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??

Well if you are only going to live about 30 or 40 years and might well die younger, starting to reproduce straight after puberty kind of makes sense - that way you might get to raise at least some of your kids to adulthood. So does procreating with someone with someone who is old enough and capable enough to support you all. It's not like Mary and those other teens back then were giving up the opportunity for further education, or to hang around with their mates drinking alcopops and swapping hair straighteners was it?

Unless of course, your u consider the U.K. to be a religious state where the Church of England is the national church/religion.

It is...

(Speaking as a non-Protestant immigrant)

Schools aren't obliged to do the nativity as the Christmas play, but it is kind of the point of Christmas.

Conversations like we're having here demonstrate that this sort of mythology is on its way out in this country, which can only be a good thing. Christianity should be talked about in the same context as ancient Roman, Greek and Norse mythology - taught as literature and culture that we should all know about, but not actually believe in.

I think that this shift kind of already HAS happened, and we're just a bit anxious about actually finally "breaking up" with the biggest and most important religion in the West.

I think we can still live without any unwanted change to our CULTURE even if we acknowledge that a growing majority of our society doesn't believe that the theology of Christianity is not literally real.

astoundedgoat A form of Chrexit then?

Christianity has some bery strong links with patriarchy and considering women as ‘lesser than’. These stories are basically reinforcing that in the children psyche, making men the most important people, men who take the decisions, men/god/Gabriel (aka a manly figure)who decide what is going to happen to Marie etc...

Yes.... but I would suggest that in this particular case, the big takeaway that young children have is the centrality of Mary. The name Gabriel is pretty quickly forgotten, Joseph is definitely portrayed as a bit of a spare part no matter how he is handled, and the baby Jesus is a doll. So it's all about a central, important, female figure with the whole cast revolving around something very important that she has done.

So yes, pretty much everything that the Christian church stands for and has ever done reinforces the patriarchy both insidiously and violently, but this particular instance of patriarchal dominance probably only teaches young children (who are not analysing the story) that women are important and resilient.

A form of Chrexit then?

Oooh - you made a new word! Love it.

Jesus is absolutely not a historical figure. There is not one single shred of primary or even secondary evidence of any such man. At a time and place of strong record keeping. And many of the acts attributed to him by tertiary plus sources are from stories that predate 'him' by thousands of years. The odds of him having existed are infinitesimal. In all likelihood he was a story made up by Saul/Paul using an incredibly common first name to add credibility to his tale.

As for the op. Look up the 'Mary says yes' part of the religious curriculum aimed at small children in Ireland. It tells you all you need to know about how dangerous and disturbing a story it can be.

@Fanciedachange17 - Sorry for confusion- I'm not a teacher - but I have tried talking to DDs school about Easter etc a number of times

The immaculate conception (of Mary) is not a Protestant belief btw.

I find a lot of the messages on this thread in very bad taste or offensive.

But I am glad that we have the freedom of speech which allows these views to be expressed.

That's a minority view among scholars, Tringley. Pretty much all peer-reviewed biblical scholars agree that Jesus was a real person in a real place. The mixing him in with ancient mystery religions has been debunked. Even most well thought of atheist scholars don't take your view.

Re Mary - yeah, I think traditional nativities have done her down a little, making her into the meek and mild bystander in a narrative which should place her as a central, strong character. Mary actually stood against patriarchal oppression of her time by saying yes - and she did say yes, something I like about the biblical narrative. In typical patriarchal writings Mary's response would never have been documented as it wouldn't have been of any interest or any value - the report would be something like: God made Mary bear his son. Instead, it has an angel calming her fears and a girl saying 'yes. Let it be to me.' it's an example of consent in an age which didn't value consent.

And she says yes in the knowledge it's going to bring great shame on her and on Joseph. She makes a decision which will go against her in terms of what society thinks of her - which is of huge importance in her time. She is incredibly strong; she values God and God's word more than what people think. She stands up for her faith in a way which will bring hostility on her head.

Maybe nativities should reflect this aspect more!

As for immaculate conception - it's a Catholic concept but not rooted in biblical narrative. I don't really know why people have felt Mary herself should be conceived in this way. Jesus was all about the messy and the real. He hung out with the poor and the sinners. Mary's been somewhat sanitised by centuries of tradition, when she was just a normal Jewish girl who wanted to say yes.

Mary says yes www.teachdontpreach.ie/2015/10/mary-says-yes/ The message that is sending out is all kinds of wrong.

Oh heck scrap that last sentence, it sounds just wrong

Agree, Saskia. I think portraying Mary as a confused girl who just says yes in that way is pretty damaging. I was trying to emphasise her strength of character

I was posting a link to the part of the Irish curriculum Tringley mentioned, not responding to you, it was just an unfortunate crosspost.

Why was/is sex within marriage considered a sin? If Mary's parents were married what was the big deal about her suitability? By just being born and leading a blameless life, Mary wasn't considered suitable until the Immaculate Conception was dreamed up. All this stuff about Mary being lucky to have been accepted as pregnant and not married, why wasn't God smoothing the path all the way and then providing a suitable birthing place when the time drew near? I suppose it makes a better story the way we know. Also were they still in the stable by the time of the Kings visit? I would have expected the census to have quietened down by then and better accommodation for the special mum and baby to have been found.

Thanks Saskia. And agree with you :)

I think you are all missing the obvious LGBT story.

1. There's no Mrs God.
2. God has his son via a surrogate.
3. The son grows up to be beardy, dress wearing and hangs out with 12 other fellas (beards, dresses etc.) and obigatory straight bestie, Mary Magdalen.
4. Son even goes on a 4 day bender and no one knows where he is.
5. There's no Mrs Jesus either.

The evidence is in every illustrated Bible, Jesus is even wearing coloured blue contact lenses and so much make up he appears white. How very metrosexual of him.

Why are we not celebrating this?

They weren't in the stable, hippy. That's just a nice nativity picture or tableau in a play. The biblical narrative clearly shows it was a few years later and in a house, possibly in Egypt.

I don't get the immaculate conception thing either

Ah, I see....

Fromage don't forget the flowing blond locks, either.

I cannot get my head road the gifts from the three wise men, why were they wise by the way, in my head it is pretty stupid to give a new Mum Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh. Myrrh mght have come in useful but surely something practical, a blanket or food would have been better, they must have been cold and hungry in the stable. Obviously they wouldn't havce been able to bring a femgel back or some lamisol ointment or paper pants or nappies or baby wipes, but come on they coud have done better than that. It should have been the three wise women, they would have know what to do. This is going to play on my mind now, together with why Grandad Joe in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory hoarded all that money under his pillow when his family were surviving on cabbage soup and when Charlie had no coat

Re the gifts, I didn't realise they were symbolic until a couple of weeks ago in Year 2 RE, I always though they were just pointless, manly gifts.

I find the whole sex is a 'sin' thing really confusing. In the bible aren't men told to 'go forth and multiply'? And also apparently all humans are created 'in Gods image' but most of us were made via the grubby sex method.. so God's image can only be achieved using sex?

If you combine the blonde locks and the blue contacts, with the posse of mates, the constant travelling and the fondness for smuggling wine into parties, are the people who write this stuff trying to suggest Jesus was some kind of antique trustafarian?

'Grandad Joe in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory hoarded all that money under his pillow when his family were surviving on cabbage soup and when Charlie had no coat'

And the granddad who suddenly discovered he could walk when there was a free trip on offer.