Atheism's Twentieth Century Death Toll

[McCulloch]

You really want to play that numbers game, with atheism's 100,000,000 death toll last century?

Are there 100,000,000 deaths in the twentieth century attributable to atheism? Please list.

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

Wrong, that doctrine was believed from the earliest days of the church:

Really? Then why did St. Paul, the major interpreter of Jesus, never mention something seemingly as miraculous and impressive as the Virgin Birth? On the contrary, Paul told people not to concern themselves with myths.

Of course, Paul suffered from severe misogynistic sexual hang-ups. Perhaps he could not accept the idea that God might have had intimate relations with a mere woman. Come to think of it, God didn't! God sent an angel to procure the woman for him, and then sent the Holy Spirit to do the impregnating business for him.

[micatala]

East of Eden wrote:

Wrong, that doctrine was believed from the earliest days of the church:

Really? Then why did St. Paul, the major interpreter of Jesus, never mention something seemingly as miraculous and impressive as the Virgin Birth? On the contrary, Paul told people not to concern themselves with myths.

Of course, Paul suffered from severe misogynistic sexual hang-ups. Perhaps he could not accept the idea that God might have had intimate relations with a mere woman. Come to think of it, God didn't! God sent an angel to procure the woman for him, and then sent the Holy Spirit to do the impregnating business for him.

This is a fair point. The earliest NT writings are from Paul, the gospels are almost universally deemed to have come a decade or more later.

It is also worth pointing out that, while there are a lot of early church fathers (East of Eden mentions Ignatius) who speak of the virgin birth, that doctrine was not important enough to make it into the Nicene Creed in 325 A.D.

It was not until the Apostle's Creed was written some several centuries after the Nicene that we get the virgin birth (and Jesus' descent into hell before his ultimate resurrection) being ensconced in such a creedal statement.

Now, that does not mean that many Christians did not believe in a virgin birth. However, it does indicate at the very least that it was not universally acknowledged as a central doctrine. It is fair to say that the idea of the virgin birth and the importance it was given both developed over time.

[dusk]

I don't get the entire virgin birth issue. If that was important, why in the childhood stories does Maria run around with Joseph. If the stories wanted to convey a virgin birth, they should have had her run around on her own in that story.

[JohnPaul]

I don't get the entire virgin birth issue. If that was important, why in the childhood stories does Maria run around with Joseph. If the stories wanted to convey a virgin birth, they should have had her run around on her own in that story.

That is only one of the reasons that the story sounds at least a little immoral to me. God or no God, Mary was ENGAGED to Joseph at the time God took advantage of her innocence.

[Cephus]

I don't get the entire virgin birth issue. If that was important, why in the childhood stories does Maria run around with Joseph. If the stories wanted to convey a virgin birth, they should have had her run around on her own in that story.

That is only one of the reasons that the story sounds at least a little immoral to me. God or no God, Mary was ENGAGED to Joseph at the time God took advantage of her innocence.

And since Mary was only about 13 at the time, that makes God a pedophile.

[dusk]

I don't get the entire virgin birth issue. If that was important, why in the childhood stories does Maria run around with Joseph. If the stories wanted to convey a virgin birth, they should have had her run around on her own in that story.

That is only one of the reasons that the story sounds at least a little immoral to me. God or no God, Mary was ENGAGED to Joseph at the time God took advantage of her innocence.

Actually my argument would be that virgin birth was not a "truth" that the bible means to convey. It seems to be more like a made up issue that some people had to work into their creed so the son of god wasn't only so in spirit but also flesh.

My religion teacher taught us the Jesus childhood stories and nothing more than literary tools to emphasize the importance of this Jesus boy. Jesus at some point turned up as a preacher and likely nobody knew anything about what happened around his birth. Somebody wrote a pretty story that transported some meaning and showed how cool Jesus is. They added it in the bible but probably not to tell history but to tell just a story.
As far as liberal Catholics go that is what they make of these stories.

To me virgin birth isn't immoral but simple a dumb made up fact to fit the ideas of 5 year olds on Mary, because otherwise they found the story confusing. I guess I will never understand why some Christians are so fond of the devine flesh. They think they eat Jesus flesh every sunday. So what is the problem with Jesus being the son of Joseph and also later becoming via the son of god. Alter bread was simply bread too.

[JohnPaul]

I don't get the entire virgin birth issue. If that was important, why in the childhood stories does Maria run around with Joseph. If the stories wanted to convey a virgin birth, they should have had her run around on her own in that story.

