Uncommon Sense

July 5, 2022

Well, We Will Just Have to Make Shit Up

The Catholic Church, in its infinite wisdom, way back when decided to embrace (aka co-opt) the craze for Mary, Mother of Jesus, and declare all kinds of nonsense surrounding her. Topping the nonsense was that Mary was a “perpetual virgin.” This is an obvious lie because they were depending upon people accepting the lie that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and not some ordinary penis, but explain to me how a hymen can survive childbirth (in the Bible, the sign of virginity was an “intact” hymen). All that aside, this came to be because people just couldn’t believe that the Mother of God was doing the nasty with her lawful husband.

But, there was also that slight problem about Jesus’s brothers and sisters: James, Joses (short for Joseph, which is a bit of a tell), Judas, and Simon, and oh, Sister #1 and Sister #2. (Despite being sisters (well half-sisters) of God, no one bothered writing down their names. If there is a way to demean women for being, well, women, the Bible will find it.)

So, having these brothers and sisters named in the gospels, means that the Church had a problem. So, one apologist claimed that the Gospel writers didn’t really mean “brothers” and “sisters,” they meant cousins. In other words, the gospel writers (writers, not writer) did not know the word for cousin. The word chosen, in Matthew (possibly written in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated, is αδελφός: which means a male from the same womb as the reference person, a brother. But what did those gospel writers know?

As to Joseph possibly having had those four boys and two girls from a previous marriage, making Mary their step-mother, well that would make Jesus their “little brother,” so why was Jesus treated as if he were the oldest brother all of the time?

That these “apologists” (means “defender of the faith”) were making this shit up is very clear. That they were making this up to defend a church dogma (perpetual virginity) that has no basis in scripture is also telling. This clearly establishes that they will make up new bullshit to defend their old bullshit. With that policy intact, it is no wonder that the Pope is infallible. I would be infallible, too, if I could make up stuff . . . without limits . . . to explain away my mistakes.


  1. Suddenly I find myself humming this old ditty:


    Comment by ziggyseamstress — July 5, 2022 @ 1:29 pm | Reply

  2. There is a sort of cult within the RC church revolving around Mary. They believe that she didn’t actually die, she was taken bodily up into Heaven when it was the end of her time here in Earth. They believe she was something called the immaculate conception, which means she was the only person to be born without Original Sin. In the opinion of some, including a lot of clergy, she is almost as important as Jesus himself. The list of things they claim about her is endless.

    I find this a bit odd because when it comes right down to it we now absolutely nothing about her. She is mentioned only a few times in the bible, which would tend to indicate she wasn’t very important in the eyes of the people who wrote the gospels. Everything else the church claims to know about her is, frankly, completely made up by people having “miraculous visions”.

    Mary ties in with the RC church’s obsession with virginity. And when I say obsession I am not exaggerating. The church literally worships female saints who allegedly went through horrific torture and execution to preserve their virginity. The phrase “Mary ever virgin” is embedded in embedded in some of the ritual prayers.

    Of course a lot of this has its roots in the church’s attitude towards sex. In the eyes of the church, sex is always dirty, nasty, polluting. They’re like little children going “Ewww, that’s gross!” when they see something upsetting. Up until a few decades ago, the only form of sex that was permissible, even between married partners, was the husband having sex with the wife only for the purpose of impregnating her. Period. So of course the mother of Jesus would never, ever, have dirty, nasty, evil sex. Ever. Not even with her own husband.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by grouchyfarmer — July 6, 2022 @ 7:11 am | Reply

    • Agreed! But “In the eyes of the church, sex is always dirty, nasty, polluting.” this wasn’t from the get-go. This was partly Paul’s meddling, then it was taken to extremes (misogyny helped). The Greeks and Romans had the concept that the physical was corrupt, but the spiritual was pure. So, this led to (as the Christians were becoming Greekified (after the Jews were) the Christian obsession with sex. Of course, having a god obsessed with foreskins didn’t help.

      Liked by 3 people

      Comment by Steve Ruis — July 6, 2022 @ 9:18 am | Reply

      • Thank (whoever or whatever) that my early Catholic exposure never went very far!! What total and absolute NONSENSE!!!


        Comment by Nan — July 6, 2022 @ 3:11 pm | Reply

        • All versions of Chrsitianity leave out the batshit crazy stuff by never bringing it up. Jesus said you had to hate your family. Jesus said you had to sell all of your belongings, donate the money to charity, and follow him. Do these things ever get brought up in sermons and homilies? Nope. Oh, Jesus forbade divorce, don’t you know. That is a common Sunday theme . . . not.

          Liked by 2 people

          Comment by Steve Ruis — July 7, 2022 @ 12:05 pm | Reply

      • There are a lot of things I just don’t get. A lot of it, especially some of these obsessions with sex and sexuality and the lengths they will go to in order to rationalize their beliefs is just strange. Your example about foreskins is spot on. Why in blazes did they become obsessed with whacking off foreskins? Makes no sense at all.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by grouchyfarmer — July 6, 2022 @ 4:29 pm | Reply

        • Like scarification, it is a cost of membership. But the same people who say you need to get mutilated are those who claim we are made in god’s image. Batshit crazy!

          Judaism inherited the god Yahweh from the Canaanites, who were polytheists and had both male and female gods, but then went on to become monotheists, but still insisting their god was male. Of what use does a singular entity have with sexual characteristics? Since he is individual and unique, what would He mate with? Don’t tell me God’s liking of sheep has sexual conotations! (We are referred to as His flock, which makes me a little nervous.)

          Liked by 2 people

          Comment by Steve Ruis — July 7, 2022 @ 12:00 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: