new

Time for some takedowns:

[121: He very explicitly stated that people should not be free to practice their religion. He never mentioned removing special protection for religious practices that violate human rights.]

The people and groups and followers of them I mentioned certainly don't deserve to practice their religion. I've said it myself--the scariest people in any video of Steven Anderson's sermons isn't Pastor Steve, it's the congregation cheering and shouting "Amen!" at his statements.

[Mister Spak: Do you realize that makes you like the Wahabi?]

I'm right, and they're wrong. That's the difference. Basic philosophy--the ends justify the means. Very little can be done in the name of justice that leads to justice that is actually wrong.

[Doubting Thomas: Here's the major problem, TTT, if you legislate freedom of religion away, then the government is going to be in charge of your religious beliefs.]

Sounds good to me. Ideas like the French Cult of Reason or the Soviet concept (sadly never put in place) of God-Building sound like an ideal state religion.

[Anon-e-moose: And it's precisely because of their homophobia that DOMA was declared unconstitutional, Prop.8 was repealed, culminating in the 26th June SCOTUS decision. Thus fundies don't have a legal leg to stand on, re. LGBT people, any more.

And it's precisely because of their fundieness.

No WBC here in the UK. Section 5 of the Public Order Act may have something to do with that. And - in both 2012 London & more recently in 2016 Rio - why didn't the devout Muslim Mo Farah, after winning the 5,000 & 10,000 Metres in both Olympics, parade round the stadium with an IS flag...?]

But you took away their freedom. Since western society has such a huge basis in "no tolerance for intolerance", as evidenced by prohibitions on hate speech, etc., it's incredible that people haven't taken it to it's logical conclusion and started intolerated the hives of it like the individuals mentioned above.

[Psycho Tits (1): That's really dumb, TTT, and I'll tell you why in simple, blunt terms: When you fuck with fundamental freedoms such as religion (or speech or assembly, both of which are so tightly allied with freedom of conscience that to attack one is to attack all three) then that fuckery of yours WILL--count on this -- find its way back to you and it will devour your freedom along with the freedoms of the people you hate.]

[Psycho Tits (2): For fuck's sake, NeoMatrix - freedom of religion shouldn't - and really can't (ask the Soviets) - be "legislated away" at all. And if there ever comes a time when religion is 'too weak to resist,' why would you hit a minority - religious believers - with punitive actions when they pose no threat?]

It worked to a pretty big degree. The Russian Church was brought to its knees. The biggest flaw was not constructing a new religion to replace it. Religion is a great brainwashing tool, but it is true that many religious people have their actions checked and modified by their beliefs. Hence a system like the Russian God-Building would encourage positive beliefs even if the majority of people never thought of it.

[Salami: The problem with removing freedom of religion is that it eliminates the protections keeping minority religious groups from being systemically oppressed. Imagine if some fundie turned the repeal on Muslims or Jews, deciding that they aren't worthy of being tolerated anymore and passing laws that keep them from having a good quality of life. Or outlawed sane Christians and only tolerated the most intolerant of views. I don't think anybody here would like that very much, but it could very well be possible if the government doesn't go out of its way to set limits on actions against religions.]

That's why you don't define the action itself as evil. If I shoot a guy trying to a rape a woman, that would be pretty good, obviously different than if I shot the woman and thanked the rapist for cornering her. Persecuting Jews (besides some Jews like the Haredi) or whatever sane Muslims are out there (I know they exist) is therefore different than persecuting religious nuts. Even if the same techniques are being used.

[SpukiKitty: Haredis, Barabbans, Wahabbis, Hindutva, Saffrons....They're ALL THE SAME....Evil authoritarian jerks who use religion as a tool of Fascist control rather than a path of spiritual growth and humanitarian love. Screw them and send them to Inferno for a long (but finite) period of Pineapple-Butt purgatorial punishment purification!

The folks who want to ban religion/spiritual faith completely (like NeoMatrix) are just as stupid. Are you willing to ban my egalitarian, pro-freedom, pro-gender-equality, pro-LGBTAQ, pro-democracy, pro-sexuality NeoPaganism, too?

Look! Spiritual faith HELPS many people cope with life. It has helped me! You may say "It's a crutch" but I say, "Some people NEED crutches. Crutches are not evil!"

I believe that life continues after death. I see that as absolute truth! The spiritual is REAL & PLAUSIBLE to ME!

I respect an Atheist's right NOT to believe! I am all for an Atheist's right to be fully welcomed and respected in society! I feel that when Religion & Government mix, BOTH become perverted into something horrible! Religion is only bad when it gets Frummy and is combined with Government. Keep it out of Government and reject the Frums and Faith is great.

Anti-Theists, while well-meaning, are misguided and they're just as irritating as the Religious nuts! They're Frums on behalf of Atheism. Should they take over the government they would be just as bad as the Religionists!]

Ugh, American progressivism. Trump only exists because they spend all their time race baiting and engaging in identity politics instead of focusing on the issues.

The idea is phase religion out sooner or later--let it rot. But there are ideas for those who need religion as a crutch--Cult of Reason, God-Building, other such ideas. I've praised the Soviet anti-religious campaign before (the Russian church had spent centuries asking for it), but Lenin's emphasis on atheism (in opposition to worship of man) was pretty stupid, and they should've taken the church infrastructure and turned it to the worship of humanity. I'm not an atheist nor an anti-theist (I can't hate something that doesn't exist)--if there was position I would be, it would be the worship of humanity's possibility. But I suppose I have a bit of crusader spirit and am willing to unleash it on the injust in the best way I can--through words.

