Alright, so concepts such as heaven and hell, and an almighty creator, I can kinda see why some people might believe in this stuff. Aspects such as these of religion mainly have to do with faith, not reason. I can (to a degree) understand that.

But for over 1 billion of this world's population to actually believe that some chick 2 thousand years ago was impregnated by God... Like, come on... Seriously.

Or are there some rational Christians* out there who realize that Mary must have had sex with SOMEONE to bear her son Jesus?

The main question here I guess is: Does being a Christian necessarily mean that you believe in immaculate conception?

*I realize that rational Christian is a bit of an oxymoron, but I assume (or at least hope) that there are some reasonably level-headed Christians out there who at least try to gain some understanding of their beliefs, rather than just blindly accepting whatever they are told.

I remember reading something somewhere about how an "angel" came to visit her to say God would give her a child. But it was written in an almost conspiracy theory ish way about the some guy was this angel and he fucked her. If anyone has more info, pass it on.

Immaculate conception refers to some stupid catholic belief (redundant) about the mother of jesus. Virgin birth is what you are thinking about, and that's basic to all forms of Christianity AFAIK. Some individual Christians might not believe in that miracle.

Once you submit to Jesus you're not allowed to ask questions.

Once you submit to Jesus you're not allowed to ask questions.

You're allowed to ask questions, but the answers must be taken from The Book. If they don't fall within the pages of The Book, then it falls under the "God works in mysterious ways" catch-all category of answers.

You either settle on it, satisfied with that explanation - or you don't. If you do, then it's considered a show of strength for your faith. If you don't, then it's considered a weakness of your faith.

If you're going to submit to Jesus, be prepared to stop asking so many questions and just learn to live with mystery.

You're allowed to ask questions, but the answers must be taken from The Book. If they don't fall within the pages of The Book, then it falls under the "God works in mysterious ways" catch-all category of answers.

You either settle on it, satisfied with that explanation - or you don't. If you do, then it's considered a show of strength for your faith. If you don't, then it's considered a weakness of your faith.

If you're going to submit to Jesus, be prepared to stop asking so many questions and just learn to live with mystery.

But then again, should a believer really be considering what other people think? Just because they think that questioning God is a lack of faith doesn't mean it is. There are many answers not in the Book, it doesn't tell me how to stack a shelf, make a bed, or grow a flower, just because it isn't in there doesn't mean you should not look for answers. That is merely a dogma of the Church, and God knows we have enough people that disagree with the church for me to excuse mysefl from saying how gay the church is.

Jesus repeatedly informs his followers that to get into heaven they must be like little children, and do children not ask questions?

But then again, should a believer really be considering what other people think? Just because they think that questioning God is a lack of faith doesn't mean it is. There are many answers not in the Book, it doesn't tell me how to stack a shelf, make a bed, or grow a flower, just because it isn't in there doesn't mean you should not look for answers. That is merely a dogma of the Church, and God knows we have enough people that disagree with the church for me to excuse mysefl from saying how gay the church is.

I was speaking specifically of Bible-related questions, in the context of: Ask your pastor/priest/minister ... but don't be surprised to get the "God works in mysterious ways" answer from church officials.


Jesus repeatedly informs his followers that to get into heaven they must be like little children, and do children not ask questions?

Good point. Which goes back to - why would Jesus deny someone entrance in heaven if their only "sin" was that their unanswered questions led to them disbelieving in God? This is assuming that the person was of solid moral character in every other aspect, of course.

Good point. Which goes back to - why would Jesus deny someone entrance in heaven if their only "sin" was that their unanswered questions led to them disbelieving in God? This is assuming that the person was of solid moral character in every other aspect, of course.

Because his dad thinks you're a shit...

I was speaking specifically of Bible-related questions, in the context of: Ask your pastor/priest/minister ... but don't be surprised to get the "God works in mysterious ways" answer from church officials.

Fair enough, I guess I was just being picky :D

Good point. Which goes back to - why would Jesus deny someone entrance in heaven if their only "sin" was that their unanswered questions led to them disbelieving in God? This is assuming that the person was of solid moral character in every other aspect, of course.

Personally I have a very liberal reading of the bible and don't think that God would punish someone for not believing.

I'd justify this by saying that belief is a term we try very little to understand. When we say belief we seem to think that saying you believe in something is enough to say that you believe something. I think belief is more complicated than that. Personally I think that maybe it is enough to be moral regardless of whether you say you believ in God or not.

