Such a good point.

And before all you Christians start getting all riled up, keep this in mind:

Paul, the earliest New Testament author, never mentions the virgin birth. For someone who we rely upon for much of Christian theology, it is an odd omission. Paul refers to Jesus’ birth twice (Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4) and never says he was born of a virgin or of different means than anyone else. You’d think that would be important. 

The virgin birth is also not in Mark, the earliest gospel, or in John, the only other gospel not based on Mark. Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources? Probably because it hadn’t been made up yet. 

Why would the story be made up? Perhaps to fulfill an old prophecy of a virgin birth, which the Gospel of Matthew cites: 

Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14) 

Some scholars say “virgin” was a mistranslation in the Septuagint (the Greek translation the gospel writers used), and should have been translated “young woman.” That means the story might have been based on a mistranslation! 

It seems likely the virgin birth was created to boost the authority of Christianity through prophecy and compete with rival gods who were born of virgins.

When I was younger I used to love to trot this out to my Christian pals just to see how red they got in the face.

I am a little less combative these days, but it is still something that I like to introduce into the conversation once in awhile. 

You know just to keep everybody on their toes.

Sarah Palin angry that American soldiers cannot deliver the message of Jesus Christ one bullet at a time.

"Does this kick?"

Apparently Palin is pissy because the Army is asking that soldiers file off a New Testament message etched onto the scopes of their rifles by a military vendor:

The U.S. Army is directing troops to remove a Bible inscription that a vendor etched into the serial numbers of weapon scopes, Fox News has learned. 

Soldiers at Fort Wainwright in Alaska told Fox News they received a directive to turn in their scopes so the Bible references could be removed.

The scopes were made by Trijicon and referenced New Testament passages in John 8:12 and Second Corinthians 4:6. The verses appeared at the end of the scope serial numbers – “JN8:12” and “2COR4:6.” 

“The biblical verse (JN8:12) must be removed utilizing a Dremel type tool and then painted black,” read instructions on how to remedy the matter. After the letters and numbers were scrapped off, soldiers were directed to use apply black paint to ensure the verses were totally covered. 

Well this is blatant censorship in Palin-world and she took to Facebook to raise a sink with the handful of losers still reading her ghostwritten Facebook rants. (I know what you're about to say, but I only read it so that you don't have to.)

Who's giving the order? Who has the guts to take responsibility for this nonsense?

Yes WHO has the guts to take responsibility for this nonsense? 

After all what could be the harm in having a weapon that is mostly aimed at Islamic people etched with a reference to this Bible passage?

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

I mean what could be so wrong with sighting through a scope, etched with words that condemn nonbelievers to eternal darkness, before firing bullets at those nonbelievers to snuff out their lives forever?

You know besides EVERYTHING?

Is this woman ever on the right side of ANY issue?

The religious indoctrination of children. For their own good, or a form of child abuse?

I am once again going to refrain from saying anything derisive and simply open up this topic for discussion. 

I do have a few questions however. What exactly is the benefit of a religious based education system? I mean besides the obvious opportunity to misrepresent the facts and proselytize to children at their most vulnerable and trusting?

And do most of you think that it is appropriate to tell children that the stories from the Bible, Torah, or Quran are factual, when the evidence does not support that point of view? Or do you feel that only ONE of these books should be taught as though its contents were factual? And if so, which one, and why?

I think this is pretty indicative of most Christians that argue for their religion here on IM.

However what cannot be ignored is that Jesus was a rabbi, who was in fact teaching from the Old Testament. (Or as it was referred to then, simply "The Scriptures.")

As much as modern Christians might want to move away from the primitive guidelines and fables represented in the Old Testament, they really cannot. At least not unless they want to identify Jesus as nothing more than a philosopher and remove all of his miraculous abilities and identification as the Messiah whose birth was predicted in Scripture?

I'd be cool with that. What do you say?

Sorry, considering the Religious Right's current attacks on contraception, I couldn't resist.

If you are going to get mad at me just because I don't believe an omniscient being of absolute power raped a 15 year old girl than you're just going to have to be mad at me. Because I don't.