The BBC Says Mary Was Likely NO VIRGIN..

And they are going to air a broadcast about just that.

They do have some ideas about what actually happened and those will be in their program.

It says she could have conceived and borne her son in three other ways:

by a secret lover, a possibility the programme dismisses as unlikely


after being raped by a Roman soldier. One later writer suggested this, but it appears even less likely,


having been made pregnant by Joseph, to whom she was engaged. This seems quite possible, as engaged couples often did live together at the time.

This will stir up some shit - you can be sure of it. ;D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2594361.stm

Pure speculation. It won't 'stir up shit' since those who accept the story in the bible won't give any heed to bullshit coming from the BBC.

What evidence to you have that engaged couples in Israel slept together before marriage? Or even lived together? What makes you think the morality of 1 A.D. is as corrupt as 2002 A.D.?

I didn't say I had evidence. I was only copy/pasting a blurb from the story.

My opinion, however, is women do not usually get pregnant without sex. I would say there is sufficient scientific evidence for THAT claim.

What Mary did or did not do - I cannot say.

Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception?

I didn't say I had evidence. I was only copy/pasting a blurb from the story.

My opinion, however, is women do not usually get pregnant without sex. I would say there is sufficient scientific evidence for THAT claim.

What Mary did or did not do - I cannot say.

Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception?


I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception nor do I believe Mary remained a virgin the rest of her life since I think her and Joseph had other children. Just how God planted his seed in Mary is a mystery unless you just want to get vulgar about it. I do not believe the Holy Ghost is the father of Jesus either as some do. I believe his father was God Almighty who himself had a body of flesh and bones and Christ was conceived from a sperm and egg just like every person who ever was born. I do believe Mary was a virgin, never had before known a man and she was chosen by God to be the mother of his only begotten son in the flesh.

lonestar - you have lost me on this one.

If Jesus was concieved by sperm and egg - then are you insinuating that she actually had sex with God, when he was in a human form?

I am not being rude - I have just never heard that before. I hope you will explain EXACTLY what you mean - because I do NOT know.

But , if you are saying what I think you are - then she still would not be a virgin when she gave birth. Would she?

lonestar - you have lost me on this one.

If Jesus was concieved by sperm and egg - then are you insinuating that she actually had sex with God, when he was in a human form?

I am not being rude - I have just never heard that before. I hope you will explain EXACTLY what you mean - because I do NOT know.

But , if you are saying what I think you are - then she still would not be a virgin when she gave birth. Would she?


I'm saying I don't know how God pulled it off but what I am saying the physical properties of Christ, just like you and me and every other human being, came from a being that had flesh and bones and was capable of passing his DNA onto Christ. Christ's conception was brought about by joining a sperm with an egg. Did God have sex with Mary? I do not know and can't say. That is how we do it and that is how God designed how we do it but we also know it can be done other ways. The bottom line is God's sperm and Mary's egg produced the baby Jesus Christ.

[Meshuga Mikey]

I believe that things of the Spirit are discerned Spiritually , and that BBC just wants so stir the shit~!!

Let them better serve thier "customers" by running a series on the so called immigrants that are destroying thier little island nation.

Perhaps there IS a CONNECTION between those two paragraphs,...WHO KNOWS?

[wendy]

Did the Bible actually claim she was a virgin? I've also read translations that read young woman. Is truth in the eye of the translator?

Thanks for explaining your view. I was not sure what you meant.

Once when I was younger I saw this weird program where a God turned into a big bird and had sex with Mary. Only it wasnt' Mary and God - it was some nun - but it was supposed to represent them. Very strange.

Did the Bible actually claim she was a virgin? I've also read translations that read young woman. Is truth in the eye of the translator?


No, the bible never does say "virgin". That is just the translation that we use now. It uses a word that means young woman, as you said.

It seems strange to me that if God wanted to create a Son and put him in flesh he could do that as easily without making a virgin pregnant.

Why not just create him like he did Adam and Eve? Adult, right off the bat?

ShaZammmm!!!! There stands a Messiah!!! You know. like that?

It makes more sense to me. Then we don't have to worry two thousand years down the road if Mary was or was not a virgin - and if it even makes a difference.

Did the Bible actually claim she was a virgin? I've also read translations that read young woman. Is truth in the eye of the translator?


I've seen that too. Christian doctrine and specifically Mormon doctrine, teach that Jesus is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father.

I don't care how he did it. Honestly I don't think he just had sex with her like we would but I do believe Christ was part of his Father and his mother.

[truelies]

Did the Bible actually claim she was a virgin? I've also read translations that read young woman. Is truth in the eye of the translator?


MATTHEW Chapter 1 (from the NIV)

The Birth of Jesus Christ

18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[3] because he will save his people from their sins."
22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"[4] --which means, "God with us."
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Clearly, according to the Bible the conception of Jesus was NOT in the manner we are used to.

Did the Bible actually claim she was a virgin? I've also read translations that read young woman. Is truth in the eye of the translator?


I guess it depends on whose 'truth' you want to listen to. Not only does the Bible say that Mary was a virgin, but Mary herself claimed to be a virgin -- in terms that were by no means uncertain.

From The Gospel According to Luke:
1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
1:29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

[I-RIGHT-I]

I believe that things of the Spirit are discerned Spiritually , and that BBC just wants so stir the shit~!!

Let them better serve thier "customers" by running a series on the so called immigrants that are destroying thier little island nation.

Perhaps there IS a CONNECTION between those two paragraphs,...WHO KNOWS?


The entire Old and New Testament falls apart without the Immaculate Conception. That of course is why the BBC, PBS and other Liberal agencies choose to run this kind of think just before Christmas. They do this ever year.

I'm with the Jew Guy....The BBC would be better served pointing out bombers in their midst, the queer priests in the Anglican church diddling the choir boys and other priests telling children that Santa Claus is dead.

It's interesting to note that when Jesus had one of his public spats with the Pharisees they were quick to imply that Jesus didn't know who his father was when they said "We know who our father is" meaning Moses. Christ lived his entire life under the cloud of being a bastard. Mary the same cloud as being a woman of stained virtue. Mary had to wait until the Resurrection to be proved a woman of spotless virtue to her peers.

I believe that things of the Spirit are discerned Spiritually , and that BBC just wants so stir the shit~!!

Let them better serve thier "customers" by running a series on the so called immigrants that are destroying thier little island nation.

Perhaps there IS a CONNECTION between those two paragraphs,...WHO KNOWS?


The entire Old and New Testament falls apart without the Immaculate Conception. That of course is why the BBC, PBS and other Liberal agencies choose to run this kind of think just before Christmas. They do this ever year.

I'm with the Jew Guy....The BBC would be better served pointing out bombers in their midst, the queer priests in the Anglican church diddling the choir boys and other priests telling children that Santa Claus is dead.

It's interesting to note that when Jesus had one of his public spats with the Pharisees they were quick to imply that Jesus didn't know who his father was when they said "We know who our father is" meaning Moses. Christ lived his entire life under the cloud of being a bastard. Mary the same cloud as being a woman of stained virtue. Mary had to wait until the Resurrection to be proved a woman of spotless virtue to her peers.




You've mis-read the scripture, it wasn't Moses it was Abraham they were talking about and it has nothing to do with Christ being a bastard.

[wendy]

People are really ticked off over that BBC special.

memorable quote:

"To include, within a historical examination of her life, confused and unfounded guesswork, which carries with it crude and offensive speculation, is not only unscholarly but runs the risk of undermining the very integrity of the project itself."
[http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/24/1040511039864.html

Historical? Oh please....tell me this guy doesn't really believe the Bible is literal history. That said, perhaps they would have been better off running the program in say...July?

People are really ticked off over that BBC special.

memorable quote:

"To include, within a historical examination of her life, confused and unfounded guesswork, which carries with it crude and offensive speculation, is not only unscholarly but runs the risk of undermining the very integrity of the project itself."
[http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/24/1040511039864.html

Historical? Oh please....tell me this guy doesn't really believe the Bible is literal history.

Why not? A lot of people believe the Bible is literal history. Even historians.

[kathleen]

Why not? A lot of people believe the Bible is literal history. Even historians.


Bwahahahahaha!!!

Even when there is no (or conflicting) archaeological evidence for such claims?

Why not? A lot of people believe the Bible is literal history. Even historians.


Bwahahahahaha!!!

Even when there is no (or conflicting) archaeological evidence for such claims?




Those were my thoughts too. It's all a matter of faith isn't it?

[truelies]

[quote author=kathleen
Bwahahahahaha!!!

Even when there is no (or conflicting) archaeological evidence for such claims?


[/quote]

Just because SOME have a vested interest in denying or ignoring the Evidence makes it no less real.

I could serve you a dog turd and call it a T-bone steak. I think you all know what it's going to taste like, however.

Late Edit: I am sure there are those among us, maybe even someone you know, that would enjoy that dog turd...because ya know why? As long as someone is "told" something, it certainly must be true.

Bon appetite.

I could serve you a dog turd and call it a T-bone steak. I think you all know what it's going to taste like, however.


Your deep and broad philosophical mind just blows me away at times. ;D

Your deep and broad philosophical mind just blows me away at times. ;D


Coffee with that dog turd, sir? A-1? :)

I could serve you a dog turd and call it a T-bone steak. I think you all know what it's going to taste like, however.


