It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Please share your views on the Virgin Mary

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Non-Christians: Yes, yes, we are all stupid and none of this means anything, ok we get it. Stipulated and noted.

Now with that hopefully out of the way, to the Christians on this board:

How do you conceive of the Virgin Mary? Do you have any personal ideas or thoughts, etc.? Do you take a Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, or something-else-type view? There is, obviously a very wide range of attitudes toward the Virgin Mary. She is envisioned in very complex ways in Catholicism...I am not really familar with that form of faith; my own understanding is probably more along "classical Fundamentalist"/Calvinist lines but I am always open to hear other's thoughts. Any comments welcome...thanks in advance.



Mod Note/Edit: Altered thread title from original "Christians: Please share your views on the Virgin Mary." All threads are open to all members for discussion. Please refrain from attempting to narrow or exclude your fellow members from participating in any thread.
edit on 6/25/2011 by maria_stardust because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
The virgin Mary is the reason I am "monotheistic" now and not "Christian".

Because I can accept that God could do such a thing if He chose to. But I don't believe he would need it proven by mis-translated prophecies and outright lies.

It started with the virgin Mary & ended with the realization that Christianity is not belief in Jesus so much as it is absolute belief in Paul's teachings. Paul didn't teach what Christ did, and Jesus' earliest believers didn't believe what Paul did (reread Acts). I believe those closest to Jesus, those who actually knew him, would have known better than Paul.

When I realized my whole faith was predicated on absolute belief in Paul's "vision", and I really looked at what he taught, my entire faith fell apart.

What a relief, too. The actual message of Jesus, when you look at historical documents and what he taught in the proper frame of reference (Judaism), is beautiful and full of hope, not condemnation.

So you could say the virgin Mary set me free, I guess. But I don't think this is what you were looking for.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Hey now, come on, just because I'm atheist doesn't mean I'm a cynical one-minder who puts people in a box!
Just had to add that in because of the seemingly negative stereotype of atheists by the Worshippers.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
I have always viewed as a way to hide the fact that either they were not married or that it was to hide an affair. Just my take.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Schkeptick
 


Paul never says anything about Jesus' mother.
My belief is that she was of a priestly lineage, by looking at her relatives, one being of the High Priest section of the more general Levitical tribe.
I think she was a saint (not in the Catholic meaning of the word) and was very righteous and was exemplary of what a good mother should be, witness her product, her son and how wise he was. I believe he was brought up in a literate household and was acquainted with the higher examinations of the law.
So she was a combination of smart, and good, and included in a learned family and with priestly qualifications.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Partygirl
 


You wrote:

["Non-Christians: Yes, yes, we are all stupid and none of this means anything, ok we get it. Stipulated and noted."]

Your generalizations (whatever way they go) are meaningless and can't add anything constructive. I've known some really intelligent christians.

Quote: ["Now with that hopefully out of the way, to the Christians on this board:"]

Just preventively. You ARE aware, that no exclusive barriers can be put up on this forum (and mods take care of forum-rule digressions).

So now that this hopefully is out of the way:

Mary is a kind of religious archetype, which is found in many places long before christianity. And as the christian trinity-concept is a rather deformed version of former trigunic models which included a feminine principle in some ways, it was apparantly felt needed to incorporate SOME feminine principle in christianity, when the feminine was taken out of the trinity (from the start or later, opinions go apart).

The 'Mother-Goddess' concept is deeply rooted in mankind, and it would be a great tactical mistake to remove it completely. Relegating it to a secondary position is OK though.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Partygirl
 


Marry was the mother of Jesus, I have read great stories of her and Jesus, loved the stories when I was young, it inspires me now that I'm an adult.

GOD almighty caused the birth of Jesus through Virgin Mary. How? Well it isn't that hard to comprehend, the creator controls all parts of the Universe, just like the creator of a virtual world controls all parts of that world.

If you have played any "Massively multiplayer online role-playing game" (MMORPG) then it would be much easier for you to comprehend, but you can see it from different perspective.

Let's take a look at ATS for example, ATS have different levels of membership. Administrators and Mods can delete your posts, threads and can even ban you, but you can't. Now if you didn't know at all about this, you were completely ignorant of an upper membership, a higher level control, you would ask how the hell do these posts vanish. The same can be said about GOD's control over this Universe. How did Marry conceive Jesus? The same way the Mods delete out posts, GOD is in the upper level of control, full control, pure control of the Universe.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by confreak
 


You wrote:

["GOD almighty caused the birth of Jesus through Virgin Mary. How? Well it isn't that hard to comprehend, the creator controls all parts of the Universe, just like the creator of a virtual world controls all parts of that world."]

These are your personal subjective assumptions. Do I detect a note of them being claimed as universal absolute 'truths'? Why, in that case?

Quote: ["The same way the Mods delete out posts, GOD is in the upper level of control, full control, pure control of the Universe."]

Mods, while not being 100% uniform or perfect for that sake, are not 'mysterious' beings whose existence rests on circular arguments. Their rules are comprehensible and you can communicate with them directly in need.

