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 also think humans need a "something" to believe in as a means of giving a purpose to our lives. For some this is God or another God or even Gods. For others it may be exploration of the occult or space. I think the human ability to question, imagine and create is awesome.

No sakia you are wrong, it was someone else that painted all Christians the same, i said that they aren't true Christians, they then said no they're all yours kind of thing. In answer to that i said that muslims often dissasociated themselves from bad muslims the same way. I was not demonising one group of people at all, (oh the irony) merely stating a fact, , I as a Christian was being demonised....because i stated that so called christians who did bad things were not true christians.

But i then got told "no they're all yours> (blatant demonising, but that's ok it's only Christians> I then said that that is what Muslims say., but wow i'm racist for saying that. Unbelievable. Your logic is very anti Christian and one sided, as is this whole thread. This thread is very offensive to Christians.

how have i been rude, i haven't told anyone to fuck off
No you called me a bigot, far worse.

But Christianity in the U.K. does impose itself on our lives because we have a state religion, unlike most other Christian countries. This means it permeates our hierarchy, government and schools. But this is another thread.

He felt sorry for the parents of the reception children because it would be embarrassing when the children asked what virgin meant

That is an excellent point granny !

I also think humans need a "something" to believe in as a means of giving a purpose to our lives

I don't. The purpose of life is life itself. To live it to the full and make the most of it.

I think the human ability to question, imagine and create is awesome

Why does that need a belief in a deity or mysticism ?

I also believe that women are equally creative, imaginative and of as much value as any one of her male counterparts but for years they have been suppressed, ignored, punished, humiliated, abused and dis-empowered. This is why I applaud and support anyone who questions, or draws attention to the undermining of the Female.
The Nativity does seem like a fluffy innocent activity most children enjoy but yes, Mary does appear a helpless mute victim in most of the plays.

logical it was me who said Christians who do bad things are still Christians, I also said the same is true of Muslims. And it is.

If you don't want to be called a bigot, don't act like one. And that is no excuse for telling someone to fuck off because they disagreed with you.

'I also believe that women are equally creative, imaginative and of as much value as any one of her male counterparts but for years they have been suppressed, ignored, punished, humiliated, abused and dis-empowered.'

Interestingly, the radical sects 300-400 years ago were often dominated by women who demanded an equal role to men. Of course, they were soon put back in the boxes.

Anyway, i'm now leaving this thread, the bigotry, insults, inflammatory statements, double standards and sheer anti Christianity is wearing me down. Enjoy your atheism, it doesn't seem to make you happy, such angry argumentative people.

Meant to add - read about Katherine Chidley, she's fascinating.

logical I'm very happy, thank you

I'm very happy too. I can't think where you could have got the idea I'm not from what I've said on here.

Anyway, i'm now leaving this thread, the bigotry, insults, inflammatory statements, double standards and sheer anti Christianity is wearing me down. Enjoy your atheism, it doesn't seem to make you happy, such angry argumentative people.

I've actually been impressed with how civil and well thought out most of the comments have been on this thread. I think you were the only one to resort to swearing?

Not believing a 2000 year old legend is literally true does not make me angry or unhappy. I believe Robin Hood was a real person but I should imagine he was a rough, smelly, aggressive thief with a kind heart to some rather than a disinherited Lord. Dick Turpin was known to roam these parts also but I think he was also rather more ordinary than stories portray.

logicalmum You seem quite concerned how often Christians do horrible things - and quick to dismiss any of them as "random nutters". I hope you know that us being against or just finding many of the stories of the Bible uncomfortable does not make a personal attack against believers.

I grew up in the Bible Belt. My paternal grandfather is a Pastor. I grew up deeply in a very large denomination that constantly told me I was going to hell, still regularly shuns women for things like their husband divorcing them, tells abused children to be silent and pray for their abusers if they are church members because we wouldn't want the church to look bad or dishonour the church or our parents, and threatens to the kidnap the children of those who leave as their "God given duty to return them to the church" (I personally have had to get police involved, my older kids all carry panic alarm). This wasn't random people, this is systematic church supported abuse and violence and a thorough use of the BITE model of control & influence.

Throwing what has happened and is happening to so many mostly women away as "not really Christians" when a church followed by millions is supporting, protecting, and teaching all of this now, not in some misty past, is to continue protecting abusers. Rather than throwing victims under the bus by acting like it would so much worse under another faith or that they awful people aren't of your faith, I would think the logical thing would be to actively challenge abusive churches as they are doing all of that in Jesus's name so that the rest of us don't have to.

I do and recall as a child then feeling uncomfortable with the nativity story in a similar way to the comic I uploaded below. I find the idea that the message is meant to be that God fulfills his promises a bit weird when there is pretty much nothing in the messiah prophecies that links up with the nativity story in the texts (and why does Joseph seem to have no knowledge of these prophecies? In a time when Jewish people were really hoping for a messiah to the point there were several people pushed forward and messianic cults were rife, surely such a sign would be celebrated rather than having him run away? Claims of virgin pregnancies would have been everywhere if that was in the Jewish texts rather than inserted in by purposeful mistranslation later.) and none of them are included in the nativity story told to children or acted out by them. It just seems a 'look, God can do whatever with your life if he chooses and you should accept and be grateful if he does because cute baby and shiny angels" tale the way it is commonly written for kids.