Your deep and broad philosophical mind just blows me away at times. ;D


Yeah, that dog turd thing was sheer genius. ;D

funny how BN can use examples that might be construed as 'off-color' but they NAIL it right now!

Not me - I'm the inveterate clockmaker.

funny how BN can use examples that might be construed as 'off-color' but they NAIL it right now!

Can you believe I was thrown out of that shitty bar over "there" for not having anything of importance to say? ::)

funny how BN can use examples that might be construed as 'off-color' but they NAIL it right now!

Can you believe I was thrown out of that shitty bar over "there" for not having anything of importance to say? ::)


They just don’t appreciate you like we do badnews; it’s their loss but our gain. :)

I could serve you a dog turd and call it a T-bone steak. I think you all know what it's going to taste like, however.


Your deep and broad philosophical mind just blows me away at times. ;D


Yeah, that dog turd thing was sheer genius. ;D

funny how BN can use examples that might be construed as 'off-color' but they NAIL it right now!

Not me - I'm the inveterate clockmaker.




Funny, I've always thought of you as the turd in the punch bowl. ;D


(hey, you know I love you :))

They just don’t appreciate you like we do badnews; it’s their loss but our gain. :)



It's like CB tells it (paraphrased), some people it takes volumes to explain what they are really feeling. Others can summarize it quite succinctly in very short sentences. I've learned how to say "Fuck you" without having to go into the details about it.

[kathleen]

Just because SOME have a vested interest in denying or ignoring the Evidence makes it no less real.


What evidence? ::)

Just to let you know that I am not on an anti-christian rant (I would never do something like that). :)

I would be happy to take a unbiased, scientific and rational view of any evidence proving the bible's historical accuracy if you manage to dig any up.

As far as I have studied, there is no consistant timeline in the biblical stories. Events did not happen the way they are described as happening in these stories. Some events are complete fiction, some are a mismatch of stories/personalities from other cultures and areas of the time. There is no evidence of a "Garden of Eden", nor of the Exodus, nor of the defeat of Jericho (by the blasting of trumpets or any other means). Cannan (the land of milk and honey) existed, but was never defeated or taken over by the Israelites. And on and on the evidence takes us.

They just don’t appreciate you like we do badnews; it’s their loss but our gain. :)



It's like CB tells it (paraphrased), some people it takes volumes to explain what they are really feeling. Others can summarize it quite succinctly in very short sentences. I've learned how to say "Fuck you" without having to go into the details about it.



Self-righteous people like Tony and NC3 rarely understand the hidden and real meaning about people and life nor do they have the capabilities to read a man’s soul and accept them for what they really are. Sadly they walk around on their ivory tower and have no clue what humanity is all about.

funny how BN can use examples that might be construed as 'off-color' but they NAIL it right now!

Can you believe I was thrown out of that shitty bar over "there" for not having anything of importance to say? ::)


assholes!!!

Their loss.

Why not? A lot of people believe the Bible is literal history. Even historians.


Bwahahahahaha!!!

Even when there is no (or conflicting) archaeological evidence for such claims?

There is plenty of archaeological evidence that suppots the historical accuracy of the Bible, and absolutely none that conflicts with it. Furthermore, you'll be very hard-pressed to find any ancient document that's as historically accurate as the Bible, much less one that's more accurate.

[wendy]

Been hitting the bottle tonight?

[Lazarus]

Actually, now. When there is no other record available, the Bible is the record. There have been numerous archeological "digs" that have confirmed many of the things that the Bible also records.


Here is a passage from pp. 24-25 of my college history book, "The Western Experience to 1715," Chambers et al (c) 1979 Knopf publishers:


"THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A HISTORICAL SOURCE

"The Old Testament provides a continuous record of how the Israelites viewed their own past....Archeology in recent years has often confirmed the Bible, at least in questions of geography and topography, and literal accuracy is not, aftyer all, the central issue...The Bible deals with real people and real times; it combines ethics, poetry, and history into the most influential book in the Western tradition....

"THE EARLY ISRAELITES

"There is no good reason to doubt the tradition that one of the founders of the Israelite nation was Abraham, who led his clan away from the Sumerian city of Ur between 1800 and 1700 and followed a wandering course toward Egypt."


They go on to recount the kings of Egypt and an account of the story of Moses.

==>People can discount anything, but there is no reason for these multiple secular authors and historians to go out on a limb to simply validate a book of mythological stories--without good reason. And, just because certain things in a book are found to be reasonably accurate, it does not mean that all things in that book MUST be true.

[I-RIGHT-I]

I believe that things of the Spirit are discerned Spiritually , and that BBC just wants so stir the shit~!!

Let them better serve thier "customers" by running a series on the so called immigrants that are destroying thier little island nation.

Perhaps there IS a CONNECTION between those two paragraphs,...WHO KNOWS?


The entire Old and New Testament falls apart without the Immaculate Conception. That of course is why the BBC, PBS and other Liberal agencies choose to run this kind of think just before Christmas. They do this ever year.

I'm with the Jew Guy....The BBC would be better served pointing out bombers in their midst, the queer priests in the Anglican church diddling the choir boys and other priests telling children that Santa Claus is dead.

It's interesting to note that when Jesus had one of his public spats with the Pharisees they were quick to imply that Jesus didn't know who his father was when they said "We know who our father is" meaning Moses. Christ lived his entire life under the cloud of being a bastard. Mary the same cloud as being a woman of stained virtue. Mary had to wait until the Resurrection to be proved a woman of spotless virtue to her peers.




You've mis-read the scripture, it wasn't Moses it was Abraham they were talking about and it has nothing to do with Christ being a bastard.


Obviously I've just revisited this thread. I must say I'm surprised at some of the rebuttals to Wendy's continuous parroting of ignorant atheist buzz phrases.

And of course you're right LS (notice I didn't call you NDBF'er) it was Abraham and not Moses. But you might consider that in small town Nazareth it was no secret that Joseph married Mary when she was already pregnant. The inference of "we KNOW who OUR father is" in light of the scandal surrounding the birth of Jesus is really pretty clear. Added to that is the response He gave them in return about them not really knowing their father Abraham. The cou de gras was His charge that they weren't even son's of the Father and then Jesus' claim ,"before Abraham, I am." The Pharisees knew only too well that the term, "I am" is one of the ways God refers to Himself, thus Jesus was calling Himself God. That was the nail in His cross, so to speak.

Good thread. Christians:10 , Pagans: A big goose egg

[kathleen]

Did the Bible actually claim she was a virgin? I've also read translations that read young woman. Is truth in the eye of the translator?


Or it could be that the translator purposely mistranslated.

Isaish 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

In Hebrew

lâkhên yittên 'adhonâyhu' lâkhem 'oth hinnêh hâ`almâh hârâh veyoledheth bên veqârâ'th shemo`immânu'êl

According to Yariv Eyal, a teacher of Hebrew, "There exists no word with the ayin-lamed-mem root of "almah" (the female form of "elem", or "lad), which definitely connotes "virginity" in any way. There are various words which are derived from this sense of the root which connote age, not status of virginity, and even Strong's concordance [14] lists the word "almah" as the female counterpart of "elem" (lad), which makes no mention of virginity in its respective entry."

But let us suppose that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. This situation is certainly not unique. The belief in saviors born of a virgin was extremely commonplace.

-Crishna; Indian saviour god, born of the virgin Devaki; before sixth century BC.

-Buddha; Indian god born of Virgin Maya or Mary; third century BC.

-Fo-Li; Chinese mythological god, born of a virgin in 3468 BC.

-Lau-Kiun (Lao-Tsze), born of a virgin in 604 BC.

-Ra; Egyptian god, born from the side of his mother. Before 2000 BC.

-Zoroaster; Persian (Iranian) god; born in innoncence, of an immaculate conception of a Ray of Divine Reason.

-Perseus, son of Jupiter by the virgin Danae, daughter of Acrisius, King of Argos.

-Hercules, son of Jupiter by mortal mother, Alcmene.

-Apollo; son of Jupiter and mortal mother, Latona.

-Romulus, alleged founder of Rome, son of god by a pure virgin, Rhea-Slyvia.

Good post, Kathleen. Reminds me of a thread I had over at NM that got considerable attention.


"Could 15,000 Gods Be Wrong?"

[kathleen]

And, just because certain things in a book are found to be reasonably accurate, it does not mean that all things in that book MUST be true.


Absolutely, Lazarus - you just provided a statement of reason in this debate. Thank you. :)

[kathleen]

"Could 15,000 Gods Be Wrong?"


Possibly, but I'm not in the right frame of mind to work out the probability of such an event. Perhaps one of our resident math geniuses will do the honour. :D

Possibly, but I'm not in the right frame of mind to work out the probability of such an event. Perhaps one of our resident math geniuses will do the honour. :D




I think more particularly: "Could the Millions Upon Millions of People That Believed in Those Gods Have Been Wrong?"

It really doesn't matter, does it?

[kathleen]

It really doesn't matter, does it?


In the end? No, it doesn't, not one bit.

