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??

It is not remotely irrational to suggest there is evidence for belief in God. You not feeling the evidence is strong enough does not make it non-existent. Or maybe you are talking about the nativity story?

Sorry @Annandale my bad - for some reason I thought that was something that had been done away with!

Well, obviously I wasn't saying that we could extrapolate from the JFK eyewitnesses to say that the same thing defintely happened in Judaea 2000 years ago. But even with an extremely rich oral tradition where some stories were handed down word for word, we can't possibly know that the Jesus stories were told in that way (after all, someone has to tell it for the first time and then followers have to commit it to memory, so that's not necessarily going to happen straight off) nor can we know how much the stories were embellished initially nor how much they were potentially mistranslated across dialects or regions.

We can't possibly know that Mary was telling the truth about the annunciation, can we, even if her story was immediately memorised by the person she told it to word for word and passed on in that perfect form? We wouldn't believe our own daughters if they told us that story.

Mary did give her consent. She said. " I am the habdmaid of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to thy word"

She didn't say that (the language didn't exist, let alone her speaking it), so why did you translate it into some other random archaic form?

Either translate it directly into current English, so everyone can understand, or leave it in the original for us to translate!

Agree. It's a very frightening fairy tale. Surprised no-one has pointed this out before!

You have to ask why god crawed inside some young girls vagina only to pop back out again and say, "guess who". Why not just appear and leave the poor girl out of it?
Did he ever pay any child maintenance? Seems the mother was left picking up the tab for a controlling male again.

Well we do know an awful lot about what Christians believed very early on because of Paul's letters which included early creeds and descriptions of Christian life and belief - in use from as early as only 2 years after the events. Because we know this, we know that these beliefs weren't formed much later on with the hindsight of a developed narrative formed and changed by those who had an agenda in doing so.

You're right of course that we can't tell that Mary was telling the truth about the annunciation, as we can't know the truth about anything which lies outside the natural laws ie the miracle and resurrection accounts. I would still argue that the evidence we do have for the resurrection is remarkable especially in comparison with other writings of antiquity. But there will always be that line which reason does not cross, and therefore will always be these circular arguments I do hope to show though that the line is not as far away and as steeped in legend as so many people think, and that we have a startling insight into these particular events in first century Palestine. I find it all fascinating but I have a love of both history and theology

I would still argue that the evidence we do have for the resurrection is remarkable especially in comparison with other writings of antiquity

What evidence? Their isnt even much decent evidence that Jesus actually existed, nevermind a supernatural Jesus, nevermind that he was cruicified and definetly nevermind that he poped his head aound the door 3 days later to say "I'm not dead but gonna scoot off back to heaven now so bye".

Much more evidence that Thor actually existed, because we have actual video evidence of him.

Mary couldn't consent as she was under the age of 16.
God is a paedophile.
Glory be.

18 surely, the god is in a position of trust?

This thread is fantastic

Difficult. I've always understood there is plenty of evidence for the existence of a Jewish preacher called Jesus, and am quite happy to believe that he did and said some of the things attributed to him. I personally think it is fairly easy to spot the elements of the story written in order to prove that Jesus was the Jewish messiah (so, the entire nativity including descendance from the Davidian line, birth in Bethlehem meaning a woman travels miles while nine months pregnant etc) and the bits from other folk tales across the region (temptation in the desert, resurrection) and the bits Jerusalem might actually have done (healing of Lanarkshire, baptism by John the Baptist). Yes these things have meaning - humans tell each other stories, they don't have to be strictly factual to mean something. So in my view it remains OK to question a story that says ' when a man tells you you are lucky to have a seed planted inside you and to carry his child, you are virtuous only if you say yes'.

Lanarkshire? Has this heathen phone never heard of Lazarus?

I like the idea of The Healing of Lanarkshire. Sounds like a good name for a novel.

Good point!

The organised religion I was brought up in regards women as lesser than men, basically walking wombs and to blame for original sin.

