Why Mary's virginity is so important to christians.

144 posts / 0 new
Last post
mykcob4's picture
Why Mary's virginity is so important to christians.

Now the bible says that the son of god is born to a virgin. Never mind that it is a biological impossibility unless Mary was a mole rat. Mole rats can actually be born pregnant. Was Mary a mole rat? I don't think so.
Most likely she was a poor jewish 14-year old that caught the eye of an adulterer and sexual predator, Joseph.
The thing is that the new testament is filled with the denigration of women. The consensus view of women in the new testament is that all women that are not virgins are in fact whores and or prostitutes. Paul says that women are made for man and only for that reason. Almost every female character in the new testament is a whore.
It is blatantly obvious that the "original sin" is really only visited upon women. That males are innocent victims and actually bear no responsibility at all.
Now the only respect to women or I should say to a woman in the bible is afforded to Mary. Not because she is the mother of jesus, but because she is a virgin (she doesn't, and has never known sex....EVEN THOUGH THE GREAT CHILD MOLESTOR FUCKED HER).
So Mary is treated differently than any and all other female characters in the bible. This is only a small respect as Mary doesn't give us any great gospel to read. She is to be looked upon and revered not listened to.
Therefore no REAL christian respects his mother or his wife or any woman that has had sex. They can't, the bible teaches them to hate women to disrespect them to ignore them to treat them like livestock and property.
This is why christians are so against women's health, women's independence, women's freedom and women's rights.
Why there are christian women is beyond me. I can't understand why they would hold with any organization that is so demonstratively against them simply because of their individual biology.
Don't get me started on homosexuality and christianity. That is a whole different ball of wax.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

LogicForTW's picture
I do not understand christian

I do not understand christian women either. But it does help explain in small part all the women that voted for trump. Women have been voting and participating in ideals against their own interest for some time, they have had practice.

I always ask women that are a bit more open minded why they insist on a traditional wedding, with the white dress,the veil, the ring, the father hand off, etc all relics of a marriage ritual in the past that was more about passing women around like property then a union of two people that love each other and want to celebrate their life commitment for each other.

Biggus Dickus's picture
The only respectable woman

The only respectable woman in all of Christianity is probably Joan of arc. (Barely)

Nyarlathotep's picture
The "virgin Mary" is just

The "virgin Mary" is just a reboot of the Magna Mater.

mykcob4's picture
I am glad you pointed that

I am glad you pointed that out Nyar.
That is exactly what ALL christianity is. It is taken directly from other stories. None of what is in the bible really happened.
Virgin birth, great flood, resurrection, water into wine, raise someone from the dead, walk on water, even parting a great river, are all stories from other cultures. Most comes from Greek mythology but much comes from other mythologies. None of it is original, not even monotheism.

Algebe's picture
A woman is either a virgin

A woman is either a virgin daughter or a wife, and she's always some man's property. That's the traditional myogynistic Christian view.

Mary Magdalene was neither a virgin nor a wife. She was a strong, independent woman. Some sources claim even claim that she married JC and had his kids.

So they dumped her gospel from the Bible and painted her as a prostitute. Well I have far more respect for prostitutes than priests. Leonardo saw the value of Mary Magdalene and painted her into the Last Supper among Jesus' dopey band of squabbling hippy drongos. She's right there next to him in the center of the table.

Jon the Catholic's picture
This sounds like it was taken

This sounds like it was taken straight from a Dan Brown fiction novel.

Algebe's picture
So who do you think is the

So who do you think is the lady on Jesus' right in the Last Supper mural? They're leaning away from each other, but their bodies are also linked in a striking "V" pattern. In the New Testament, Mary M. is there washing feet, but in Leonardo's version she's right there in the center of the table. I wonder where he got that idea from.

Jon the Catholic's picture
Traditionally, it's said to

Traditionally, it's said to be John the Beloved, who was said to be younger than the rest of the Apostles. I've heard it said that man is accustomed to finding hidden meanings where none was intended. I actually think this is like engaging a conspiracy theorist.

