Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So, the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus of Nazareth, seems to keep popping up these days in apparitions all over the world. The Vatican has just said it believes that a series of Apparitions in France during the 1980's were genuine.

However, while this is looked on positively by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches it tends to irk the Evangelical Pseudo-Christian Churches of America- and indeed elsewhere.

However, what do we think on these little forums about Our Lady?

Is the praise offered to her by Catholics to excessive...perhaps even blasphemous?

Its quite common for Evan to rear his ugly head and tell Catholics that they are worshiping Mary in breach of the First Commandment, this is nonsense ofcourse but I as a Catholic am sometimes abit dubious of how certain members of the faith almost worship Mary...

So, in the context of Christian Mythology

- Should Mary get the praise she is given by Catholic Churches?
- Is she appearing all over the world-if so why?
- What is her relationship with Modern Christians anyway, if she has one?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So, the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus of Nazareth, seems to keep popping up these days in apparitions all over the world. The Vatican has just said it believes that a series of Apparitions in France during the 1980's were genuine.

However, while this is looked on positively by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches it tends to irk the Evangelical Pseudo-Christian Churches of America- and indeed elsewhere.

However, what do we think on these little forums about Our Lady?

Is the praise offered to her by Catholics to excessive...perhaps even blasphemous?

Its quite common for Evan to rear his ugly head and tell Catholics that they are worshiping Mary in breach of the First Commandment, this is nonsense ofcourse but I as a Catholic am sometimes abit dubious of how certain members of the faith almost worship Mary...

So, in the context of Christian Mythology

- Should Mary get the praise she is given by Catholic Churches?
- Is she appearing all over the world-if so why?
- What is her relationship with Modern Christians anyway, if she has one?

Q : "Should Mary get the praise she is given by Catholic Churches?"
A : Sure, as long it makes you happy, and does not lead to the suffering of others, then I am fine with that.

Q : "Is she appearing all over the world-if so why?"
A : No. Humans are using their imagination to see patterns and apply meaning to chaos in the world around us.

Q : "What is her relationship with Modern Christians anyway, if she has one?"
A : She is part of the Christian mythology, and she has an important part. Why would you remove an important part of your mythology?

co-sign shakya.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Q : "Should Mary get the praise she is given by Catholic Churches?"
A : Sure, as long it makes you happy, and does not lead to the suffering of others, then I am fine with that.

Q : "Is she appearing all over the world-if so why?"
A : No. Humans are using their imagination to see patterns and apply meaning to chaos in the world around us.

Q : "What is her relationship with Modern Christians anyway, if she has one?"
A : She is part of the Christian mythology, and she has an important part. Why would you remove an important part of your mythology?

The first and third answers are nothing but hollow rhetoric that avoids answering anything.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The first and third answers are nothing but hollow rhetoric that avoids answering anything.

Well, what do you what me to say? I don't see Mary as being a real person, and I have no problem with people honoring/worshiping whatever. All religions are made by humans, so, what is important to me is that people find a way to be happy and not hurt each other.

Mythology is important. Have you read The Power of Myth? It does not matter if mythology is factorial or not. Mythology is an anchor that helps us humans make it through every day life.

I think there is a difference between worshipping as Catholics do with the Trinity, and honoring the Blessed Virgin Mother. So, no, honoring Mary isn't blasphemous.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav

- Should Mary get the praise she is given by Catholic Churches?
- Is she appearing all over the world-if so why?
- What is her relationship with Modern Christians anyway, if she has one?

Considering her place in the christian mythology, I don't see why she isn't worthy of praise. Given the reality of christianity, it doesn't make any less since than the worship or veneration of any other human being.

She might be. I've never really been the kind to stand in a line to pay my five bucks to see a little girls bedroom wall bleed or see a piss stain under an overpass.

What does the term "modern christians"mean?

- in a relegious sense, yea, she does deserve the praise.

- no she isnt appearing all over the world, those are delusions of man

- she has nothing but a symbolic relationship with modern christians. the real person of mary{if she existed} has no connection with any relegion right now though. it is only the symbol of the daid person in the minds of beleivers today

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, what do you what me to say? I don't see Mary as being a real person, and I have no problem with people honoring/worshiping whatever. All religions are made by humans, so, what is important to me is that people find a way to be happy and not hurt each other.

Mythology is important. Have you read The Power of Myth? It does not matter if mythology is factorial or not. Mythology is an anchor that helps us humans make it through every day life.

Why do you think she wasn't a real person? You don't have to believe she gave birth to someone that was God and a human to think she was real. Just wondering.

I would say as a Protestant that Mary should be respected. She was the one God found favor with to birth and raise Christ. But I don't see the point in worshipping her or praying to her, although I respect it. She was still a person, imo, and not God. As for appearing in places, she might be. I have no proof one way or the other, but as someone mentioned, I'm not going on a pilgrimage to see what may be a Mary statue bleeding tears or whatever.

Her relationship with modern Christians is probably the same as it always has been. The Catholics I know still do Hail Marys and refer to her as "Our Lady" and the Protestants I know still give her respect and admiration. Her song in the Bible is one of the best passages in the whole thing. She's a great role model for Christian women as well as men.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I would say as a Protestant
Indeed...whats a protestant?

Originally posted by willofthewisp
She was the one God found favor with to birth and raise Christ. But I don't see the point in worshipping her or praying to her,

Who worships her? Why shouldn't people pray to her?

Originally posted by willofthewisp
although I respect it.

Surely, you know know as well as any Christian that worship is for God alone- therefore what you perceive as worship of Mary is blasphemous...how can you "respect" such sacrilege?

Am I spelling Protestant wrong? Hmm. The broad definition of a Protestant is a Christian who is not a Catholic, but that's just scratching the surface. A big thing Catholics and Protestants disagree on is how to regard Mary. The Catholics view her much higher than Protestants do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the rosary prayers are directed to her. They would not call it worship, but they say Hail Mary and Protestants regard that as blasphemous. I respect Catholicism, though, because the Catholics I know have a strong faith in God.

