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??

Just because God was 'in charge' doesn't mean it's ok to be a twat about things. And also, why couldn't he just manifest his son out of stardust or whatever. He obvs couldn't do anything without the help of a woman, so what does that tell you?!

I just can't work out what message Noah and his Ark is meant to do. Worship this god or he'll get mad and murder you all? Incest is great? The laws of Physics has changed?

What an awful bleak world our children and grandchildren are inheriting, To irradicate that most lovely of celebrations, something that generations of children have loved since time immemorial, just because there is a remote possibility that young girls are getting some kind of "damaging message" from it. What a load of tosh.

If we wanted to we could analyse anything from history and interpret it any way we wanted to suit our agenda, and insist it might damage young minds ......Just leave the nativity alone, the message it gives out is as strong today as it always was, but certainly not a damaging one.

Lets concentrate on what's going on right now which might "damage young minds", i'm sure there is plenty.

Lol at the nativity police

The nativity as in the gospels doesn't give anyone many lines. It's the modern scriptwriters who get all the say. If your girls aren't getting enough lines, challenge the staff- they need to choose a different one next year!

The stable probably wasn't a stable. Most likely it would have been the side/ part of the building where animals were kept, often under the main house so their heat would keep the rest of the house warm. By putting Mary there, she would have had more privacy than in the main house where there were loads of people staying because of the census.

While it is a historical story, it was retold, translated and copied out many times- often by people from a different culture and language. I wouldn't pin my faith on a literal detail of a 2000 yr old story.

Of course Protestants believe in original sin! I lost my faith definitively listening to a Calvinist uni friend Christiansplaining that the chaplain's child (his pregnant theologian wife was at the table) would be born a sinner. If you don't believe in original sin you are not a Christian Imo. Which is why I'm not.

You can play it either way; Mary is a central figure in the Annunciation, but is that philogynist to make her central, or is it saying that only compliant virgins can be central? I think it is quite philogynist in itself, and particularly the Magnificat, but it was written by men; I don't think anyone would have let the real Mary talk for so long.

Fairy stories and legends have been analysed for decades. Do people really think this is 'PC shit'?

I think the most damaging thing about this story is that a young girl was impregnated by a so called holy ghost, an invisible force! How bloody terrifying that must have been.

In RL, what probably happened was that a young girl who was already betrothed, got pregnant by someone else, or her and Joseph couldn't wait. Very creative thinking to blame it on an invisible deity due to the moral code in those days! She had to give birth in a stable as she was probably shunned until the 'wise' men spoke up.

None of this guff should be taught to kids these days as fact. It's madness.

Ah but this is where some us disagree logicalmum. Just because something comes up all wrapped in glittery stardust does not mean it is right or above being questioned.

Perhaps Mary can be given some lines - maybe - "OK God I'll have this baby because you asked so nicely and I want to be famous".

Personally, because I am the mother of two daughters, I find myself careful of a lot of messages they are exposed too. When it comes to Education all I require is they can read, write, express themselves well and have inquiring minds without imposed limitations. I love it when they question things. This is all we are doing here is it not? Just to shut down the argument with "leave it alone", "it's too PC" "It's a joke" is symbolic of how much we are silenced by straw men replies.

wanders off to do womanly house work

Just leave the nativity alone, the message it gives out is as strong today as it always was, but certainly not a damaging one

What message does it give out?
What messages are people supposed to take from the Nativity?

And another thing, it's not just the girls getting the message they are just passive vessels it's the boys as well. Why else are there so many entitled misogynists around?

A message for modern times - immaculate conception = sperm donation = children wondering who their father is, imagining they are a God like figure when they are really just a electrician from Essex.

Not a good message to send out.

Plus there's all that confusion over the meaning of the word virgin. I mean, there's virgin olive oil, and then there's extra virgin. So virgin can't mean, never had sex, it must mean, hasn't yet lost count of how many people you've shagged.

sag He came to earth to show that God is truthful, that he fulfilled his promise. That is a very powerful message. If you want to know more, google is a wonderful thing.

He came to earth to show that God is truthful, that he fulfilled his promise

Surely God could have just appeared in the sky all over the world and demanded people follow him?

Much easier than Gabriel telling Mary that she was going to conceive and that her son would be the Son of God. And then in 30 years time, her son would be horribly tortured and crucified in an awful death.

How do the Bible writers know what happened to Mary?
Where did they get their evidence from?