[kathleen]

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov

8)

I thought Jupiter (Zeus) went and seduced all the women that had his kids. I guess that's what I get for reading the mythology for myself.

[truelies]

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov

8)


This from the most sorry excuse for a 'scientist' in the 20th Cetury except for Carl Sagan and about the worst SF writer in the 'golden age' to actually get published short of L Ron Hubbard.

Most bbs atheists have trouble thinking for themselves, so they let others do it for them. I've been to atheist.org enough times to know that most of the arguments they use here aren't very original.

[Lazarus]

And, just because certain things in a book are found to be reasonably accurate, it does not mean that all things in that book MUST be true.


Absolutely, Lazarus - you just provided a statement of reason in this debate. Thank you. :)


Glad you agree. And just because something cannot be proven to be true, it does not mean that it must be false. :)

[kathleen]

Glad you agree. And just because something cannot be proven to be true, it does not mean that it must be false. :)


Of course. :)

[kathleen]

Most bbs atheists have trouble thinking for themselves, so they let others do it for them. I've been to atheist.org enough times to know that most of the arguments they use here aren't very original.



Bhawahahahawahahah, coming from a YEC this is quite amusing. ;D

And I have been to the True.Origin site enough times to know that (sadly) people will blind themselves to anything that threatens their belief system and worldview. And talk about parroting arguments, creationists are without a doubt the masters of this, even when it is obvious they barely understand the science. ;)

[kathleen]

This from the most sorry excuse for a 'scientist' in the 20th Cetury except for Carl Sagan and about the worst SF writer in the 'golden age' to actually get published short of L Ron Hubbard.


In which case you must not have read Asimov's Foundation Series (never mind his Positronic Robot stories) or you did and was too dumb to appreciate it. ;D He didn't just write SF, he wrote some fantastic mysteries and some very well researched and well written scientific nonfiction. A prolific writer, just like Carl Sagan.

Thank god :D for people like Sagan, Asimov, Hawkings, Bill Nye the Science Guy ;D and others who balance out the close-minded, judgemental hate-filled rantings of Falwell and ilk.

[truelies]

[quote author=kathleen l

In which case you must not have read Asimov's Foundation Series (never mind his Positronic Robot stories)

[/quote]

No I have read both and both are poorly thought out loaded with one dimensional characters and a laughable storyline heavily tinted with his marxist philosophy.

Bhawahahahawahahah, coming from a YEC this is quite amusing. ;D

Glad to see that you're easily amused.

And I have been to the True.Origin site enough times to know that (sadly) people will blind themselves to anything that threatens their belief system and worldview.

Oh I know. That's exactly why so many people believe in evolution -- they can't handle the thought of someday having to answer to an all-powerful Creator. But the very creation testifies of the Creator, so they're without excuse.

And talk about parroting arguments, creationists are without a doubt the masters of this, even when it is obvious they barely understand the science. ;)



That's the problem kathleen. I've been studying the science since I was six years old. I'm willing to bet that I understand it far better than you do. You'll need to study science for 26 years straight, just to play catch-up.

[kathleen]

I've been studying the science since I was six years old. I'm willing to bet that I understand it far better than you do. You'll need to study science for 26 years straight, just to play catch-up.


Good for you. So when did you get your PhD? And what's it in? Astrophysics? Biophysics? Chemical Engineering? Geochemistry? Microbiology? Paleontology? What institute of higher learning do you teach at? Someone with your advanced knowledge must be wanted all over the world. What was your thesis about? Must of took the scientific community by storm considering you should have everything figured out after 26 years. My god, you should be world famous. How many books have you written and published? Have your studies been peer reviewed? Do you hang out with Stephen Hawkings? ;)

I don't need a PhD to demonstrate that my knowledge of science is superior to yours. I'll answer any scientific question you care to ask, but I'm not going to waste time playing games. Would you care to get down to business, or would you prefer to play more word games in an attempt to avoid the issue?

[LanceALott]

CherryBomb: then are you insinuating that she actually had sex with God, when he was in a human form?

Lance: And God said, "I did not have sex with that woman!" As told under oath by Bill Clinton.

[Thunder Bay]

Blast from the past.......or current events? ::)

Either way, LaL isn't getting any brighter, eh? ;D

[wendy]

Blast from the past.......or current events? ::)




Tsk, tsk, tsk. You need to change your screenname to "Puddin' Stick".

[LanceALott]

CherryBomb: then are you insinuating that she actually had sex with God, when he was in a human form?

Lance: And God said, "I did not have sex with that woman!" As told under oath by Bill Clinton.



Busted again.

Caught repeating myself. -- "But I didn't have sex wuith her momma either," GOD said. -- It wasn't me.

Can you believe I was thrown out of that shitty bar over "there" for not having anything of importance to say? ::)They just don’t appreciate you like we do badnews; it’s their loss but our gain. :)



Speak for yourself, please.

[Thunder Bay]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You need to change your screenname to "Puddin' Stick".



I'll consider it at the next meeting. :-* ;D

author=kathleen


As far as I have studied, there is no consistant timeline in the biblical stories.

Meaning what? That the chapters (books) aren't in chronological order, or what?

Events did not happen the way they are described as happening in these stories.

How did they happen?

Some events are complete fiction, ....

Which ones -- and how do you KNOW?

... some are a mismatch of stories/personalities from other cultures and areas of the time.

For instance? Are you saying that the events (stories) are part of the belief system of only one culture?

There is no evidence of a "Garden of Eden", nor of the Exodus, nor of the defeat of Jericho (by the blasting of trumpets or any other means).

Hell, almost everybody in the historical community swore that Troy never existed until Schliemann took shovel in hand and dug it up. It not only existed, but it was right where Homer (uh -- there is doubt that he existed) said it was. There are probably a few other things that happened in this old world that you don't know about. That doesn't mean that they did not exist or happen.

Cannan (the land of milk and honey) existed, but was never defeated or taken over by the Israelites. And on and on the evidence takes us.

What evidence? I thought you said no evidence existed.

Or are you trying to say that no evidence exists?

If you are saying that, I ask, how do you know? Just because you haven't found it? That DOES NOT mean that it doesn't exist.

[Thunder Bay]

Busted again.

Caught repeating myself. -- "But I didn't have sex wuith her momma either," GOD said. -- It wasn't me.



Think about hiring a 'ghost-poster'....you won't get busted as often. ;D

[bluetick]

According to Yariv Eyal, a teacher of Hebrew, "There exists no word with the ayin-lamed-mem root of "almah" (the female form of "elem", or "lad), which definitely connotes "virginity" in any way. There are various words which are derived from this sense of the root which connote age, not status of virginity, and even Strong's concordance [14] lists the word "almah" as the female counterpart of "elem" (lad), which makes no mention of virginity in its respective entry."


Of course there are modern interpretations of the words for maiden, virgin, etc. But read carefully the Tanakh and other early Jewish writings. Betulah is most commonly considered to mean virgin, a person who has never had sex: however, that is not always the case. But an almah is always a young virgin of marriageable age. The custom of the times dictated that young girls live at home with their families and that they be chaperoned. Elem and its feminine form, almah, mean someone hidden from sight, concealed, private. Six times almah is used in the Tanakh and each time it refers to a young maiden who is obviously a virgin. On the other hand a “betulah” can be one who has been with a man but is declared legally pure. Dr. Cyrus Gordon who deciphered Ugaritic and was voted by his Jewish peers as the #1 Semitist of the twentieth century did not believe in the virginal conception. However he maintained that Is. 7:14 may be translated as "virgin" (Almah in Isaiah 7:14; Gordon, Cyrus H.; JBR 21:106).

Actually there is no word in Biblical Hebrew or in Koine Greek for that matter that absolutely means ‘never had sex’. Almah is translated into Greek as "parthenos". If you look in a decent Greek lexicon you'll see that parthenos need not mean "virgin" in the technical sense of a woman who has not had sexual relations. Ditto the Latin "virgo". If the text wants to be absolutely clear you see an expression like "she had not known a man".

But the real question isn’t what we now think a word means, but what did Judeans think it meant at the beginning of the Common Era. And, we do know this. Since most Jews even in the area of Palestine did not know Hebrew the Hebrew Scriptures were targummed into Aramaic so the people would understand. The word “almah” was translated into the Aramaic word “b’tult’a”.“B’tult’a” unambiguously means virgin. When first century Jewish scribes in Jerusalem prepared an exact translation of the Tanakh into Aramaic for the Jews outside the Roman Empire they translated “almah” in the phrase we call Isaiah 7:14 as “b’tult’a”.

That being said you can make a case that the Greek in Matthew and Luke doesn’t absolutely call for a virginal conception as we have taken it to mean. Sometime take a look at the Jewish idioms involved.

We also have to consider that the first century church had differing views on when Eeshoo became the bareh d'alaha (Son of God). The Netzaraya at the qehali d'alaha in Jerusalem (the family and followers who were eye-witnesses to Jesus) contended that Jesus was born in the usual manner and became the bareh d'alaha on the occasion of his baptism. Paul, in the construction of his "Christ Crucified" basically moves the son ship to his death and resurrection. The authors of Canonical Luke and Matthew move the son ship to his birth, necessitating some kind of "miracle."

