Feast of the Immaculate Conception

[onodera]

Lordie, this thread has made my palm meet my face several times.
Is there a religion for intelligent people that doesn't feature irrelevant bull**** as a cornerstone of its theology?
Why should we even care if Mary's hymen grew back?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why the sudden change, Verto?

I was quite taken back by your charges.

I remember the whole Reagan thread that I kept as a thank you for you.

Some people have the capability of rational thought. As one moves through adolescence, that capability increases. You may notice that's the #1 age group for people to cease being religious.

Some people just never grow up.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher, I was asking Verto, not you.

Bite me.

[Asher]

That's fine, you can use all of the enlightenment you can get from all angles.

I'm happy to save you. Just accept Darwin into your heart and be saved.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm happy to save you. Just accept Darwin into your heart and be saved.

You just don't get it do you?

I've been there. I won't be going back.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


You just don't get it do you?

I've been there. I won't be going back.

Didn't you grow up on a Mennonite colony?

[Ben Kenobi]

No, I never even set foot in a Mennonite church until I was 19.

I was raised outside of the church.

[Asher]

You can always come back to sanity once your vacation in the realm of insanity is complete.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why the sudden change, Verto?

I was quite taken back by your charges.

I remember the whole Reagan thread that I kept as a thank you for you.

I realized how nonsensical religion was, that God wasn't there, and mankind doesn't need one anyway.

The way I see it, as a Christian you pretty much HAVE to take it all the way. The half-assed go to Church once in a while, think you're saved bla bla bla, it doesn't fit with what the Bible says. The OT and NT are very specific about how one should act, and the consequences of not doing so. You can try to whitewash it to make it more palatable for the 21st century, but the text is there. God is clearly a sociopath in the OT, and that carries on into the NT, despite the fluff.

So, essentially, true Christianity is reflected in the Inquisition, which recognizes how high the stakes are, just like how extreme some Muslims are in their own beliefs. The "nut job extremists" are the ones practicing a Christianity true to its roots.

And as I said in a previous post, a cursory examination of our human anatomy, of our universe, all points away from Intelligent Design or whatever you want to call it. Looking at Christianity from a historical perspective, we can see how the story of Christ is nearly identical to a dozen other "Pagan" religions which preceded it.

So, in short, there is no evidence that God exists, and the religious text on which we base our knowledge shows him to be sociopathic, inconsistent, jealous, and a plagiarist.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The whole sainthood idolizing bugs me.

Why does it bother you? Moses is a saint, there are many saints that are there in heaven.

Saints aren't God. They are just people in heaven.

Well, first talking to the deads - be it in prayers - is usually called necromancy. Not an activity seen favorably by God.

Second, asking them to protect you or your beloved from something, or asking them to grant something is assuming they have some power. That makes them at least minor or half-gods. Greater gods, minor gods, that's called polytheism.

And last, according to Revelation 20, the deads will only resurect after the tribulations, after Satan is beaten, after the end of time. Then, and only then, will the deads be judged and those who are worthy will enter heaven. Before that, only God and the angels are up there. So, pretenting any human [soul] is now, already in heaven sounds quite un-biblical.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ok, thank you. Why would the Catholic church be against sex if they are promoting sex which you have said is pleasureable?

This is going in circles, as usual.

If they only permit sex if it's procreative, it doesn't matter what they say about the pleasure of it. It just means they're pro-procreation, but anti-sex. I don't see any other explanation for all the glorification of Mary's perpetual virginity, especially given the statements I cited that focus on that describe that state as her being "pure" and "unspoiled."

The logical conclusion from these positions is that the church believes sex spoils people. Doesn't Paul say as much in the New Testament? He says it's best to be single and celibate, but that people should get married if they feel they can't remain celibate. So clearly HE thinks celibacy > procreation.

No, that is not true. You are holding back yourself. If you are giving yourself wholly that means you will permit the opportunity to get pregnant.

Couples not able to have children... are they never able to give themselves wholly? If not, should their marriages be valid? Your logic is leading to that is an inescapable conclusion.

I'm sure the couples who aren't capable of conception will be glad to know the Catholic Church considers their marriages incomplete and less than others.

Yet, that has been precisely the result. Men and women are more distant and their marriages are more likely to fail.

That's your opinion, nothing more. I haven't seen any evidence that using contraception leads to more failed marriages.

Thank you. They 'reserve' themselves and hold back rather then committing wholeheartedly.

Dishonest word games now? Typical.

"Reserving the right" has nothing to with "holding back" emotional commitment, and you know it. Stop being disengenous.

