God should be cancelled

yourdeadwright

Just thinking with the whole cancel culture and women's rights at the for front of society (rightly so ) ,


How long before God is cancelled ?


Why you ask ??? Well did the holy Spirit get Mary's consent ?


It's always read to me that Gabriel told her what was going to happen but did not ask for consent ,
However she did give her consent after being informed of what would happen ,


So in my eyes Mary was not given a choice but she did accept the outcome

Mohammed married a nine year old, if I remember correctly. All good with God.

I suppose this is what happens when you base your beliefs on bronze age ethics.

Smee_Again

Deleted User wrote: »

Mohammed married a nine year old, if I remember correctly. All good with God.

I suppose this is what happens when you base your beliefs on bronze age ethics.

He waited a few years before consummation the marriage though so it's all good :rolleyes:

Smee_Again

Smee_Again wrote: »

He waited a few years before consummation the marriage though so it's all good :rolleyes:

That was very progressive of him.

LarryGraham

This went well when RTE did if for New Year's Eve!

yourdeadwright

murmuring pines wrote: »

At Luke 1:38, when replying to the Angel? '"And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.'

You couldn't even look up the passage in the Gospels before starting a thread?

She accepted it but she was not given a choice ,


The angel told her "YOU WILL "" numerous times .

Charlie19

Along with the tooth fairy and Santa.

Zebra3

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Just thinking with the whole cancel culture and women's rights at the for front of society (rightly so ) ,


How long before God is cancelled ?


Why you ask ??? Well did the holy Spirit get Mary's consent ?


It's always read to me that Gabriel told her what was going to happen but did not ask for consent ,
However she did give her consent after being informed of what would happen ,


So in my eyes Mary was not given a choice but she did accept the outcome

God slaughtered about 2,800,000 people in the bible.

Between that and no proof of existence, plenty of reasons to cancel.

I’m sure the supporters of this mass murderer will be along with their defence shortly.

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

God slaughtered about 2,800,000 people in the bible.

Between that and no proof of existence, plenty of reasons to cancel.

I’m sure the supporters of this mass murderer will be along with their defence shortly.

Remember when God tortured Job because the Devil made him feel insecure?

Or when he coerced Abraham into killing his son only to later admonish him for attempting to do such an act?

What a knob.

randd1

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Just thinking with the whole cancel culture and women's rights at the for front of society (rightly so ) ,


How long before God is cancelled ?


Why you ask ??? Well did the holy Spirit get Mary's consent ?


It's always read to me that Gabriel told her what was going to happen but did not ask for consent ,
However she did give her consent after being informed of what would happen ,


So in my eyes Mary was not given a choice but she did accept the outcome

Not only that but she was what, 12,14 at the time? And did she even remember it?

By any logic then God's actions with Mary were those of a roofie using, paedophile, rapist.

No wonder the Church turned out like it did if that's how it started.

wench

murmuring pines wrote: »

Two things
1) it was not written in English, so "you will" is just how it is rendered in translation. So far as I know the general theological view is that Mary freely consents.
2) Don't fall into the trap of treating a biblical narrative as if it's supposed to be a literal account of what happened.

If she had said no, were there a selection of other immaculately conceived women available for the job?

nozzferrahhtoo

murmuring pines wrote: »

So far as I know the general theological view is that Mary freely consents.

A lot of paedophiles have that view too. They delude themselves into thinking the child consented to, or even enjoyed, the things they forced or manipulated them into doing.

Even in situations like a doctor sleeping with a patient, or a boss sleeping with a secretary, we have moral intuitions around manipulation and an uneven level of power or authority between two sexual partners. Let alone a deity and a child!

Thankfully these days we have evolved to have a more coherent and enlightened set of ideas around the concept of "consent". Curiously it seems more evolved and enlightened and based in empathy than the entity that is supposedly meant to be the objective and unchanging source of all morality.

biko

Zeus disguised himself before having his way with mortal women so that's not on either.

murmuring pines

murmuring pines wrote: »

.
2) Don't fall into the trap of treating a biblical narrative as if it's supposed to be a literal account of what happened.

So none of it is to be taken literally? Ok, so the gospels are just a story, then. Jesus is a mythical figure.

Who decides what is literal and what isn't? How does this avoid falling into the trap of subjectivity? Your point is complete nonsense.

biko

murmuring pines wrote: »

2) Don't fall into the trap of treating a biblical narrative as if it's supposed to be a literal account of what happened.

That's heresy

punisher5112

I think the letter m should be banned from everything

yourdeadwright

murmuring pines wrote: »

Two things
1) it was not written in English, so "you will" is just how it is rendered in translation. So far as I know the general theological view is that Mary freely consents.
2) Don't fall into the trap of treating a biblical narrative as if it's supposed to be a literal account of what happened.

