The Virgin Mary - or was she? (Jesus Christ, reject, Earth)

[Ringer]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

I don't think he was being a fool, either; I think he was making a living off the well-founded assumption that he could persuade other people to be fools. He's been a wealthy man for many years because that assumption was a good one.


However, the Bible doesn't say Jonah was eaten by a whale. It says he was swallowed by a fish. See, it's not important that you know or care what the Bible says; the important thing is that you affirm your cheerful willingness to believe any damn fool thing the Bible says. Billy knows if he can get you that far, there's a good chance you'll take his word for it on what it says, too. That's how guys like Billy get rich.

Are they? Really? Do you take every pleasant little thing that happens to you -- finding a parking space, for instance -- as a miracle? Or do you actually experience miracles all the time? Do you heal the sick? Walk on water? Can you remove a mountain by your faith? (I mean a real mountain, now.) Have you walked among hungry lions without being harmed? Have you survived being cast into a fiery furnace without harm?

The fact is, miracles are not at all normative in the lives of people who claim to have a personal relationship with God. Some of the more delusional of them persuade themselves that everything good or pleasant that ever happens to them is a miracle, but those kinds of things happen every day to people who don't give a flip about God, too. But real miracles are almost unheard of, the only people who claim to experience genuine miracles -- supernatural, unexplained interventions in the way the world is actually know to work -- are hucksters and lunatics. If you actually experienced real miracles as normative in your life, you'd be the most exceptional of believers.

Because he's not only spent his life peddling superstition and nonsense, but what is perhaps the most insipid of all superstitions, Evangelical Christianity.

Because Evangelical Christianity is intellectually unsatisfying and has no practical use or benefit, Billy had to peddle a contrived form of "salvation" to make his money. A few decades later, we see the preachers selling other things -- the fantasy that a futile attempt to return to the social norms and bigotries of the 1950s will fix our problems, the fantasy that god wants you to be rich, the fantasy that you can do anything if you just surrender your free will and your facility for critical thinking, whatever.

Demagogues, hucksters, and motivational speakers are about the only kinds of preachers we have left, and you know why? Because Christianity has lost its power over people. We don't need it. We never did need it, but Protestants, especially, having stripped the religion of everything that ever was satisfying or comforting about it, are now increasingly desperate to find a way to perpetuate their organizations and keep those dollars rolling in.

If they had a god worth knowing, they wouldn't have to scare you into compliance with threats of hell.

If they had a god worth knowing, they wouldn't have to demonize other groups.

If they had a god worth knowing, they wouldn't have to promise you wealth, health, peace of mind, happiness, or any of the other crap they promise.

The fact is, they've got nothing. And they can still find people to buy it. Every preacher knows, on some level, that there's a sucker born every minute. The successful ones know how to find them.

Sorry I guess I didn't get the memo. Christian = brain dead, mentally handicapped lemming who are the antithesis of the educated elite. Atheist = Supremely intelligent, model human beings. I guess there is no need for me to address any of your rhetoric. It was pretty enjoyable though. Get it all off your chest?

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by jringer04

Sorry I guess I didn't get the memo. Christian = brain dead, mentally handicapped lemming who are the antithesis of the educated elite. Atheist = Supremely intelligent, model human beings.

That's not what I said, and it's not what I meant. If someone criticizes smoking or heroin addiction or any other kind of stupid, self-destructive behavior, do you react the same way?

Sorry I guess I didn't get the memo. Heroin addict = brain dead, mentally handicapped lemmings who are the antithesis of the educated elite. Non-addict = Supremely intelligent, model human beings.

I assume you do. If it works in one case, why not every case?

Originally Posted by jringer04

I guess there is no need for me to address any of your rhetoric.

No, of course not. Especially if you can't.

Originally Posted by jringer04

Get it all off your chest?

I'll probably be back.

[kadzbiz]

Originally Posted by kai

mother theresa had a lot of problems you know , but we are straying a little

No. I didn't know. Straying maybe, but addressing the point of virgins. (Now to stray, I watched "40 year old virgin" last night and it was pretty funny!)

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Check your sarcasm meter, Kadz.

Perhaps yours is too sensitive. Mine's still reading zero.

[crystalonyx]

Virgin births were a common theme in religions pre-existent to Xianity, it's no surprise the religion essentially copied earlier myths.

[kai]

Originally Posted by kadzbiz

No. I didn't know. Straying maybe, but addressing the point of virgins. (Now to stray, I watched "40 year old virgin" last night and it was pretty funny!)



Perhaps yours is too sensitive. Mine's still reading zero.

she had a crisis of faith the vatican even performed an exorcism on her

CNN.com - Archbishop: Mother Teresa underwent exorcism - September 7, 2001

[kadzbiz]

Originally Posted by kai

she had a crisis of faith the vatican even performed an exorcism on her..CNN.com - Archbishop: Mother Teresa underwent exorcism - September 7, 2001

When in predicaments like hers, people often react like this. I don't think she was possessed. Psychological placebos at work there me thinks.

[Francine]

Originally Posted by kai

she had a crisis of faith the vatican even performed an exorcism on her

Yes, but she didn't puke green pea soup or do a 360 degree visual scan of the room without getting out of her chair.

[gnostic]

Originally Posted by gnostic

The absence of any mention of Joseph's children from previous marriage in the gospels during Mary's pregnancy and Jesus' birth is most telling.

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Why?

Why?

Well, in their travel to Bethlehem while Mary was pregnant, there were no mention of any child belonging to Joseph, sort of prove that Joseph doesn't have any older children before Jesus.

So unless Joseph's children were much older (older than Mary) and already married, then logic would indicate that Jesus was the oldest. No children of Joseph (and Mary's) were mention until after Jesus started his ministry.

Of course, I am only looking at the gospels as evidences, ignoring the enormous traditions.

Can someone supply me with quotes of other texts that say they are Joseph's children from 1st marriage?

And can someone supply quotes that they are not Mary's children?

[Francine]

Originally Posted by gnostic

So unless Joseph's children were much older (older than Mary) and already married, then logic would indicate that Jesus was the oldest. No children of Joseph (and Mary's) were mention until after Jesus started his ministry.

If Jesus had little brothers, then he would have arranged for them to take care of his mother. Instead, Jesus charged St. John with her care.

[kadzbiz]

What about Matthew 13:55/56? How does that fit in with Jesus' siblings? Isn't there a thought that Salome may have been Jesus' sister too?