It works both ways.

YOU were the one making claims as to what or isn't pleasurable for women, not ME. If you agree that unmarried, celebate men have no standing to determine what is or isn't pleasureable for a woman, then your argument in this regard falls to crap. Well, it's crap even if you do think they have such standing, too.

http://www.womens-health.co.uk/pill_libido.html

It's well documented the libido problems associated with the Pill.

From your own link:

Indeed, current research suggests that as many as 5 to 10 percent of birth control pill users will suffer from sexual dysfunction.

So 90-95% suffer no such effects? That's hardly much of a problem. Even so:

If you notice that your sexual drive is lower than normal, be sure to speak with your health care provider. In some cases, changing the brand of the pill you’re using may be all that’s necessary. This is because ertain types of birth control pills contain lower progestin and higher estrogen levels, which can reduce the effects on your sexual desire since progesterone contributes to vaginal dryness and general moodiness.

So it may just be the type of pill used. Change it and viola, problem solved. And even if no pill is sufficient, there are other methods that can be used.

This utterly fails to support your assertion that using birth control necessitates a loss of pleasure. In fact, it rather nicely refutes it as being a serious issue. Thanks.

So all the Communists are brothers? Man that's a big family.

As I quoted earlier, there's no reason to believe that the precise word "brother" was used to mean anything other than sibling here. Why were these particular "brothers" always with Mary, then? It would have been pretty damn weird to have Jesus' cousins or even non-relatives hanging around his mother all the time.

Why does the Bible refer to Jesus as Mary's "first" son? That implies there were more later. It's not usual to refer to an only-child as the "first."

Again, I repeat the point. He was there in the 3rd Century, he was vastly informed about the doctrines of the church, and he is about 10 times as close to the source documents as you are.

We have no idea what documents he did or didn't have access to. He is writing 200 years later than the events supposedly occurs. There's NO indication in his statement than he is doing anything other that giving HIS interpretation of a theological issue that was likely in some dispute (otherwise, why write about it?).

But I think there is confusion here, as I'm not disputing that Origen is stating the "historical fact" that this was Church doctrine, if that's what you mean. I'm disputing the notion that Mary's virginity is itself a "historical fact," which is what your statement implies.

Then why are we wasting time on her perpetual virginity? At least be honest here Boris. Why should I bother proving perpetual virginity to someone who doubts the historicity of Christ?

I'm interested in the logic of it and support for the idea in scripture, that's all. I'd think it would have been obvious from the beginning that I don't believe in this nonsense! So if you feel you're wasting time, that's all on you. It's not as if my lack of religious belief is a secret to you.

You yourself said it "doesn't matter" whether or not she was a perpetual virgin, that it's just a matter of tradition. So why ARE you bothering trying to prove it, if it doesn't matter?

Of course, clearly it DOES matter a lot to those who maintain Catholic dogma...

[Ben Kenobi]

You can always come back to sanity once your vacation in the realm of insanity is complete.

Vacation?

Why would I leave paradise?

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, first talking to the deads - be it in prayers - is usually called necromancy. Not an activity seen favorably by God.

But he is not a God of the dead, but of the living.

Second, asking them to protect you or your beloved from something, or asking them to grant something is assuming they have some power. That makes them at least minor or half-gods. Greater gods, minor gods, that's called polytheism.

So if I were to ask a nun to pray for me that makes her a God?

And last, according to Revelation 20, the deads will only resurect after the tribulations, after Satan is beaten, after the end of time.

Yet Christ spoke with a living Moses during the Transfiguration.

Then, and only then, will the deads be judged and those who are worthy will enter heaven. Before that, only God and the angels are up there. So, pretenting any human [soul] is now, already in heaven sounds quite un-biblical.

It has always been the teachings of the church, that some were raised prior to the general resurrection.

[Ben Kenobi]

If they only permit sex if it's procreative, it doesn't matter what they say about the pleasure of it. It just means they're pro-procreation, but anti-sex.

Again, I ask, is sex only pleasureable if it's contracepted? The church is promoting sex because it is pleasureable. The church argues that sex is more pleasureable without contraception then with contraception.

The real folks who are anti-sex are the folks offering contraception.

I don't see any other explanation for all the glorification of Mary's perpetual virginity, especially given the statements I cited that focus on that describe that state as her being "pure" and "unspoiled."

What's so hard to understand? She was sinless.

The logical conclusion from these positions is that the church believes sex spoils people.

No, the church believes that sin spoils people and that the Virgin Mary was sinless.