Church father Papias who was a member of the Jerusalem Church claimed that the Disciple Matthew wrote the first Gospel in Aramaic. This book was taken to the Aramaic speakers inside and outside the Roman Empire. In fact it went all the way to India. It is usually called the Gospel of the Hebrews. From the remaining snippets quoted by patristics who were declaring it heresy in the third and fourth centuries we know that this Gospel supported the baptism position. Also, Yoseph is named as the biological father of Eeshoo in the oldest complete set of the Gospels that have been discovered (Dated as the third century, UBS4 page 26, copied from an older original, written in Palestinian Aramaic). Isn’t it interesting that at the same time the old Aramaic gospels were being revised into the Aramaic Peshitta NT by the COE in the Persian Empire the “Old Latins” were being revised into the Vulgate by a different church in a different empire?

Nearly all the concepts in the Gospels such as bodily resurrection, being born again, etc. are very Jewish. Virginal conception is not Jewish. Thus there are those who maintain that the virginal conception story arose among Greek speaking Christians outside Palestine at the end of the first century (The Romans had been claiming a divine conception for Augustus long before Jesus started preaching).

Can you find salvation if you don’t believe in the ‘virgin birth’?

[the bib]

Always good to see you bluetick!!!!

Salvation is achievable w/o the virgin birth .... IMHO, it is indeed achievable for any and all who love God and they neighbor.

Tapping into accepting and belonging within the spiritual body of God .... the part of Him which He created us in His likeness, IMO is the root of it all.

All anyone need do is embrace that innate part of their being to be accepted in the communion of saints. One need not "know" in the way of many Jews and Christians, the bible and seeking from without but by finding that which is within us all.

"All" is not quite right ... love God, thy neighbor as theyself, strive for spiritual awareness and perfection by being and doing good.

My question is can one achieve salvation having not achieved a soulful perfection?

[the bib]

Question:

IF one accepts the Divinity of the Christ, the Trinity, the given being that God the Son by definition would have to be perfection personified, how could it be that the "vessel" in which He came into the world would be acceptable if sullied?

[I-RIGHT-I]

Interesting. Everything on this page thus far is either the fruit of post modern textual criticism already debunked by conservative Christian scholars or New Age touchy-feely nonsense. Keep up the good work people.

[the bib]

Interesting. Everything on this page thus far is either the fruit of post modern textual criticism already debunked by conservative Christian scholars or New Age touchy-feely nonsense. Keep up the good work people.


It's not touchy feely, I-R-I.

Do you not (for want of better descriptive) feel connected to you own soul? ???

[Tiger]

I can't believe Thunder dug this old thread up.

I guess that just proves it was a "keeper". :)

Of course, Mary was no virgin. The biblical word that was later translated into "virgin" meant simply "young woman" and she was young - maybe as young as 14.

The word that was used - could ALSO mean virginal - but, scholars have dismissed that for the most part - since they HAD a word, specifically meaning what we today consider a virgin.

It's just a bunch of RCC hoopla. Better off dismissed along with the rest of the hocus-pocus they try to sell.

Like when their modern-day partakers of "communion", (Holy Sacrament) i.e., wine and wafers (made at Nabisco) swallow the little nibbles - the substance (manufactured in mass-quantities) ACTUALLY turn into the VERY BLOOD and FLESH of Jesus Christ. Must be all the preservatives they put in them.:)

No one in their right mind believes that.::)

[Tiger]

Question:

IF one accepts the Divinity of the Christ, the Trinity, the given being that God the Son by definition would have to be perfection personified, how could it be that the "vessel" in which He came into the world would be acceptable if sullied?



Sullied?

Sex sullies no one. :)

[I-RIGHT-I]

Sullied?

Sex sullies no one. :)


I'm glad you feel that way. Then a BJ isn't out of the question. We can tell your husband you haven't been sullied, no doubt he'll agree with us.

[I-RIGHT-I]

It's not touchy feely, I-R-I.

Do you not (for want of better descriptive) feel connected to you own soul? ???




Fortunately for you I'm not in soul saving mode this morning. Whatever you do don't get run over and killed before I get the chance to straighten you out.

[arod]

Question:

IF one accepts the Divinity of the Christ, the Trinity, the given being that God the Son by definition would have to be perfection personified, how could it be that the "vessel" in which He came into the world would be acceptable if sullied?

Allow me to remind you that there is both adultery and incest in the genealogy of Mary.

[Tiger]

I'm glad you feel that way. Then a BJ isn't out of the question. We can tell your husband you haven't been sullied, no doubt he'll agree with us.



It is NOT the act that sullies - it is the intent BEHIND the act.

In the scenario you mention - the intent would be one of willfully breaking a vow I made to my husband years ago. That, in itself, would make it an 'unclean' experience.

[Tiger]

Allow me to remind you that there is both adultery and incest in the genealogy of Mary.



Very true, and there is also a little catch in JC's lineage - his ancestor, Jechoniah, was told (by God, no less) that NONE of his descendants would EVER sit on the throne of David.

That's a toughie to overcome. Even a virgin birth and an Immaculate Conception of the virgin, herself - does not disqualify it - since the lineage is TRACED through Joseph.

A quandry, indeed.

[arod]

Very true, and there is also a little catch in JC's lineage - his ancestor, Jechoniah, was told (by God, no less) that NONE of his descendants would EVER sit on the throne of David.

That's a toughie to overcome. Even a virgin birth and an Immaculate Conception of the virgin, herself - does not disqualify it - since the lineage is TRACED through Joseph.

A quandry, indeed.


How can the lineage be traced through Joseph when he was not the father of Jesus?

[Tiger]

How can the lineage be traced through Joseph when he was not the father of Jesus?




Lineage was traced through the males. just look at the lines that are posted in the Bible story. There is no genealogy for Mary.

To be from the "House of David" - one would need show male descendancy.

[the bib]

I can't believe Thunder dug this old thread up.

I guess that just proves it was a "keeper". :)

Of course, Mary was no virgin. The biblical word that was later translated into "virgin" meant simply "young woman" and she was young - maybe as young as 14.

The word that was used - could ALSO mean virginal - but, scholars have dismissed that for the most part - since they HAD a word, specifically meaning what we today consider a virgin.

It's just a bunch of RCC hoopla. Better off dismissed along with the rest of the hocus-pocus they try to sell.

Like when their modern-day partakers of "communion", (Holy Sacrament) i.e., wine and wafers (made at Nabisco) swallow the little nibbles - the substance (manufactured in mass-quantities) ACTUALLY turn into the VERY BLOOD and FLESH of Jesus Christ. Must be all the preservatives they put in them.:)

No one in their right mind believes that.::)


Yeah, we know ... an dher mother conceived the same way Mary did. ::)

Still waiting for your retraction.

Also, lineage was through maternal not paternal ... which continues in Judiasm until this day.

You speak with such great authority and conviction.

Too bad you can't back it up with the facts.

Oh, did I mention?

STILL waiting for the retraction.

Do the right thing, Tig ole gal.

[the bib]

I'm glad you feel that way. Then a BJ isn't out of the question. We can tell your husband you haven't been sullied, no doubt he'll agree with us.


;D ;D

[the bib]

Allow me to remind you that there is both adultery and incest in the genealogy of Mary.


Sins of the father and all of that?

[Tiger]

Yeah, we know ... an dher mother conceived the same way Mary did. ::)

Still waiting for your retraction.

Also, lineage was through maternal not paternal ... which continues in Judiasm until this day.

You speak with such great authority and conviction.

Too bad you can't back it up with the facts.

Oh, did I mention?

STILL waiting for the retraction.

Do the right thing, Tig ole gal.



Read my sig line. ;D


Everyone else is.

Your words - in black and white - coming back to haunt your dishonesty.

You will never get a retraction from me - I have nothing to retract. ;)

[the bib]

Read my sig line. ;D


Everyone else is.

Your words - in black and white - coming back to haunt your dishonesty.

You will never get a retraction from me - I have nothing to retract. ;)


I was big enough to own my mistake.

That puts me light years ahead of you.

You need to own up to your mistake lady.

[arod]

Lineage was traced through the males. just look at the lines that are posted in the Bible story. There is no genealogy for Mary.

There are two different genealogies given in the gospels. It has been claimed that one is the genealogy of Mary, though I can't vouch for that.

To be from the "House of David" - one would need show male descendancy.

I don't see how this is anything but a technicality. The Savior could not possibly be a son of Adam in any case - otherwise He would have made the same mistake Adam did.

[arod]

Sins of the father and all of that?


If you don't think heredity matters, why would it matter if Mary had been a slut?

[Tiger]

I was big enough to own my mistake.

That puts me light years ahead of you.

You need to own up to your mistake lady.






I didn't make a mistake. Voxo posted a link to a Catholic site verifying just what I had written.

You, on the other hand - were bound and determined to lie and you tried to get away with it - until Voxo called you on the carpet - only then did you admit you messed up.

But, it isn't alittle "mistake" - it is a HUGE error - and it shows you don't know what you are talking about.

But we already knew that - didn't we? ;)

[Tiger]

There are two different genealogies given in the gospels. It has been claimed that one is the genealogy of Mary, though I can't vouch for that.I don't see how this is anything but a technicality. The Savior could not possibly be a son of Adam in any case - otherwise He would have made the same mistake Adam did.



