Reality Check! The Virgin Mary in the Present Day

This is yet another recent post from my outside blog, the atheist goddess:

 

Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Reality Check! The Virgin Mary in the Present Day
Part 1:
Even in my late days as a theist I was annoyed by nativity scenes. They were unreal... in a similar way to the world in the move The Stepford Wives, complete with weird plastic smiles.



Time for a dose of reality.
First of all, let me make this clear from the beginning, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE NATIVITY STORY!! THIS IS ALL HYPOTHETICAL!

Now that that is out of the way, let's continue...
There are so many things wrong with this picture that I hardly know where to start.
But I guess I'll start here...
Notice the race of the people in the scene? White right?
I hate to burst your bubble but NONE of them would have been white. Most likely they would have been Arabs. I was astounded by how surprised the catholic public seemed to be by the "Arab face" revealed a few weeks ago on the "Shroud of Turin." Most likely that Shroud is yet another medieval fake relic, but that is beside the point. Why should they be surprised at all? Honestly! What were they expecting?

Second, the Mary in the photo has always bothered me. As a woman, it's almost offensive that they portray Mary as they do. First, she shows NO sign of recently given birth in the picture AT ALL!! There's no mess of blood and amniotic fluid, not that I was expecting that. But the least they could have done was portray Mary as many women are after giving birth, exhausted, covered in sweat, in pain, and still swollen from their recent pregnancy. Notice the most disturbing part, Mary has a flat belly. NO woman's belly goes flat right after birth.

A second thing, Mary always looks like an adult in these pictures. Here's another reality check for my Christian readers, she wasn't an adult [at least not by today's standards - which is the way she is portrayed in nativity scenes]. According to the traditional interpretation, Mary was 14 when she gave birth.
That means that if she lived in todays world she would be a freshmen in high school [at the most].

Let's project this whole scene into the 21st century. The reason I'm doing this is to show just how rediculous the story of the nativity is! Please use proper logic for the way you analyze this! Be honest with yourself!
So...
There is a young teenage girl who became pregnant [anyone who has gone to a public high school has seen the occasional pregnant teenager]. She's 14 years old and not yet married. And she claims that she is a virgin and still pregnant. Tell me, if it was your friend that had made this claim, would you believe her? Would ANYONE believe her?

And also, most likely if Mary lived in the present day, she would have looked something like this:



So, this message goes out to all Christians but especially Catholics!
MARY WAS A PREGNANT TEENAGER!!

Also, remember the point I made, if your friend was pregnant and told you she "never had sex" would you believe her? There's a short answer to that question, no.

The nearly certain truth is, Mary was NOT a virgin.
In her time, it would have been understandable for her to claim "virgin pregnancy." Her life was on the line! If you Christians scrutinize the Bible you would understand why she lied. What did they do to fornicators and adultresses in 1st century Israel? They were stoned.

So, the virgin thing was probably her own attempt to save her life.

There is no doubt that Mary was either a fornicator or an adultress [by the standards of her time].
There are several circulating theories about this...
1. She was raped by a Roman Soldier [which would have been adultery in her time]
2. She had an affair with a Roman Soldier [definitely adulter]
3. She and Joseph had sex before marriage. [Fornication]

Don't say that I'm draggin the virgin madonna through the mud!
That's not my intent!
My intent is to point out the screaming hypocracy of the church!
The church advocates ONLY abstinence until marriage AND the vatican's official doctrine is that contraception is evil...
what does this mean...
that there are a LOT of "virgin" Marys out there that are being persecuted because they have broken "church ideals" for a woman. What hypocracy when the church's most holy woman is an unwed pregnant teenager!!



Posted by SkycometGoddess at 10:29 AM

Views: 128

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mario Rodgers on May 4, 2010 at 12:32pm
This is a gutsy post. I like it. About time somebody recognized the story for what it is(or was).
Permalink Reply by Galen on May 4, 2010 at 5:16pm
According to the traditional interpretation, Mary was 14 when she gave birth.

To put this even more into perspective, 14 is the *high* end of the historical estimation. She was somewhere between the ages of 12 and 14. So, she could have very well been only 12. So, the "virgin mother" was in middle school or just starting high school when she gave birth to Jesus (in modern terms). How charming.
Permalink Reply by Mario Rodgers on May 4, 2010 at 5:22pm
Yeah, well. People didn't have long lives back then, and even by Shakespeare's day, 16 was considered the age of marriage. Is this any worse than Mohammed humping a 9-year-old?

Oh shit. Now I'm going to get it from the Christians. I just compared Joseph and Mary to Mohammed.
Permalink Reply by Lindsey on May 4, 2010 at 6:28pm
Oh, the irony! I love it, this post totally just made my day! Throw that in their faces everytime they berate a pregnant teenager!
Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on February 20, 2011 at 10:13pm
That's the idea! This post should be empowering to any woman who has been a young single mother.
Permalink Reply by Christopher McGuire on May 5, 2010 at 2:12am
I actually read somewhere that the term 'Virgin' as used in the bible was actually some sort of typo or misinterpretation. It was supposed to be virginal, as in 'pure,' or something. It was never actually meant to imply that Mary was a virgin... If it weren't like 0100 right now, I'd find a link and add it in here. But I'm tired, so you guys can go ahead and do that on your own if you choose. Just imagine that, though. 99% of 'Christians' in America are possibly worshiping a freakin typo!
Also, Megs, you believe in the nativity story? What's that all about? Don't you know that shit's got more holes in it than my grandma's favorite afghan? I'm disappointed...
Permalink Reply by Apple on May 5, 2010 at 9:46am
In all caps she said that she doesn't believe in it.
Permalink Reply by Christopher McGuire on June 15, 2010 at 11:48am
Again, there's no real good way to imply sarcasm in print, without it being blatantly obvious...
Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on June 17, 2010 at 11:48am
Nah! I don't believe in it... in fact... I am fairly certain that Jesus never existed at all! I read a book called "the Jesus the Jews never knew" and it completely destroyed any belief I had left that Jesus ever existed at all.

Those of you that are interested in reading this wonderful book [which I highly recommend] you can find it here: http://atheists.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPat...

A quote from the book:
"The historical Jesus has always been made to stand on two legs: the New Testament and Jewish literature. The New Testament leg I consider to have been sawed off long ago. Amputation of the Jewish leg has been, I hope, the achievement of this book. With both his legs missing, the figure of Jesus must now either hover in the air - like the god he started out as in the Christian mysteries or like the Yeshu he became in the Toldoth - or he must fall to earth like a deflated balloon."

I was simply speaking in hypotheticals because I was attempting to address a christian audience.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service