Drivenone1974's picture
Good point algebe: leonardo

Good point algebe: leonardo attempted to depict in painting against the Catholic realm that their affair was a fact, a real occurrence, however the Catholic church claims this is a misnomer. Ha! after all, On July 22, 1209, the anniversary of Mary Magdalene's death, armed Crusaders descended on the French town of Béziers and massacred more than 20,000 people. Their crime? Sheltering heretics who believed Mary Magdalene was the concubine of Jesus. Imagine how Pope Innocent III, who sent the attackers, would have reacted to The Davenci code. The famous painter was paid to paint realit, and in doing so he protrayed all that was and is....and a hidden code. Davinci by forming a 'V' shape, which represents a female womb and thus homage to the "divine feminine." Additionally, the shape of Jesus and the mysterious figure to His right are also said to form the shape of the letter "M," perhaps for the word "matrimony" or "Magdalene, again this is all historical record proving the petulance of true divine mother mary

mykcob4's picture
Nope jon, taken from how the

Nope jon, taken from how the bible portrays women, nothing more.

mykcob4's picture
To be clear Algebe, I was not

To be clear Algebe, I was not referring to Mary of Magdalene when I spoke of Mary. You are correct in you statement though.

devout christian's picture
the reason why Christianity

the reason why Christianity states that Mary jesus mother was a virgin is because she was to be pure since the church also states that Jesus had no sin. The holy Spirit entered Mary and she conceived jesus if Jesus would have had an earthly father none of this would have applied. Since the catholic church teaches that even Mary had no sin because of this kind of birth. AS for women in the bible concerning Christianity why they were followers of jesus and listened to the disciples later known as the apostles is because before Christians got there name in Antioch they were called the way, and since the early leaders were men the women played a complementary role here. They wanted to assist the men.there was no friction in the early church regarding men and women each played there part.As for why women still attend Christian services, that's because they have a respect for the Lord and they know deep down inside that Christianity is the way and the truth and the life.In the Catholic church the bible has seen inclusive language which is gender neutral. AS for homosexuality I will declare that according to the Epistle of romans that it is a sin a grave violation against ones body.Read chapter 1 and following. Haven`t we seen this play out in Aids which when it first came on the scene was strictly a mans problem to deal with here. Then it spread as time went on to the heterosexual community.

Biggus Dickus's picture
So the one day your an

The one day your an atheist, then a christian, and then poof atheist again. So what are you?

LogicForTW's picture
Mentally unstable? A troll?

Mentally unstable? A troll? More than one person? Who knows.

mykcob4's picture
Yep Logic, he is a loony toon

Yep Logic, he is a loony toon.

Jon the Catholic's picture
I've seen simply agnostic

I've seen simply agnostic respond several times. He states that he came from a Christian background. As the topic being put forth is Christian in nature, it would be natural for him to state the facts and fallacies in what's been presented. I'd say he's being intellectually honest.

But yeah. I believe that he is still agnostic which doesn't mean he's a walking contradiction. I see that the most he does is correct commonly misunderstood doctrine or teaching while not actually pushing for it.

mykcob4's picture
@Jon

@Jon
In this area, you don't know what you are talking about.
You need to know that most people here come from a christian background. Most know a hell of a lot more than christians that come to this forum.
Simply agnostic is no more agnostic than you are. He never states facts. He only states cherry picked bible scripture which isn't factual at all.

mykcob4's picture
Nope simply agnostic, not

Nope simply agnostic, not true, not true at all.
1) You'll have to PROVE a holy spirit.
2) You'll have to PROVE that women in the 1st century were amenable to slavery because that is what they were.
3) There were women that wrote gospels but the men threw them out.
4) There were women that preached but were summarily rebuked.

It doesn't sound like the women of the time wanted to just assist men. It sounds like they wanted to teach the gospels and were punished for doing so.

