Mary Was No Virgin

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2002-12-08 06:47am

http://www.sundayherald.com/29816

Well it was obvious to us, but it'll be quite interesting seeing the reaction this makes.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2002-12-08 06:50am

*gasp* I'm shocked and appalled. How dare someone claim that babies come from sex. Don't they know sex is naughty?

You're right, though. It will be very interesting to see the reaction.

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-12-08 06:53am

I can't wait to see the weeping and gnashing of teeth this will cause in the ranks of the zealots.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-08 06:54am

How dare they suggest that Mary had sex with her husband! For SHAME!

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2002-12-08 07:08am

The irony is that this is probably the same documentary team that set out to prove Jesus was a real man, so no bias can be used against these "atheist" or "non-believer scum".

I feel a double standard fallacy coming on...

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-08 08:08am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:The irony is that this is probably the same documentary team that set out to prove Jesus was a real man, so no bias can be used against these "atheist" or "non-believer scum".

I feel a double standard fallacy coming on...

The simple rationale they will use is that they're not Christian (gullible) enough.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-08 09:12am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:The irony is that this is probably the same documentary team that set out to prove Jesus was a real man, so no bias can be used against these "atheist" or "non-believer scum".

I feel a double standard fallacy coming on...

Well, if Jesus wasn't a real person, than the documentary team wouodn't bother with trying to establish his mother's sexuial history, would they?

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-12-08 09:16am

" However, in 1994 a former Moderator, the Very Rev James Weatherhead, sparked a huge row among traditionalists when he declared in a sermon in St Giles' in Edinburgh that the virgin birth was 'symbolic' and that the Bible need not be taken literally."

Concession Accepted.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2002-12-08 10:11am

Pfft in the eyes of the zealots...their wall of Ignorance will disavow any knowledge of this and believe what they will.

Seriously God could come down and tell these people these things...and they would still not believe any of it.

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-12-08 10:13am

Ghost Rider wrote:Pfft in the eyes of the zealots...their wall of Ignorance will disavow any knowledge of this and believe what they will.

Seriously God could come down and tell these people these things...and they would still not believe any of it.

I think of religion as a guide to my life, not how I should live.
These people would probably marry their Bibles if they could.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-08 10:16am

These are some seriously fucked up people you're trying to get through to.

Take William Lane Craig for example- Christianity's Greatest Apologist (it's a testament to the intellectual bankruptcy of apologetics that his pathetic arguments are considered the best).

This guy actually said straight out that if someone was to invent a time machine, take him back to 30 AD or whenever it was, and show Jesus to be dead and buried and not resurrected, he would rather think it was an illusion than Chrisitianity being a gigantic hoax.

In other words, he would rather doubt his own eyes and brain than doubt some 2,000 year old pack of lies. Fucking insane.

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-12-08 10:19am

I wonder why people can be so mindlessly devoted to religion?
Is it because they need something to believe in so badly that they would throw up Walls of Ignorance rather than see their framework of eternity crumble (and their own good places in it compromised)?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2002-12-08 10:22am

Because it gives them hope that the world isn't this cruel place with no real reward other than what you make of it.

They don't want to acknowledge their is no all-seeing, all kind being out there looking after us and that all we have is other people.

So you follow it so much that it blinds you from everything except what some guy with fancy clothes says out of a 2000+ year old book written by monks.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-08 10:23am

Evil Sadistic Bastard wrote:I wonder why people can be so mindlessly devoted to religion?
Is it because they need something to believe in so badly that they would throw up Walls of Ignorance rather than see their framework of eternity crumble (and their own good places in it compromised)?

Pretty much yeah.

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-12-08 10:23am

I personally think it's because they've been brought up all this while to think that the world exists a certain way, and when others try to break the illusion, they can't accept that their life has been a lie, so they use all kinds of crap to rationalize their beliefs.

EDIT: Well, if they want to believe so strongly in it, then there is no need to defend their beliefs - others cannot change your opinion. Only you can do that.