That is only one of the reasons that the story sounds at least a little immoral to me. God or no God, Mary was ENGAGED to Joseph at the time God took advantage of her innocence.

Actually my argument would be that virgin birth was not a "truth" that the bible means to convey. It seems to be more like a made up issue that some people had to work into their creed so the son of god wasn't only so in spirit but also flesh.

My religion teacher taught us the Jesus childhood stories and nothing more than literary tools to emphasize the importance of this Jesus boy. Jesus at some point turned up as a preacher and likely nobody knew anything about what happened around his birth. Somebody wrote a pretty story that transported some meaning and showed how cool Jesus is. They added it in the bible but probably not to tell history but to tell just a story.
As far as liberal Catholics go that is what they make of these stories.

To me virgin birth isn't immoral but simple a dumb made up fact to fit the ideas of 5 year olds on Mary, because otherwise they found the story confusing. I guess I will never understand why some Christians are so fond of the devine flesh. They think they eat Jesus flesh every sunday. So what is the problem with Jesus being the son of Joseph and also later becoming via the son of god. Alter bread was simply bread too.

I think the Gospels were written as advertising brochures for the early Christian churches to attract converts with impressive made-up "God-stories"

I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. Many Catholics I know seem to be almost ignorant of Bible stories. Years ago, a Catholic friend persuaded me to have lunch with her and an old Jesuit priest who was visiting her church. I reluctantly agreed, expecting a tirade on sin. The old man began by talking about sin, sacraments, etc, but after my friend left us alone, he switched to a much more abstract philosophical approach to religion, with no mention of sin, Jesus, or church rituals. I admit I was impressed, but I am sure much of what he said would not be recognized as Christianity by any of the rabid fundamentalist Bible-thumpers here.

[dusk]

That is why I said liberal Catholics. All the educated german Catholics are basically far away from the stuff the pope preaches. That is why today many are trying to fight for priesthood of women. Why a gay man living in a gay relationship gets voted into the community board of church, against which the bishop cannot do squat. Why 99% of all Catholics (that have any sex at all) use contraception.
My dad thinks priesthood and this whole making stuff sacred rituals are meaningless. The holy part meaning anybody can lead a mass if he/she knows what to say. Abolition of the celibacy is also popular. At least in western Europe Catholicism is very liberal and not literal.
Nobody around here would even start with evolution is just a theory nonsense. The nutjobs afaik exist too but are mostly old dudes and represent maybe a 5-10% of the total.
My father now even goes to both protestant and catholic bible study groups and according to him the local priest even attends the protestant mass because they pastor and him are friends. If the pope knew that. woah.

My religion teacher who was a studied theologian taught everything kind of like the Jesus Seminary.

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>

I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. Many Catholics I know seem to be almost ignorant of Bible stories. Years ago, a Catholic friend persuaded me to have lunch with her and an old Jesuit priest who was visiting her church. I reluctantly agreed, expecting a tirade on sin. The old man began by talking about sin, sacraments, etc, but after my friend left us alone, he switched to a much more abstract philosophical approach to religion, with no mention of sin, Jesus, or church rituals. I admit I was impressed, but I am sure much of what he said would not be recognized as Christianity by any of the rabid fundamentalist Bible-thumpers here.

Any Jesuit would recognize it as perfectly normal conversation, JohnPaul. The Jesuits are the "Mensa" society of Catholicism.

[JohnPaul]

That is why I said liberal Catholics. All the educated german Catholics are basically far away from the stuff the pope preaches. That is why today many are trying to fight for priesthood of women. Why a gay man living in a gay relationship gets voted into the community board of church, against which the bishop cannot do squat. Why 99% of all Catholics (that have any sex at all) use contraception.
My dad thinks priesthood and this whole making stuff sacred rituals are meaningless. The holy part meaning anybody can lead a mass if he/she knows what to say. Abolition of the celibacy is also popular. At least in western Europe Catholicism is very liberal and not literal.
Nobody around here would even start with evolution is just a theory nonsense. The nutjobs afaik exist too but are mostly old dudes and represent maybe a 5-10% of the total.
My father now even goes to both protestant and catholic bible study groups and according to him the local priest even attends the protestant mass because they pastor and him are friends. If the pope knew that. woah.

My religion teacher who was a studied theologian taught everything kind of like the Jesus Seminary.

I am following news reports of the election of a new Pope with interest. Hopefully a new Pope will be more liberal than the old Pope. I can understand the need to maintain tradition, but it is time Christianity pulled itself out of the Dark Ages.