Of two people, one who bears the title of a christian and yet acts un-christian and another that acts in a manner shown by Christ, which of the two is more the Christian?
Is God so simple that he requires words to show devotion in him? Or is God great enough that regardless of what someone says he can see that they have true faith, in the form of doing good for goods sake. If the greatest commandment is Love, the the one who loves is following God's desire more directly than anyone claiming to follow him.

The main question here I guess is: Does being a Christian necessarily mean that you believe in immaculate conception?


Yes, I see no metaphorical interpretation of the term 'virgin birth'. This is in fact how I became de-Christianized. In one day I became a deist and also realized it was a complete rejection of the bible and could not be reconciled.

Another flaw in the immaculate conception? The Church contests that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, but how can we believe this when the bible says she had other children besides jesus? Are we to believe that they too are immaculate conceptions?

It wasn't an immaculant conception. The counsel of 300 who solidified the religion and wrote the New Testament added and subtracted shit to make Jesus Godly so people would accept it easier. Would you rather follow a smart bastard child or the Son of God? Mary was a Jewish princess from a prominent blood line, and Jesus' father was a king from another country and they got together as part of a pagan cerimony. It was prophesized that they'd spawn the Christ, which doesn't mean son of God, but rather a Wise man of vast knowledge. He was mortal, but that family is not normal and the bloodline still exists. Most of the greatest thinkers in the world come from that bloodline. Most people with intellects 2-3 deviation points above average are part of it.

*I realize that rational Christian is a bit of an oxymoron


for this to be the case, you must believe that rationality is universal. since two people, both of whom believe themselves to be "rational" people can reach opposite conclusions from the same starting point, this simply cannot be the case.
one man's rationality is not nesecarily the same as that of another, it follows that for some people, their Christian faith is a natural conclusion drawn from their observation and understanding of the world.

Granted, there are also a very large number of Christians who do not try to justify their faith in rational terms, for whom faith is strong, though inexplicable.

if you take atheism as your starting point, since there are no gods to believe in, it follows that there must be either a social or biological reason for religion.

Mary told everyone that she was a virgin. Only two people knew she wasn't Her and the Guy she cheated on Joseph with.

Thats all.

for this to be the case, you must believe that rationality is universal. since two people, both of whom believe themselves to be "rational" people can reach opposite conclusions from the same starting point, this simply cannot be the case.

If both of those people apply logic consistently, no, they can't. But they may well be working with a single common assumption, and then reasoning based on a differing set.

It wasn't an immaculant conception. The counsel of 300 who solidified the religion and wrote the New Testament added and subtracted shit to make Jesus Godly so people would accept it easier. Would you rather follow a smart bastard child or the Son of God? Mary was a Jewish princess from a prominent blood line, and Jesus' father was a king from another country and they got together as part of a pagan cerimony. It was prophesized that they'd spawn the Christ, which doesn't mean son of God, but rather a Wise man of vast knowledge. He was mortal, but that family is not normal and the bloodline still exists. Most of the greatest thinkers in the world come from that bloodline. Most people with intellects 2-3 deviation points above average are part of it.

A little too much Davinci Code?

Gods fucking humans is nothing new in mythology...

Virgin Birth is nothing new in mythology...

Having 12 disciples, dead for 3 days, and being resurected is NOTHING new in mythology. It is one of the oldest myths. It came about when man began to study the sky. When man watched what happened on December 25th the Winter Solstice.

Winter Solstice:
The sun is dead for 3 days (stops perceptable movement in the sky) it is resurrected on the 25th (starts moving). This is a herald to spring time and the realization that the sun is NOT going to die (which would doom all of mankind, even primitive men understood this connection).

They tied stories to this event to help pass down information in oral tradition (writing not invented yet). They tied images and stories to all the 12 signs of the zodiac. 5,000 years later of verbally passing this shit down we get "purple monkey dishwasher". Anyone ever sit in a circle in classs with 20 kids and have one kid start a rumor or a saying and each one passes this information to the next? What information you start with and what info you end with are two different things.

Carry that over for thousands of years and you wind up with evil fruit, talking snakes, a zombie, and a magic boat that every animal fits on. What started off as an attempt at studying the stars ended up as an attempt to control mankind.

In short, 1 billion people believing in that tells me that at least 1 billion people in the world are weak minded emotional cripples with a flair for the dramatic.

^Well said.

Cheers.