I'm confused. You seem to have no problem praying to her, but don't think it's good to worship her. Can you elaborate?

She was the mother of Christ... really... that's it... The catholic Church focuses a bit too much on Mary. I tried to explain why this attention and near worship of Mary is un-biblical to the Nuns at the catholic school I went to for a few years... needless to say they weren't upset when I left.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Am I spelling Protestant wrong? Hmm. The broad definition of a Protestant is a Christian who is not a Catholic, but that's just scratching the surface. A big thing Catholics and Protestants disagree on is how to regard Mary. The Catholics view her much higher than Protestants do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the rosary prayers are directed to her. They would not call it worship, but they say Hail Mary and Protestants regard that as blasphemous. I respect Catholicism, though, because the Catholics I know have a strong faith in God.

I'm confused. You seem to have no problem praying to her, but don't think it's good to worship her. Can you elaborate?

Jesus said pray to the Saints, he did not say worship them.

You have said you think that Catholics worship Mary and you respect that. Even though you are mistaken you are still respecting what you must surely view as blasphemy.

I just believe God understands where they're coming from in that regard. I think it's wrong to pray to anything/one that is not God, so I feel the Catholics are wrong. Whether prayer constitutes as a form of worship or not is actually up for debate. If it were worship, I would still respect it because of their faith.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I just believe God understands where they're coming from in that regard. I think it's wrong to pray to anything/one that is not God, so I feel the Catholics are wrong. Whether prayer constitutes as a form of worship or not is actually up for debate. If it were worship, I would still respect it because of their faith.

So you would therefore...respect the worship of Satan?

No, I am referring to all forms of Christianity.

I think Mary in some sense represents a miracle of birth. Haven't really dug deep into her character. She does present a motherhood and the pains of losing a child.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Why do you think she wasn't a real person? You don't have to believe she gave birth to someone that was God and a human to think she was real. Just wondering...

"Why do you think she wasn't a real person?"

Because the NT was not written for at least 60 years after the death of Jesus. Knowing human nature, I am sure the story was changed over that time period to incorporate myth. I believe that Jesus did have a mother, and her name could have been Mary, but the real person has been lost to us over time.

"You don't have to believe she gave birth to someone that was God and a human to think she was real."

People do not need any reason to believe in something.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Do you believe any Biblical account of her captures who she really was? Not trying to drill, just interested. Very little is known of Mary, even less about her husband.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Ah, thanks for clarifying. Do you believe any Biblical account of her captures who she really was? Not trying to drill, just interested. Very little is known of Mary, even less about her husband.

Any? Do I believe ANY? I believe there maybe glimpses of the real person in the NT, but I do not know what is fiction and what is real, in this case.

The catholic church is well confused, they believe that Jesus is actually God. Even though Jesus prays to God (himself??) and refers to God many times as 3rd person. And this leads to Mary being the "mother of God" which is insane imo. How can someone be the mother of god if god created everything.?

She's the mother of God in human form, which is Jesus. Jesus praying to God the Father does not contradict his own divinity.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
She's the mother of God in human form, which is Jesus. Jesus praying to God the Father does not contradict his own divinity.

That is true only if there is more then one god.

Well, you can interpret the concept of a Holy Trinity as more than one god, but Christian theologian could explain the Trinity better than I could. In a nutshell, God is made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God simultaneously is 3 people. Matthew 28:19 addresses all 3 and John 10:30 cites that Jesus said he and the Father were one being. The book of John addresses the trinity better than the other books even though the word "trinity" wasn't used to describe it until later. So it's not a matter of confusion, but interpretation of a Book we regard as the Word of God.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Well, you can interpret the concept of a Holy Trinity as more than one god, but Christian theologian could explain the Trinity better than I could. In a nutshell, God is made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God simultaneously is 3 people. Matthew 28:19 addresses all 3 and John 10:30 cites that Jesus said he and the Father were one being. The book of John addresses the trinity better than the other books even though the word "trinity" wasn't used to describe it until later. So it's not a matter of confusion, but interpretation of a Book we regard as the Word of God.

Mythology.

Why laugh? Bicnarok said that Christians worshipped Jesus out of confusion. All I said is that there is no confusion about it, but the belief that Jesus IS God. No Christian is "confused" about that. No one is pushing it as truth because I know how pushy people are treated in this forum, but I'm explaining why Christians believe what they believe and why there is some controversy in how to regard Mary. If you want to call it mythology, go ahead. But simply calling it mythology does not help a person understand it, which is what I was trying to do.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Mythology.

What a useful response. You really had to put thought into that one, didn't you?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What a useful response. You really had to put thought into that one, didn't you?

There comes a point were the only answer is "because". How do you debate a person who goes in little circles?

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Why laugh? Bicnarok said that Christians worshipped Jesus out of confusion. All I said is that there is no confusion about it, but the belief that Jesus IS God. No Christian is "confused" about that. No one is pushing it as truth because I know how pushy people are treated in this forum, but I'm explaining why Christians believe what they believe and why there is some controversy in how to regard Mary. If you want to call it mythology, go ahead. But simply calling it mythology does not help a person understand it, which is what I was trying to do.

There is no logical understanding to Mary, mother of god, and the trinity. It is mythology; I'm not calling it a "name".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There comes a point were the only answer is "because". How do you debate a person who goes in little circles?

She's not really going in circles. Your response would only have even a sliver of validity if she were pushing the answer she gave you as evidence for something. Attempting to counter or answer an explanation by dismissing it as mythology is rude, makes you look stupid and contributes nothing. It's the same thing as someone claiming that Superman is strong because he is powered by the sun and you saying "No he isn't, because he's fictional." The answer is irrelevant to the explanation and makes you seem like an idiot that has no idea what the other person is doing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
She's not really going in circles. Your response would only have even a sliver of validity if she were pushing the answer she gave you as evidence for something. Attempting to counter or answer an explanation by dismissing it as mythology is rude, makes you look stupid and contributes nothing. It's the same thing as someone claiming that Superman is strong because he is powered by the sun and you saying "No he isn't, because he's fictional." The answer is irrelevant to the explanation and makes you seem like an idiot that has no idea what the other person is doing.