I already pointed out on another thread that angels are neither male nor female. And Mary did consent according to the bible. Immaculate conception is a different doctrine and refers to Mary herself being conceived without original sin. I must say it is all a bit difficult to take in even for people who want to believe.

I've enjoyed this thread very much. I find it very interesting what illogical leaps people have to make to justify an ancient fairy tale. I love all the "Mary was an amazingly powerful woman" stuff. We have no idea at all. It's all post-rationalisation based on a desire to believe in an ancient myth.

Even if Jesus did exist, we have no idea from the record how he was conceived or who his father was. After all, none of the evangelists was actually present at the annunciation or the conception or the birth and I bet they didn't hear it first hand from Mary, who, frankly, must have been a tad confused by the whole shebang. And they all tell different versions of it. Our traditional Christmas story is cobbled together from the various accounts.

Of course it's impossible to have a truly feminist reading of the nativity as the story is set in a time where mores where so different from today.

This story is years old. A time before we knew hand washing will save lives, before we knew the Earth is round (or is it?), before ... well you can fill in the rest.

If you want to believe it that's fine but to insist on the continuation of a tradition that is outdated and suspect is questionable. I might like casting a protection spell or making a witches bottle for my home but I'd not expect you to have to do it.
I think the OP makes a valid and interesting point and I'm disappointed she is not a teacher.

I think the OP makes a valid and interesting point and I'm disappointed she is not a teacher

I can just see the Daily Mail reaction if a teacher rewrote the Nativity to reflect some of the views on here

There'd be comments from the Prime Minister about Christianity under attack and everything.

sagmartha that made me laugh!

Imagine all those pompous old men thundering from the House of Lords and we'd probably even get Prince Charles on our case. There's a character who'd be happy if all our roles stayed firmly in the past.

Scaredycat - sure. I think one of the best unbiased sources when it comes to this subject is Bart Ehrman an atheist NT scholar who wrote a book to contend against the Jesus mythicists. He, like most other scholars, posits that the gospels have some historical value when held up to how historical sources are treated, Pauls letters even more so, and that the near contemporary histories mentioning Jesus should not be discounted.

[[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_Eyewitnesses Richard Barkham, a respect NT scholar, wrote a book making the case for the gospels being based on eyewitness accounts.

The mystery religions comparisons tend to be based far more closely on the imagination of Dan Brown than in the reality of what is known about these ancient belief systems, which is very little. One problematic aspect of the comparison is that a group of first century Jewish converts would have known little to nothing about these ancient rites, and would even less wish to emulate them even if they had decided one day to make up a story about a bloke who didn't exist who they'd go on to die for. There's no evidence that these cults exerted any influence in Palestine at the time of Jesus - and in any case, the practices would have been apsolutely repugnant to the early Christians and Jewish converts. The similarities often quoted are actually negligible under examination and have been dismissed by most historical and theological scholars. It's been contended that the followers of Mithraism, for example, much more likely borrowed symbology from early Christianity than the other way round as there is no evidence prior to around AD100 as to their belief/practice - it's lost in legend simply because those religions were all about secrecy.

this wiki article gives some background of the debate. Bart Ehrman and N. T Wight are just two of the scholars who have discarded the theories.

I'm not fond of using American evangelical websites as my sources, so I don't.

Anyway. Thread hijack. As you were, with blond baby Jesus in the stable-which-didnt-exist in the arms of this terribly oppressed girl who must have been traumatised by her angelic visitor, waiting for the kings who weren't really kings and wouldn't come for years anyway.

But it matters not, cos the angels are cute in their tinsel halos. Dd was often an angel, and very miffed indeed the year she was chosen as elephant, that creature so famed for its part in the gospel narrative.

Ah man. Mahooosive link fail there. Sorry

Pengggwn I'm not asking you to change your belief. I'm firmly of the opinion that it is a matter of personal choice but I do object to the idea of a Faith (any one of them) being mandatory especially at a young and impressionable age. Was it not the Jesuit's who said "Give me the Son until he is 7 and I will give you the Man". (Paraphrasing)

One only has to look at the history of conflicts in the World to despair of common sense. I can understand the Wars over power and wealth (not condoning it) but to fight over Stories? And whose is the correct version?

That third link was supposed to be this Jesus mysteries and prove beyond anything that I should proof read when typing on a tablet. Gah.

Saga - the gospel writings are based on eyewitness accounts and so from Mary herself.