To ask whether Christians 'believe' this is kind of redundant. Like Genesis, immaculate conception is part of the 'Christian myth' and as such, it is seen as absolutely true in a specific context - to not believe is to be outside the group. It's not necessarily about science, it's about the stories that make up the wider tenets of religion in general, such as love, peace, etc - the core beliefs of all religion. To disbelieve the stories (such as immaculate conception) IN THE CHRISTIAN CONTEXT is to deny the rest of it as well - the point is - it isn't Meant for somebody to say 'well, that never happened' - to do so kind of misses the point, that is to lay a groundwork so that people would accept the wider beliefs of faith. The same works with the animistic beliefs of many native american groups - they might tell stories about Coyote speaking to a sparrow and giving it color, but I doubt very many natives would try and go find a Coyote to speak to in their day to day existence.

I don't 'believe' in immaculate conception. But when I'm in Church I absolutely believe that it happened and thats how Jesus was born. If this was not the case I wouldn't be a Christian - I would be existing outside the folk group and I would be something else entirely unto myself.

I don't 'believe' in immaculate conception. But when I'm in Church I absolutely believe that it happened and thats how Jesus was born. If this was not the case I wouldn't be a Christian - I would be existing outside the folk group and I would be something else entirely unto myself.

So when you leave the Church, you snap out of it and still find a way to live a decent, moral life and do good unto others? That's great. You're able to separate fantasy from reality, while still learning valuable life lessons.

Speaking in metaphor and using parables to teach folk wisdom truly does a good story make, and remaining "in character" for the sake of animation when narrating it makes for great theatrics. It's powerful expression! It drives points home.

But why should Christianity, or any religion for that matter, be considered any more sacred or righteous than, say - Aesop's Fables, which also teaches valuable moral lessons? Why didn't a religion revolve around Aesop, who happens to also be a little like J.C., shrouded in mystery and exceptionally wise? I think it's probably because Aesop never promised an everlasting life after death. We're all capable of being Aesop-like, by sharing experience and valuable lessons with one another that furthers the good of mankind.

It's great that you can be honest and reckon with yourself that the stories told in the Christian Bible are derived from myth and just happen to be an effective way of illustrating a powerful lesson on how we should all feel goodwill towards one another.

But you have to admit, there are a very large group of human beings who take their religious stories literally. Unfortunately, a great deal of these stories are quite ugly, and tend to bring out the worst in people. So much so that they believe that everyone outside their particular circle of faith is going to burn in hell for all eternity. They feel actual contempt for others who claim that their God is somehow greater, their beliefs somehow more pious. They're so in fear of these other people's lifestyles somehow interfering with their own salvation, that they righteously believe that it's their purpose - their spiritual duty - to inflict their preferences on the rest of humanity.

We've been practicing religions for centuries now. When has any religious faith system ever achieved lasting peace and widespread love between all human beings? Never. When have interpretations been universally agreed upon, especially since their simple, common message is supposedly so obvious that the storyline itself becomes passé? Never.

We should dismiss Story Time and come to our senses. There's gotta be another way to unite people under the umbrella of peace, love and mutual respect for ourselves and others.

The make-believe sanctimonious stories aren't really that useful any more.

The bible is bullshit.

So when you leave the Church, you snap out of it and still find a way to live a decent, moral life and do good unto others? That's great. You're able to separate fantasy from reality, while still learning valuable life lessons.

Speaking in metaphor and using parables to teach folk wisdom truly does a good story make, and remaining "in character" for the sake of animation when narrating it makes for great theatrics. It's powerful expression! It drives points home.

But why should Christianity, or any religion for that matter, be considered any more sacred or righteous than, say - Aesop's Fables, which also teaches valuable moral lessons? Why didn't a religion revolve around Aesop, who happens to also be a little like J.C., shrouded in mystery and exceptionally wise? I think it's probably because Aesop never promised an everlasting life after death. We're all capable of being Aesop-like, by sharing experience and valuable lessons with one another that furthers the good of mankind.

It's great that you can be honest and reckon with yourself that the stories told in the Christian Bible are derived from myth and just happen to be an effective way of illustrating a powerful lesson on how we should all feel goodwill towards one another.

But you have to admit, there are a very large group of human beings who take their religious stories literally. Unfortunately, a great deal of these stories are quite ugly, and tend to bring out the worst in people. So much so that they believe that everyone outside their particular circle of faith is going to burn in hell for all eternity. They feel actual contempt for others who claim that their God is somehow greater, their beliefs somehow more pious. They're so in fear of these other people's lifestyles somehow interfering with their own salvation, that they righteously believe that it's their purpose - their spiritual duty - to inflict their preferences on the rest of humanity.

We've been practicing religions for centuries now. When has any religious faith system ever achieved lasting peace and widespread love between all human beings? Never. When have interpretations been universally agreed upon, especially since their simple, common message is supposedly so obvious that the storyline itself becomes passé? Never.