Any person who thinks that superman is real deserves to have the fact the he is fiction pointed out to them. That is the big difference. People who talk about superman know that it is fiction, and to point that out would be inappropriate. However, some people really believe in the trinity thing.

I have every right to show my frustration at people who can't see the logical error they are propagating as long as I am not attacking the person personally. When I say something is mythology, am I attacking the person?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Any person who thinks that superman is real deserves to have the fact the he is fiction pointed out to them. That is the big difference. People who talk about superman know that it is fiction, and to point that out would be inappropriate. However, some people really believe in the trinity thing.

She wasn't making a case anything being true. She was giving you a ****ing explanation with the explicit note that she wasn't pushing it as any sort of truth. Your response was stupid and irrelevant to the issue.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
She wasn't making a case anything being true. She was giving you a ****ing explanation with the explicit note that she wasn't pushing it as any sort of truth. Your response was stupid and irrelevant to the issue.

Whatever. Please go rant at someone else.

Whether you consider it ranting or not, posting just "mythology" doesn't contribute much no matter how you slice it. You're generally respectful, but in a thread that addresses something specific to Christianity, calling Christianity mythology is really inappropriate since by participating, you imply you are seeking an answer (whether you believe it truth or just a way to explain the mythology) to the question posed. You have to accept a thread's premise to have your participation in it valid.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Whatever. Please go rant at someone else.

So basically you have no answer to my valid points? Good to know.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Whether you consider it ranting or not, posting just "mythology" doesn't contribute much no matter how you slice it. You're generally respectful, but in a thread that addresses something specific to Christianity, calling Christianity mythology is really inappropriate since by participating, you imply you are seeking an answer (whether you believe it truth or just a way to explain the mythology) to the question posed. You have to accept a thread's premise to have your participation in it valid.

My commit wasn't about the thread. My commit was about your circular logic. I was talking to you... Mythology has a way of using circular logic to cover all the loop holes.

Thank about it: Jesus is the son of Mary; Jesus is part of the god head; The god head is one; Jesus is his own father and son and Mary is the mother of god.

That reminds me of Egyptian mythology. It does that because it is mythology. Mythology is not to be taken literally.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So basically you have no answer to my valid points? Good to know.

A rant is never a good point.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Whether you consider it ranting or not, posting just "mythology" doesn't contribute much no matter how you slice it. You're generally respectful, but in a thread that addresses something specific to Christianity, calling Christianity mythology is really inappropriate since by participating, you imply you are seeking an answer (whether you believe it truth or just a way to explain the mythology) to the question posed. You have to accept a thread's premise to have your participation in it valid.

Don't bother. He's on an ironic mission to save everyone from thinking differently from him.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My commit wasn't about the thread. My commit was about your circular logic. I was talking to you... Mythology has a way of using circular logic to cover all the loop holes.

Thank about it: Jesus is the son of Mary; Jesus is part of the god head; The god head is one; Jesus is his own father and son and Mary is the mother of god.

That reminds me of Egyptian mythology. It does that because it is mythology. Mythology is not to be taken literally.

But there was no attempt to prove anything in my post. I was explaining how something was interpreted. If what I said truly is circular logic, then it is not my logic, is it? It is the logic of the belief system I was explaining.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A rant is never a good point.

I didn't rant. You are simply claiming that I did. In fact it seems you admitted to making a totally irrelevant point just a few posts ago: "My commit wasn't about the thread." That alone validates my point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I didn't rant. You are simply claiming that I did. In fact it seems you admitted to making a totally irrelevant point just a few posts ago: "My commit wasn't about the thread." That alone validates my point.

Please go rant at someone else.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
But there was no attempt to prove anything in my post. I was explaining how something was interpreted. If what I said truly is circular logic, then it is not my logic, is it? It is the logic of the belief system I was explaining.

He doesn't care. You gave him an opening to be hateful and he's going to milk it for everything he can. The irony of how much he dislikes people like JIA will never occur to him.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please go rant at someone else.

Whatever. Please go pathetically try to dodge someone else's point.

If we're all agreed to be done talking about ranting, maybe we can get back to the topic at hand, which asks the participants to consider different premises about Mary. For someone to state that Mary is not real/cannot be defined/whatever, that premise has been stated and by the nature of it, cannot be elaborated on, so I would like to go back to discussing Mary.

BTW, "Mother of God" is just a title, not to be taken so literally as to mean she was here before God and gave birth to God. She gave birth to whom many people believe to be the human manifestation of God. She herself was just a very faithful human being imo, and not one to be prayed to.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by willofthewisp
If we're all agreed to be done talking about ranting, maybe we can get back to the topic at hand, which asks the participants to consider different premises about Mary. For someone to state that Mary is not real/cannot be defined/whatever, that premise has been stated and by the nature of it, cannot be elaborated on, so I would like to go back to discussing Mary.

BTW, "Mother of God" is just a title, not to be taken so literally as to mean she was here before God and gave birth to God. She gave birth to whom many people believe to be the human manifestation of God. She herself was just a very faithful human being imo, and not one to be prayed to.

Thoughts?

But if Jesus was in the beginning, as some people believe, then Mary was chosen for a reason. That reason is enough to give her a status of a demigod, and she should be worshiped.

Mary was chosen because she was the most faithful woman in the world at that time. Going straight off of the Bible, an angel blessed Mary, but there is not one passage demanding worship of her.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Mary was chosen because she was the most faithful woman in the world at that time. Going straight off of the Bible, an angel blessed Mary, but there is not one passage demanding worship of her.