[Hasan Prishtina: Constitution of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania 1976, Article 55 banned religious freedom, just as Time to Turn wants. Ask the Albanian people how that legislated haters away and everything was peace and light thereafter. Ask them also why they got rid of this article the moment they could and why they hate authoritarian socialists.]

Now a few generations under that, what might happen? Seems like an interesting possibility. Lots of good ol' Abrahamic religions in Albania...

[Anon-e-moose
"One of the common claims is that Mary was probably only a little girl of 12-14 years old. The reason given for this is that it was "common custom" in those days to marry girls off that young. It is also suggested by some that Joseph must have been much older than she was because he appears to have died early. There is no mention of him after Jesus was 12 years old. This is an assumption and not necessarily based on the custom of the time.]

I don't think we can determine Joseph's age, but I think it is not likely that Mary was as young as some people represent her.

First of all, while I realize that Joseph and Mary were already espoused - but not officially married - I find it interesting that her parents don't even get an honorable mention here. We're not introduced to her as "Mary the daughter of _________". Added to that, Mary gets a lot more "press" than even Joseph does, especially in this passage. If Mary was just a little 12 to 14 year old girl betrothed to marry an older man, that seems a little bit odd. In such a case her parents would have still held a large place in her life because Joseph hadn't taken her yet, Matthew 1:18-20.

Some people might like to use this to show that a girl/woman belongs to her husband-to-be immediately upon betrothal/espousal, but that doesn't exactly make sense. When a young lady is promised in marriage, but not yet taken, and is still in her father's home, she must be in a situation of being answerable to both men for a time of transition. Assuming Mary was only 12-13 years old, she would surely have been living with parents or guardians still. One would expect that either Joseph or Mary's father would have been the main character being dealt with by God, and yet neither one is. That is a very interesting point and makes it hard for me to believe that she was that young. The fact that God deals directly with her and there is no mention of her father makes it seem likely that she was a good bit older than that, especially since in v. 39 she apparently travels by herself to see her cousin, Elisabeth.

Another reason I don't believe Mary was such a young girl is because in Mark chapter 5 we meet Jairus who came to Jesus pleading with Him to heal his daughter. In Mark 5:23 we read, And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live. Jesus went to the house and raised the girl from the dead, and in vs. 41-42 the scripture says, And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment. First, it is just my observation that a man who expected to marry his daughter off in a year or less just might not be calling her his "little daughter" at age 12. I realize that emotions could be blamed for his use of this expression, but somehow it just doesn't ring true. But, more than that, the word "Talitha" is thought to be a diminutive word meaning "little girl", as opposed to a young woman. We might infer from that that Jesus also did not consider her a young woman of marriageable age.

Which leads to another point which I think is even more important. Just because something is the "common custom" of a given era, it does not follow that all those who love God and follow His word will be doing that thing. Imagine if this earth went on another 2000 years and much of our present history was lost along the way. Some "scholar" who was supposedly "in the know" might portray us all as having tattoos because "it was the common custom" of that day. And, yet, would that be true? No! Certainly not. Some of us don't have tattoos for Biblical reasons, in fact. Mary and Joseph both were obviously people who loved the Lord and followed His commandments. It is more likely that Mary was raised by parents who loved God than otherwise. They would not follow the customs of the day just because that is what everyone else was doing - even if the "good, godly" folks at the synagogue thought it was fine. There were a lot of things the "good, godly" people of their day were doing that Jesus later rebuked!

Furthermore, we know that the early Christians in the Roman Empire did not typically practice early marriage for their young girls. In his book, The Book that Made Your World, Vishal Mangalwadi writes (p. 284), "Christians also expressed their respect for women by raising the age of marriage. Roman law established twelve as the minimum age at which girls could marry. But the law was nothing more than a recommendation...and was routinely ignored. The best available studies show that in the Roman Empire the pagans' daughters were three time more likely than Christians to marry before they were thirteen. By age eleven, 10 percent were wed. Nearly half (44 percent) of the pagan girls were married off by the time they were fourteen, compared to 20 percent of the Christians. In contrast, nearly half (48 percent) of the Christian females did not marry before they were eighteen."

My point is that the people Mary was associated with - Zacharias, Elisabeth and Joseph - were all godly people who loved the Lord. Mary herself was obviously a godly woman. It is possible that Joseph and Mary had been betrothed at an early age, but he had not taken her yet, and based on some of the other things I've already mentioned, it seems more than likely that she was older than the legendary 12-13 years at the time this account opens.

My last reason for not believing that Mary was a little 12-13 year old girl is that it is not physically safe for a girl that young to have children. If no one else was watching out for Mary's safety you can count on the fact that God was! My loving, kind heavenly Father would not impregnate a girl that young and physically immature. He just wouldn't do it. He is not that kind of God. That kind of behavior is found in gods in other religions, but not in God Almighty, the Faithful and True. Of Him it is said, He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young. Isaiah 40:11 If there is no other reason to know that Mary was not that young it is this. The God we know and trust simply wouldn't do that to one of His daughters. (Yes, men might do this; men who professed to fear God might do this; but remember that in this case God was the one calling the shots, fulfilling the prophecy, and ordering every event. He was fully in charge in a way we don't always see when He's dealing with sinful men.)....
http://www.homemakerscorner.com/bible-study-Luke-section2.html

Please stop calling mary a little girl. She was not a little girl. STOP ACCUSING GOD!