We should dismiss Story Time and come to our senses. There's gotta be another way to unite people under the umbrella of peace, love and mutual respect for ourselves and others.

The make-believe sanctimonious stories aren't really that useful any more.


But I would suggest for every fire and brimstone Christian that tries to impose their religion on everyone else there are 10 or 20 who are content with their own lives and try their hardest to actually improve the lives of those around them. I know that in my city (and in my Church) there are not many who would go about saying gays are headed straight to hell or that every word in the bible is the literal truth - I would suggest that most Christians simply try to live their lives by the basic tenets of their faith (the goodwill and love part that I mentioned earlier) and it is only the nutcases that get the most attention, both in the media and to most people who are actively trying to find a Christian to goad into a debate - as they are usually the most impressionable and least educated.

But I would suggest for every fire and brimstone Christian that tries to impose their religion on everyone else there are 10 or 20 who are content with their own lives and try their hardest to actually improve the lives of those around them.

I live in a region of my country where evangelicals are aplenty. Their idea of improving my life is to constantly remind me that hell is on my horizon if I don't submit to their doctrine. They have learned a bit of couth over time, and have silenced their finger-pointing, Bible-thumping antics in favor of a more PC, clandestine way of making sure their belief system gets permeated into mainstream society.

Why, even my ex-Governor (who is now actively campaigning for the coveted position of Commander-In-Chief) believes whole-heartedly in the whole fire & brimstone fiasco. Now, I'm sorry, but - having world leaders who are fully convinced that the make-believe stories in the Holy Bible are going to eventually play themselves out one day in an apocalyptic second-coming ... makes me a bit nervous. Would it really be in the best interest of the entire world to have someone with such broad authority and the ability to take down other nations really a wise choice?

You'll never hear a successful evangelical-in-power parroting the literal interpretations of the Bible in public. Otherwise, they'd be stripped of their title due to a whole lot of reasonable folks feeling uneasy about their fanaticism. Again, they've learned to squelch their desire to preach their spiritual sentiments, being a clever chameleon when it suits them in order to gain the trust and confidence of reasonable, level-headed people. But if you don't think that the behind-the-scenes decision making process for them isn't guided by their literal interpretation of Bible prophecies, then you've been duped, also.

My only problem with religious moderates is that they make light of their distant cousins, the evangelicals, by humoring their fervor and contempt towards others, chalking it up to just enthusiasm and hardcore devotion. I've got news for you: They're just humoring you too, for the time being. Don't think for one second that when it comes down to the nut-cutting, they're not going to draw an imaginary line in the sand where you're eventually going to be forced into an US vs. THEM scenario. What then? Are you going to stick up for people who are taking their direction from the same text you happen to interpret a little bit differently, or are you going to finally renounce them for being batshit insane for believing that a good portion of the the earth's inhabitants are going to justifiably be scorched for all eternity?

I wonder if those politicians (who I believe have to be smarter than they look in order to have the powerful connections/deal economically with the many issues our countries face - yes that includes George bush - regardless whether people disagree with him (which I do) you can't be a complete moron and become the President of the most powerful nation in the world (for now)) actually BELIEVE their Ultra-Christian pandering or if they are just doing it to appeal to an extremely large voter base - most of whom agree with them on republican issues anyway.

I do agree that a nation of born again Christian ultra fundamentalists is a scary thing, but its the same thing with any fundamentalist group - it doesn't have to be about religion. People will always find divisions among themselves and there will always be people at the very polar opposites of those divisions who resort to violence/intimidation/etc in order to further their own agendas - it is not something that is solely under the domain of 'religion'.

Even if we got rid of religion - which seems to be what your suggesting, would that become a universal fix all? Would the entire void of ethical and moral beliefs be better for the world? If somebody robbed you, you would still be pissed off because you believe they 'shouldn't' act in that sort of way - but this entails that there would be a certain set of 'higher'
ethical and moral values that we should subscribe to.

Regardless, I suggest that even if religion and all it's ideas simply disappeared, people would still find other ways in which to divide themselves and there will always be people in power that certain other groups of people don't agree with and think are 'ruining' everything. The neo-cons in America (which is the country I assume you're speaking of) would still have people that agree with the social direction they choose to lead the country, regardless of religion.

Even if we got rid of religion - which seems to be what your suggesting, would that become a universal fix all?

I don't believe we'll ever get rid of religion, nor do I believe we should. Historically, it's been the ultimate crux of human behavior and lots could be learned from dissecting it and studying the effects it has on the human psyche. It's been such a motivating force behind politics and human relationships that we'd be foolish to dismiss the whole religious phenomena for what it is. In fact, it should be publicly examined and picked apart for observation under a glaring microscope like we would anything else. It should be bound to careful scrutiny, it's contradictions exposed and it's fallacies uncovered, just like any other ideology.