But out of all people that have ever lived or will live, god chose to impregnate one woman with one of the members of the trinity. In other words, god used this one person to manifest god on Earth. If you do not show great respect and honor to this woman in the form of worship, then you are insulting god.

Respect and honor is not the same as worship, however. You can revere and even love someone without worshipping him/her.

Are we meant to worship Noah then, the man God chose to be pretty much the last man on earth, the man who we would all stem from since he was chosen to be the one to repopulate the earth? Just because someone is called to serve God in a certain way does not mean worship is the right way to admire them.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Respect and honor is not the same as worship, however. You can revere and even love someone without worshipping him/her.

Are we meant to worship Noah then, the man God chose to be pretty much the last man on earth, the man who we would all stem from since he was chosen to be the one to repopulate the earth? Just because someone is called to serve God in a certain way does not mean worship is the right way to admire them.

Catholics do not worship Mary in that way. They worship her in the way I outlined. Mary is far more impotent then Noah.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
If we're all agreed to be done talking about ranting, maybe we can get back to the topic at hand, which asks the participants to consider different premises about Mary. For someone to state that Mary is not real/cannot be defined/whatever, that premise has been stated and by the nature of it, cannot be elaborated on, so I would like to go back to discussing Mary.

you think the validity of Mary's existance is unimportant to a discussion of her role in religion?

how about, paternally created symbol designed to enforce female sexual subserviance?

Galatians 3:28: 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.'

Many people seem to forget how important a role women played in early Christianity. If women were made subservient, it is because too many men in the world didn't want to share their power. Since women in the ancient world were oppressed in just about every culture, Christianity cannot be to blame for women often being treated as second class citizens. Those who say that women are bad and inferior really didn't take this Biblical passage to heart. It's saying we are all equal in God's eyes.

Mary, as well as a bunch of strong women in the Bible the misogynist world choose to keep hidden, is a prominent figure in Christianity and is a great role model to men and women. How is she an example of sexual subservience? She did not need a man to give birth to the Savior because she had God, and after she had Jesus, she did in fact have sex, the nature of which is her business.

wow...

Mary, in your opinion, is an argument against the mysogny of the bible?

Like, you honestly think she is a powerful female character that doesn't steryotype female roles or oppress their sexuality? The most important woman in the bible and she is known specifically for being a VIRGIN. This isn't appaling to your femenist sensibilities?

WilloftheWisp...I still don't understand how you can respect a practice you believe to be blasphemous...it just doesn't make sense.

Also, Mary born of immaculate conception-free of sin- and led a life of purity and devotion to God and God chose her (even before her conception) to bear his son, God incarnate.

Thus, she is possibly the most important human being in the entire Bible, certainly more important than Noah or Moses or Abraham or Peter or Paul.

As such she is treated with great respect and love by the Catholic Church but she is not, and should never be worshiped. Worship is reserved for God alone.

No Catholics rightly worship her but they do correctly and appropriately give her the greatest admiration and devotion which she deserves based on her position.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
and after she had Jesus, she did in fact have sex, the nature of which is her business.

OH come one...we both know she had sex during her pregnancy with Jebus as well.

lol, but if she is a symbol for the good and proper woman, then she never had sex

blessed virgin mary! devoted, loving, motherly, small feet so she can scoot right up next to the stove.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, but if she is a symbol for the good and proper woman, then she never had sex

blessed virgin mary! devoted, loving, motherly, small feet so she can scoot right up next to the stove.

And your point?

mary is a symbol of patriarchical rule.

more or less, just saying that the existance of mary is a very important topic when discussing her, as, if she didn't exist, her role in the oppression of women through symbolically steryotyping their role in society, justifying the cultural practices of the time, is very important in the discussion of her.

Is the feminist angel still good if she did exist, sure, i think so, as the presentation of mary is based more on myth than fact anyways, just saying.

Originally posted by inimalist
mary is a symbol of patriarchical rule.

more or less, just saying that the existance of mary is a very important topic when discussing her, as, if she didn't exist, her role in the oppression of women through symbolically steryotyping their role in society, justifying the cultural practices of the time, is very important in the discussion of her.

Is the feminist angel still good if she did exist, sure, i think so, as the presentation of mary is based more on myth than fact anyways, just saying.

Careful, you will get yelled at if you say that.

lol, bring it

christianity hates women and is afraid of their sexuality

maybe not as individuals (but lots of individuals) but through symbols, myths and ritual.

Originally posted by inimalist
mary is a symbol of patriarchical rule.

more or less, just saying that the existance of mary is a very important topic when discussing her, as, if she didn't exist, her role in the oppression of women through symbolically steryotyping their role in society, justifying the cultural practices of the time, is very important in the discussion of her.

Is the feminist angel still good if she did exist, sure, i think so, as the presentation of mary is based more on myth than fact anyways, just saying.

Ok...thats a glorious opinion.

I find it odd that such a patriarchal woman hating machine like the RCC tends to put such devotion onto a woman...but ok, thats your belief.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, bring it

christianity hates women and is afraid of their sexuality

maybe not as individuals (but lots of individuals) but through symbols, myths and ritual.
Ok...if thats what you believe.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Careful, you will get yelled at if you say that.
I don't need to yell...purgatory will do all the work for me.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
...I don't need to yell...purgatory will do all the work for me.

Purgarory? A less hot hell.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Purgarory? A less hot hell.

"Not bad...not good but...not bad"- Louis Griffen

Originally posted by inimalist
The most important woman in the bible and she is known specifically for being a VIRGIN. This isn't appaling to your femenist sensibilities?

How is being a virgin anti-femenist?

Originally posted by inimalist
christianity hates women and is afraid of their sexuality

Yes yes and Jew poisons our society with their evil so that the colored man can steal our stuff. Sweeping generalization are such valid tools.