Doesn't Paul say as much in the New Testament? He says it's best to be single and celibate, but that people should get married if they feel they can't remain celibate. So clearly HE thinks celibacy > procreation.

Yes, he does. Does that mean that sex is sinful? No. He even says that sex between a man and a woman in marriage is like Christ and his church.

Couples not able to have children... are they never able to give themselves wholly?

Of course not. They give each other to the fullest extent possible. That their union does not result in children, is no more a fault of theirs then if they had a disability.

That's your opinion, nothing more. I haven't seen any evidence that using contraception leads to more failed marriages.

Divorce rate has risen hand in hand with the approval of contraception.

YOU were the one making claims as to what or isn't pleasurable for women, not ME. If you agree that unmarried, celebate men have no standing to determine what is or isn't pleasureable for a woman, then your argument in this regard falls to crap. Well, it's crap even if you do think they have such standing, too.

If you are saying that you have to experience things in order to know about them, then your argument is worthless.

I notice you evaded my point about jumping off a 20m cliff. I don't need to do that in order to know that it's a bad decision.

Indeed, current research suggests that as many as 5 to 10 percent of birth control pill users will suffer from sexual dysfunction.

That is a huge side-effect. 10 percent is nothing? 10 percent should be mandatory reporting.

Will you concede the point that sexual dysfunction is a significant side effect of the pill?

As I quoted earlier, there's no reason to believe that the precise word "brother" was used to mean anything other than sibling here.

Now we are into tradition. Thank you Boris. You've just conceded that what the word means may not be what the word says.

Why were these particular "brothers" always with Mary, then? It would have been pretty damn weird to have Jesus' cousins or even non-relatives hanging around his mother all the time.

Why would it be weird?

Why does the Bible refer to Jesus as Mary's "first" son? That implies there were more later. It's not usual to refer to an only-child as the "first."

If I sired a son, he would be my firstborn, even if he were my only son. At the time I had him, I would not know if I had any more children.

That the bible calls him firstborn, is evidence that the source Luke is using was a first hand account.

We have no idea what documents he did or didn't have access to. He is writing 200 years later than the events supposedly occurs.

Earlier then Tacitus, or any other ancient historian.

There's NO indication in his statement than he is doing anything other that giving HIS interpretation of a theological issue that was likely in some dispute (otherwise, why write about it?).

He is answering a question, much as I am.

But I think there is confusion here, as I'm not disputing that Origen is stating the "historical fact" that this was Church doctrine, if that's what you mean. I'm disputing the notion that Mary's virginity is itself a "historical fact," which is what your statement implies.

The two are identical. If you concede the fact that perpetual virginity is in fact church doctrine, then you contend with the second fact that church doctrine is regarded as historical fact.

Christianity is different from other in claiming such, so you have to deal with both at the same time.

I'm interested in the logic of it and support for the idea in scripture, that's all.

As I explained earlier, it is an attested historical fact. That is all there is to it. If she had 74 children, it wouldn't change that the church teaches she was a Virgin mother to Christ.

You yourself said it "doesn't matter" whether or not she was a perpetual virgin, that it's just a matter of tradition. So why ARE you bothering trying to prove it, if it doesn't matter?

I am refuting errors.

[Ben Kenobi]

I realized how nonsensical religion was, that God wasn't there, and mankind doesn't need one anyway.

What makes you so confident of man given history? Even Rome broke and so will the West.

The way I see it, as a Christian you pretty much HAVE to take it all the way.

This is very true. Christianity is transcendent. It is true for all times and places. Making it 'modern', is complete and total crap. It isn't a modern religion.

God is clearly a sociopath in the OT, and that carries on into the NT, despite the fluff.

How did you miss the parts about love? There is much love in the bible.

So, essentially, true Christianity is reflected in the Inquisition, which recognizes how high the stakes are, just like how extreme some Muslims are in their own beliefs. The "nut job extremists" are the ones practicing a Christianity true to its roots.

Yes, Christ is the ideal. Look at how many people Christ killed in order to pursue his mission. Look at how Christ conquered city after city, slaughtering all the fighting men, and taking the women as their own. Look at how Christ revelled in wealth and built palaces for himself to the sky.

Looking at Christianity from a historical perspective, we can see how the story of Christ is nearly identical to a dozen other "Pagan" religions which preceded it.

Do you believe the resurrection actually happened?

So, in short, there is no evidence that God exists, and the religious text on which we base our knowledge shows him to be sociopathic, inconsistent, jealous, and a plagiarist.

Too much Neitzche? This is almost word for word his teachings.