I have never seen a claim that one of the genealogies was Mary's. Unlikely, since they did not record female lineage.

The only thing that suggests she was of the House of David - is that she may have registered. That is a possibility.

:)

[The Guardian]

Thumpers say one of the two geneology's is Mary's. This overcomes the rather embarassing fact that those two geneologies are different. One of those little rationalizations they all make in the name of an inerrant bible.

[the bib]

If you don't think heredity matters, why would it matter if Mary had been a slut?


I asked you if that was your implication. I did not state it.

[the bib]

I didn't make a mistake. Voxo posted a link to a Catholic site verifying just what I had written.

You, on the other hand - were bound and determined to lie and you tried to get away with it - until Voxo called you on the carpet - only then did you admit you messed up.

But, it isn't alittle "mistake" - it is a HUGE error - and it shows you don't know what you are talking about.

But we already knew that - didn't we? ;)


We can both play your game tig ole gal.
;)

Check MY sig line to see what you REALLY said and not what you ried to side step.

You did the same old two step shuffle w/Wendya today ... she caught you on AlQ in the 60's and you try to throw it back on her ..

just like you did to me.

My sig line shows your lack of character ... unable to own your mistake.

[Tiger]

ROLMAO!!!


Go right ahead, bib. That doesnt' bother me one tiny bit. The RCC is a loony cult. I am glad you are announcing that.


As far as my reading a "9" as a "6", so what? It's not like I tried to hide it and lie about it - like you did. I immediately admitted that I read it wrong. No long, drawn out excuses like you tried to make.

It makes you look stupid. Or - - - -should I say "stupider".

LOL :)

You crack me up, kid.

[vellaity]

If you don't think heredity matters, why would it matter if Mary had been a slut?


IMHO this is an excellent point, arod. It is excellent for many reasons, but consider the fact that "virgin birth" was a common myth in pagan religions. As Paul parted company with the group that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, with whom he was apparently associated, Christianity became less and less Jewish as it picked up non-Jewish converts. Is it so absurd that as this happened the Gospels picked up pagan myths?

The Bible is not a fax from God, after all. It is a religious document, far more than it is an historical record of anything. As such it is conceivable that the ideas, like "virgin birth", are more metaphor than historical.

Would it matter if Mary had been a slut? Perhaps it would give the story even greater meaning.

Personally I think a "literal" interpretation of the Bible renders the stories less meaningful.

[the bib]

ROLMAO!!!


Go right ahead, bib. That doesnt' bother me one tiny bit. The RCC is a loony cult. I am glad you are announcing that.


As far as my reading a "9" as a "6", so what? It's not like I tried to hide it and lie about it - like you did. I immediately admitted that I read it wrong. No long, drawn out excuses like you tried to make.

It makes you look stupid. Or - - - -should I say "stupider".

LOL :)

You crack me up, kid.


Who do you think you're kidding?

You were pontificating, said AlQ existed in the 60's and then made a lame excuse as you misread.

HAD YOU KNOWN BETTER, YOU would have been the one correcting Wendya.

BUT you DIDN'T ...

You are predictable, tig.

[the bib]

ROLMAO!!!


Go right ahead, bib. That doesnt' bother me one tiny bit. The RCC is a loony cult. I am glad you are announcing that.


As far as my reading a "9" as a "6", so what? It's not like I tried to hide it and lie about it - like you did. I immediately admitted that I read it wrong. No long, drawn out excuses like you tried to make.

It makes you look stupid. Or - - - -should I say "stupider".

LOL :)

You crack me up, kid.


BTW, you STILL haven;t retracted or substantiated your pronouncement about how Mary's mother conceived.

[the bib]

IMHO this is an excellent point, arod. It is excellent for many reasons, but consider the fact that "virgin birth" was a common myth in pagan religions. As Paul parted company with the group that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, with whom he was apparently associated, Christianity became less and less Jewish as it picked up non-Jewish converts. Is it so absurd that as this happened the Gospels picked up pagan myths?

The Bible is not a fax from God, after all. It is a religious document, far more than it is an historical record of anything. As such it is conceivable that the ideas, like "virgin birth", are more metaphor than historical.

Would it matter if Mary had been a slut? Perhaps it would give the story even greater meaning.

Personally I think a "literal" interpretation of the Bible renders the stories less meaningful.


Just curious ... would you look at your own mother the same way if she was a slut?

Or would it not matter?

[Tiger]

Who do you think you're kidding?

You were pontificating, said AlQ existed in the 60's and then made a lame excuse as you misread.

HAD YOU KNOWN BETTER, YOU would have been the one correcting Wendya.

BUT you DIDN'T ...

You are predictable, tig.




What a ditz you are, dear. Go ahead - try to change the subject away from your errs and subsequent lies to cover them up.

Not gonna help.

But it is fun watching you writh and spin. ;D :-*

[WCP]

The Bible:
How the Many Versions Came About
by Arthur E. Zannoni

Choosing a Bible can be a challenge for Catholics. The selection at a bookstore will include at least a half dozen different English translations. Participants in Bible study groups may find one member reading a passage from the New American Bible, another from the New Revised Standard Version, while someone else scans the Jerusalem Bible.

This variety of English translations can help readers discover the richness of the sacred Scriptures, but it also can be confusing. If three different versions translate the same biblical passage in three different ways, readers may wonder if anyone really knows what the passage means. In this Update we will look at how the various translations came about and how they differ from each other.

Early translations

Christians have read translations of the Bible almost from the beginning of the Christian movement. The earliest translation was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) called the Septuagint. It was produced by Jewish scholars during the third century before Christ. Christians began to translate the Aramaic sayings of Jesus and other early Christian materials into Greek, which were incorporated into the writings of the New Testament.

The earliest translations of the Bible into a language other than Greek were the result of the Church's missionary activity. Although Greek was the common language of most of the Mediterranean world, the Christian message traveled to places where other languages were read and spoken.

By the end of the second century, the Gospel had reached Edessa (Syria). Since the common language there was Syriac, it became necessary to translate the Greek New Testament into that language.

By the end of the fourth century the Church had spread throughout the Roman Empire, where the major language was Latin. St. Jerome, himself a Scripture scholar, saw the need for a Bible that could be read more widely in the Latin-speaking world. He created a Latin translation that became known as the Vulgate. Vulgate is Latin for "common" or "everyday."

Now in English

An English version of the entire Bible was produced by John Wycliffe between 1380 and 1382. He translated from Latin to English. But by now the Vulgate had nearly a thousand-year tradition in the West. His translation was condemned and its copies burned. In 1525, William Tyndale completed a translation of the New Testament, this time working from Greek. This version, too, ran afoul of Church authorities. It was suppressed and its translator put to death.

The History of The Bible (http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0499.asp)

What bullshit. ::)

[truelies]

Sadly after much reflection the time has come for a Solemn Pronouncement-

DIE EVIL THREAD DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tiger]

Sadly after much reflection the time has come for a Solemn Pronouncement-

DIE EVIL THREAD DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Hey - this thread was resurrected from the realm of the dead after almost two years. That kind of makes it a "Savior" of threads, does it not?

:D

[LanceALott]

Sadly after much reflection the time has come for a Solemn Pronouncement-

DIE EVIL THREAD DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Maybe it would help if I confessed:

Okay, so Mary and I got drunk one night, had some fun, and she got pregnant. -- I CONFESS, I DID IT. SHE WAS NO VIRGIN AFTER THAT NIGHT, BUT SHE DID GO AROUND WITH THE SATISFIED SMILE OF MONA LISA ON HER FACE.

[vellaity]

Just curious ... would you look at your own mother the same way if she was a slut?

Or would it not matter?


Judge not lest ye be judged?

Getting past the initial emotional aspects you load into your question, I don't want to know about my mother's sex life. It is her life. I would be deeply saddened if her sex life was a symptom of some emotional problem, as I am saddened by any fellow human being's emotional problems.

As her child, she brought me into the world. I did not ask to be brought into the world. Therefore she is responsible for me--not the other way around.

As I am responsible for my children and they are not responsible for me.

You might read a lot into my response, if you look at the deeper meaning. ;)

[vellaity]

The Bible:

. . .

What bullshit. ::)



The Bible, or people? ;D

[WCP]

You might read a lot into my response, if you look at the deeper meaning. ;)


Your mother likes to fuck? :o

[WCP]

The Bible, or people? ;D


Is there a difference?

[kathleen]

That DOES NOT mean that it doesn't exist.

Of course. I’ve admitted as much to Laz earlier in the thread.

What’s funny about your argument is that creationists use the other side of it to convince themselves that evolution is invalid. They claim that since no concrete evidence exists of speciation (not true but that’s an off topic topic) than it couldn’t possibly have occurred. Yet when it comes to biblical historical accuracy you (and other believers) then jump on the other side of the fence and very self-righteously claim that the lack of evidence doesn’t mean there is no evidence (which any reasonable critical thinker could see is true).

So which is it? Does your argument only work for you and no one else?