Originally posted by inimalist
mary is a symbol of patriarchical rule.

more or less, just saying that the existance of mary is a very important topic when discussing her, as, if she didn't exist, her role in the oppression of women through symbolically steryotyping their role in society, justifying the cultural practices of the time, is very important in the discussion of her.

I don't recall the Bible saying much about Mary's personal life except that she didn't have sex, which isn't very similar to the culture of the time. I've never actually taken the time to look though.

Originally posted by inimalist
Is the feminist angel still good if she did exist, sure, i think so, as the presentation of mary is based more on myth than fact anyways, just saying.

Most religion is based primarily on myth. But that's not really important when discussing it internally.

lol

alright, ya, I was more channeling my girlfriend than anything, I'm really not a rabid feminist and am almost entirely unfamiliar with women in the bible, so not really prepared to make the argument. And probably wont sell you anyways.

Even with the qualifier though, I think it would go something like "female sexuality is restrained and virgin-ness is promoted, along with being passive, devotion and complete loyalty to a man, if not outright owned." but ya, concede that aside from mary being a virgin, I can't go too much further, given a total lack of reference to biblical story.

I was more using the feminist interpretation of mary, whoch I'm not making up, agree with it or not, as a place where the historical veracity of Mary is of importance. Not huge importance, but some. The feminist interpretation sees mary, at least as presented in scripture, as being, as the article I'm sourcing puts it, both de-sexed and de-humanized. Not that that argument is really important, more that the historicity of the biblical Mary is important to the discussion.

Sorry for trolling :P

oops, edit, forgot to cite: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2296

I dated a feminist for a while too, in. Fun times. She had an uncanny ability to make any discussion into a critique of gender roles. I honestly didn't disagree with most of what she said, but she came across as intimidatingly militant about it. I don't wear the pants in pretty much any relationship I'm in, romantic or otherwise, so in order not to feel totally left out I resorted to a bunch of passive-aggressive digs involving man's superiority and women's subjugation.

To her credit, she took the jokes in stride, but also dumped me for some dude with a similarly revolutionary idiom about him. Didn't even give me time to make the Bogart speech. Hrn.

But anyway, I just had trouble seeing what the fuss was all about. Shape society and laws that promote equality, as well as personal principles involving freedom from gender-bias. Seems simple enough. But then they get all crazy and start putting out claims that women are genetic equals to men in many sports, or protesting for complete bans on legal pornography, and similarly oppressive and/or delusion causes.

Sorry. Tangent. Back to Mary. Personally, I'd wreck that chick. Best. Deflowering. Ever.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Personally, I'd wreck that chick. Best. Deflowering. Ever.


lol?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

alright, ya, I was more channeling my girlfriend than anything, I'm really not a rabid feminist and am almost entirely unfamiliar with women in the bible, so not really prepared to make the argument. And probably wont sell you anyways.

Even with the qualifier though, I think it would go something like "female sexuality is restrained and virgin-ness is promoted, along with being passive, devotion and complete loyalty to a man, if not outright owned." but ya, concede that aside from mary being a virgin, I can't go too much further, given a total lack of reference to biblical story.


Oh, it's very true that when looked at with a critical eye women in the Bible are very often portrayed as either dangerously incompetent or down right evil. However, Mary and that chick Abraham was banging are the only ones that ever come off as passive. Overall the Judeo-Christian texts tends to ignore women entirely. Although, in context, that was not uncommon at the time pretty much anywhere.

On the other hand the Bible is very easy to interpret based on one's point of view and I have met a (small) number of women who consider many parts to be protofemenist.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol?

Ultimate dominance fantasy.

I guess I'm a practical-feminist in that I'm the equal pay for equal work kind...but I don't feel the Bible to be anti-woman. In as patriarchal a society as the ancient Middle East, reading about women like Ruth, Jael, and Tamar is refreshing and a feat in itself. If you want more strong women, read about Deborah and Esther.

Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene may not have been fighters, but most of the people in the Bible, men and women, are in there because of their great faith. Imo, God is not male or female. He (because that's just the established pronoun) is beyond all of those qualifiers that divide people. Saying God is a male figure is like making a claim that God is white or a liberal or what-have-you.

I believe Mary had sex after she had Jesus. There is nothing that says otherwise, to my knowledge, and even a passage in the Bible (think it's in Matthew) refers to Jesus' brothers. Aha! It is Matthew.

Matthew 13:55

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

There is nothing sinful about engaging in sex with one's spouse, the Apostle Paul even encourages it, so it would not have been a discredit to Mary or Joseph for them to have had sex after the birth of Jesus and have more children.

Someone asked earlier if I really believe Jesus was born of a virgin. Absolutely I do.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I dated a feminist for a while too, in. Fun times. She had an uncanny ability to make any discussion into a critique of gender roles. I honestly didn't disagree with most of what she said, but she came across as intimidatingly militant about it. I don't wear the pants in pretty much any relationship I'm in, romantic or otherwise, so in order not to feel totally left out I resorted to a bunch of passive-aggressive digs involving man's superiority and women's subjugation.

To her credit, she took the jokes in stride, but also dumped me for some dude with a similarly revolutionary idiom about him. Didn't even give me time to make the Bogart speech. Hrn.

But anyway, I just had trouble seeing what the fuss was all about. Shape society and laws that promote equality, as well as personal principles involving freedom from gender-bias. Seems simple enough. But then they get all crazy and start putting out claims that women are genetic equals to men in many sports, or protesting for complete bans on legal pornography, and similarly oppressive and/or delusion causes.

Its cool, I like it. She wants to pay for herself and is very independent, and can give a good rant from time to time.

She isn't as aggressive with her opinions as it sounds like your ex was, but she was raised in a very strict christian church and house, so she has some negative feelings toward the bible and women within it.

great sex too

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oh, it's very true that when looked at with a critical eye women in the Bible are very often portrayed as either dangerously incompetent or down right evil. However, Mary and that chick Abraham was banging are the only ones that ever come off as passive. Overall the Judeo-Christian texts tends to ignore women entirely. Although, in context, that was not uncommon at the time pretty much anywhere.