The theist use of badly applied allegories is tiresome, to say the least.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schkeptick
The virgin Mary is the reason I am "monotheistic" now and not "Christian".

Because I can accept that God could do such a thing if He chose to. But I don't believe he would need it proven by mis-translated prophecies and outright lies.

It started with the virgin Mary & ended with the realization that Christianity is not belief in Jesus so much as it is absolute belief in Paul's teachings. Paul didn't teach what Christ did, and Jesus' earliest believers didn't believe what Paul did (reread Acts). I believe those closest to Jesus, those who actually knew him, would have known better than Paul.

When I realized my whole faith was predicated on absolute belief in Paul's "vision", and I really looked at what he taught, my entire faith fell apart.

What a relief, too. The actual message of Jesus, when you look at historical documents and what he taught in the proper frame of reference (Judaism), is beautiful and full of hope, not condemnation.

So you could say the virgin Mary set me free, I guess. But I don't think this is what you were looking for.


A sound attitude. It shouldn't be called 'pauline christianity', but just 'paulinism' as Jesus apparantly only was a necessary and unavoidable ingredient in Paulus' religious scheming.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   
I don't think Mary adds to the credibility of the story; i have doubts with the immaculate conception and even though i grant parthenogenesis as a possibility; it doesn't add credence to the claim that Christ was divine; and it doesn't render his ethical and moral teaching thereby correct, or the best.

Maybe it was the "will of God"

or....

A jewish minx could have told a lie.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
I believe in immaculate conception and that she was assumed into heaven.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I clearly stated in my post that "if we were ignorant of the upper control level membership, we would ask how is the threads and posts disappearing". The key word is if.

If you want to discuss the issue, first you have to leave your Atheist beliefs aside and take the position of a believer. If you are not willing to do that then sit back and watch, or send me a U2U where we can discuss whether GOD exists or not, or make a thread, ATS has had thousands of threads about the existence of GOD, one more is not going to hurt.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
I don't think Mary adds to the credibility of the story; i have doubts with the immaculate conception and even though i grant parthenogenesis as a possibility; it doesn't add credence to the claim that Christ was divine; and it doesn't render his ethical and moral teaching thereby correct, or the best.

Maybe it was the "will of God"

or....

A jewish minx could have told a lie.


Paulinism early chose to use the methods of semantic excesses, rhetoric, inductive allegories and even scholastics to justify itself.

And every time one of the narratives is challenged, a new one is created to patch it up. It's become a semantic gordic knot, where it's impossible to find an end (or a fact) anywhere.

Genesis 1 to genesis 2, to the high weirdness of 'original sin' and the even higher weirdness of mankind making Jahveh say: "Now see what you made me do".
To being reduced to a grovelling race of repenting sinners to pay an imaginary existential debt, to a new contract being set up, with the payment conditions slightly changed (but we are still expected to grovel).

And so as to make sure, that the guy allegedly putting bail for our existential debt (Jesus) isn't part of the 'sinning' system himself, but really is credit worthy, he can't ofcourse be born the usual way inside the sin-complex, but outside regular procedure in a finer and better way untouched by human hands.

And not surprisingly will the carrier of such an unsoiled payer-of-debts have her own narrative department. This is about telling and selling stories. The more the better.

Hopefully the sheer mass of stories will intimidate opposition.

Give me any old mother-goddess instead of this elaborate sophistery.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
I believe Mary was the vessel that bore the seed implanted by GOD .She is in fact the Holy Grail



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by granpabobby
 


So if a woman has a baby tommorow and no evidence suggests that a man intervened; you would believe it was the "seed of God" and that the baby was divine? What if the baby turned out to be a murderer?

Parthenogenesis



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schkeptick
The virgin Mary is the reason I am "monotheistic" now and not "Christian".


Christians are monotheists. There is only one God.


Because I can accept that God could do such a thing if He chose to. But I don't believe he would need it proven by mis-translated prophecies and outright lies.


"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14

Those against Christianity will make the claim that instead of virgin it should read "young maiden". But I tend to believe it would hardly be a "sign" from Almighty God if a young woman conceived and had a child. Not to mention when the LXX was compiled around 250 B.C. they used the Greek word for "virgin" in this passage.


I believe those closest to Jesus, those who actually knew him, would have known better than Paul.


Someone like Peter perhaps?

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." ~ 2 Peter 3:15-16


When I realized my whole faith was predicated on absolute belief in Paul's "vision", and I really looked at what he taught, my entire faith fell apart.


Peter endorses Paul's teachings in all his epistles and puts them on par with the other "scriptures".


What a relief, too. The actual message of Jesus, when you look at historical documents and what he taught in the proper frame of reference (Judaism), is beautiful and full of hope, not condemnation.


Paul said the same thing in Romans.

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." ~ Romans 8:1



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Partygirl
 


My views on Mary are as follows:

She was not a perpetual virgin nor was she an immaculate conception. Jude and James were her sons and Jesus's half-brothers. And she was a sinner, she needed Christ's righteousness as much as you and I.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join