Then we have to make the distinction between lack of evidence and lack of evidence. The earliest biblical accounts are believed to have happened around 6000 years ago (certainly not all Christians believe this but not all Christians take the bible literally either). Evolutionists believe speciation occurred during millions of years during which time all sorts of other things were happening (geological and climatic changes which make the preservation of fossil evidence extremely difficult). Which do you think should be easier for us to find evidence for – something that happened 4000 years ago or something that happened 500 000 years ago?

Let’s take the Exodus for example (which apparently happened around 4000 years ago). The book of Numbers puts the amount of men (20 years and older) with Moses’ group at around 600 000 men. This is not including women, children, servants, slaves, animals and other livestock and supplies. Do you honestly believe that a group this big could wander the desert for 40 years without leaving a trace of their passing? I doubt that these people had any notion of “ecological footprints” and would have taken the care to pack their garbage and waste out of the ecosystem. Any modern day camper, backpacker, army grunt, etc (even those concerned with polluting the environment) cannot completely erase the fact that a camp had been made. It’s impossible for a group of 600 000+ to hide the fact that they were in an area. There certainly would be evidence of garbage, human wastes (or latrines – and I certainly hope they had such a thing for that amount of people if only for sanitary reasons), fire and cooking pits, etc, etc. Why haven’t we found any sign of these things? Excavations have been going on in these locations for years and years. And there is nothing.

I agree that the biblical stories are a mishmash of myth, history and made up bullshit which deal with the activities of more than the Israelite culture. The story of Moses takes place partly in Egypt – no one can convince us that an Egyptian culture never existed. Why? Because we have plenty of evidence that it did exist (other than the fact that it is mentioned in the bible). Does this mean that there was a person named Moses who lived in the Pharaoh’s court and brought down 7 plagues on him in order to escape with his people (looks like over a million of them) from a lifetime of slavery? No, of course not. Even in the ancient world, something like this would have been big news. It’s not like you can sneak out of town with a million people without someone noticing. Could you?

[WCP]

Of course. I’ve admitted as much to Laz earlier in the thread.

<snip>



What a GALACTIC waste of band width trying to explain anything to TG. ::)

At least you got in some finger exercises via the typing.

[vellaity]

Your mother likes to fuck? :o


I've never asked her. But my brother and I did spring forth from her loins, and I know she had several miscarriages. That says something, doesn't it?

[WCP]

I've never asked her. But my brother and I did spring forth from her loins, and I know she had several miscarriages. That says something, doesn't it?


She's Catholic?

[Tiger]

Judge not lest ye be judged?

Getting past the initial emotional aspects you load into your question, I don't want to know about my mother's sex life. It is her life. I would be deeply saddened if her sex life was a symptom of some emotional problem, as I am saddened by any fellow human being's emotional problems.

As her child, she brought me into the world. I did not ask to be brought into the world. Therefore she is responsible for me--not the other way around.

As I am responsible for my children and they are not responsible for me.

You might read a lot into my response, if you look at the deeper meaning. ;)




You answered the question well, but bib asked the wrong question.

The correct one should have been, "Would you be a lesser person, had your mother been a slut?"

I am sure your mother is wonderful - but if we are comparing across the board - with Mary and Jesus - that is the real question.

For the RCC - to have to lend credibility to Jesus and his Divinity - by means of a physical state of "sin" or "no sin" of His mother - is simply voodoo-worship.

Whoever Jesus was, whether He was a Messiah or not - will not now change if Mary was found not to be a virgin.

What the RCC did was try and pacify the pagans and their concepts of how a Messiah should be presented to the world.

A better question might be - Why do some still find they need to propagate unsubstantiated stories in order to bolster their faith?

[kathleen]

(The Romans had been claiming a divine conception for Augustus long before Jesus started preaching).

Absolutely (and something else I mentioned a year and a half ago). It’s easy enough to see how the incorporation of myths could have occurred as the new religion spread out of the Jewish community and into the Gentile one. As a matter of fact, that itself is quite common. As Christianity spread into the pagan lands, the Early Christian fathers naturally started associating the Pagan Gods and activities with Satan (their idea of the “Anti-Christ” or “Anti-God”) and then commenced to steal the ancient Pagan holidays and “Christianized” them. The point is that the idea of a virgin birth of a God (or Savior) is not new. It’s easy to understand why the early Christians adopted such a myth for their own Savior (who happens to be only one of a long list of historical Saviors and/or Gods sacrificed for the good of us all).

Can you find salvation if you don’t believe in the ‘virgin birth'?

I honestly cannot see a reason why not. Jesus makes no mention of the belief being necessary for salvation.

[vellaity]

Is there a difference?


The Bible is just a bunch of words printed in a book. It takes people, or some other sentient life form, to distinguish a Bible from any other collection of atoms.

IMHO, people are bullshit. The Bible just is what it is.

[kathleen]

What a GALACTIC waste of band width trying to explain anything to TG. ::)

At least you got in some finger exercises via the typing.


I haven't had the chance to share my reasoning online for awhile. I missed it. And I felt sorry for all of you having to miss my insight. ;D ;)

So, when you were in Nam, did you ever have to move out together as a group (platoon or whatever)? How easy was that to do quietly and without a trace?

[Tiger]

What a GALACTIC waste of band width trying to explain anything to TG. ::)

At least you got in some finger exercises via the typing.




LOL ;D So true.

It doesn't really matter WHAT you say - or how well you say it - or even if it is the God's-honest truth - if TG doesn't like it - (which is likely) you are going to be admitted to the Goddam Liar's Club.

I've been a member for as long as I can remember. ;D

[kathleen]

It doesn't really matter WHAT you say - or how well you say it - or even if it is the God's-honest truth - if TG doesn't like it - (which is likely) you are going to be admitted to the Goddam Liar's Club.

I've been a member for as long as I can remember. ;D


My name is probably right after yours on that list. ;D

It doesn't matter if he gets it. Or if any other "biblical literalist" gets it. If there is a flaw in my reasoning, I'll be happy to have it pointed out to me.

[WCP]

So, when you were in Nam, did you ever have to move out together as a group (platoon or whatever)? How easy was that to do quietly and without a trace?


I was never "mobilized" into a combat arena. I do know this, though...when the Marines are mobilized, they want to make damn sure the enemy knows they're coming and how badly their asses are going to get kicked.

[vellaity]

You answered the question well, but bib asked the wrong question.

The correct one should have been, "Would you be a lesser person, had your mother been a slut?"


That was part of my point, thank you.



I am sure your mother is wonderful - but if we are comparing across the board - with Mary and Jesus - that is the real question.

For the RCC - to have to lend credibility to Jesus and his Divinity - by means of a physical state of "sin" or "no sin" of His mother - is simply voodoo-worship.

Whoever Jesus was, whether He was a Messiah or not - will not now change if Mary was found not to be a virgin.

What the RCC did was try and pacify the pagans and their concepts of how a Messiah should be presented to the world.

A better question might be - Why do some still find they need to propagate unsubstantiated stories in order to bolster their faith?


My short answer is: insecurity.

The limited research that exists on conservatives suggests that they can't handle subtleties and ambiguities. That comports well with my experience with conservatives. In fact they go so far as to make fun of people who can handle subtleties and ambiguities.

[kathleen]

Just curious ... would you look at your own mother the same way if she was a slut?

Or would it not matter?


There we go again. ::)

Determining the worth of a woman by how many lovers she's had.

Is that the way you look at it?

And yes, I'd probably look at my mother differently if she had been a slut rather than a crazy, unhappy, deeply religious person who acted (her whole life) like the church was more important than her family and believed that the more you suffered on earth the bigger your reward in heaven.

I would have respected her more.

[kathleen]

I was never "mobilized" into a combat arena. I do know this, though...when the Marines are mobilized, they want to make damn sure the enemy knows they're coming and how badly their asses are going to get kicked.


Yes, you do see my point then?

How could Moses move out a million people from Egypt without any historical mention of it (other than in the bible that is)?

[WCP]

Yes, you do see my point then?

How could Moses move out a million people from Egypt without any historical mention of it (other than in the bible that is)?


It's metaphorical or allegorical?

We've never seen the Easter Bunny, but we know he's real.

[WCP]

And yes, I'd probably look at my mother differently if she had been a slut rather than a crazy, unhappy, deeply religious person who acted (her whole life) like the church was more important than her family and believed that the more you suffered on earth the bigger your reward in heaven.



Never fear. It is exacly those kind of people that God keeps hanging on for years suffering in hospitals with indescribable pain before he does a mysterious way gig.

[vellaity]

It's metaphorical or allegorical?

We've never seen the Easter Bunny, but we know he's real.


And we all know that the Easter Bunny is based on a pagan fertility ritual. :P

[WCP]

And we all know that the Easter Bunny is based on a pagan fertility ritual. :P


Christmas trees are also a Pagan "thang."

Or Hannukuh Bush...excuse the fuck out of me for being so non-PC-ish. :o

[the bib]

You answered the question well, but bib asked the wrong question.



Amazing arrogance .... you decide for me what questions I should ask. ::)


The correct one should have been, "Would you be a lesser person, had your mother been a slut?"

WHo are YOU to decide what question is correct? ::)

You make an ass of yourself assuming you know what point I'm getting at.