In Islamic tradition Mary isnt ever married and Jesus is born under a palm tree. And we don't have original sin, all babies are born immaculate. I actually like the nativity and I think it's a shame that lots of schools don't do it anymore. I don't see why anyone should be concerned about children being exposed to it, or Easter, what harm has it done to previous generations? Bet you give the teachers at your children's school a good laugh anyway OP.

The whole thing is just a rehash of the story of the Egyptian god Horus anyway isn't it? Immaculate conception, wise men, star in the east, the wandering years, 12 disciples, betrayed at the end and then executed, then reappearing 3 days later. Other ancient religions share similar fables.

As I said in my previous posts Barholin, the whole idea of mystery religions being somehow precursors to the Jesus story has been discarded and debunked by most serious scholars. Horus, Mithras, Osiris etc. Those 'facts' you quote have no basis in evidence and have been based loosely on some post C1 legend which most likely nicked a lot of ritual from early Christianity. Those similarities have been going around the Internet for many years since someone self published a book back at the time of the Jesus Seminar and they became something like an urban myth with very little factual basis.

There were mystery cults with certain rituals and dying gods, but the concept of a saviour dying for people because of love then being raised as human once again was completely alien to any of these cults ways of belief. And as I said before the early Christians would have utterly rejected any association because of the practices of the cults - sexual abuse, child sacrifice etc, that they would have seen as anathema. If they'd actually ever heard of these practices which has been shown to be highly unlikely.

Quite fancying the idea of checking out that Thor video evidence tonight

To be fair, though, resurrection/immortality/transformation into godhead/gods living as humans amongst humans are widespread amongst many religions, both pre- and post-dating the origin of the Christian myth. I'm absolutely not a Biblical scholar, but I don't think the Jesus stories need to be overt borrowings for the parallels to be very noticeable. And presumably the parallels are noticeable because these are the kinds of things humans are looking for when they create their gods - superhuman, immortal, living among us but not of us.

Naturally the Christian take on resurrection is different, otherwise it wouldn't be Christianity and wouldn't have spread as effectively as it did. Even the Biblical accounts of what actually happened, who saw whom where and for how long, are very varied, not forgetting that in one version some women don't recognise the resurrected Christ at all but think he's the gardener. Mmm, wouldn't stand up in an identity parade situation.

I think the original convo went something like this:
M: Joseph hun, I have something to tell you
J: What is it my virginal beauty
M: I'm preggers
J: wtf - how the hell did that happen? You won't even let me get to first base
M: Magic sperm, from God
J: Oh, that's ok then

Yes ontop, but JFK wasn't assassinated in first century Palestine where there was an incredibly robust oral history tradition whereby people handed down their histories word for word and learned them word for word.

Nope. Just a time with video cameras and a largely literate population.

The suggestions that gods were resurrected only seems to have surfaced during C2, ie when Christianity was well formed. There was some suggestion that gods were resuscitated in these mystery cults, never with a sense of self sacrifice - based more on a seasonal cycle of death and new life, the ritual more like a primitive mummification ceremony . The contrast is stark.

Scholars say it's more likely that there may have been a renaissance of ideas to do with these cults because of Christianity and that they might have changed their rituals and rethought some of their practice in the light of Christianity. And that the lack of evidence that these cults had any influence in C1 Palestine leaves the connection of them with Christianity in a problematic place. Where would these first Christians have found the material to copycat onto these cults - let alone why would they when they were diametrically opposed in values and belief.

I get your point that in the ancient world there was a series of cults which mimicked seasonal cycles, and that humans have tended to craft their gods in their own image and because of this you might expect Christianity to be more of the same. But there is simply too much that is markedly different, and in fact opposed. Not least the fact that Christianity sprung up around a historical person in a historical place and time, unlike the shadowy, secretive myths sprung up around the mystery cults, myths which seemed to change with time and take on some Christian rituals for their own.

Nope. Just a time with video cameras and a largely literate population

That didn't go so well, though, did it...

ROFLMAO

What a thread, some absolutely disgusting remarks about Christianity, but then it's the only religion people feel safe to mock these days.