3 of 5
3
Defining Morality and Ethical Consideration
Posted: 05 August 2006 07:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  318
Joined  2006-03-23

[quote author=“frankr”]Mia for the most part I stay out of direct discussions with you.

I don’t blame you

[quote author=“frankr”]I find them fruitless.

No.  You’re unable to refute her impeccable logic.

[quote author=“frankr”]I think you well intentioned and your search sincere but I think it has come to an end.

Interpretation: You kick my ass at every turn.  Please stop.  I, on the other hand, will continue to clobber you with my cross.

[quote author=“frankr”]You are here looking for intellectual/psychological support which is fine by me.

And you’re here because…………………?

[quote author=“frankr”]However you come across as very close minded and much more so then most on this site (and we are pretty closed minded on both sides).

Interpretation: My argument has run aground and I am extremely frustrated that a friggin girl can turn my arguments into mincemeat.  I will now resort to ad hom attacks.


[quote author=“frankr”]I stated the catholic position in my last post not to convince but to clarify.

Ah…the biggest threat to the catholic position…a thinking brain.

[quote author=“frankr”] You go on with the same old lies.

Lies frank?  Or are they simply logical extensions to illogical suppositions?

So now anyone who happens to agree with Mia can be dismissed as an apologist?  Fine.  At least she’s a real person as opposed the story book character you apologize for.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2006 07:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2006-07-08

[quote author=“frankr”]

The church does not teach that mary was impregnated with God sperm.The church does not teach their was a sexual act at all. The Holy Spirit is immaterial he has no body, no genitals, no sperm to impregnate. We believe that Jesus (who has existed for eternity) received his body wholly from Mary. Yet you seem obsessed with the Virgin mary’s hymen. I mean does it seem impossible that a god who created the universe out of nothing could impregnate a woman without sex. No I guess not. Go on with your silly asides about the rape of the Virgin mary by the Holy Spirit as if it were Leda and the swan.

Since Athena was born by bursting violently out of the head of Zeus, does that also make Metis a Virgin?  I know, Zeus had lain with her, but the birth did not happen out of Metis’ womb; it was out of lightning boy’s head.
It just seems to me that one mythos is just as fantastical as another.
One thing that disturbs me as well, and Frank I welcome any corrections to my ideas on this, is that there has been much debate on the actual basis of the word virgin in the masoretic text.  Isaiah to be exact. 
The masoretic uses the Hebrew word ‘almah in Isaiah.  There has been a bit of debate whether this word was originally meant to mean virgin, or young woman
The Septuagint uses the Greek word parthenos in Isaiah.  There has been some discussion on this as well, as parthenos is used elsewhere to translate the Hebrew words ‘almah (virgin/maiden) and na’arah (young woman/servant).
Now, my Greek is bad, and my Hebrew worse, but it seems to me that if there was a dispute in translation, those translating would use the version that best supported their belief system and political agenda.  I know that you would say that the Church teaches that the scriptures show that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus and his siblings were born and that their wisdom is infallible; my limited sense of logic tells me that when there are this many variables in an equation, look for the simple answer.  To me, the simple answer is that the virgin birth was used to help bolster the divinity of Jesus.  A device used many times before his birth to help draw support for a possible messiah.

[ Edited: 05 August 2006 08:54 PM by ]
 Signature 

History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.

-James Joyce

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2006 07:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

Switch
As to your mythology giving birth has little to do with virginity.

I have read similar arguments to your other question regarding the translation. I do not know Hebrew and have not studied Greek in many years (and when I did, I did not do well). However even if the argument is correct in the OT it is clear in the NT that Mary was believed to be a virgin by the earlier followers of Christ. This is evident in both Luke and Matthew. I do not see how you could make the opposite case after reading those texts. You can of course disbelieve it all but given the texts it seems the early Church held that Mary was a virgin as evidenced by the Scripture.

F.P.
You would not know impeccable logic if it bit you in the ass. I don’t dismiss your argument because you defend Mia. I dismiss your post because it lacks an argument altogether. Here is a novel idea, instead of putting words into my mouth, try having a point.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2006 08:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2006-07-08

[quote author=“frankr”]Switch
As to your mythology giving birth has little to do with virginity.