You have ENOUGH trouble trying to get your own point across. ::)


I am sure your mother is wonderful - but if we are comparing across the board - with Mary and Jesus - that is the real question.

For the RCC - to have to lend credibility to Jesus and his Divinity - by means of a physical state of "sin" or "no sin" of His mother - is simply voodoo-worship.

Your opinion, to which your entitled.

And we sahll all take it from whence it comes. ;)


Whoever Jesus was, whether He was a Messiah or not - will not now change if Mary was found not to be a virgin.

And you have ther theological bonfieds and qualifieds to insist that your OPINION is fact.
::)


What the RCC did was try and pacify the pagans and their concepts of how a Messiah should be presented to the world.

::)

Substantiate or retract.

And "The Enquirer" is NOT considered a valid source. You'll need to look a bit further.


A better question might be - Why do some still find they need to propagate unsubstantiated stories in order to bolster their faith?


And the question to you is why does it burn your ass, so?

Live and let live ... even for a secularist, tht shouldn''t be such a hard concept.

[the bib]

The Bible is just a bunch of words printed in a book. It takes people, or some other sentient life form, to distinguish a Bible from any other collection of atoms.

IMHO, people are bullshit. The Bible just is what it is.


Whadaya know! We agree! ;D

[the bib]

My name is probably right after yours on that list. ;D

It doesn't matter if he gets it. Or if any other "biblical literalist" gets it. If there is a flaw in my reasoning, I'll be happy to have it pointed out to me.


Does one have to be a Biblical literalist to respect others' rights to their beliefs?

And tiger, don't bother trying to rep[hrase my question.

I asked it EXACTLY the way I wanted to.

[the bib]

There we go again. ::)

Determining the worth of a woman by how many lovers she's had.

Is that the way you look at it?

And yes, I'd probably look at my mother differently if she had been a slut rather than a crazy, unhappy, deeply religious person who acted (her whole life) like the church was more important than her family and believed that the more you suffered on earth the bigger your reward in heaven.

I would have respected her more.


Please go back to his comment which elicited this question.

Methinks you have prejudged where I was coming from. ;)

[the bib]

Never fear. It is exacly those kind of people that God keeps hanging on for years suffering in hospitals with indescribable pain before he does a mysterious way gig.


You think so? ::)

[kathleen]

Please go back to his comment which elicited this question.

Methinks you have prejudged where I was coming from. ;)


OK, so are you really asking whether Jesus would still be Jesus if Mary wasn't a virgin?

You should have just said so. This has nothing to do with anyone's mother, right?

And whether it's relevant to the subject or not, I did answer your question honestly (the one about would you feel differently about your mother...........yada yada yada). :)

[vellaity]

Christmas trees are also a Pagan "thang."

Or Hannukuh Bush...excuse the fuck out of me for being so non-PC-ish. :o


Except that Hannukah is a festival--not a holiday. ;D

[kathleen]

Question:

IF one accepts the Divinity of the Christ, the Trinity, the given being that God the Son by definition would have to be perfection personified, how could it be that the "vessel" in which He came into the world would be acceptable if sullied?


What difference does that make?

And if you really believe that Jesus had to be"perfection personified" why stop at the "cleanliness" of the vessel which carried him? Why not make him without the need to defecate (a gross, yucky, dirty human activity which would never happen to a "perfect" being). Or the need to eat (mastication being another gross activity as anyone sitting next to someone chewing with their mouth opens knows).

But the bible stories does show Jesus eating (just like we all do) and getting tipsy on wine (which most of us have had experience with) and working and sweating and crying and despairing and all the other "imperfect" things that humans do. So why couldn't he be conceived just like the way we all have been and still retain his "Godliness" just like he did all the other things that make us human?

[Tiger]

Amazing arrogance .... you decide for me what questions I should ask. ::)WHo are YOU to decide what question is correct? ::)

You make an ass of yourself assuming you know what point I'm getting at.


If anyone is being an 'ass' around here- it's you, dear.

Go ahead and ask your questions - however you desire - but they are not relevant to the topic at hand.

The issue was whether or not a Messiah (real or not) could be born from a 'sullied' mother (your term).

To be relevant - your question should have been framed in the same vein - which it was not.

It doesn't really matter to me what you choose to say - we all have sufficient proof that you have NO idea what you are talking about - even when it concerns your OWN religion.

Your credibility factor is zero.

And to top it off - lately, your posts have been fraught with typos and grammatical errors. We all have those - but your's are excessive and, if I remember correctly, you did not used to have nearly as many.

I just get the feeling that you are typing under great stress - or the influence of drugs or alcohol. Something is strange.

[kathleen]

The issue was whether or not a Messiah (real or not) could be born from a 'sullied' mother (your term).

Do you see how it always comes down to sex for this particular theology?

I would say that most Christians would be horrified at the thought of Jesus (or his mother) having sex. And that most of them would answer bib's question no (He couldn't be born from a "sullied" mother). Yet they are taught (and accept unquestioning) that Jesus is both Man and God who came into the world to be with us, to experience what it was like to be human, to die in order to save us.

Well, that's pretty much a lie. He didn't experience what it was like to be fully human - not if you believe he never masturbated or made love to a woman or experienced any sexual feeling at all. That would make Him a robot. Not human.

[arod]

Well, that's pretty much a lie. He didn't experience what it was like to be fully human - not if you believe he never masturbated or made love to a woman or experienced any sexual feeling at all. That would make Him a robot. Not human.


Monkeys do all that. Are they human?

[LanceALott]

Monkeys do all that. Are they human?



A better question is are "Christians" human?


And what is Arod?

[Tiger]

Do you see how it always comes down to sex for this particular theology?

I would say that most Christians would be horrified at the thought of Jesus (or his mother) having sex. And that most of them would answer bib's question no (He couldn't be born from a "sullied" mother). Yet they are taught (and accept unquestioning) that Jesus is both Man and God who came into the world to be with us, to experience what it was like to be human, to die in order to save us.

Well, that's pretty much a lie. He didn't experience what it was like to be fully human - not if you believe he never masturbated or made love to a woman or experienced any sexual feeling at all. That would make Him a robot. Not human.


that brings up some interesting points.

First - if Jesus did NOT experience what it was like to be human - really human - if He was always aware that He was 'above' it all, as the RCC tries to portray Him - then His sacrifice of His life - was NO sacrifice.

After all - if you KNOW your existance is NOT a human, and that you are better - and will be fine- losing your life - is losing nothing.

Your point about it all being about sex sheds some light on the reasons why the RCC has so much trouble iwith their own priests, today, molesting children.

They have a warped image of sexuality as it relates to human beings. Mary could not have had sex = sex bad. Jesus could not have had sex = sex bad.

Pretty sad.

[LanceALott]

Jesus had a wife.

Mary Magdalene, the prostitute, was the "vessle of Christ," "the Chalice." Proof of this has been the quest of knights like Sir Lancelot, and Sir LanceALott, for 2000 years; as revealed in the Da Vinci Codes.

[Tiger]

Jesus had a wife.

Mary Magdalene, the prostitute, was the "vessle of Christ," "the Chalice." Proof of this has been the quest of knights like Sir Lancelot, and Sir LanceALott, for 2000 years; as revealed in the Da Vinci Codes.


That's as good a story as any other. ;)

[kathleen]

Monkeys do all that. Are they human?


Are we monkeys?

[arod]

Are we monkeys?


No. We are either better or worse.

Why do you ask?

[WCP]

Jesus could not have had sex = sex bad.

Pretty sad.


I'm pretty sure Jesus had sex when he was in prison waiting for his crucifixion.

Obviously the Bubba of Nazareth story got lost somewhere in the mix.

Now...if that doesn't guaranty me a front row seat in Hell, I don't know what will. ;D

[kathleen]

that brings up some interesting points.

First - if Jesus did NOT experience what it was like to be human - really human - if He was always aware that He was 'above' it all, as the RCC tries to portray Him - then His sacrifice of His life - was NO sacrifice.


The church goes through alot of effort portraying the "humanity" of Christ with him suffering pain and despair and bitterness and physical agony (the whole point of Him being on the earth). It's point is that Jesus became "fully" human in order to offer us salvation.

Yet, no mention of sex at all. How could He experience what it was like to be human without dealing with human sexuality (a huge part of what makes us what we are)? Was He born without reproductive organs (or system)? I imagine that God could do that but why would He? What's the point of that?

[kathleen]

No. We are either better or worse.

Who says?

Why do you ask?


You're the one that brought it up.

If I didn't know better I would think that what you are saying is that anyone who has sex is a monkey and anyone who doesn't is a human. ;D

[arod]

Yet, no mention of sex at all. How could He experience what it was like to be human without dealing with human sexuality

You might just as easily ask how He could experience what it was like to be fully human without sinning, since there are quite a few more humans who never had sex than there are who never sinned.

(a huge part of what makes us what we are)?

To say our experiences make us what we are is a far cry from saying those experiences make us human. Some peoples' experiences make them less human, obviously.

[arod]

If I didn't know better I would think that what you are saying is that anyone who has sex is a monkey and anyone who doesn't is a human. ;D

What I infer from your posts here is that you think sexuality makes a person human. Have I got that right?

[truelies]

Hey - this thread was resurrected from the realm of the dead after almost two years. That kind of makes it a "Savior" of threads, does it not?