I'd better stop, otherwise I'll have trolls hunting me down for the remainder of my two days here.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-12-08 10:41am

I think it is pretty easy to rationalize the "Virgin birth" and Joseph really being Jesus' father.

Basically since they weren't supposed to be having sex before marriage Joseph was doing Mary, Wong Style™ (if you have to ask you dont' want to know) when he let his boys loose. Now it doesn't exactly take divine intervention for those little fellas to trickle/run down to where they need to be so Mary gets knocked up without technically losing her "Virgin" status (it works for Britney Spears).

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-08 10:55am

Who nowadays believes the "it was God, not Bob the mailman" excuse?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2002-12-08 11:01am

This isn't going to change anyone's opinion one iota. We don't even have historical evidence outside the New Testament that Mary even existed. All they'll be doing is stating is the blatently obvious: it's more logical that Mary was fooling around with Joseph or got raped than that she spontaneously concieved (spontaneously concieved a male child, at that). Non-believers already believe that, and the faithful already believe in the irrational and will see no reason to stop because of speculation on a TV show. Of course, some religious people are going to get their panties in a knot over it, but most are going to watch it, go, "Eh, that makes sense, but I believe she was a virgin", and not worry about it.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2002-12-08 11:14am

Tsyroc wrote:I think it is pretty easy to rationalize the "Virgin birth" and Joseph really being Jesus' father.

Basically since they weren't supposed to be having sex before marriage Joseph was doing Mary, Wong Style™ (if you have to ask you dont' want to know) when he let his boys loose. Now it doesn't exactly take divine intervention for those little fellas to trickle/run down to where they need to be so Mary gets knocked up without technically losing her "Virgin" status (it works for Britney Spears).

The way you said "Wong Style" alone shattered any innocence in the whole tale.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2002-12-08 11:31am

I personally prefer the idea of Jesus being illegitimate, and Joseph being a good fellow and bailing Mary from stoning. It makes a much finer story than "God made the impossible happen." Unfortunately, the Apostles had to write a book to appeal to a wide range of sensibilities, so the first draft had to be dropped.

(Really, I don't think the Greeks and Romans would have minded an illegitimate Jesus. Look at their own mythology!)

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-12-08 11:32am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Tsyroc wrote:I think it is pretty easy to rationalize the "Virgin birth" and Joseph really being Jesus' father.

Basically since they weren't supposed to be having sex before marriage Joseph was doing Mary, Wong Style™ (if you have to ask you dont' want to know) when he let his boys loose. Now it doesn't exactly take divine intervention for those little fellas to trickle/run down to where they need to be so Mary gets knocked up without technically losing her "Virgin" status (it works for Britney Spears).

The way you said "Wong Style" alone shattered any innocence in the whole tale.

I like this thread.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2002-12-08 12:39pm

The hymen doesn't even have to be broken for pregnancy to result... it's not a complete closure, otherwise menstruation would be a really ugly affair. It's entirely possible that she could have been "virgin" (in the Clinton-style "I did not have 'sex' with that woman" meaning) and still conceived. All it takes is one drop in the wrong spot, as Tsyroc so eloquently pointed out already.

(note that using that version of events, there's lots of potential messiahs out there

)

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-08 12:56pm

beyond hope wrote:The hymen doesn't even have to be broken for pregnancy to result... it's not a complete closure, otherwise menstruation would be a really ugly affair. It's entirely possible that she could have been "virgin" (in the Clinton-style "I did not have 'sex' with that woman" meaning) and still conceived. All it takes is one drop in the wrong spot, as Tsyroc so eloquently pointed out already.

(note that using that version of events, there's lots of potential messiahs out there )

Basically anybody whose parents had anal sex. Damn, something I don't want to think about.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-08 01:31pm

Umm, you really really can't get pregnant through anal sex.

Really.

I promise.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-08 01:56pm

The virgin birth doesn't even matter! For the love of Pete, it gets two bloody chapters in the whole NT. The oldest books don't mention it, the oldest Gospel doesn't mention it, and the two that do are derived Gospels that are a blend of the oldest Gospel and oral traditions. The Cult of Mary appears to still be strong in the Catholic Church. Such a shame.