Now, I am not an OB/GYN, but I think that one does negate the other.

You would not know impeccable logic if it bit you in the ass. I don’t dismiss your argument because you defend Mia. I dismiss your post because it lacks an argument altogether. Here is a novel idea, instead of putting words into my mouth, try having a point.

Why is it that whenever I open my mouth, people get all snooty on my arse.  I respect your intellect Frank, even if I don’t understand your belief.

My point is quite simple.  It is physicaly impossible for a woman to give birth without being impregnated by a man.  Unless this is done   through in vitro fertilisation, and even then,  I’m not sure she would be a virgin after birth.
The logic is this:  Which is more likely, a woman was impregnated by a God (just like countless other Greco/Roman myths) and gave birth to ManGod; or a young woman and her fiance got a little freaky one nite and got knocked up.  The penalty for this was stoning, and Joeseph was almost stoned if I remember correctly.
Nobody’s guilty if God done it… he does work mysteriously after all.
Even more logically: Mary and Joeseph had a kid who grew up to do and say many interesting things.  A religion was based around him.  To make him more “God like”, He was born of a virgin.  Just like Mithras.  Pretty easy to tie that into the Roman mystery cults, then.
Just use William of Occam’s little tool.

 Signature 

History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.

-James Joyce

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2006 08:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  467
Joined  2006-04-16

frankr

I assume you agree with the encylical Redemptoris Mater, (Mother of the Redeemer) issued in 1987 by Pope John Paul II. In it he clearly stated that Mary’s hymen was indeed intact.

I had no idea there had been much of a debate on the issue but evidently there was until the good pope put a stop to it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2006 08:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

[quote author=“switch”][quote author=“frankr”]You would not know impeccable logic if it bit you in the ass. I don’t dismiss your argument because you defend Mia. I dismiss your post because it lacks an argument altogether. Here is a novel idea, instead of putting words into my mouth, try having a point.

Why is it that whenever I open my mouth, people get all snooty on my arse. I respect your intellect Frank, even if I don’t understand your belief.

The quote was directed at FaixaPrata therefore the initials F.P. above my snooty remark. Not directed at you Switch. Sorry for the confusion.

Joseph was not almost stoned. He was going to divorce mary quietly (because she was pregnant and they di d not have sex) The quiet divorce would have protected mary from stoning not Joseph.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2006 08:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2006-07-08

[quote author=“frankr”]
The quote was directed at FaixaPrata therefore the initials F.P. above my snooty remark. Not directed at you Switch. Sorry for the confusion.

Joseph was not almost stoned. He was going to divorce mary quietly (because she was pregnant and they di d not have sex) The quiet divorce would have protected mary from stoning not Joseph.

It’s all good Frank, wasn’t sure what the FP meant.
You are right about Joeseph.  Your comment jogged my memory.  Once it became known that Mary was preggers, the crowd wanted to stone her.  Joeseph came to her defense, right?  It’s been a long time since I’ve thought about this stuff.  This forum really does a good job of dusting off the old mental cobwebs for me.

And on edit, I notice that the only part of my post you commented on was the only part where I was in err.  Not to be too baiting….

[ Edited: 05 August 2006 09:07 PM by ]
 Signature 

History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.

-James Joyce

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2006 08:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  318
Joined  2006-03-23

[quote author=“frankr”]F.P.
You would not know impeccable logic if it bit you in the ass. I don’t dismiss your argument because you defend Mia. I dismiss your post because it lacks an argument altogether. Here is a novel idea, instead of putting words into my mouth, try having a point.

First of all, I am not defending Mia.  Your misogyny is showing through again.  She doesn’t require a defender.  I happen to agree with Mia (big difference) and I’m hugely impressed with her writing skills.

Second, your illogical worldview precludes you from having anything meaningful to say about logic.  Your comment is a non sequitur.  Get my point?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2006 09:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

[quote author=“lightning_fast_draw”]frankr

I assume you agree with the encylical Redemptoris Mater, (Mother of the Redeemer) issued in 1987 by Pope John Paul II. In it he clearly stated that Mary’s hymen was indeed intact.

