Saturday, 26 April 2008

Mary

I didn't know this until reading Hitchens' book: some Xians believe that the virgin Mary would not have been pure enough to carry god's seed unless she herself was conceived immaculately. Are you kidding me? Doesn't this set up an infinite regress? If Jesus could not have left Mary untainted by original sin, then she too would still be tainted by original sin unless her mother was an immaculate conception and so on. So, not only do some Xians posit that a woman got preggers without having sex, but so did her mom. Something that we know is biologically impossible happened not just once, but twice.

What is it about being virginal or not having sex that makes one pure? Why is sex considered dirty and why do Xians have such a pre-occupation with the sex of others? This compulsion to label anything sexual as shameful is one of the more perverse parts of Xianity. Apparently god gave us something enjoyable and necessary, then decided that it was a bad thing we should avoid. But he gave us free will as well; which is a bad thing in his eyes, since he made us vulnerable to temptation. Is there anything about Xianity that makes sense?

10 comments:

Miao said...

Richard Dawkins came up with his own New Ten Commandments, one of which is something along these lines: Enjoy your own sex life and recognise that whatever others want to do with theirs is none of your business, as long as their actions and decisions don't interfere with your own rights to enjoy your own sex life.

In Asia, quite a significant portion of the audience hold female celebrities who've managed to preserve their virginity till marriage in reverence. Or, at least, these females celebrities are expected not to have wild sex lives (think Paris Hilton). There is also quite a number of Asian female artistes who have publicly claimed that they are against the idea of pre-marital sex because they are Christians/Catholics. This is especially so in Hong Kong, where there is a large population of Christians (considering that the place was under England's sovereignty for so many decades). One of the actresses who announced that she would stay a virgin till marriage (well, she got married recently) used to be a mistress 'kept' by a tycoon, because she needed the money to pay off her mother's mounting debts. She is also a staunch Christian. But who was she trying to kid? Do you honestly believe that a man would pay her millions a month and not request that she entertains him in bed?

If memory serves me correct, Jessica Simpson also once claimed that she'd remain a virgin till she got married, because she's a Christian. So did Britney Spears. Well, I don't know about Simpson, but Spears eventually had pre-marital sex anyway, and so did her younger sister.

Sometimes Christians just sound annoyingly pretentious with their "no pre-marital sex" conviction.

Waitin' on the Thunder said...

Once again, your conclusions are a real reach...the statements referring to God not being everywhere,etc. The Genesis references are completely out of context.

I truly do not believe that "you" have read the Bible thoroughly and choose only the statements that make you feel comfortable.

I noticed, also, on an earlier post, that you told "Anonymous" that he/she was an atheist to the Jewish god or the Islamic god, etc.

Look it up, a "theist" is one who believes in a supreme being. An "atheist" denies the existence of a supreme being.

This isn't my definition, but a dictionary definition.

GCT said...

"Once again, your conclusions are a real reach..."

Specifics please.

"the statements referring to God not being everywhere,etc. The Genesis references are completely out of context."

This post has nothing to do with Genesis.

"I truly do not believe that "you" have read the Bible thoroughly and choose only the statements that make you feel comfortable."

Kinda like how theists do? Like when they choose only the parts that cast god in the best light so that they can say that a ruthless, cruel, genocidal maniac loves us?

"I noticed, also, on an earlier post, that you told "Anonymous" that he/she was an atheist to the Jewish god or the Islamic god, etc."

I did no such thing.

"An "atheist" denies the existence of a supreme being."

Actually, an atheist is one who finds no need for belief in a supreme being, and has seen no evidence for such belief and therefore does not believe.

michael said...

There is a reason for us using biblical quotations: this is our evidence. Whenever a theist uses scientific evidence out of context (such as punctuated equilibrium) he is ridiculed, and rightly so.

rationalrussian said...

Couldn't help myself --

Q: "Is there anything about Xianity that makes sense?"

A: Still a resounding "no," but they try hard, considering the crappy story book they have to work with.

waitin' on the thunder said...

The "atheist" definition I gave was right out of the dictionary. If you decide to change it, it's your perogative.

What I was getting at about "out of context" was from the front page references.

Anyone can pick out bits and pieces from any writing and interpret it to support their own cause...more than a bit simplistic.

Go ahead, don't believe in God...so what? If the truth be told, that's your business...just as mine is mine.

What would be refreshing would be an entire post espousing the qualities of holding to an atheist belief...enlighten me, please.

GCT said...

"The "atheist" definition I gave was right out of the dictionary. If you decide to change it, it's your perogative."

My dictionary says "Denies or disbelieves" which is different from what you quoted. Anyway, I find that self-identification is better that dictionaries for certain things.

"What I was getting at about "out of context" was from the front page references.

Anyone can pick out bits and pieces from any writing and interpret it to support their own cause...more than a bit simplistic."

I'll bite. god shows up in Eden and doesn't know that Adam and Eve ate of the fruit. Explain that one, while showing how god is omni-present and omniscient.

"Go ahead, don't believe in God...so what? If the truth be told, that's your business...just as mine is mine."

Agreed, except for one small detail, and that is that theists are notorious for not letting things be and allowing heathens and infidels to live their lives in peace.

"What would be refreshing would be an entire post espousing the qualities of holding to an atheist belief...enlighten me, please."

I've been thinking about that actually, although I've already listed some in other threads and comments on this blog. And a nit, it's not an atheist belief, but a disbelief.

waitin' on the thunder said...

The point about God not knowing that Adam and Eve had eaten the apple...Perhaps this analogy will help. When my sons were young, I could walk into a room and know what they had done. God was simply giving them an opportunity to be truthful...he already knew the answer. That one was very easy, actually.

waitin' on the thunder said...

One additional item. Would you please explain to me the rationale for the "Big Bang" theory?

In what I've been reading recently, initially strong proponents seem to be backing off.

GCT said...

Adam and Eve...
That is a possibility, but it doesn't fit with the overall tone of the rest of the Bible. The early Bible writers didn't have an omni-max deity in mind when they wrote/told their stories. This god was obviously a provincial god among other gods that would triumph in the end and become the true god for the chosen people. He didn't know all, he didn't see all, he wasn't in all places all at once. As the religion evolved, god became more and more powerful.

Big Bang,
The universe is exanding as the cosmic background radiation implies that the universe was hotter in the distant past. Both of these together lead to the conclusion that the universe has expanded from a singularity (along with observations of the proportions of light elements to heavier ones, etc.) Who is it that you think is backing off?