On the other hand the Bible is very easy to interpret based on one's point of view and I have met a (small) number of women who consider many parts to be protofemenist.


fair enough, like I said, I admit my ignorance on the matter. I guess if you want to read anything into a religious text you can, but I do think there is some truth at least to the use of Mary in symbology as a way to oppress feminine sexuality.

Not that the bible isn't just as much against male sexuality (of course, if read in that particular light)

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I guess I'm a practical-feminist in that I'm the equal pay for equal work kind...but I don't feel the Bible to be anti-woman. In as patriarchal a society as the ancient Middle East, reading about women like Ruth, Jael, and Tamar is refreshing and a feat in itself. If you want more strong women, read about Deborah and Esther.

Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene may not have been fighters, but most of the people in the Bible, men and women, are in there because of their great faith. Imo, God is not male or female. He (because that's just the established pronoun) is beyond all of those qualifiers that divide people. Saying God is a male figure is like making a claim that God is white or a liberal or what-have-you.

I believe Mary had sex after she had Jesus. There is nothing that says otherwise, to my knowledge, and even a passage in the Bible (think it's in Matthew) refers to Jesus' brothers. Aha! It is Matthew.

Matthew 13:55

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

There is nothing sinful about engaging in sex with one's spouse, the Apostle Paul even encourages it, so it would not have been a discredit to Mary or Joseph for them to have had sex after the birth of Jesus and have more children.

Someone asked earlier if I really believe Jesus was born of a virgin. Absolutely I do.

cool, I had heard Jesus had siblings, and it was always something that confused me.

the article I cited (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2296) talks about how these kids were later, by church authority, turned into cousins and half brothers in order to give the impression of Mary's virgin-hood.

I want to reiterate again though, my point wasn't that the bible is anti-woman (i guess that sort of became my point... but anyways) but that whether or not Mary is fiction is important. Maybe less so than I origionally thought, but if the story of Mary has been maipulated from its origional for various political purposes, the validity of that story is important.

Originally posted by inimalist
great sex too

Yeah, mine was the same. And we had dated years ago when she was a shy little Christian girl. Incomprehensible difference. Philosophical stances can come with unexpected perks.



....


Anyway, we could have the "you can interpret the Bible any way you want" discussion, but I actually think women have more of a case than most concerning most Christian sects. For a religion purporting to be salvation for all, and who also prides itself on being "progressive" (Catholicism at least), it's embarrassingly male-dominated. I mentioned to my then-gf when John Paul II died that the 1000 people closest to his body at the funeral were male, and that was likely a gross understatement.

One can find strong female figures in church history as refutation, but it's inevitable given the length of time Christianity has been around. Compared to what it should or could be, the number is laughable, even in recent times. Look through a list of saints, popes, books, writings, history, etc. and compare notes. Women are second-class citizens in nearly every sense of the word.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
One can find strong female figures in church history as refutation, but it's inevitable given the length of time Christianity has been around. Compared to what it should or could be, the number is laughable, even in recent times. Look through a list of saints, popes, books, writings, history, etc. and compare notes. Women are second-class citizens in nearly every sense of the word.

I find it poor logic to say that there are female leaders and strong female role models involved in Christianity due only to a length of time. I think it is the nature of Christianity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hinduism and Buddhism were around a lot longer than Christianity, along with the pagan religions of Greece/Turkey/etc, and those religions do not have a famous female name attached to them. I'm not referring to the Greek goddesses or even the oracles at Delphi because even though they were an important element, none of their names survived history. Yet many male leaders' names did survive.

In Islam, which is only about 600 years younger than Christianity, how many prominent women can you find in that faith? Yes, I know Mohammad's wife was the first convert to the faith, but do any of these faiths that are either older than Christianity or are a contemporary to, feature women like Tamar, Ruth, Esther, Jael, Mary, and Mary Magdalene, or even the female saints, like Christianity does?

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I find it poor logic to say that there are female leaders and strong female role models involved in Christianity due only to a length of time. I think it is the nature of Christianity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hinduism and Buddhism were around a lot longer than Christianity, along with the pagan religions of Greece/Turkey/etc, and those religions do not have a famous female name attached to them. I'm not referring to the Greek goddesses or even the oracles at Delphi because even though they were an important element, none of their names survived history. Yet many male leaders' names did survive.

In Islam, which is only about 600 years younger than Christianity, how many prominent women can you find in that faith? Yes, I know Mohammad's wife was the first convert to the faith, but do any of these faiths that are either older than Christianity or are a contemporary to, feature women like Tamar, Ruth, Esther, Jael, Mary, and Mary Magdalene, or even the female saints, like Christianity does?

lol

why do biblical christian figures count, but not goddesses from paganism?

and Christianity can be better than any other religion (I'm not saying I think it is) and still oppressive of women. Humanity as a whole has a fairly negative history when it comes to making up myths in order to oppress people. I'd love you to come up with a Christian figure who even approaches Simone De Bouvier or any other real feminist figure.

Because I'm talking about actual people, not a deity of any kind.

Joan of Arc isn't a positive, strong female associated with Christianity?

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Because I'm talking about actual people, not a deity of any kind.

Joan of Arc isn't a positive, strong female associated with Christianity?

ok, however, then we get into the historicity of the content of the bible, which you wont sell me on. Aphrodite is just as likely to have existed as Mary.

Joan o Arc, while being a powerful woman, might not be the best symbol or feminism.

You have to remember, a feminist critique isn't that women don't exist in christian mythology, but that they are potrayed as cowed, with no personal will and especially their lack of individual sexuality. Feminist critiques also are more directed at the use of the myths in society by church authority than at the actual dogma.