I had no idea there had been much of a debate on the issue but evidently there was until the good pope put a stop to it.

Here is a link to the encyclical on the vatican website. It is searchable and I found nothing in it about Mary’s hymen. It sounds like a myth to me.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2006 09:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

[quote author=“FaixaPreta”][quote author=“frankr”]F.P.
You would not know impeccable logic if it bit you in the ass. I don’t dismiss your argument because you defend Mia. I dismiss your post because it lacks an argument altogether. Here is a novel idea, instead of putting words into my mouth, try having a point.

First of all, I am not defending Mia.  Your misogyny is showing through again.  She doesn’t require a defender.  I happen to agree with Mia (big difference) and I’m hugely impressed with her writing skills.

Second, your illogical worldview precludes you from having anything meaningful to say about logic.  Your comment is a non sequitur.  Get my point?

My mysogyny? I argue ideas. I do not treat posters different based on their gender. If you are going to make such an accusation then I suggest you give me an example. However you on the other hand write this: [quote author=“faixaprata”]Interpretation: My argument has run aground and I am extremely frustrated that a friggin girl can turn my arguments into mincemeat. I will now resort to ad hom attacks

This to me sounds like someone who does not view women as intellectual equals. Granted you were putting words into my mouth, unfortunately they are your words. Second I have posted many posts on this forum. I have argued, agreed, disagreed, been rude to, and joked with many different posters. For the most part I see it as spirited debate. What I do notice is that I can argue with mudfoot or Ted or you or Noggin or homunculus or countless others, and some people will join the argument and others will ignore it. However if I disagree with Mia, God forbid, everyone chimes in her defense.

I think I am one of the few people on this forum who treat her as an equal. I hold her accountable for what she says. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to insult me because I did not like what she had to say. You say you are not defending her but you agree with her. Well good, reiterate and reinforce her argument. I am willling to confront it again. It sure as hell beats your “Mia look how stupid frank is and how smart you really are” entry you posted above.

I’m a mysogynist, my wife and daughter will get a kick out of that one. (when I say kick I mean they will laugh not that I will literally kick them as some mysogynists would)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2006 01:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

-


Good heavens, frank, you sound just like my dad used to :shock:. A nostalgic memory, actually, even though he was as lost in the book as you are, and tried for 18 years to box me in there with him.


Just to reiterate. . . I think I’ve been fairly up front about my lack of a training in logic, physics, anything beyond basic math and basic history. I went to art academies, and certainly never pursued theology in my electives. After leaving the Church at the age of 18, the rest of my biblical interpretation was filled in by various Christians in my life . . . and you know what a melting pot of conflicting ‘facts’ that is, so please forgive my misquoting any of the Truth (cough) as you were brought up to know it. Humble Servant and champ are pretty big on how lowly we are, so maybe I picked it up from them.


The graciousness of the forum members you named, some of whom weighed in on your comments . . . well, I simply couldn’t agree with you more. These gentlemen are exactly that, far and away more patient and even-tempered in their interactions with you, not to mention more skilled at articulating their points. I nearly worship them, truth be told; they are endlessly inspiring to me. . . I, on the other hand, have never pretended to be anything other than what I am, which is (at least currently) a new ex-theist with residual anger over being raised on lies (the things you call truth), while ignoring realities (the things you call lies). And if I’m not mistaken, based on the name of the forum we’re posting in, that puts me in exactly the right place :D.

I do expect my anger to be ongoing, as this crap continues to be pumped into young minds all around us. With due respect for your actual education, which is readily apparent to me and many others, I have zero respect for your faith, and am admittedly hostile to the fact that you teach more of the same to beings of a tender age. Granted, you dole it out at the high school level, if I remember correctly, so there’s a chance you have less of an effect. But it’s still what it is: an ancient book of myths designed to control the human mind. . . and you facilitate that, which sickens me, because I know a good many of those kids will struggle with this, just as many of us here did, a struggle for reality that never had to happen.