I support teaching kids old stories - the ones that last centuries and millennia can tell us a lot about people and are referred to a lot in other writings - but pretty much all of them have issues which are rich for discussion. My 13 year old loves mythology though he often questions why so many of them have such horrible deities and men in them. I would certainly think a conversation about consent and how comfortable one can say no to a deity that supposedly purposefully created one just to do this job could be very interesting.

Side point - but I don’t think the UK has a state church does it, is it not just England that does?

I find it interesting that a Christian has nothing better to do on a Sunday that chat on here. I hope no one was posting from church.

I’m a very happy atheist.
All my family are miserable complaining buggers and devout Christians.

Side point - but I don’t think the UK has a state church does it, is it not just England that does?

Correct. The Church of Scotland is not the same as the Church of England and Wales. The Anglican church in Scotland is the Scottish Episcopal Church. There is no state church.

The Anglican church covers C of E, W, S and presumably NI. But CofE appears to be the state religion of England. The Anglican church also has branches in Africa and America and that is the reason why the Anglican church asked not to be allowed to marry same sex couples so they don't upset the lucrative foreign markets along with other such pleasantries.
Looks to me like the only deletions were by those angry xtians

DN4, the church you describe sounds toxic and oppressive and I completely agree that Christians should be standing up and challenging such things. Thankfully, some do. More to be done, though, always. I am so sorry that was your experience.

I'm not an angry Christian, I promise I think there are lots of good points to ponder from all sides and it is brilliant when we can have balanced and thoughtful debate. Hope you are OK, logical.

I didn't post from church because I'm not in church today. In bed with a chest infection.

Mad you do need to remember that the church that DN4 describes would completely agree with you that Christians should be standing up and challenging, but they consider the problem to be the wishy washy Anglicans being more accepting than them of different sexualities, faiths, etc. After all America's populating pioneer founders were European christian extremists who left to create their own country where nobody questioned their intolerances. It is all relative.
And try rereading the information you posted about 'most scholars' again, do you not understand bias and propaganda with out it being pointed out to you? Most scholars that write about Jesus they have an agenda. Maybe better you stick to facts, like there is no contemporary accounts of Jesus or there is no physical evidence of Jesus.

I was talking about the opinions of scholars as to the existence of Jesus, not about the evidence for Jesus. That's another subject and another thread as it could take an awful lot of room - you asked me about the scholars, though. I provided some links and referred to the tiny minority who believe in Jesus as myth. Reading their writings is fascinating if you want to detect bias... The fact remains that virtually all scholars of all faiths and none accept a historical Jesus. That's not bias or me attempting to confirm my own belief; it's merely verifiable fact. You seem very invested in telling me it is not, yet you have not yet provided any links or sources which back up your claims. I'd be really interested to read them as I'm fascinated in reading all sides of this debate.

The first thing I do when I read a report is look who paid for the study or who wrote it. Do they have a vested interest in the results being a particular way? In this case the bias is that the majority of scholars that write about Jesus are xtian, the remainder want to sell books, they have a vested interest. You have posted links that inform us of the bias and then explain there thoughts. You present this as proof to the existence of Jesus, it is not, it is an explanation of some peoples bias thoughts. You have to remember that the majority of scholars whatever that means exactly spend very little time debating the finer details of a dying cult, a very mild cult but still technically a cult that tells you how to interpret things.

I do the same, which is why none of the articles I have linked are from Christian sites. You asserted in the beginning that Jesus never existed; I then responded that virtually all scholars say he did. I didn't go into any assertions about the evidence for Jesus, simply made the point that this is the opinion of virtually all experts in the field. Are you saying that all experts in the field, atheist or religious or in between, are biased, and yet the one contender for the mythical Jesus who is taken in any way seriously isn't biased? That seems such an odd position.

You have told me all the way through that I am wrong and this is because I have faith and haven't provided exact numbers.

You might be interested to read some of the thoughts of:

Bart Ehrman
R Joseph Hoffman
Gerd Ludemann
John Crossan
Michael Grant
E.P Sanders
Geza Vermes
George Wells
Marcus Borg
Edwin Judge

For starters

All atheist or agnostic scholars of antiquity who hold academic positions in institutions studying this field. None of these have a vested interest in saying Jesus existed: they are all accredited scholars who reject the Jesus as myth paradigm as posited by Richard Carrier and his followers.

I think it’s a dead end to argue about the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. Anyone writing about anyone from history will have a bias or vested interest in it (look at my new book about William Wallace! Look at my new book debunking William Wallace! It’s still bias).

And scholars of NT biblical history have spent and continue to spend an awful lot of time on establishing whether Jesus existed in history, because that is part of their job.