Sounds like a poor defence " I didn't really mean that part "


So getting a minor pregnant is ok with consent ?



Shame on the lord !!!!!!!!!!

yourdeadwright

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Sounds like a poor defence " I didn't really mean that part "


So getting a minor pregnant is ok with consent ?



Shame on the lord !!!!!!!!!!

Yes , minor by today's life expectancy values .

Middle aged 01 BC .

Women of " Mary's " time hadn't the choice of waiting till their late 30s / early 40s , to have children once they got their careers sorted !!

BobbyMalone

THE_SHEEP wrote: »

Yes , minor by today's life expectancy values .

Middle aged 01 BC .

Women of " Mary's " time hadn't the choice of waiting till their late 30s / early 40s , to have children once they got their careers sorted !!

A 12 year old girl was middle aged? So she could have expected to live to maybe 25? Jesus must have been considered a pensioner up there on the cross.


You're forgetting that child-mortality rates would skew that figure, as well as women dying in childbirth (and if the RCC is right, then that wasn't something Mary had to worry about).


I've seen it written that if you were a wealthy Roman citizen, and survived your childhood, you could expect to be living into your 70s. It wouldn't be quite that high for a family living in occupied territory, but I would imagine 50-55 would be a safe bet.

B.A._Baracus

Zebra3 wrote: »

God slaughtered about 2,800,000 people in the bible.

Between that and no proof of existence, plenty of reasons to cancel.

I’m sure the supporters of this mass murderer will be along with their defence shortly.

Am gonna take a guess, but I think you are an atheist :pac:

Sonics2k

Deleted User wrote: »

Mohammed married a nine year old, if I remember correctly. All good with God.

I suppose this is what happens when you base your beliefs on bronze age ethics.

Mary would have been around 11 when marrying Joseph. Historically very common across the world in those days due in part to child mortality rate.

Doesn't mean that they would have consummated the marriage though of course.

Guy:Incognito

" its just the bible, its not gospel"

Sonics2k

Sonics2k wrote: »

Mary would have been around 11 when marrying Joseph. Historically very common across the world in those days due in part to child mortality rate.

Doesn't mean that they would have consummated the marriage though of course.

So why would grown adult men be marrying a child? What advantages would that confer?

BobbyMalone

BobbyMalone wrote: »

A 12 year old girl was middle aged? So she could have expected to live to maybe 25? Jesus must have been considered a pensioner up there on the cross.


You're forgetting that child-mortality rates would skew that figure, as well as women dying in childbirth (and if the RCC is right, then that wasn't something Mary had to worry about).


I've seen it written that if you were a wealthy Roman citizen, and survived your childhood, you could expect to be living into your 70s. It wouldn't be quite that high for a family living in occupied territory, but I would imagine 50-55 would be a safe bet.

" wealthy roman citizen " . " survived your childhood " . " I would imagine " .

jhegarty

BobbyMalone wrote: »

A 12 year old girl was middle aged? So she could have expected to live to maybe 25? Jesus must have been considered a pensioner up there on the cross.

Her age isn't in the bible at all. It's only a guess based on typical marrying age at the time.

biko

I remember that Khal Drogo didn't ask Daenerys Targaryen for consent.
He's dead now.

This.

Zebra3

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Am gonna take a guess, but I think you are an atheist :pac:

Poor deflection.

Must do better.

Won’t change the fact that “God” is a genocidist.

Sonics2k

Deleted User wrote: »

So why would grown adult men be marrying a child? What advantages would that confer?

I'm not a historian, so basing quite a bit of this off of conversations with historians and the reasoning for it.

In a nutshell though, child birth reasons. A lot of marriages were more for alliances and family gain or bonds, rather than love as we'd understand it today.

Now, while characters like Mohammed and Joseph may have married young wives, it would have been extremely rare for them to actually consummate or attempt to have a child with their bride, for the simple reason of the much higher chance of them dying during child birth.

It's always struck me as amusing that people here will be happy to call out Mohammed, but keep it quiet about Joseph.

B.A._Baracus

Zebra3 wrote: »

Poor deflection.

Must do better.

Won’t change the fact that “God” is a genocidist.

Deflection? I was only buzzing off you
But since you are being serious I will give a serious reply:
Believe in God, don't believe in God, believe that Iron Man is better than Spider-Man. Who cares.

So this thread is God should be cancelled. Another thread will be talking about banning the booze, another the smokes, another 5g masts. We can go on.
So you think God is genocidist. Cool. Someone else in the world is counting the rosary beads as you typed that. Cool.

The point? who cares. Believe what you believe. People will do the same. No matter the subject matter.