[quote author=“frankr”]
I found nothing in it [Redemptoris Mater] about Mary’s hymen. It sounds like a myth to me.

Are you aware that ‘hymen intact’ and ‘virginity intact’ are synonymous? The latter statement was made in the document lfd referenced, and you linked to. And here is the chatechism on the subject, at http://www.vatica.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism, using “ever-virgin” as an airy-fairy euphemism. . . ( source ):

Mary - “ever-virgin”
499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.“155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.156

510 Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin” (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is “the handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38).


also. . . (not to take us off on a hymen tangent)

from: Wikipedia:

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a doctrine of faith of Roman and Eastern Orthodox Catholic Christianity, as well of Islam, stating that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained an actual virgin, implying both “virginal disposition” and “physical integrity”, before, during, and after the birth of Jesus, and thus is titled ever-Virgin (in Greek ἀειπάρθενος). This included the conception and birth of Jesus, and the remainder of the life of Mary. God is believed to have arranged miracles in relation to the conception and birth, while Mary’s own holiness and dedication to her role as the supposed mother of God are the basis for her having remained a virgin throughout her life.

. . .

In A.D. 649 (the Lateran Synod) a statement covering the three specific aspects of virginity — before, during, and after the birth of Jesus — was issued. St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) taught (Summa Theologiae III.28.2), in reply to three objections based on logic and observed facts of nature, that Mary gave birth painlessly in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and without injury to the hymen. Pope Paul IV affirmed the three-fold belief in an ecclesiastical constitution, Cum quorundam, August 7, 1555, at the Council of Trent (Denziger §993). The doctrine has been affirmed by the Roman Catholic Church as recently as the 1990s.

And then there’s:

Pope Leo I: “His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

Pope Siricius I: “You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]). ~ http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp


No misogyny there, huh? Her vagina is the ‘uncontaminated’ court of the eternal king. Seriously. It really says that.

 

[quote author=“frankr”]
However you come across as very close minded. . .

 

Inasmuch as that discourages anyone I respect from engaging in discussion with me, I deeply regret that. But in the sense that my mind has now closed up enough that my brains are no longer spilling out, I am deeply grateful. Thanks for the compliment, frank. A year or so ago, I was still off in the la-la land of “kinda-faith”, my mind still held captive by claptrap. Ah, the glorious freedom of a mind closed off from such trash.

 

[quote author=“frankr”]
What is a sin according to you anyway?

 

Best not to articulate them all here, but I assure you that they are thoroughly enjoyed.


[quote author=“frankr”]
I for one hold that when we sin we are not acting like a human being we lessen ourselves.

 

I can definitely vouch for acting less like a human being than a wild animal under the right circumstances. I love those times, don’t you wink? Refer to lightning_fast_draw’s prescription for a happier populace if you fail to grasp this concept. To paraphrase another heretic: one thing I can thank the Catholics for, is that sex will always be nasty. Bless you and your ilk for that, frank!

 

[quote author=“frankr”]
You talk about the toll catholicism took on your early life yet you seem surprised by the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

I am! It’s utterly crazy when viewed from outside the fog; you ought to try it. “I am my own dad, and my dad is me, and we have a virile ghost in here, too”. Nuttiest thing I ever heard. Or at least in the top 10.

 

[quote author=“frankr”]
What are you going to do? Insult the Virgin Mary? mock and misrepresent Christian and Catholic beliefs?

 

You just make it so fun, frank smile. Once again, I thank you for being here. You have had more to do with clarifying things for me than you will ever know.


_

 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2006 06:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  467
Joined  2006-04-16

Pope John Paul II put a stop to speculation that Mary’s hymen may have ruptured during childbirth because the virgin birth is one of the pillars of Christianity. If believers were to imagine Mary getting properly banged by Joseph then giving birth nine months later with all the sweat and blood and the accompanying placenta that follows childbirth the whole Disney like concept of Christ would be blown.

No, they definitely needed a miracle here. But as years passed even the high priests began scratching their heads and whispering amongst themselves. Maybe the intact hymen idea was just a concept. Perhaps the old ones were using allegory. It was even possible, Theologians argued, that taking the virgin birth of Christ literally led to all sort of social abberations such as witch hunts.

