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.

[East of Eden]

Only in the modern concept. Back then, girls married earlier, probably right after puberty, and it was considered 'normal'. They were ignorant about the medical issues that could happen if a girl was not fully mature at their first pregnancy, and people in general did not live as long, so early birth/early death' was much more the norm. I don't think that is a valid argument at all..

Most importantly though they didn't much care about the consent a woman gives to the situation. That has little to nothing to do with any medical knowledge. Today children hit puberty way sooner and any 13 yr old is technically very much capable of having sex. We don't condone it because we think they are too young to really know what they want and they should give a consent that holds meaning.
How mature a 13 yr Mary emotionally was they could work out 2000 years ago just the same as today. No medical science knowledge necessary. They simply didn't care and the perfect word of god didn't give any hints either. Ergo god didn't care either (or doesn't exist).

Yeah but he/she is also saying that god wasn't aware. An all knowing god. Who impregnated her.

Let's look at the story. Evidently Mary was quite safe...and mature for her age, as well. Remember; she was around for her Son's death...another 33 years. She evidently had other children, and there are many stories around that have her living a fairly long and healthy life after that. Therefore she outlived many of her peers.

Therefore, her health was not affected. She seemed to have been a good mom and a fairly happy woman with her husband, who seems to have been fairly happy with her. The women of that time learned everything they needed to know by the time they were sent off to be married; they were prepared to hold household and perform the roles they were expected to perform, as were the sons.

You REALLY need to get your head out of the 21st century standards and consider the standards of the time...and if you come back with the 'God would have known better..." well, evidently He did, given that Mary was not harmed and remained healthy and happy for considerably longer than the average woman of the day.

Jesus is said to have had at least one brother, but the doctrine, of some at least, insists that Mary remained a virgin all her life. Excuse me, but I have difficulty with the whole story. Why don't we send it back to the author for a rewrite before we buy it?

According to the Catholic and Orthodox churches Mary was always a virgin. The Bible on the other hand, clearly refers to Jesus' brothers and sisters, and describes Jesus as Mary's 'firstborn'.

[East of Eden]

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?

There's a lot of things he didn't mention, the Virgin Birth was no doubt taken for granted at the time. Only if it was disputed would he have mentioned it. It is for the same reason Jesus never mentioned directly homosexual activity.

On the contrary, Paul told people not to concern themselves with myths.

So that means the Virgin Birth was a myth? That's called a non- sequiter. IF God exists, which Paul clearly believed, the Virgin Birth was no big deal.

Of course, Paul suffered from severe misogynistic sexual hang-ups.

Name-calling and bigotry are not a substitute for debate.

[East of Eden]

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.

I prefer the term 'Bible-believer' to fundamentalist, Jesus was one of those.

[East of Eden]

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,

What you call 'tradition' some of us call the Word of God. I do agree with those who call for a married priesthood, even the Catholic Church says that one can be changed. The fruits of the current policy are priest shortages and the infamous pedophile (in reality homosexual) scandals.

[otseng]

All the people with the really close ties to the vatican are the nutjob conservatives in Europe.

Latin America is probably the most liberal out of the bunch but Africa is completely mental from our perspective.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid using the terms nutjob and mental to describe others, even if they are not on the forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

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?

There's a lot of things he didn't mention, the Virgin Birth was no doubt taken for granted at the time. Only if it was disputed would he have mentioned it.

Here's another perfectly plausible explanation for Paul not mentioning the virgin birth: he'd never heard of it.

Provide evidence for the claim that the doctrine of the virgin birth was believed from the earliest days of the church or retract it.

[southern cross]

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,

What you call 'tradition' some of us call the Word of God. I do agree with those who call for a married priesthood, even the Catholic Church says that one can be changed. The fruits of the current policy are priest shortages and the infamous pedophile (in reality homosexual) scandals.

Now here is the thing. Paedophilia is not homosexuality. Being married does not make a paedophile change his ways. Most paedophiles are married. The capacity of the believers to believe their high priests is simply unbelievable.

[East of Eden]

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?

There's a lot of things he didn't mention, the Virgin Birth was no doubt taken for granted at the time. Only if it was disputed would he have mentioned it.

Here's another perfectly plausible explanation for Paul not mentioning the virgin birth: he'd never heard of it.

Provide evidence for the claim that the doctrine of the virgin birth was believed from the earliest days of the church or retract it.

Already been done on this thread:

"Very important in the history of the early church's belief in the virgin birth is the testimony of its early fathers. In 110 AD, Ignatius wrote in his Epistle to the Ephesians, "For our GOD Jesus Christ was...conceived in the womb of Mary...by the Holy Ghost."

"Now the virginity of Mary, and He who was born of her...are the mysteries most spoken of throughout the world, yet done in secret by GOD." Ignatius received his information from his teacher, John the apostle.

"We have further evidence," writes Clement F. Rogers, "which shows that the belief of Christians in the Virgin Birth was attacked by those outside. Cerinthus, for example, was the contemporary and opponent of St. John. It was said that the Evangelist, meeting him in the public baths, cried out, 'Let us flee lest the bath fall in while Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is here." He [Cerinthus' taught, Irenaeus tells us, that our LORD was born of Joseph and Mary like other men."