Sonics2k

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm not a historian, so basing quite a bit of this off of conversations with historians and the reasoning for it.

In a nutshell though, child birth reasons. A lot of marriages were more for alliances and family gain or bonds, rather than love as we'd understand it today.

Now, while characters like Mohammed and Joseph may have married young wives, it would have been extremely rare for them to actually consummate or attempt to have a child with their bride, for the simple reason of the much higher chance of them dying during child birth.

It's always struck me as amusing that people here will be happy to call out Mohammed, but keep it quiet about Joseph.

You didn't answer my question though, why are fully grown men marrying children? I would understand maybe a 16 year old marrying a 9 year old for the bond reasons you provided, but why would an adult man need a child bride?

More importantly, why would God approve of it?

In addition, I know what you are attempting to insinuate with your final comment, you can shove it. I think all religions are equally vile.

Guy:Incognito

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

:
Believe in God, don't believe in God, believe that Iron Man is better than Spider-Man. Who cares.

.

Nobody thinks ironman and Spiderman are real.

The issue is that so many people believe that God, something that quite obviously also isn't real, is real and let it influence so much of their lives and society in general.

WrenBoy

I'm not afraid to go there !! Genghis Khan. Not a very good ally in my opinion.
God Im brave...

timeToLive

if god doesn't exist then who does everyone pray to?

Wanderer2010

The bible is a general guide and not to be taken to the absolute letter. The God of the Old Testament was a fierce dictator who hated His own creation and demanded that human beings adhere strictly to every single one of His laws, lest you burn in hell forever and ever.
Given that God has the power to create the heavens and the Earth, its a safe bet to say He would have halted production of human beings a long time ago and flicked us off the cosmic sphere,given how fond we are of indulging in sin. But He left us evolve and in this era of Gemma Collins and Gogglebox, its not unreasonable to assume God may come in a different form than that which we were conditioned to believe...

Guy:Incognito

timeToLive wrote: »

if god doesn't exist then who does everyone pray to?

The fact that there are huge groups praying to different ones is another issue with the whole thing. This omnipotent being can't even get people to make up the same god.

Ancient religions are no more valid than the likes of Scientology.

Temptamperu

timeToLive wrote: »

if god doesn't exist then who does everyone pray to?

Joe Pesci

Guy:Incognito

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

The bible is a general guide and not to be taken to the absolute letter. ..

But it's supposed to be word word of God , directly from God.
Again, omnipotent being can't even get the book right with 2 goes at it.

B.A._Baracus

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Nobody thinks ironman and Spiderman are real.

The issue is that so many people believe that God, something that quite obviously also isn't real, is real and let it influence so much of their lives and society in general.

Does'nt matter the subject people will be divided.
You believe their is no God. That's ok. Someone else will. That's also ok. You will not change someone else's mind and they won't change yours. That's life.

Don't be so wrapped up in what other people think. The world is full of mad people. Covid has shown us this. People thinking it's all a lie, it was created so microchips can be inserted into people to 5g masts causing. You are not gonna change nothing so the only logical way is to not care. Believe what you believe but live your life.

Guy:Incognito

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

.

Don't be so wrapped up in what other people think. .

If they just thought it and kept it to themselves then that'd be fine.

Its the attempts to push it on society and for it to influence laws that's the issue.

Look at America, everything is "one country under God" etc.such bloody nonsense and the president has to mention it every time they speak about anything .

B.A._Baracus

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If they just thought it and kept it to themselves then that'd be fine.

Its the attempts to push it on society and for it to influence laws that's the issue.

Look at America, everything is "one country under God" etc.such bloody nonsense and the president has to mention it every time they speak about anything .

That's life.
Sure some religious person could quote you and say "ohh you nasty atheists, if you's just kept it to yourselves and not influencing laws" as well. Then a big back and fourth, "no you're WRONG!" argument :pac:

it's not gonna change anything. People believe what they want to believe.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

But it's supposed to be word word of God , directly from God.

No it's not.

Yakov P. Golyadkin

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

No it's not.

"Inspired by God" which is a neat get out clause for the bearded psychopath in the sky.

Sonics2k

Deleted User wrote: »

You didn't answer my question though, why are fully grown men marrying children? I would understand maybe a 16 year old marrying a 9 year old for the bond reasons you provided, but why would an adult man need a child bride?

More importantly, why would God approve of it?

In addition, I know what you are attempting to insinuate with your final comment, you can shove it. I think all religions are equally vile.

Again, I'm not a historian, but I'm sure there's lots of videos and books on why they married girls so young.

Also I wasn't insinuating anything at you, it was an off-hand comment about the irony that people of one group will comment on another group, while ignoring their own group doing the same thing.

Sonics2k

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

No it's not.