Mary couldn't have been a virgin. It is a biological impossibility. Also, there was certainly friction in the early church. There was an ongoing war between Peter and Paul for one.
Also, you need Grammarly. There and their are two different words, they have two different meanings. I ignore the fact that you don't capitalize at the beginning of a sentence, but not spacing correctly makes it difficult to read your post.

Jon the Catholic's picture
I'm confused. The initial

I'm confused. The initial post on the forum asked why a certain doctrine is so important to Christianity. The rest the initial post goes on stating things which aren't really true or half true. Example:

"EVEN THOUGH THE GREAT CHILD MOLESTOR FUCKED HER"

Granted you don't believe in Mary's virginity, this doesn't give you any right to call her husband a child molestor. Mary would've been called a child by today's standards and if she married someone much older than her, we'd probably think that he was indeed a child molestor. But this wasn't the case in ancient times. Mary was of legal marrying age. I think the standard in ancient Rome would've been "at least 12 years old" and for Jewish law, "13 years and one day".

This is just one. My head's actually hurting from the number of accusations you're throwing out there which don't really have any basis. Really? "an ongoing war between Peter and Paul"? "amenable to slavery because that is what they were"? "There were women that wrote gospels but men threw them out"? I know what you're alluding to in these three things but you're either jumping the gun with your choice of words or just choosing really bad sources to support your view.

The reason I'm confused is, the initial question seemed to ask a real question (at least on the surface) and then it goes on to throw a lot of badly researched allegations.

Answer me this though (because I'm really really curious), what was your religious background?

mykcob4's picture
@jon the catholic

@jon the catholic
I am not calling joseph a child molester. I am calling god a child molester.
Bad research? Really? Not so!
https://blacknonbelievers.wordpress.com/books-left-out-of-the-bible/
http://anonhq.com/vatican-remove-14-books-bible-1684/
http://rockingodshouse.com/why-were-14-books-apocrypha-removed-from-the-...
http://listverse.com/2012/07/06/10-books-not-included-in-the-new-testament/

I included conservative sources for your sake.

If you have read the bible and I don't assume that you have or have not, you would see what I am talking about. Historically women have been dismissed enslaved and persecuted.

https://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm
https://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2008/01/25/ten-biblical-te...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-kilkenny/god-hates-women_b_56984.h...
there are literally millions of sources that prove what I say is true.

Jon the Catholic's picture
Yes, poor research. The link

Yes, poor research. The link from anonhq.com says that books were removed in the Catholic Bible in 1684. The one from rockingodshouse.com says it happened in 1881. They both claim 14 books were removed so I'll start from there.

All except one of these "books" are in my Catholic Bible printed in 1987. If you look at them at face value, they appear absent but they're there. "Bel and the Dragon" appear as Chapter 14 of Daniel. 1 Esdras, we simply call it Ezra. 2 Esdras, Nehemiah. History of Susanna, Daniel. And so on and so forth. Only the Prayer of Manasseh isn't in my Bible. It is, however, still used in as prayer in the Church. I still don't see though any references to the Gospel of Mary you mentioned so I won't even go into why it wasn't included.

As to the second set of links you gave me, I must tell you that it is very easy to misquote scripture. I can tell you that scripture says, "There is no god." and no one can tell me I'm wrong. The Bible authors use a variety of literary devices to convey truth. Even Jesus used hyperboles when he said it's better for you to pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin.

You go on and on about Christianity being against women and oppressing women and yet you ignore the fact that we acknowledge (at least in the RCC) that God's greatest creation was the woman, Mary. When you look at the Catholic teachings on issues like abortion, divorce, contraception, pornography, you'll see that it's actually a very internally consistent teaching with elevates women's value in society. I know. I've been on the other side of the debate.

mykcob4's picture
Oh bullshit jon the catholic.

Oh bullshit jon the catholic. You want to move the goal post. The fact is that the church, especially the catholic church has denigrated women throughout its history.

Jon the Catholic's picture
"the catholic chuch has

"the catholic chuch has denigrated women thoughout history"?

Seriously? A more accurate statement would actually be if you replaced "the catholic church" with "Human society, as a whole". Don't try to pin this one one institution or even religion as a whole. You say the Bible teaches that we should view women as lower class citizens; that rape is okay, etc. But you have a very limited view of how the RCC works. We don't operate on "Bible alone" and in fact the Bible itself condemns "private interpretation". I suggest you look at what these texts really mean and why they were written that way.

I'll do one for the sake of brevity and I'll be using a Catholic Church approved text for this:

Timothy 2:11-14
"A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed."

In the articles you posted, it seemed to imply that women have no right to speak at all nor teach at all in any matter. What this text actually tells us from its context is that that women should "receive RELIGIOUS instruction" silently. And that she should not have RELIGIOUS authority like the bishops or priests do. And they should be quiet in RELIGIOUS matters. Quite simply, Paul was telling Timothy not to ordain women in to the priesthood. Nothing more.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jon the Catholic - What this

Jon the Catholic - What this text actually tells us from its context is that that women should "receive RELIGIOUS instruction" silently. And that she should not have RELIGIOUS authority like the bishops or priests do. And they should be quiet in RELIGIOUS matters.

Well I'm glad you don't deny what the bible says on the matter. That you seem OK with it is another matter.

mykcob4's picture
@jon the catholic

@jon the catholic
I beg to differ. The RCC doesn't go on the bible. It goes on the word of the pope and always has. They are not the same thing. One, the bible, is a book of mythology, written as per political instruction of Emporer Constantine.
Also, the society that you speak of was constructed by christianity and mainly the catholic church. That is not to say that other societies are not equally at fault, but the catholic church was the most dominant influence on society for over 1500 years. So yes I blame the catholic church.

Jon the Catholic's picture
@mykcob4 you really really

@mykcob4 you really really need to do some solid research. From the links you've posted on here, I can say you are getting your information from dangerously erroneous sources. I'm fine if you don't believe in an religion. But bashing on other religions based on shady research is just wrong.

I mean where do I begin? The RCC holds both the Bible and Sacred Tradition as authoritative. We do on the word of the pope but only on matters regarding faith and morals. In other matters, you can argue with him and even rebuke him all you want (this happened when Paul rebuked Peter).

The Bible being written on instruction of Emperor Constantine? I'll have to check my sources as I'm currently out but the Church actually has some 1st and second century documents of these books or other works which reference these books.

All you did was throw out accusations accusations and hoping they land. I hope you'll give this topic a second look rather than take it as it is without verifying your sources.

Diotrephes's picture
Jon the Catholic,

Jon the Catholic,

There were no books in the 1st and 2nd Centuries. Besides, it's silly to think that some guy in some backwater of the world in the 1st and 2nd Centuries wrote one copy of a fairy tale and it ended up in Rome given all of the turmoil at that time.

Jon the Catholic's picture
No books in the 1st and 2nd

No books in the 1st and 2nd centuries? Maybe books in the same way we have books today. We'd call them scrolls by today's standard.

And I agree that it's highly doubtful that someone would write a fairy tale in the backwater of the world at that time. Paper was really expensive and not everyone could read. What they would've been writing about must've been considered by them (at least) as very important.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Constantine ordered the

Constantine ordered the construction of a few dozen "bibles". These are thought to be the first ones (the first ones that resemble anything we would recognize); and the impetuous for the canonization of the New Testament.

Diotrephes's picture
Nyarlathotep,

Nyarlathotep,

That may be the popular story but the Bible in its current format and 80 books didn't exist until 692 when three master copies were published by a committee of story tellers, writers, and artists based in England. Sure, there might have been a few disjointed manuscripts floating around before then but they were not the organized Bible. Of course the numbered chapters and verses came centuries later.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.