"You seem to be saying that because I am not a christian (in your eyes) that I am not allowed to examine christian writings and attempt to draw my
own conclusions from them?"
Examination and disection are two different things. Examining involves an open mind with no preconceived views for a result. However, you were
disecting wording and interjecting opinions about subject that you did not have a significant amount of knowledge on. I believe all people have the
right to an opinion, but no one should claim such a hostile position without expecting a hostile response (yours being that Jesus was born of a
non-virgin... nearly a capital offense in the world of Christianity, as well as women being mistreated in society). Sensitive issues involve
"Yes I am agnostic in my views but that does in no way contradict being a christian."
It does state that you are NOT a Christian. I am not pagan, therefore I do not insert my personal views of their religion or faith systems without
expecting to find out that I am completely wrong in my opinions or assumptions. Agnostic views do contradict being a Christian because a Christian is
not agnostic and an agnostic is not a Christian. It is simple logic, where "A" does not equal "B," nor does "B" therefore equal "A."
"I have not actually stated my religion on this forum - you read Agnostic as a strict definition whereas I use it as a term for 'one who seeks
If that is the case, then you are very mistaken. "Gnosticism," which is a far cry from "Agnosticism," is what you are claiming.
Here are directly quoted definition from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: 1ag
Pronunciation: ag-'ns-tik, &g-
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in
either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun
Here is a quote on Gnosticism from:
"Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious movement which started in pre-Christian times. The term is derived from the Greek word gnosis which
means "knowledge". It is pronounced with a silent "G" (NO-sis). Gnostics claimed to have secret knowledge about God, humanity and the rest of the
universe of which the general population was unaware.
As you hopefully see, the agnostic does not believe in God/god or religion. You, however, seem to claim you are in pursuit of knowledge, which is
Gnostic. Do you see the confusion?
"And as for letting the main part of the story fly over my head - the fact mary was a virgin seems to be a very important part of catholic belief and
justification for the ill treatment of women over the centuries."
I have never heard of that in my life. I was baptised Catholic and went to a Catholic church for years, I know many Catholics to this day and I have
never in my life heard that story. Mary is the pennacle for a good woman, or one who freely gives birth to the Son of Man (Jesus). Mary was
basically willing to risk her life and reputation for God. That has nothing to do with "ill treatment of women." As far as her being "pure,"
what's wrong with that? She also had at least 4 or 5 other children from what I know of. You seem to have your facts turned upside down.
"Although many christian factions have no issue with women priests, the catholic faith is still reluctant to accept the idea."
So they are full of s**t. Just because WESTERN Catholics (not even Eastern Orthodox Catholics) are extremely anal about women does not mean that they
speak for Christianity. Are you oppressed? Do you want to be a priest? If not, then release yourself from this mental bondage you have.
"The view of women in religion being my main point and not the issue of sex"
I appologize if I mistook your statements, but you seemed to hit on the idea of a virgin vs a grown woman. I assumed you were speaking of a woman who
has had sex vs one who has not. I was specifically stating that "sex" was not but a small piece of the issue and most definitely not a piece to
"I retain my right to speculate and that is my method of seeking truth. If someone can provide a fact that contradicts some of what I think then I am
fully prepared to investigate it and adjust my views accordingly."
Is that not what I have done?
"Your comment on natural virgin births being one of them."
Thank you. I wish I still had that article somewhere, but I do not... if I find it I will post it for you to read.
"I'd suggest you maybe show a little more tolerance and interest for the pagan and druidic beliefs as they have much to offer and often complement
the basic truths of the main world religions"
One of my good friends is a pagan. My tolerance, as she might tell you, is overflowing. I read her books and listen to her stories. I do not agree
that natural religion has all of the answers, but I do not condemn it either. Also, pagans are not druids. Druids are a specific religious sect that
has ties to Stonehenge. They are somewhat naturalistic, but not necessarily related as far as I know. I could be wrong and if I am then ignore that
last comment. I do not deny pagans, but I do seem to group them all as Wiccans, which I probably should not do. Either way, my qualifications on
topics concerning pagans are too small to confirm your inquiries.
"and possibly take some of your final advice yourself"
I am not certain that I have been proven false as of yet. Sometimes the truth hurts. If you were offended, you need to understand where those
feelings were coming from. I do not appologize for attempting to set you on a positive path for growth. That would be like a teacher appologizing
for helping a student pass a test. I am very forward with some of my responses, but I do not force you to agree with them, nor do I want you to
accept them blindly. Find out for yourself that I am speaking the truth and you will not feel so bad about my being so blunt.