Not literally, but theologically yes it is. The Torah, Quran and Bible are all the Word of God passed to a particular person who documents it. The 10 Commandments are the Word of God and so are the following rules.

wench

THE_SHEEP wrote: »

Yes , minor by today's life expectancy values .

Middle aged 01 BC .

Women of " Mary's " time hadn't the choice of waiting till their late 30s / early 40s , to have children once they got their careers sorted !!

If a life expectancy is given as 25 - 30, that is the mean value, not the expected max.
If she survived childbirth, she could expect to see 50 easily enough.

Sonics2k

Sonics2k wrote: »

Not literally, but theologically yes it is. The Torah, Quran and Bible are all the Word of God passed to a particular person who documents it. The 10 Commandments are the Word of God and so are the following rules.

I read the post I responded to too literally.

Potential-Monke

Google is yer friend lads:

"Under early Roman law, the oldest living male was the head of a family, or pater familias, and had absolute authority (patria potestas) over his children and, to a lesser extent, his wife. His household was thus understood to be under his manus (literally, "hand").[6] He had the right and duty to seek a good and useful match for his children, and might arrange a child's betrothal long before he or she came of age.[7] To further the interests of their birth families, sons of the elite should follow their fathers into public life.[8] and daughters should marry into respectable families. If a daughter could prove the proposed husband to be of bad character, she could legitimately refuse the match.[9]

The age of lawful consent to a marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys.[10] Most Roman women seem to have married in their late teens to early twenties, but noble women married younger than those of the lower classes, and an aristocratic girl was expected to be virgin until her first marriage"

Re: the whole why marry children thing, keep in mind that some places still had a very young age of consent and it only really changed in the last couple of hundred years (In the United States, as late as the 1880s most states set the minimum age at ten to twelve (in Delaware, it was seven in 1895)). I'd imagine it came from the thought process that the younger, the better chance of having children, or something along those lines. I dunno, it's not something I think about often...

Re: the topic, I've no issues with any of the religions as such, I just have an issue if they interfere with my life, ie: increased workload while people get time off for some religious bollocks (previously had a colleague who would get an hour off (paid) every Sunday morning he worked so he could attend mass, thus increasing my workload. Religion should be a personal choice and not affect anyone else around them.

Should it be cancelled? Sure, why not. It's definitely something that at least does cause harm.

Potential-Monke

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Google is yer friend lads:

"Under early Roman law, the oldest living male was the head of a family, or pater familias, and had absolute authority (patria potestas) over his children and, to a lesser extent, his wife. His household was thus understood to be under his manus (literally, "hand").[6] He had the right and duty to seek a good and useful match for his children, and might arrange a child's betrothal long before he or she came of age.[7] To further the interests of their birth families, sons of the elite should follow their fathers into public life.[8] and daughters should marry into respectable families. If a daughter could prove the proposed husband to be of bad character, she could legitimately refuse the match.[9]

The age of lawful consent to a marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys.[10] Most Roman women seem to have married in their late teens to early twenties, but noble women married younger than those of the lower classes, and an aristocratic girl was expected to be virgin until her first marriage"

Re: the whole why marry children thing, keep in mind that some places still had a very young age of consent and it only really changed in the last couple of hundred years (In the United States, as late as the 1880s most states set the minimum age at ten to twelve (in Delaware, it was seven in 1895)). I'd imagine it came from the thought process that the younger, the better chance of having children, or something along those lines. I dunno, it's not something I think about often...

Re: the topic, I've no issues with any of the religions as such, I just have an issue if they interfere with my life, ie: increased workload while people get time off for some religious bollocks (previously had a colleague who would get an hour off (paid) every Sunday morning he worked so he could attend mass, thus increasing my workload. Religion should be a personal choice and not affect anyone else around them.

Should it be cancelled? Sure, why not. It's definitely something that at least does cause harm.

Yet again, why is this ok with an apparently perfectly moral God?

If God is real, we ought to be marrying 9 year olds by his standard.

buckwheat

BobbyMalone wrote: »

A 12 year old girl was middle aged? So she could have expected to live to maybe 25? Jesus must have been considered a pensioner up there on the cross.


You're forgetting that child-mortality rates would skew that figure, as well as women dying in childbirth (and if the RCC is right, then that wasn't something Mary had to worry about).


I've seen it written that if you were a wealthy Roman citizen, and survived your childhood, you could expect to be living into your 70s. It wouldn't be quite that high for a family living in occupied territory, but I would imagine 50-55 would be a safe bet.

At his age you'd have to ask did he die of crucifixion or with it.....

buckwheat

timeToLive wrote: »

if god doesn't exist then who does everyone pray to?

Eric Cantona