Another of the post-apostolic writers, Aristides in 125 AD, speaks of the virgin birth: "He is Himself Son of GOD on high, who was manifested of the Holy Spirit, came down from heaven, and being born of a Hebrew virgin took on His flesh from the virgin...He it is who was according to the flesh born of the race of Hebrews, by the GOD-bearing virgin Miriam."

Justin Martyr in 150 gives ample evidence to the concept of Jesus' miraculous birth. "...Our Teacher Jesus Christ, who is the first-begotten of GOD the Father, was not born as a result of sexual relations...the power of GOD descending upon the virgin overshadowed her, and caused her, while still a virgin, to conceive...For, by GOD's power He was conceived by a virgin...in accordance with the will of GOD, Jesus Christ, His Son, has been born of the Virgin Mary." (Apology 1:21-33; Dialogue with Trypho the Jew)

"The first great Latin-speaking Christian was the converted lawyer Tertullian. He tells us that not only there was in his days (ca AD 200) a definite Christian creed on which all churches agree, but he also tells us, its technical name was a tessera. Now things only get technical names when they have been established for some time. He quotes this creed four times. It includes the words 'ex virgine Maria' (of the Virgin Mary)."

Josh McDowell

How would John know about the Virgin Birth, but not Paul who died decades before John?

The very fact the Gospels that tell of the Virgin Birth were written before 70 AD makes your question somewhat bizarre.

http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Here's another perfectly plausible explanation for Paul not mentioning the virgin birth: he'd never heard of it.

Provide evidence for the claim that the doctrine of the virgin birth was believed from the earliest days of the church or retract it.

Already been done on this thread:

"Very important in the history of the early church's belief in the virgin birth is the testimony of its early fathers. In 110 AD, Ignatius wrote in his Epistle to the Ephesians, "For our GOD Jesus Christ was...conceived in the womb of Mary...by the Holy Ghost."

"Now the virginity of Mary, and He who was born of her...are the mysteries most spoken of throughout the world, yet done in secret by GOD." Ignatius received his information from his teacher, John the apostle.

"We have further evidence," writes Clement F. Rogers, "which shows that the belief of Christians in the Virgin Birth was attacked by those outside. Cerinthus, for example, was the contemporary and opponent of St. John. It was said that the Evangelist, meeting him in the public baths, cried out, 'Let us flee lest the bath fall in while Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is here." He [Cerinthus' taught, Irenaeus tells us, that our LORD was born of Joseph and Mary like other men."

Another of the post-apostolic writers, Aristides in 125 AD, speaks of the virgin birth: "He is Himself Son of GOD on high, who was manifested of the Holy Spirit, came down from heaven, and being born of a Hebrew virgin took on His flesh from the virgin...He it is who was according to the flesh born of the race of Hebrews, by the GOD-bearing virgin Miriam."

Justin Martyr in 150 gives ample evidence to the concept of Jesus' miraculous birth. "...Our Teacher Jesus Christ, who is the first-begotten of GOD the Father, was not born as a result of sexual relations...the power of GOD descending upon the virgin overshadowed her, and caused her, while still a virgin, to conceive...For, by GOD's power He was conceived by a virgin...in accordance with the will of GOD, Jesus Christ, His Son, has been born of the Virgin Mary." (Apology 1:21-33; Dialogue with Trypho the Jew)

"The first great Latin-speaking Christian was the converted lawyer Tertullian. He tells us that not only there was in his days (ca AD 200) a definite Christian creed on which all churches agree, but he also tells us, its technical name was a tessera. Now things only get technical names when they have been established for some time. He quotes this creed four times. It includes the words 'ex virgine Maria' (of the Virgin Mary)."

Josh McDowell

How would John know about the Virgin Birth, but not Paul who died decades before John?

The very fact the Gospels were written before 70 AD makes your question somewhat bizarre.

I asked for evidence that it was believed from the earliest days of the church. Do you have any? None of the evidence you present here is even from the first few decades of the church, let alone the "earliest days."

Please withdraw your claim if you cannot provide evidence for it.

[East of Eden]

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,

What you call 'tradition' some of us call the Word of God. I do agree with those who call for a married priesthood, even the Catholic Church says that one can be changed. The fruits of the current policy are priest shortages and the infamous pedophile (in reality homosexual) scandals.

Now here is the thing. Paedophilia is not homosexuality. Being married does not make a paedophile change his ways. Most paedophiles are married. The capacity of the believers to believe their high priests is simply unbelievable.

Sorry, but as about all the perpetrators and victims were male, that is a homosexual problem in the Catholic Church. Homosexuals are more likely to abuse children. They make up about two percent of the population, but according to the Journal of Sex Research, homosexual pedophiles are responsible for 33% of all child sex offenses. Homosexuals molest children at at least 10 times the rate of heterosexuals.

No wonder the Boy Scouts are leery of them.