But alas, the good Pope John Paul II realize that the church did not have the luxury of doing away with any of their miracles. There wasn’t enough of them for one thing. So in 1984 he declared Mary’s hymen intact and told church intellectuals to move onto another idea. Good work John Paul.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2006 07:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29

Frank, defending someone and celebrating their style of thinking are not the same thing. But I wasn’t only celebrating. I also made a point. Old Ludwig sums it up perfectly in my signature line quote. I was telling you my opinion of your religion, which you may not have wanted to read: that it’s not only antiquated and antiscience, but infantile as well.

In case you assume that my religious antagonism expresses moral bankruptcy, I’ll go ahead and make another point, responding to some of your discussions with people over the months which seem to indicate that even if your religion turns out not to represent Truth, that it at least fills a desperate human need and that humanity would be doomed without it. If I’m mistaken so far, please correct me.

You see humanity as being innately superior to animal life. (Again, please correct me if I’m mistaken.) Long ago, however, humanity fell to a deplorable state of being. Sinfulness is what you call it, including tendencies toward dishonesty, violence, pettiness, greed, etc. Humanity is left with no choice but to remain in this deplorable state of being.

I on the other hand view humanity as a species of animal supremely gifted with word-based language, much the way the best minds in the past century have described it. (Mine may not be in their league, but I can at least claim to recognize greatness, right?)

Your take on the state of humanity seems to me highly negative. Sure, humanity was created in God’s image and all that. But when real words—words that seek to describe reality—are used in your tradition, very negatively-charged descriptions are found. Perhaps not always, but generally.

A more modern view describes humanity as being potentially always on a road toward improvement. Darwinian theory implies this. With such a view, expectations can be set up for greatness. Try to achieve greatness without expectation toward greatness. Try to achieve greatness by describing humanity in the words from your tradition. You may get beautiful cathedrals, music and paintings, but all of that only coincidentally—in spite of—the negative central message of your religion. You are still left with billions of human lives suffering in squalor, all the way into the 21st century. The world remains at least as battle-driven as it ever was, which is at least partly attributable to ancient instructions thought to this day to be holy and eternal.

But J.S. Bach dedicated his work to your God, Frank. How nice for your history. How nice for the majority of humanity that never hears it.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2006 08:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

lfd
Calling someone ever virgin and saying her hymen is intact are not the same. They may mean the same thing physically but they do not mean the same thing. You imply that john paul II went to great lengths to describe the condition of mary’s hymen. This is not the case he declared what the Church has always taught and that is the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God. Mia’s quote of Augustine demonstrates that the teaching was ancient. To say that the pope wrote about Mary hymen is false. He makes no mention of it. So what you infer and what somebody says are not the same thing.

Homunculus
You’ve made the point over and over again. Again I ask what point of Mia’s were you celebrating? What epistemological methodology was she applying?

I do not think atheists as being morally bankrupt and I am sure I have stated this before. I do think atheism as being morally bankrupt because I see no way of enforcing an ought. I think we ought to be kind to our neighbors, we ought to educate our children, we ought to reach out to the needy, we ought to behave morally. I think you think the same way but I see no way you can enforce your oughts on someone who does not want to comply. It leads to gulags and gas chambers.

Darwin does not lead to improvement, Darwin ensures survival. The cockroach is advanced evolution wise but hardly an improvement.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2006 08:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29

[quote author=“homunculus”]In case you assume that my religious antagonism expresses moral bankruptcy, I’ll go ahead and make another point, responding to some of your discussions with people over the months which seem to indicate that even if your religion turns out not to represent Truth, that it at least fills a desperate human need and that humanity would be doomed without it. If I’m mistaken so far, please correct me.

Frank, since you haven’t refuted the above, should I assume it’s a correct characterization of your views?

What am I repeating about Mia? Her arguments arrive by way of 20th-century scientific and philosophical thinking. How am I misunderstanding my big words? Please explain it to me so I don’t continue to make a fool of myself.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 5
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed