Christ Was Born from a Virgin?

[blind_otter]

I agree. This leads me to question the truth of the Bible. Truth is timeless, and will stand-up to the test of time and to examination. Untruths (sic) do not.

 

This is assuming that there is ultimate truth. But if you don't believe in God, then how can you believe in ultimate truth? Who would create this ultimate truth, and where would it exist?

 

You can look up "virgin birth" in wikipedia if you like.

[konfused]

Who would create the creator of ultimate truth. This is the old ontological discussion of god. Who created god? Can god create a rock he can't lift? Imagine the best (largest, tastiest, whatever) ice cream sundae possible. What could be better? If it existed. But then it could be imagined even better. Logic can't solve the god dilemna.

 

By the way. How do you include quotes in a message?

 

Also, monkeys have tails, chimps don't.

[flavius]

Click the "quote" button at the bottom of the post you wish to quote. it gives you a new text box with the post quoted within it. Then you can edit the quote (shorten it, for instance) before writing your own bit.

 

 

 

I don't get why you would focus on one instance (e.g., virgin birth) among so many. In fact, every aspect of Christian belief is supernatural in some way. Either the virgin birth happened or it didn't. If so it's a miracle, otherwise it is an untruth.

 

What's your point?

[Joelle]

This is assuming that there is ultimate truth. But if you don't believe in God, then how can you believe in ultimate truth? Who would create this ultimate truth, and where would it exist?

 

I never said I didn't believe in God. I don't believe Christ is God. There's a big difference.

 

I don't get why you would focus on one instance (e.g., virgin birth) among so many. In fact, every aspect of Christian belief is supernatural in some way. Either the virgin birth happened or it didn't. If so it's a miracle, otherwise it is an untruth.

 

What's your point?

 

Well, the Virgin Birth is one of the first key doctrines of Christ. I believe modern science discredited this event. In light of this, I am similarly skeptical of other "miracles" of Christ, and thus, of Christianity, in general.

 

Additionally, to me, Christianity seems to be a mystical, magical religion, and not particularly intellectual, as it's central figure is supernatural.

 

Also, to me, believing in Christ is similar to believing in Santa Clause and unicorns, other supernatural beings. The catch-all explanation would be: With God, ANYTHING is possible (even if it flies in the face of logic & science).

 

The point of my post was asking how Christians (who live in this day and age with running water, electricity, Internet, etc.) how they could place their faith (trust & loyalty) in something that's mystical & magical.

[burning 4 revenge]

because to many the alternative is unthinkable

[samsungxoxo]

If it would have been porven that a child was magically born without there ever been sex, then the scientists and professionals would already have know the answer as to why would this specific event would take place, how and why, along with re-testing. The results would both have to be reliable (meaning it gives similar results if tesed elsewhere) and valid (measure that is the real purpose of it).

If it was proven, then the child would must likely be either a deformed female or a clone to the mother, but never a male.

 

[Joelle]

because to many the alternative is unthinkable

 

Yes, I think you may be right.

 

If it would have been porven that a child was magically born without there ever been sex, then the scientists and professionals would already have know the answer as to why would this specific event would take place, how and why, along with re-testing. The results would both have to be reliable (meaning it gives similar results if tesed elsewhere) and valid (measure that is the real purpose of it).

If it was proven, then the child would must likely be either a deformed female or a clone to the mother, but never a male.

 

Yes, like you, I find my thread (and Christianity) funny, too. Based on my research and knowledge of biology, I came to the same conclusions as you did. Another poster implied the same point.

[bluetuesday]

Well, the Virgin Birth is one of the first key doctrines of Christ. I believe modern science discredited this event. In light of this, I am similarly skeptical of other "miracles" of Christ, and thus, of Christianity, in general.

 

the virgin birth isn't a doctrine of christ, it's a doctine of christianity which is very different. christ never said he was born of a virgin. other people said it about him. yes, it's part of the religion that has been built up around christ, but it's not necessarily part of what jesus wanted us to believe about himself.

 

i have to say, modern science hasn't discredited anything. all science can tell you is what it thinks it can prove now. it can't tell you what it will think it can prove in another 100 years. no scientific discovery is infallible. what we can prove is constantly evolving, as is scientific belief. so to use science to disprove something is as illogical as using faith to prove something. but people put the word 'scientific' on whatever they like thinking it will add weight to it and give it credence. it's a mask that's pretty easy to see through if you use your head.

 

Additionally, to me, Christianity seems to be a mystical, magical religion, and not particularly intellectual, as it's central figure is supernatural.

 

have you heard of the expression 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'? perhaps christianity needs to take a look at itself. but because you don't understand or accept one thing (or several things) about it, doesn't mean that the whole thing has no basis whatsoever.

 

Also, to me, believing in Christ is similar to believing in Santa Clause and unicorns, other supernatural beings.

 

i think it is extremely odd to look at the world and write anything off you haven't experienced yet as being a kids fairytale. supernatural isn't a dirty word. it's just something you don't understand because it doesn't seem to conform to scientific laws in a world where science can't explain what 95 per cent of the known universe is even made of.

 

The catch-all explanation would be: With God, ANYTHING is possible (even if it flies in the face of logic & science).

 

would you prefer: With Science, EVERYTHING is knowable (even if it flies in the face of logic & science).

 

because you know, even logic and science know they don't know everything.