From a very cursory reading of the google results for "feminist Joan of Arc" it appears that as a symbol she is being potrayed as a symbol of female power. Cynicly, she was loyal, obedient, and her "power" came from the fact she was willing to dress and act like a man. Not the best example. Nothing even close to real feminism.

Originally posted by inimalist
why do biblical christian figures count, but not goddesses from paganism?

That's a valid point.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd love you to come up with a Christian figure who even approaches Simone De Bouvier or any other real feminist figure.

Saint Barbara refused to let her father marry her off in the face of execution. Then she became the patron saint of blowing shit up which you'd think would go to a guy.

Joan of Arc isn't too bad either.

Julian of Norwich referred to God as female reportedly using "Mother" rather than "Father".

At least some of the Gnostics considered Eve to be the ultimate figure of human salvation.

Galations 4:21-31 can been seen as distinctly against women being subjugated. (I do realize there are far more passages with clearly oppositional views)

Of course there are some very twisted attempts to find feminism in the Bible:
http://christianfeminism.wordpress.com/


But overall there aren't many surviving religions with a pro-female angle.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I find it poor logic to say that there are female leaders and strong female role models involved in Christianity due only to a length of time. I think it is the nature of Christianity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hinduism and Buddhism were around a lot longer than Christianity, along with the pagan religions of Greece/Turkey/etc, and those religions do not have a famous female name attached to them. I'm not referring to the Greek goddesses or even the oracles at Delphi because even though they were an important element, none of their names survived history. Yet many male leaders' names did survive.

In Islam, which is only about 600 years younger than Christianity, how many prominent women can you find in that faith? Yes, I know Mohammad's wife was the first convert to the faith, but do any of these faiths that are either older than Christianity or are a contemporary to, feature women like Tamar, Ruth, Esther, Jael, Mary, and Mary Magdalene, or even the female saints, like Christianity does?

Just for the record, its hard to find names of Athenian leaders.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Saint Barbara refused to let her father marry her off in the face of execution. Then she became the patron saint of blowing shit up which you'd think would go to a guy.

very interesting, I had never heard of her. I read the Wiki (which of course makes me an expert now), really good example.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Joan of Arc isn't too bad either.

personally I think it takes a bit of reading into for it to work, but that is hardly a really good criticism.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Julian of Norwich referred to God as female reportedly using "Mother" rather than "Father".

again going just by the Wiki, another good example

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
At least some of the Gnostics considered Eve to be the ultimate figure of human salvation.

I should read more on these gnostics...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Galations 4:21-31 can been seen as distinctly against women being subjugated. (I do realize there are far more passages with clearly oppositional views)

still, not bad. Its good to know that there is at least something there to make the argument from. Sort of like a "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of thing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course there are some very twisted attempts to find feminism in the Bible:
http://christianfeminism.wordpress.com/

I did find a bunch of pages similar to this. I guess if you do really feel motivated and freed as a woman from scripture, all the power to you.

But ya:

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But overall there aren't many surviving religions with a pro-female angle.

agree 200%

Not that I am just trying to shit on your examples or anything, but as a last point, it is possible to read cynical interpretations into most of the examples you gave (that Julian is pretty tight). Much like anything, it depends on what you want to highlight. For instance, Barbara refused to marry because she was a Christian, not because she as a woman had different plans for her life (splitting hairs, I admit).

It depends how you define feminism. For me, it has always meant a woman having the freedom to live her life how she wants, her value placed on what she is as an individual. So for me, Joan of Arc, although dressing like a man cannot be called feminism, established an identity for herself outside that of just being someone's daughter/sister/wife.

Although technically a Jewish figure, Deborah is a fine example of feminism in the Bible. She not only established an identity for herself and lived her life how she chose, but her name eclipses even that of her husband. Deborah may not be as well known as Jacob or Moses, but she is certainly better known than Lappidoth.

Oh, I know it's hard to find Athenian names. But it is the names that survive the test of time that seem to be in question here.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I find it poor logic to say that there are female leaders and strong female role models involved in Christianity due only to a length of time. I think it is the nature of Christianity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hinduism and Buddhism were around a lot longer than Christianity, along with the pagan religions of Greece/Turkey/etc, and those religions do not have a famous female name attached to them. I'm not referring to the Greek goddesses or even the oracles at Delphi because even though they were an important element, none of their names survived history. Yet many male leaders' names did survive.

In Islam, which is only about 600 years younger than Christianity, how many prominent women can you find in that faith? Yes, I know Mohammad's wife was the first convert to the faith, but do any of these faiths that are either older than Christianity or are a contemporary to, feature women like Tamar, Ruth, Esther, Jael, Mary, and Mary Magdalene, or even the female saints, like Christianity does?

Islam is repressive toward women in many traditions. And are you really enough of an authority on Buddhism or Hinduism to make such claims? I'm not, and my guess is that your assumption that there are no famous females is just that: an assumption.

And I conceded famous females, but also stated that the percentage is inordinately low. There are more females on the planet than males. They'd be lucky to account for 5% of famous church figures, and I feel like that's being very generous.

Like in said, they can be "progressive" compared to other religions and still be repressive. I didn't compare them to other religions. You did. I compared it to what it should be like, which is far more advanced from a gender perspective than Christianity approaches.

Joan of Arc, Mary, etc. are anecdotes, not statistical trends, and don't address my central point.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Islam is repressive toward women in many traditions.

Islam was the first religion to give women the right to divorce and own property.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Islam was the first religion to give women the right to divorce and own property.

That doesn't make any sense. In the time of the Greeks, women could divorce and own property.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Islam was the first religion to give women the right to divorce and own property.

And this proves me wrong than many Islamic traditions are repressive toward women? I wish people would start understanding that anecdotes aren't evidence.

It is true that Islam did a lot for women's rights compared to what they were before the time of Mohammad. But compared to today's standards in civilized countries, yes it is repressive.

Congrats, though. Might win you 400 bucks on Jeopardy someday.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That doesn't make any sense. In the time of the Greeks, women could divorce and own property.

