To think the Nativity story is more worrying in terms of consent issues than sleeping beauty etc?

[grobagsforever]

Inspired by the sleeping beauty discussion (but not a TAT). I agree that the message of men kissing women who can't consent is a damaging message for young girls but I'm baffled as to why more people aren't concerned about children being exposed to the nativity.

Mary is impregnated by a male God. In the biblical version she is 'asked' (although how she'd have the courageous to refuse I don't know) but in the children's Christmas version the line is usually something like 'The (male) angel appeared and told Mary she was to have a baby'

Then a mute Mary is transported by donkey at the request of another man, made to give birth in a stable and then visited postpartum by a series of men! All without her explicit consent or consultation.

Am I the only person who thinks this story should not be taught to young children??

I don't think this thread is full of bigotry unless you think saying you don't believe in an Abrhamic deity is bigotry.

I do not believe Christ died to save me.

You said, 'Fortunately we've moved on from that, unlike muslims who are still at it.'

You don't specify that you only meant some muslims, you use the term muslim with no qualifier.

logicalmum no, you can't. If someone is a member of a religious group, the other members don't get to pretend they aren't just because that person does something objectionable. That's true of both Christians and Muslims.

Scaredycat, I'm really confused as to why you are so sure that my contention that most scholars assert that Jesus existed is wrong. It's simply not. As I said, Google will show you that, any theological tome will show you that, any university will confirm that. I'm not making this up out of my head to make me feel better about a faith I have concocted and therefore feel the need to make up fallacies about, I am simply stating facts that are out there for all to see. I'm sorry I can't seem to help you see that, is it because I have faith and thus all I say must be rubbish? These scholars are not all saying that Jesus was resurrected; only that he existed. They state that there is good robust historical evidence for him. This article confirms that, as do many others. As I've said, there is one notable scholar, Richard Carrier, who contends for the opposite, but virtually all NT scholars discard his thinking. Including virtually all atheist and agnostic scholars. What more can I say to this? Would you like to offer some sources and numbers for your view on it?

As for Donald Trump, I am highly suspicious of the right wing bible belt groups who claim Christianity. They need to look carefully at what Jesus said and did.

Saga - in all those areas you quoted, there were Christians working in the midst of the oppression to change things. In slavery - look at William Wilberforce. In food banks - who runs most of them? I agree with you that the brand of religion used in power has been sickening and wrong. I agree that the church has been highly culpable in matters of child sexual abuse. I agree that people have used religion to oppress others. All of these things anger me beyond belief, and, I believe, anger God also. Those people had no right to bear God's name in their behaviour. It may well be the no true Scotsmen analogy, but does that mean there is no truth in it? Does that mean that these men (for it has been overwhelmingly men) in positions of power must actually be Christians because they say so and use that privilege to hurt others, or could it possibly mean that they have used the name because it has brought that very privilege historically - but in their private world have no part in it?

As as Lass said, it's not bigotry to disagree with you. I don't believe in the Abrahamic god, you do. We are both perfectly entitled to think as we do.

No i'm sorry but i WILL credit all that to the church. Our multiculturalism, diversity and acceptance would not be in place if it WASNT for Christianity.

Then you are very uninformed about the history of your faith.
Right now I’m sat yards away from where women were burned at the stake in the name of Christianity.
That is one of a huge number of dreadful things that have been done under the guise of Christianity in this country and others.

The faith you follow is now one of love and caring, and I have no doubt that you are a deeply loving and caring person who uses her faith to strengthen that. But please remove the blinkers about the past of your faith.

Of course it's bigoted. But oddly after hundreds of mainly anti Christian comments, i made a comment in answer to someone saying it wasn't long ago that Christians were burning each other at the stake and i said we've moved on from that but unfortunately muslims haven't, but all of a sudden someone decided that i'd said "all muslims" and how incredibly bigoted it was.... Unfucking unbelievable.

Yes, they are Christians! I think it would be more productive if, instead of trying to disown these people, Christians looked at how the structure of their churches is making systematic abuse, violence and other horrific acts possible, and in some cases permissible. Say mea culpa and try to enact change, not turn a blind and cast aspersions on other faiths.

hiding i am not blinkered, i'm aware of Christianities past and of the evils done in its name. We can't live in the past though can we, we can find bad in most things, there is far more good in the world than bad. Every single religion in the world has a violent past, fortunately most of us have moved on.

Fortunately we've moved on from that, unlike muslims who are still at it.

Ah I see. You are a racist.

No, logical, disagreeing with you is not bigotry.

How can i possibly be a racist, are muslims a race? I quote a fact, and it's racist?, but ok we'll play it your way. So by your logic the majority of posts on here must be "racist" too mustn't they? you know against Christians? Or does it only work one way

No you aren't a racist, but you are a bigot.

How rude.

saskia where is the bigotry, and then explain that if i was bigoted the same can't be applied to many of the posts on here. We can't have double standards.

Bigotry noun, plural bigotries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Now tell me this thread isn't bigoted and then tell me one thing i have said that is. If this thread isn't full of bigotry against Christians then i give up.

As I'm sure you are aware, the bigotry is painting other groups, notably muslims, with a very broad brush and making generalised statements about how they behave, while simultaneously insisting that no true Christian would do anything bad. You are demonizing one group of people and elevating your own. Other people have disagreed with your beliefs, but no one has said all Christians are 'x'.

You also have a very dodgy grasp of history.

saskia how rude? oh the irony

But no none has been intolerant of Christians, it's just that many people don't agree with them. No one has suggested doing bad things to them, or banning them, or deporting them, or denying them the right to work/vote/homes. People just don't agree with them. And thanks to the Enlightenment we are all free to disagree if we choose.

The thread isn't about how unpleasant Islam is and for the record I no more want the Islamic version of the Abrahamic deity telling me what I am allowed to wear, eat or whom I may have sex with than I want the Jewish or Christian version.

I agree rhat countries where the Christian version has been reined in by the logical thinking of the secular European Enlightenment on the whole do not permit their version to impose himself on my life unlike those countries which have not embraced that way of thinking.

logical how have I been rude? I haven't told anyone to fuck off.

I agree Lass, I wouldn't want to live in any kind of unreformed religious state.

This reminded me of my GS coming out of the carol concert last year telling me how inappropriate it was that they were singing about virgins. He felt sorry for the parents of the reception children because it would be embarrassing when the children asked what virgin meant. Nine year olds can be really funny.

Bigotry - strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion:

I think, that in 2017 with all the knowledge we have accumulated over centuries and continue to do so that it is unreasonable to believe that a young Jewish girl called Mary was procreated and went on to procreate in any other manner than the one we all went through.

I believe there was a prophet called Jesus. I have no proof of this as I was not there but I am happy to accept this without any great research on my part. I believe Buddha was also a prophet.

I believe there has been and continues to be a great deal of cruelty and evil in the name of religion. I believe this is because we are all human and once survival is safe we have the intelligence and curiosity to want more in life. Many are motivated by the lure of power wealth and greed; in essence we seek pleasure in our value systems.

I do not believe a 2000 year old story is relevant today.