forth. I remember when you first arrived here that you said you knew the truth. My advice would be at this point to either put it out there or "please hush" as my grandmother would ask us to say. End3 I hope you recieve this with an open mind, Most of the responces were nonscence, not you or the people responding. But i do believe in when you hear the truth you will know it. your words not mine For now though, I am still a Christian, but I wanted to let you know I have more than once considered your perspective. As for put it out there I am not a Christain, I have allready stated that, if i came close to any thing it would be EX-Christain But as you can see i don't quite fit that label either. I will say this If you decide to become an ex-christain it would be ok, God would not burn your barley fields or ____________ you fill in the blank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 1) She was unwed and a virgin. 2) She was still young enough to not have been influenced by Satan....(the age of accountability thing) 3) She seemed to have faith in God. In other words, she was unknown by man in Satan's environment. Virgin? Still young enough? Below the age of accountability? Sound's like you just described a little pre-teen girl, not even yet an adolescent. This of course would make God a pedophile, selecting little girls still too naive to know any better. Damn End. If the church still had power to boil people in lead for blasphemy you would be a pencil right now. No, see, you can't go there.....the age of accountablility can potentially vary between people, so Mary could have well been over "preteen" as you put it. But you said she was below the age of accountability, which by very definition makes her a child - not yet old enough to make responsible choices sexually. Now lets say you have some little girl, The Virgin Mary in this case, who is by your standards below the age of consent no matter what age scale you use, then you have God, who is considerably older than her - quite literally by an ETERNITY. Now you have this eternally old man.... you get the picture. So you still want to stick with this "below the age of accountability" theory? It might be better to say it was consensual between a young woman, and said really, really old ghost of a man, than to view it as you do. You think? Edit: Question to you....you are claiming societal laws supersede Gods laws? Question back at you... are you claiming God's laws are lower than societal laws, just because he can? Actually I don't believe societal laws supersede God's laws. I believe they are God's laws. Perhaps we are having a word struggle....I do not have a rigid definition of "the age of accountability"....but to me it is the point when you are aware of your decision to choose good or evil........having been old enough to choose sex knowing only the arena of good is totally different than choosing sex in either the arena of good or evil. What I am saying is she was unaware of evil at this point. Does this make her a child if she has not met evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 So how do we know that the virgin birth story was not just some elaborate myth created by a betrothed husband to protect his bride? This was part of my point to begin with L4A.....the story is elaborate to the point of belief... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Looking4Answers Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 What I am saying is she was unaware of evil at this point. Does this make her a child if she has not met evil? I am not trying to be silly here, but do you have any children? Do you realize how young a child would have to be in order to not have met evil or to be unaware of evil? It does not take a child very long to come to the point where they start to realize some things are wrong and some things are right. It does not take a child very long before they come to the age where they tell a lie, on purpose, in order to get out of trouble. A child does not have to be very old in order to make a conscience decision to attack another child by force, imposing their will on that other child, in order to gain property. As adults we call this war. As a child, this is how they get a toy they want. They know it is wrong, but they do it anyway. Lying, stealing, fighting ... it all comes on quite early. And even sexual impulses, even if they don't fully understand what they are, are there. How many very young children engage in the game of, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours"? For Mary to have been at an early enough age to be as innocent as you are trying to let on would have made her, not only a child, but a very, very young child. However, the Bible states that she was betrothed. This would tell us that she was of marrying age for her culture at that time. This would tell us she was at least an early teen (14 or older). She had better have been someone that was aware of their decision to choose good or evil by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Looking4Answers Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 This was part of my point to begin with L4A.....the story is elaborate to the point of belief... No. I very much disagree. The story is not elaborate to the point of belief at all. It is anything but elaborate. Some have shown in this thread how the story was not new at all, but that several other earlier cultures had the same virgin birth myth. So it would not be elaborate to borrow another, well-known story. My point was that we don't know if there was a Mary (besides the fact that Mary, or Miriam, was a popular name), we don't know if there was a miraculous birth at all, we don't know if Joseph had a dream and if Mary heard from an angel ... we don't know anything, have no way to verify any of it and have to rely on the Gospels for this information. Even the evidence within the Bible is scanty on this subject. The virgin birth is mentioned in two of the Gospels and totally ignored by the rest of the New Testament. Paul, he basically defines doctrinal ideas for the church, does not even touch the subject at all. Judaism had its share of symbolic interpretation and Paul, the Hebrew of Hebrews, would surely have grabbed on to that if this is what was meant by the virgin birth accounts. The writer of Hebrews (whether that was Paul or someone else) used a lot of symbolic connections in his work. If the concept of the virgin birth was symbolic (Mary's hymen being the temple curtain, etc) then it seems like he would have used this symbolism to further his own agenda. In fact, it would have fit in nicely with a lot of what the writer of Hebrews has to say. There is really nothing believable about the story and any symbolism drawn from it and applied to the fictitious god of the New Testament can only remain interesting at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Looking4Answers Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 There is also another thing to consider when talking about the supposed age of Mary: her visit to Elisabeth. Look at the following verse: And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; - Luke 1:39 In verse 38 of the same chapter, Mary had just responded to the message of the angel. She was alone at the time. She then leaves to visit her relative Elisabeth according to verse 39. The language used suggests that she traveled alone. The verse is understood by many to mean that Elisabeth was living in Hebron. The distance from Nazareth to Hebron is HUGE. To make this journey alone (if that is indeed what she did) would strongly indicate that she was no child. The fact that the verse strongly indicates that Mary made the decision to go and visit Elisabeth (via stating: Mary arose) would also indicate that Mary is of the age where she can make decisions to travel great distances. Again, this is not the mind of a child that is not able to discern good from evil and right from wrong. All indications within the Bible seem to point to a mature or fairly mature Mary and not a child or teen of little understanding of the world around her: - She was of marrying age (i.e. she was betrothed) - She knew that she was a virgin and that it took a man to lose one's virginity (her statement to the angel was, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?") - She was able, of her own, to make a decision to travel from the upper north-west of the nation of Israel and go to the lower southern part of Israel ... a distance that would take some weeks or months to travel. EDIT: Driving distance from Nazareth to Hebron is 101 miles. Quite the distance, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 You raise valid points L4A......perhaps the age of accountablility statement was not the best choice of words...rather her intent was lead by good, not evil. To me that is somewhere around the age of accountablility.... Maybe if I were Catholic I would understand the Mary issue better? I appreciate your comments, but I don't know that our lack of knowing the details keeps us from always understanding the message even in a physical environment. I am now not understanding why I am defending Mary's "angina"? (LOL) Again...seems like an elaborate story that fits together pretty well. I guess the question is, does it have relevance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 ...Also, if you look at the tabernackle, it is also set up somewhat like a woman's body.... You've been reading Alan Watts' Two Hands of God haven't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted April 28, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted April 28, 2009 ...Also, if you look at the tabernackle, it is also set up somewhat like a woman's body.... You've been reading Alan Watts' Two Hands of God haven't you? Yes! That's it, I'd forgotten where I'd seen it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts