Aibu to think wombs, virgin or otherwise, are not abhorent?

[PencilsInSpace]

Just got back from midnight service where we sang o come all ye faithful which praises christ for not abhoring the virgin womb.

I'm an atheist but culturally Christian and have sung those lyrics throughout my childhood without a second thought but they're awful aren't they?

Is a belief in the abhorrence of wombs central to Christianity or is it time to bin that verse, just as that verse from all things bright and beautiful about everyone staying in their place was binned?

I don't know. It was all on screens, and I wasn't really paying attention when they announced where the reading was from

For kind rhyming with wind, is it rhyming as if wind is pronounced as in winding up a clock, or as in wind the weather?

I do roll my eyes at people getting all offended at old language. It’s faintly ridiculous and makes them sound like mediocre sixth form bores.

it's not a quote from the bible

Yeah, like the part in Genesis where they are suddenly aware of being naked in the garden of Eden so that God knows they have eaten the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge.

God challenges Adam and he says in effect, 'not my fault, she made me'

That was the point when I started to realise how the so called word of god in the bible is written from the male point of view and how women are mostly just service appliances for the mean in the stories.

The New Testament is supportive of women.
I don’t think the Old Testament is wholly against women. It’s correct enough to say Eve ate the apple, and tempted Adam. Fairly sure they were both punished.

women are often portrayed as strong and outspoken in the Old Testament.

Why are you going to church and singing hymns if you're an atheist?

It has, for the most part it's been a really interesting discussion. Thanks everyone

DS and DIL invited me and the poster outside said 'all welcome' which ime is pretty standard for churches. It was a lovely service.

What are the actual lyrics?

We got forced to as kids.

I like Once in Royal David City, but only because of the solo at the beginning.

I prefer Fairytale of New York, Driving home for Christmas and 2000 Miles.

I imagine it was a more modern language translation of John ch1v13 which in KJV is "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
ie this was not a biologically instigated conception, so not brought about by either two people consenting to have some enjoyable sex, or of a man forcing himself on a non-consenting woman, but by divine power.

It's less of a surprise to me that language has evolved over the last 200 years, so that the lyrics of an old carol don't really make perfect sense in 2024, than it's surprising that an atheist would be at midnight mass,

Yes but carols/ hymns have tons of verses snd it is very common to pick just some - that’s why they give out printed sheets do everyone sings verses 1,3 and 4 say.

Plus if you think the lyrics of carols are the same level as artistic expression as Shakespeare or Keats then ummmmm …. no you’re dead wrong!

The link that a PP posted indicates that kind/wind both rhymed with "kind" as we now pronounce it. The silly pun in my username is from a daft teenage joke rendering of the lyrics to make them rhyme, but thanks to this thread I can now pretend to myself that I was just using the original rhyme

I have enjoyed reading this thread, thank you to PP for some really interesting nuggets of information!

My mother felt that she was being "got at" by "once in royal" and resented it. I have sung a version which conflated the two childhood verses so they made non-offensive sense. It was written by Mrs Alexander, a Victorian who no doubt intended to "get at" the children. Also responsible for ordering the estate of the lowly in "All things bright" etc.

The one that always amuses is me is "This is the truth sent from above". The version in Carols for Choirs misses out some of the original verses, which means it goes from
"the next thing which to you I'll tell: woman was sent with man to dwell"
to
"thus we were heirs to endless woes".

Yes! As a humourless feminazi, I often suggest changing "Thus" to "And".

Out of interest, which bits did she object to?

The 3rd verse, for example, is:
"And through all His wondrous childhood
He would honour and obey,
Love and watch the lowly maiden,
In whose gentle arms He lay.
Christian children all must be
Mild, obedient, good as He."

So, despite being the son of God, Jesus respected his mother*, who is gentle and kind (the mother of a newborn!), and "lowly" because she came from a poor background. Who is being "got at" here?

*cf. the commandment to honour thy father and thy mother.

I agree with you on the "estate" verse in All Things Bright And Beautiful, though!

Too late to edit, but realized you may have meant your mother objected as a child, apologies!

"I'm not convinced. Abhor is a very strong word and these are just lyrics written by a bloke in the 18th century, it's not a quote from the bible. I think it's time to bin them."

Words in the 18th century often meant something different to what they do today. That's the evolution of language. Doesn't mean we have to change them. It's possible to sing them and realise the words may have meant something different 200 years ago.

Also, have you ever read a poem OP, the words are very often not meant to be read literally.

Words often intensify in meaning over time.

Christian children all must be
Mild, obedient, good as He.

Yes. when she was a child

Yes, sorry I see now that it was a child's objection to the words!

Always hated that bit, too. Sort of felt that Jesus had a bit of an advantage, really, and it made him sound insufferably annoying!

In Once in Royal's defence, though, the penultimate verse (I think - 'And our eyes at last shall see Him / Through His own redeeming love') makes me cry. I just love it.