To think that an entire Abrahamic religion was born from a woman’s need to convince her husband that she hadn’t slept with another man hence she came up with the whole “God did it” and raised her son to believe it.
Consent to get a ridiculously low amount of money to go through a very harmful process? Great. As much consent as women giving blowjobs behind dumpsters to get their meth fix. Totally not exploiting the poor and vulnerable. Totally not treating women (and the baby) as cattle, or wares.
Just for the record, there are a surprising number of rich people who are paying other people to have children for them. It’s not for medical reasons, but for cosmetics and convenience. It actually is pretty weird imo.
That sounds like something tabloids would say but has little relationship to the truth. If you got hard numbers I will look at them and you can prove me wrong.
I’m not trying to sensationalize – if the pope meant to shame gay couples or couples with health concerns, then that’s ridiculous. But people do use surrogates for other reasons, too. Just Google search celebrities and surrogacy. I know some of the Kardashians have said they used surrogates, and I’m sure there are others.
The heterosexual couple I know are not celebrities, but they are obscenely wealthy. They now have two children who were born like 8 months apart, haha, both borne by surrogates. There were no health issues for the woman in the couple – just convenience and the desire to avoid the normal health issues that pregnancy causes.
Ya this is key right here. I feel like if we want to make progress and not just bitch about our problems, we need to figure out how to break the link between grifter cult leaders and their idiot armies, whether that’s in the church or MAGA or anywhere else.
All those funny dumb people full of hate we laugh at with Jordan Klepper cannot be turned into smart nice people. We need to put their focus back on ancient aliens and who shot JFK to get them out of the way.
In the US, Evangelical Christian’s did not give a shit about abortion until about the 70s, when they realized they could form a coalition with Catholics to gain political power on that wedge issue. Lots of people care about what the Pope thinks, so unfortunately the rest of us have to somewhat too.
Because he influences a lot of other pedophiles, presumably.
The issue of surrogacy, particularly in a country like the United States, which denies people public health care and forces pregnant women to assume an enormous amount of medical risk (particularly in abortion-illegal states), is a hot one from a socio-economic perspective.
Turning desperate young women into indentured servants is bad aktuly. And it shouldn’t take a guy in a big gold hat to make that clear.
She wasn’t a surrogate, she was just raped by a ghost
The mythology of Christianity notwithstanding, people really get hung up on the alleged circumstances of his birth while paying precious little attention to the sermons and practices he engaged in during his life.
Would that everyone believed the Loaves and Fishes story as influential as the How Mary Got Preggers tale.
Well personally I’m aware that literally none of it happened, so might as well have some fun about the most insane parts rather than a simple dupe hack 😉
Well personally I’m aware that literally none of it happened
Abundant evidence of Messiah figures running around the Levant during the reign of Emperor Tiberius. Whether “Jesus” was one guy or a composite, you’re stretching skepticism to assert the Sermon on the Mount as an event that didn’t happened.
There is evidence of New York existing and there is evidence of spiders existing. Does that mean I am stretching my skepticism when I say I am convinced that Spiderman does not exist?
I can go to Times Square right now and find half a dozen guys dressed in Spiderman costumes running around. And I can produce a litany of live action video that is significantly more convincing than any artifacts you could produce to prove the existence of Caeser Augustus or Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill. Hell, I can even get you video of a guy in a Spiderman costume who is climbing a high rise in Los Angelesright here
If a video of a guy climbing a building in a Spiderman costume was paired with a handful of comic books, and this was discovered in a sealed vault in the year 4024 AD, what kind of conversation would we be having?
Finding a 6000 year old video of Spiderman would not change the discussion at all (besides questions about modern technology that supposedly is thousands of years old). We do have modern movies that show a Spiderman. Just like those, a video tape of a 6000 year old human spider is not proof that human-spider hybrids exist. It just proves that there are people who pretend to be a Spiderman.
So, stories about Jesus performing miracles can (maybe) be proof of people having existed who claimed or were said to be a Jesus. But they don’t prove that miracles are a thing.
So, stories about Jesus performing miracles can (maybe) be proof of people having existed who claimed or were said to be a Jesus. But they don’t prove that miracles are a thing.
The Sermon on the Mount only becomes a miracle when you add in fish magic. Before that point, it’s just a story about a guy who gives a speech and covers the tab for lunch.
Just because there were Messiah figures does not mean that you get to argue your particular one existed. A class has a population, that doesn’t mean X exists or was a member of that class.
We can be very confident that James existed, we have people writing about his school/organization/temple, at least one person claims to have met him, and we have the fourth Gospel whose path very likely came via his group. Now, since we got James we have to ask can we get a particular Messiah figure that was either his brother or so close that people said he was his brother? Any random Messiah figure isn’t going to cut it. It’s not enough that there were street preachers, we need one connected to James.
And no I don’t think the Sermon on the Mount happened. It is likely Matthew and Luke (Sermon on the Plain) were copying from the same source. A written pastoral document that was no where near as well written.
Just because there were Messiah figures does not mean that you get to argue your particular one existed.
Fortunately, there’s a bit more evidence on the table in the form of oral and written testimonials, art objects, and buildings dedicated in his name.
We can be very confident that James existed, we have people writing about his school/organization/temple, at least one person claims to have met him, and we have the fourth Gospel whose path very likely came via his group. Now, since we got James we have to ask can we get a particular Messiah figure that was either his brother or so close that people said he was his brother?
If we’re crediting the Gospel of James as a credible record of an individual’s existence, I’m hard pressed to dismiss the Gospels of Mark and Luke, which are older and at least as credible.
And no I don’t think the Sermon on the Mount happened.
So we’re putting all our chips on “A particular popular rabbi with a large following never got on top of a hill and held a sermon in front of an audience that failed to bring enough food along for lunch”?
And the argument boils down to “I just don’t think the Q-document is credible enough”?
shrug
Of all the various parables and miraculous events attributed in the New Testament, I would consider “Guy gives speech to large hungry crowd and then feeds them” one of the least controversial.
Fortunately, there’s a bit more evidence on the table in the form of oral and written testimonials, art objects, and buildings dedicated in his name.
Only contemporary first hand evidence. Not what some zealots said nine centuries later.
f we’re crediting the Gospel of James as a credible record of an individual’s existence, I’m hard pressed to dismiss the Gospels of Mark and Luke, which are older and at least as credible.
No. I am crediting Paul since I can’t see why on earth he would make up a character like James, I am crediting the Gospel of Thomas as predating Mark and mentioning him, I am also pointing out that we can see traces of his impact in John. I don’t need the Gospel of James. Btw Luke just copied Matthew and Matthew just coped Mark.
So we’re putting all our chips on “A particular popular rabbi with a large following never got on top of a hill and held a sermon in front of an audience that failed to bring enough food along for lunch”?
I don’t think the man existed. And even if he had existed and gave that speech I think you are ignoring the fact that the miracle is clearly a reference to the OT story about food multiplication. It isn’t that it is impossible to have happened it is there is an easier way to explain where the story came from. Imagine a thousand years from now someone like you is arguing for Spiderman and saying “isn’t it possible someone could swing around the city”. “Sure but the people at that time had a story about a superhero who could do that so that is where it probably came from”.
Of all the various parables and miraculous events attributed in the New Testament, I would consider “Guy gives speech to large hungry crowd and then feeds them” one of the least controversial.
Cool? None of them happened. Every single miracle he performs we can trace back to the literature that existed at the time.
So, the secularized explanation for the “miracle” that I was taught way back in the 1980s when secularizing religion was cool, was that Jesus effectively inspired people in the audience to share their food with one another.
That’s it. That’s the lesson. Share with your neighbors.
All of them has forgotten to bring bread except one loaf and Jesus tells them not to trust the bread of other groups, reminds them of the two times he miracled-up food before, and yells at them for being stupid.
If the lesson was about pooling resources why suggest it would work again if they are in isolation? Why suggest they don’t go to the group that can bail them out? If you and two people don’t have food even if you pool resources 0 + 0 + 0 = 0.
If the lesson however is that Jesus is magical and can do whatever he feels like the story makes more sense.
Just a reminder, among prot scholars every time the Bible self-references (like here) that text is considered more likely to be true and important vs when it doesn’t. So here we have a guy doing an act and he is telling people the lesson of the act.
All of them has forgotten to bring bread except one loaf and Jesus tells them not to trust the bread of other groups
He said: “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.”
He did not say to discount the bread of “other groups”, much less the very disciples who had come to hear him.
Neither does he resolve the problem with a miracle in this chapter. He simply extols his apostles to understand the lessons of the Sermon on the Mount.
If the lesson however is that Jesus is magical and can do whatever he feels like the story makes more sense.
If the lesson was that Jesus is Magical, it wouldn’t have been this plea to remember the prior events. He would have simply magicked up some bread.
No, this is a plea towards self-reliance. Don’t trust the patronage of these rival church groups. Don’t trust the patronage of a hostile government. You must feed yourselves.
Just a reminder, among prot scholars every time the Bible self-references (like here) that text is considered more likely to be true and important vs when it doesn’t.
So then how does this refute the claim that The Sermon On The Mount occurred?
He did not say to discount the bread of “other groups”, much less the very disciples who had come to hear him.
Read the passage, he does.
Neither does he resolve the problem with a miracle in this chapter. He simply extols his apostles to understand the lessons of the Sermon on the Mount.
What verse says that? Btw, as I am sure you are aware this story is in Mark and the Sermon on the Mount was in Matthew, not in Mark. You totally knew that and you must have forgotten for a second, I am sure.
If the lesson was that Jesus is Magical, it wouldn’t have been this plea to remember the prior events. He would have simply magicked up some bread.
Assertion not fact.
No, this is a plea towards self-reliance. Don’t trust the patronage of these rival church groups. Don’t trust the patronage of a hostile government. You must feed yourselves.
It doesn’t say that. That is what you are putting on it.
So then how does this refute the claim that The Sermon On The Mount occurred?
Didn’t say it did. Well not directly at least. You brought up the loaf and bread miracle (must have forgotten for a moment it happened twice, I am sure) and I discussed it. As a scholar such as yourself knows it is an example of a Mark sandwich story which is the author’s attempt to deal with competing oral narratives, but whatever. The point is we can tell the author was willing to lie about small things for this passage which puts in doubt other authors who used him as a source, like Matthew. Short answer no that story doesn’t disprove that speech but it does cast doubt on how honest people were being.
You know the 3 miracles are just recycled Elisha and Elijiah food multiplication miracles and the Jesus rebuking them was just Mark trying to talk smack about James+Cephus.
Add comment