Why Mary's virginity is so important to christians.

158 posts / 0 new
Last post
jonthecatholic's picture
I find it funny you say you

I find it funny you say you're SURE but have no claim to that end.

I'd like to end with one last thing you might want to think about. There are few reasons one can think of when someone doesn't include certain historical events in their writings.

1. It's not important to note.
2. They had no knowledge of this event.
3. The event hadn't happened yet.

If you can add something to this, go ahead but which of these do you think explains the absence of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem from the text?

mykcob4's picture
@Jon the Catholic.

@Jon the Catholic.
I can give dozens.
The people that supposedly wrote what YOU say they wrote had an agenda. That agenda does not include the destruction of Jerusalem.
If I write something about a time, I will stay consistent with that time. A movie about WW I doesn't include aircraft carriers. People of the 4th century that are writing about the 1st century will not include events that happened to the time that they are writing about.
Homer wrote fiction about a time that came before him. He didn't include events of his own time in that fiction.
But since you are so all fired up about writing style, events, time periods, why don't you just analyze YOUR version of the bible. Why the hell doesn't this bible have any information beyond what is known in 4th century Roman Empire? Why is the writing style, grammar, geography, science, history, restricted to what was known in 4th century Roman Empire?
It doesn't fit 1st or 2nd century Greek which have plenty of examples to compare. It doesn't have ANY evidence beyond the 4th century, it doesn't have any references of the Americas which we know existed in the 1st century and before.
Explain that!

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jon the Catholic - https:/

Jon the Catholic - https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_410.cfm

Should we be surprised than a professional apologist disagrees with the peer reviewed literature?

LogicFTW's picture
Does not really matter that

Does not really matter that they were persecuted at the time. They were the "victors" in the end, and remain the "victors" in our current time. The roman gods idea were the losers, almost no one still believes in the roman gods. The christian/catholic church is the dominant one now. If roman religion were the victors over the small persecuted Christians early in the Christianity cycle, we would all be talking about roman gods and why they cannot be all knowing or all powerful.

In 1000 years it is very possible Islam will be the ultimate victors. You must consider in that scenario most people in that scenario will view the christian/catholic god much like how Christians consider Roman gods now. Or it could be some other god/religion 1000 years from now. I personally hope by then the world is mostly atheist/agnostic, but just like you, I can not predict the future.

I do get that followers of Christianity/RCC feel that will never happen because their god is the one true god. But you cannot deny that Christianity as a whole is conceding a lot of ground to both Islam, and if not atheism, just general apathy of christian followers towards their own religion. Christianity/RCC are clearly not nearly as powerful and dominant as they used to be. At one point RCC decided had enormous if not outright influence on who the leaders of the most powerful nations in the world were.

chimp3's picture
Why are we arguing that a

Why are we arguing that a mythical hymen was intact! There is no evidence that Mary's hymen, menstrual cycle, preadolescent growth of pubic hair, teenage breast buds, or easy submission to dominant male sexual authority ever existed.

Sky Pilot's picture


There's nothing in the fairy tale saying that Mary's daddy and mommy had a token of her virginity in accordance with Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (CJB) = "13 “If a man marries a woman, has sexual relations with her and then, having come to dislike her, 14 brings false charges against her and defames her character by saying, ‘I married this woman, but when I had intercourse with her I did not find evidence that she was a virgin’; 15 then the girl’s father and mother are to take the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the leaders of the town at the gate. 16 The girl’s father will say to the leaders, ‘I let my daughter marry this man, but he hates her, 17 so he has brought false charges that he didn’t find evidence of her virginity; yet here is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity’ — (18 ) and they will lay the cloth before the town leaders. 18 (19) The leaders of that town are to take the man, punish him, 19 and fine him two-and-a-half pounds of silver shekels, which they will give to the girl’s father, because he has publicly defamed a virgin of Isra’el. She will remain his wife, and he is forbidden from divorcing her as long as he lives.

20 “But if the charge is substantiated that evidence for the girl’s virginity could not be found; 21 then they are to lead the girl to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her town will stone her to death, because she has committed in Isra’el the disgraceful act of being a prostitute while still in her father’s house. In this way you will put an end to such wickedness among you."

Randomhero1982's picture
And who says the bible is

And who says the bible isn't immoral....

...fuckin' hell !!!!


Attach Image/Video?: 



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.