//Mary mother of Jesus was conceived by artificial insemination so was a virgin//

WTF? I don't think the Bible records whether Jesus' maternal grandparents used artificial insemination technology to conceive St. Mary, but it seems unlikely given that they were living in Galilee around the 1st century BC and there probably wasn't much in the way of artificial insemination technology. Also, why would they bother when non-artificial insemination is so much more enjoyable?

Furthermore, having being conceived by artificial insemination doesn't make somebody a virgin. Playing D&D and watching too much Dr. Who are what makes people virgins.

Hi Poirot,

" .... anyone who is so hypocritical that the god they claim is all powerful requires them to act in its stead."

Maybe I'm slow this morning, but how is the requirement to act in the name of a god that someone claims to believe in, hypocritical ? Wouldn't it be hypocritical NOT to act in that way ? Crazy maybe, brutal and fascist maybe, but 'hypocritical' ? I don't see the connection.

As for your quote that .... 'You: An Introduction, says students should be taught to “submit our bodies to God’s will … even by dying for our faith if necessary’’."

It sounds like how most religions define women, i.e. the 'submit our bodies to God's will' etc., but the second bit, 'dying for our faith if necessary' is unremarkable - unless there is a proviso attached which says '.... and to kill any unbeliever at random in Her name in the process', or perhaps '.... and to kill any unbeliever in order to get my thing into 72 ever-renewable virgins as quick as possible.'

Is that what you meant ?

I'm still bugged by that observation of Huntington's, that the West has produced ideologies, while religions have originated in the non-West (with the obvious comment that ideology and religion can overlap). And of course, some ideologies are completely reactionary while some versions of some religions can be relatively benign.

But what is the implication that most of the ideologies in the West are in decline, while religions are resurging in the non-West: Islam, Hinduism, perhaps Buddhism, and usually in their most right-wing forms ? What are the implications for the freedom of speech and of expression, and to think and say what one likes ? How much harder will we have to struggle for, and be vigilant in protecting, these vital freedoms ?

I'm not so sure now that I would like to still be around in fifty years. It just seems like so much hard work, and just to stay on the same spot.

Joe

Yeah...Loudmouth,

"Maybe I'm slow this morning, but how is the requirement to act in the name of a god that someone claims to believe in, hypocritical ?"

Wasn't actually my quote - WmTrevors, I think....I posted it and put it in quote marks because I agreed with the crux of it.

Point being if, as Josephus claims, God is "....able to create, change and destroy matter..." - then why does he require a bunch of mere mortals to run around doing his bidding?

Why doesn't God cut out the middle man and do it Itself?

My question remains...why go to all the trouble to create beings that have to jump through hoops to get to the Promised Land if you're so "all powerful" you could have funnelled them straight there in the first place..and made them good and pure...and...and...

No...we have a being that "was good" - and then they were "bad"...so...etc, etc

Just like a childhood narrative.....

Why are you babbling on to me about Islamic belief?

I give that as much credence as I do Christian belief - and a whole lot of other beliefs...which boils down to "not much at all".

"....What are the implications for the freedom of speech and of expression, and to think and say what one likes ?..."

I'm afraid we're stuck with it - that's what humans do. You see we're so intelligent, we have an inner life (as opposed to other creatures) - we ponder it all - and we can't handle it.

We also can't handle that we don't know and we can't explain...or even the fact that there may be no explanation - so we construct our own comforts, rewards, explanations etc.

"Crazy maybe, brutal and fascist maybe, but 'hypocritical' ? I don't see the connection."

I should address this, Joe, as ""I chose to blame anyone who is so hypocritical that the god they claim is all powerful requires them to act in its stead." was my sentence.

Crazy, brutal, fascistic? Sure, no question. Insert 'presumptuous' and synonyms such as arrogant, brazen or impertinent instead of 'hypocritical' if you prefer. They all emphasize slightly different aspects of my point.

But, note that I wasn't specifically addressing any "'requirement' to act in the name of a god that someone claims to believe in..."

This is a subtly separate claim of a person's religiosity and hermeneutics. What I was trying to address was the question of any omnipotent, omniscient god-being so obviously lacking in power and/or knowledge as to need some self-selected human to do something god could do magically if he wanted to.

I'd say to such a delusional believer, "If god is all powerful he doesn't need you. And if you think he does need you, he is not all powerful."

[The excuse that god is still totally shagged out after creating the entire universe is not supported by theological studies.]

That people who profess belief in an omnipotent, omniscient entity don't believe this sufficiently to let the god/allah/yahweh act for himself and feel motivated instead to 'do it themselves' I find hypocritical - it demonstrates to me that they don't believe god/etc. could. Maybe they are so hypocritical that it demonstrates they don't really believe 'he' exists?

It is somewhat like the hypocrisy of an Islamic sect terrorist leader thinking it is so allah-commanded and correct to suicide bomb/murder other Islamic sect worshippers at a mosque, that they order and organize for someone else to do it.

Dear Loudmouth,

Listen mate, you made a contention which was simplistic and in a very provable sense quite wrong. I pulled you up on it and you replied with;

“Try to stick to the main issue, Steele”.

May I politely suggest that is a tad churlish.

Let me be frank. I have long regarded Islam and Christianity as the bastard children of Judaism. They are in a very real sense death cults, where unlike Judaism the afterlife is often held as of greater value earth bound existence.

Just as both are obviously derivative, incorporating whole slabs of Judaism, the fact that Mormonism has Christian roots hardly disqualifies it as a new religion.

Your following point is around the flowering of enlightenment values only flowing from Western thought is also fraught. You spoke of “the translated works of Greek writers”. There were lost to the west through the the Christian cleansing of 'pagan thought and ideas' and thankfully studied and held in trust in Islamic libraries.

I can quote Jewish historians who speak of the 'Golden Age' of Jewish intellectual thought and art being under Muslim rule in southern Spain.

Perhaps being a little less prideful might be in order.

Toni,

In the first century BC there was very effective artificial insemination, exactly the same as is still used privately, and sometimes professionally, today, the only difference is that these days we have strong drinking straws and plastic tubing.
Both of which are a vast improvement over the natural straw of yore; the suck, insert and blow is still the same as the BC mode, the methods of collection of the sperm are also still the same.

It is worth noting that it has never been necessary to get the donor's permission with this model.