:D


But.....but..... that would imply that the One who called the Thread forth from the grave is a NOPC God!!!!!!! Should we be swelling TB's head that way? ;)

[kathleen]

What I infer from your posts here is that you think sexuality makes a person human. Have I got that right?


It's the reason why we are here.

[arod]

It's the reason why we are here.


Hey, if you'd rather not answer, I understand. ;)

[WCP]

You might just as easily ask how He could experience what it was like to be fully human without sinning, since there are quite a few more humans who never had sex than there are who never sinned.

Arod, don't you find it the least bit curious as to why God would tell us not to do those things which He freely, willfully and without sin (or consequence) does?

[truelies]

Arod, don't you find it the least bit curious as to why God would tell us not to do those things which He freely, willfully and without sin (or consequence) does?


Like what?????????????? ???

[WCP]

Like what?????????????? ???


Oh, brother. ::)

As if God doesn't on a daily basis violate every one of His Commandments and then some.

To whom does God repent?

[kathleen]

Hey, if you'd rather not answer, I understand. ;)


Would we be talking if your parents and my parents never had sexual relations?

[Thunder Bay]

But.....but..... that would imply that the One who called the Thread forth from the grave is a NOPC God!!!!!!! Should we be swelling TB's head that way? ;)





:cwm42:












Monkey see, monkey screw. ;D

[arod]

Would we be talking if your parents and my parents never had sexual relations?

No, which proves conclusively that sexuality is indispensable to human reproduction as we know it...but of course that's not what we're discussing. ;)

[arod]

Oh, brother. ::)

As if God doesn't on a daily basis violate every one of His Commandments and then some.

To whom does God repent?


He has no need. He is above the law, because He cannot sin.

[WCP]

He has no need. He is above the law, because He cannot sin.


That's nice. ::)

He can't be punished by His lowly servants...but I'll bet if He was ever able to be held accountable for His obscenities, He'd go play with some other morons and quit watching a bunch of monkeys sit around wringing their hands and wailing His name in praise.

[arod]

That's nice. ::)

He can't be punished by His lowly servants...but I'll bet if He was ever able to be held accountable for His obscenities, He'd go play with some other morons and quit watching a bunch of monkeys sit around wringing their hands and wailing His name in praise.

Indeed, those who are determined to hold Him accountable for atrocities they imagine He has committed will be relieved of His odious presence in due course. :)

[LanceALott]

Are we monkeys?


Well, teacher, if you are including Arod in your question; you sure do ask hard questions to answer.

[WCP]

Indeed, those who are determined to hold Him accountable for atrocities they imagine He has committed will be relieved of His odious presence in due course. :)


And here we get to whether it was "right or wrong" to "murder" the population of the earth, every man, woman, child and beast (with the exception of the blessed few on the Ark) as an example of whether it's okay for Him to do it vs. us.

I disagree with your philosophy, and since I'm always right...

[Tiger]

Indeed, those who are determined to hold Him accountable for atrocities they imagine He has committed will be relieved of His odious presence in due course. :)



I am assuming here that you think it is fine to credit God when someone has a miraculous recovery - or something wonderful happens, but you don't think He should be negatively credited when bad luck falls.

However the idea of an Omnipresent God - one who is in all and Omnipotent - suggests that if God's hand is in the miracle that pulls the little child back from the brink of death - after a car accident that the same hand was in the car that struck the boy to begin with.

It's a double-edged sword.

[WCP]

He should be negatively credited when bad luck falls.


The Debbil done did it. :o

[Tiger]

The Debbil done did it. :o



The Debbil - God's Alter-Ego?

After all - where did the "idea" to sin come from if not from the Big Guy, himself?

[WCP]

The Debbil - God's Alter-Ego?

After all - where did the "idea" to sin come from if not from the Big Guy, himself?


It took me a while to figure this out...I think I was ten, but I figured it out, you betcha...

There ain't no fucking god that loves us. There is a god, however, that hates our mother fucking asses and exists and feeds on our misery.

[Tiger]

It took me a while to figure this out...I think I was ten, but I figured it out, you betcha...

There ain't no fucking god that loves us. There is a god, however, that hates our mother fucking asses and exists and feeds on our misery.



Know what is ironic?

You can cite more evidence to back your theory than theologians can to back theirs. ;)

[NorNec]

The Debbil - God's Alter-Ego?

After all - where did the "idea" to sin come from if not from the Big Guy, himself?



Well that thought is pretty shallow...or common..like your purfume.

[Tiger]

Well that thought is pretty shallow...or common..like your purfume.



My perfume is "Beautiful" by Estee Lauder. That's not shallow - smell it next time you walk by a department store cosmetic counter.

:(

[vellaity]

I'm pretty sure Jesus had sex when he was in prison waiting for his crucifixion.

Obviously the Bubba of Nazareth story got lost somewhere in the mix.

Now...if that doesn't guaranty me a front row seat in Hell, I don't know what will. ;D


Wasn't this, like, the sci fi classic "Stranger in a Strange Land?" Or maybe I read it in the Penthouse Forum, many years ago.

Hmm. Might make for a good porn flick too.

[WCP]

Well that thought is pretty shallow...or common..like your purfume.


What's your favorite? Eau de Crotch?

[arod]

I am assuming here that you think it is fine to credit God when someone has a miraculous recovery - or something wonderful happens,

You might as well ask me if I think it's OK to shoot a gun. It depends on where it's pointed.

but you don't think He should be negatively credited when bad luck falls.

Since I find the concept of luck absurd, such a statement would have no meaing to me.

However the idea of an Omnipresent God - one who is in all and Omnipotent - suggests that if God's hand is in the miracle that pulls the little child back from the brink of death - after a car accident that the same hand was in the car that struck the boy to begin with.

One might draw such an inference, but logic won't support it. It's like saying if your dad gave you a car and you drove it off a cliff, it was your dad who made you get drunk.

[WCP]

It's like saying if your dad gave you a car and you drove it off a cliff, it was your dad who made you get drunk.


It's possible if your dad was an abject alcoholic. Obviously, dad didn't make you drink to excess, but if there is an "alcoholic gene" involved, it could very well be that he wouldn't have had sex with "that woman" and caused your birth, in which case you would still be...oh, wait...you wouldn't be alive because Tequila Ted didn't blow his load in Mary Rottencrotch and you were never born.

Never mind, then.

[I-RIGHT-I]

IMHO this is an excellent point, arod. It is excellent for many reasons, but consider the fact that "virgin birth" was a common myth in pagan religions. As Paul parted company with the group that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, with whom he was apparently associated, Christianity became less and less Jewish as it picked up non-Jewish converts. Is it so absurd that as this happened the Gospels picked up pagan myths?

The Bible is not a fax from God, after all. It is a religious document, far more than it is an historical record of anything. As such it is conceivable that the ideas, like "virgin birth", are more metaphor than historical.

Would it matter if Mary had been a slut? Perhaps it would give the story even greater meaning.

Personally I think a "literal" interpretation of the Bible renders the stories less meaningful.


After reading this I was going to say that you'd probably be better off if you stuck to the law but now I'm afraid you might think that a literal interpretation might make it less meaningful.

[blurb]

After reading this I was going to say that you'd probably be better off if you stuck to the law but now I'm afraid you might think that a literal interpretation might make it less meaningful.


You obviously have no appreciation for subtleties and ambiguities.

[the bib]

OK, so are you really asking whether Jesus would still be Jesus if Mary wasn't a virgin?

No ... actually, I think that was what others' were asking.

It wasn't where I was going with it, at all.

I will try and I am not saying what my OWN conviction are, only the POV of the RCC;

IF the premises are that

1.) God is perfect,
2.) Jesus was God,

then, would it stand to reason that he would issue forth from an "imperfect" or "sinful" woman?

Their point is that God would never have chosen to be borne by a woman touched by man ... unvirginal and sinful.

I was trying to address this line of thought only.

Asking if one wold regard their mother in any different lite had they known that she was promiscuous was, from this POV not leading, just an attempt to personalize the (RCC) logic that Christ would have considered this in choosing his mother.



You should have just said so. This has nothing to do with anyone's mother, right?

It was not meant to imply anyone's mother was a whore or even a non-virgin IRL, no.

It was strictly hypothetical.


And whether it's relevant to the subject or not, I did answer your question honestly (the one about would you feel differently about your mother...........yada yada yada). :)


The underlying question or the better phrasing thereof, is would one prefer that their mother had not been promiscuous, or would it matter not.

Most, if honest, would prefer she hadn;t been which brings full circle that since (according to RCC belief, that God could choose) the qualifiers for the job would logically be, purity.

[BrandonL]

Why is it that if a woman has had sex with a man, she is somehow "imperfect" bib? Is this what you really believe?

[WCP]

IF the premises are that

1.) God is perfect,
2.) Jesus was God

And what IF those premises are flawed?

I would presume that would make the vast majority of the world correct and you wrong.

[the bib]

What difference does that make?

And if you really believe that Jesus had to be"perfection personified" why stop at the "cleanliness" of the vessel which carried him?

It's not about what I personally believe, it is about the position of the RCC.

Just looking to dispel the misinformation is all.