I'm talking religion, homes. Not a race/ethnicity.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And this proves me wrong than many Islamic traditions are repressive toward women? I wish people would start understanding that anecdotes aren't evidence.

It is true that Islam did a lot for women's rights compared to what they were before the time of Mohammad. But compared to today's standards in civilized countries, yes it is repressive.

Congrats, though. Might win you 400 bucks on Jeopardy someday.

Then I guess you believe what the biased US news tells you about Islam. When you see a Muslim woman wearing a hijab, do you think she's being forced to? Because the males in her family make her? No its a choice completely of her own free will.

One could argue that her choice to do so stems from being a member of a repressive society that brought her up a certain way, but that's a whole other can of worms and not all Islamic communities are like that.

I have other sources besides the media that have informed me of women in certain societies in the Middle East that have to live a certain way out of fear of abuse, not because they choose to.

So I think if I were to see your hypothetical Muslim woman, it would have to depend on that particular individual whether she was practicing Muslim traditions by choice or out of coersion.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Then I guess you believe what the biased US news tells you about Islam. When you see a Muslim woman wearing a hijab, do you think she's being forced to? Because the males in her family make her? No its a choice completely of her own free will.

Alright, then it's a cultural thing, and religion is most of their culture. Are you really trying to say that Islamic culture is progressive toward women? Once again, you're taking a single point and trying to make a rash generalizaiton from it. Doesn't work that way.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm talking religion, homes. Not a race/ethnicity.

Then Buddhism was way ahead of all other religions. Buddha allowed women to join as nuns in his religion 500 years before Jesus was born.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Alright, then it's a cultural thing, and religion is most of their culture. Are you really trying to say that Islamic culture is progressive toward women? Once again, you're taking a single point and trying to make a rash generalizaiton from it. Doesn't work that way.

The iranian revolution saw women take to the streets violently for their right to wear the hajib and burka

also, Sharia law, compared to other religions, is very pro-woman.

Not arguing your point, I agree that the practice of Islam is very anti-woman and the Qu'ran is highly patriarchical, just there is something to be said when comparing Islamic scripture to biblical scripture about the role of women

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Alright, then it's a cultural thing, and religion is most of their culture. Are you really trying to say that Islamic culture is progressive toward women? Once again, you're taking a single point and trying to make a rash generalizaiton from it. Doesn't work that way.

Religion and culture are not coterminous. Turkey is almost entirely Muslim, but a secular democracy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then Buddhism was way ahead of all other religions. Buddha allowed women to join as nuns in his religion 500 years before Jesus was born.

Buddhism has nuns? As in they have to virgins, etc? And do they also wear orange and shave their heads?

Originally posted by inimalist
The iranian revolution saw women take to the streets violently for their right to wear the hajib and burka

also, Sharia law, compared to other religions, is very pro-woman.

Not arguing your point, I agree that the practice of Islam is very anti-woman and the Qu'ran is highly patriarchical, just there is something to be said when comparing Islamic scripture to biblical scripture about the role of women

Fair enough. My point was always that they are a "net repressive" compared to modern standards, not that good points don't exist in such cultures.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Religion and culture are not coterminous. Turkey is almost entirely Muslim, but a secular democracy.

My point was always that they are a "net repressive" compared to modern standards, not that good points don't exist in such cultures. You changed the point of argument to suit your purposes.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Religion and culture are not coterminous. Turkey is almost entirely Muslim, but a secular democracy.



Buddhism has nuns? As in they have to virgins, etc? And do they also wear orange and shave their heads?

I don't know what the nuns, that followed Buddha while he was alive, wore or their hair styles.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough. My point was always that they are a "net repressive" compared to modern standards, not that good points don't exist in such cultures.


by modern standards, Sharia is very anti-woman

ya, not arguing

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You changed the point of argument to suit your purposes.

I didn't try to suit any purposes, because I don't have one. I pointed out that you're wrong about Islam.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I didn't try to suit any purposes, because I don't have one. I pointed out that you're wrong about Islam.

Except that I'm not, because "My point was always that they are a "net repressive" compared to modern standards, not that good points don't exist in such cultures."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That doesn't make any sense. In the time of the Greeks, women could divorce and own property.

No Athenian woman could divorce and she could certainly not own property- I am unsure about other Greek cultures but I believe it was the same.

Roman women could divorce and indeed could own property- they were still subservient though.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No Athenian woman could divorce and she could certainly not own property- I am unsure about other Greek cultures but I believe it was the same.

Roman women could divorce and indeed could own property- they were still subservient though.

I guess being partly right is better then being completely wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I guess being partly right is better then being completely wrong.

Indeed, being a Protestant is better than being a Muslim.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Indeed, being a Protestant is better than being a Muslim.

Now you have gotten yourself in trouble.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Now you have gotten yourself in trouble.

haha, I found that one quite amusing.

What they gonna do? Stone me? I thought they only did that to women...(well not Islam ofcourse, the founding member of the WRM)

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
haha, I found that one quite amusing.

What they gonna do? Stone me? I thought they only did that to women...(well not Islam ofcourse, the founding member of the WRM)

No, but some of them will kill you, if they can find you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, but some of them will kill you, if they can find you.

Haha, better find Mr. Rushdi I hear he's an expert on Muslim Hospitality.

okay I learned my lesson since Im not going googling or flipping pages in the bible I'm just gonna give my opinion...she gets to much praise...she actually gets God's prayers...somehow that doesnt sound good to me I dont think your suppose to pray to anyone but God or maybe Jesus(I always throw in the thank you to Jesus when I pray..lol..)
And the priests teach you to pray to her etc...? The priests actually say I forgive you my son? thought only Jesus could forgive our sins?..anyways Im drifting from the thread main issue prob another thread on all that..(and no Im not bashing catholics have friends who are catholic we debate this now and then) So I am going to vote yes she gets to much attention!