I'd just like to see it stripped of it's sacred exclusiveness and *protected* status. While I'm nowhere close to hanging with the conservative right, I also have a great distaste for the radical civil rights fanatics who, under the guise of a good-intentioned fight for diversity, lay the groundwork for ALL religions to have this anti-scrutiny/pro-exclusive status that gives just about any crackpot spiritual belief system the honor of being respected, no matter how ridiculous and dangerous it may be.

If a wily group of flaming Pentecostals want to hole up on a West Virginian hillside and risk their lives handling venomous serpents, then good for them. But don't call me out for "religious discrimination" when I stand at the bottom of that hill and warn possible converts that the people inside have taken complete leave of their senses and are living in a fantasy world of make-believe bravado.

Regardless, I suggest that even if religion and all it's ideas simply disappeared, people would still find other ways in which to divide themselves and there will always be people in power that certain other groups of people don't agree with and think are 'ruining' everything. The neo-cons in America (which is the country I assume you're speaking of) would still have people that agree with the social direction they choose to lead the country, regardless of religion.

I agree, there will always be various trains of thought regarding what's right and wrong, separating groups of people into different factions of beliefs. Culture should never be restricted into having to mimic one another's moral values or practicing faith systems under the false assumption that somehow, a Universal understanding of spirituality will be accepted and agreed upon. But it just should be apparent that there ARE universal "laws" that all faith systems do agree upon, and most of them are basic altruistic traits that all human beings come to learn naturally, regardless of their culture or upbringing.

We could focus instead on these simple, shared viewpoints without involving the complexity of religious sacraments that seem to divide humanity up into these feuding, My-God-Can-Beat-The-Shit-Out-Of-Your-God clusterfuck of individuals.

Spirituality can and should be limited to intimate and private ceremonies that don't vie for public recognition and acceptance. The "correct" interpretation shouldn't be asserted, no more than one's favorite color should be given any consideration in relation to the grand scheme of things that we're all connected to, as human beings who have no choice but to co-exist on the same planet.

Gods fucking humans is nothing new in mythology...

Virgin Birth is nothing new in mythology...

Having 12 disciples, dead for 3 days, and being resurected is NOTHING new in mythology. It is one of the oldest myths. It came about when man began to study the sky. When man watched what happened on December 25th the Winter Solstice.

Winter Solstice:
The sun is dead for 3 days (stops perceptable movement in the sky) it is resurrected on the 25th (starts moving). This is a herald to spring time and the realization that the sun is NOT going to die (which would doom all of mankind, even primitive men understood this connection).

They tied stories to this event to help pass down information in oral tradition (writing not invented yet). They tied images and stories to all the 12 signs of the zodiac. 5,000 years later of verbally passing this shit down we get "purple monkey dishwasher". Anyone ever sit in a circle in classs with 20 kids and have one kid start a rumor or a saying and each one passes this information to the next? What information you start with and what info you end with are two different things.

Carry that over for thousands of years and you wind up with evil fruit, talking snakes, a zombie, and a magic boat that every animal fits on. What started off as an attempt at studying the stars ended up as an attempt to control mankind.

In short, 1 billion people believing in that tells me that at least 1 billion people in the world are weak minded emotional cripples with a flair for the dramatic.

+1...

Wow - I entirely agree AngryFemme - very, very well constructed and reasonable post. I think we somewhat got away from the OP though - the original point I was trying to make was that 'belief' can be in flux - the fact that "over 1 billion people believe in immaculate conception" , rather than being evidence that 'oMgGg t3hH xXtiaNs ar3 t3h iN$4nNeee' is kind of misleading - as a member of a folk group that revolves around myths - those myths are to be understood as completely true in a given context - i.e.) in Church - to NOT believe would be to be outside of the folk group. Therefore the fact that all Christians believe in immaculate conception is kind of a moot point - it just portrays one of their 'beliefs' and should not be used as evidence that Christians as a whole are any less reasonable than anybody else. This was the concept that my original argument was revolving around.

And although we did kind of end up getting sidetracked by our discussion of the 'worth' of religion for a society and what reforms should be made, I think that some very important issues were discussed there as well, although they might have hijacked the thread slightly. : /

Immaculate conception is the doctrine that Mary was born without original sin, a grace given to her so that she might properly bear and raise the son of God.

And FYI almost two billion people believe in it.