 

when are people going to stop thinking they know best, accept we all have a little piece of the picture and work with each other to create something better than what we have now? why does it have to be division and i'm right and you're wrong? i fully accept science has its part to play. in fact, einstein happily proves my theory about god. why can't scientific materialists accept that if science teaches us anything it's that we know very little, compared to all that can be known?

 

The point of my post was asking how Christians (who live in this day and age with running water, electricity, Internet, etc.) how they could place their faith (trust & loyalty) in something that's mystical & magical.

 

some people in the world today think electricity is magic. ask questions for sure, i'm a big fan of questioning everything, but don't assume that what YOU have experienced, and therefore believe, is the pinnacle of what can be experienced.

 

i am stark raving sane and yet i have a direct, daily experience and knowledge of god. it might seem magical to you, to me it's just my life. it's just my experience. and the reason i have this experience is because i'm open to it. you can't experience something unless you're willing to open your life to the possibility that there is more out there than you currently know. i don't care if you've got the best telescope in the world. you can't see the stars unless you take the lens cap off.

[Quinch]

I can't buy into the immaculate conception thing at all. If (as the church teaches) Jesus walked the earth as a man then at some point a sperm had to fertilize one of Mary's eggs. There had to be a Y chromosome from somewhere! Matter (divine or otherwise) can not be created out of nothing. Or are we supposed to believe it was some kind of 'magic sperm'?

[amaysngrace]

i don't care if you've got the best telescope in the world. you can't see the stars unless you take the lens cap off.

 

 

Bravo.

 

I have read this thread in its entirety, and the OP reiterates the same point, oftentimes even the verbiage is the same.

 

It's always refreshing to read your posts, Blue. I so admire the way that you think.

[bluetuesday]

I can't buy into the immaculate conception thing at all. If (as the church teaches) Jesus walked the earth as a man then at some point a sperm had to fertilize one of Mary's eggs. There had to be a Y chromosome from somewhere! Matter (divine or otherwise) can not be created out of nothing. Or are we supposed to believe it was some kind of 'magic sperm'?

 

if god exists, anything is possible. including human procreation without the use of sperm. i agree that jesus was human, but there is a bigger point here. why do people insist on saying that the only things possible are what man with his tiny brain has rustled up in a test tube? i realise that many people have no faith, but do they have no imagination either?

 

as maria said in the sound of music, nothing comes from nothing. but actually, E=mc2 (which could be considered to be the greatest scientific theory of all time and is the basis of modern physics) 'proves' that matter and energy are the same thing under different conditions. so matter can be created out of energy, and visa versa. matter can, therefore, come from something we can't see, which of course we being human and mostly very stupid might translate as coming from 'nothing'.

 

if we're using science as the measuring stick, let's bear in mind that the best minds to ever walk this planet have no idea what gravity is. they can measure it, they can see how it affects objects, but they don't know WHAT it is. not a clue. it's a question we may well be a bsquillion years away from being able to answer, scientifically. is THIS the science we think can answer all our questions?

 

anyone with a decent grasp of quantum mechanics will tell you that the matter universe is much stranger and much more unpredictable than anyone thinks. since the overthrowing of classical newtonian phyisics, the quantum realm revealed beneath the illusion of old isaac's universe says this:

 

- that atomic matter, supposedly the ultimate immutable substance, dissolves into waves of potential existence.

- that determinism, which rigidly governed newton's mechnical universe, falls apart under observation, giving us a world jam-packed with spontaneity.

- that the objective world, existing 'out there' independent of observers, vanishes, leaving a world in which the observer and the observed are inter-dependent. meaning that the consciousness of man AFFECTS THE BEHAVIOUR OF ATOMIC MATTER.

- that the manifold world of separate independent objects interacting within space and time is transcended, revealing a realm where all things unite in an indivisible whole.

 

this IS the universe we live in. we don't understand it, we just know it's VASTLY weirder and more wonderful than we think. so please people, stop being so literal. in a universe where consciousness can affect matter, it's perfectly possible for things we can't explain to take place.

 

and i include the so-called miracles of virgin birth, walking on water and raising the dead. perhaps these things AREN'T miracles. ever think of that? perhaps they are well within the realm of what is humanly possible, only we're so stupid and consistently determined not to accept the responsibility of having to think about things that we allow a few 'scientists' to tell us what is and what isn't possible, and of course as consciousness affects matter we MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE by believing it is.

 

perhaps this is why jesus told us to have faith. not because faith pleases god and he decides to reward us for it, but because god knows that in the universe he created, the faith itself can move the mountain. we create what we believe in. consciousness affects material reality.

 

does anyone except me see this?

 

(and thanks grace, v sweet to say so).

[The slayer]

Tuesday I agee with you completely.

 

Faith is the cornerstone. Faith is an emotional word as it is so associated with religious faith, that it can cause offense to some to apply the same word to other forms of belief such as a belief that there is no God or a belief in a scientific theory.

 

Modern science depends on an enourmous amount of faith, acceptance in the "truth" of theories. Pure mathematics itself, which provides the possibility of stating E=mc2 is all based upon a set of assumptions.

 

The pure mathematician or physicist has to accept these assumumptions in order to carry out even the simplist of equations.

 

Some may simply accept them, some may need to take a leap of faith in order to embrace them, and some my never be able to accept them without a level of proof that they personally find convincing.

 

To me the previous paragraph applies exactly to acceptance or faith in any religious doctrine.

 

For me also Science and Religion both attempt to explain the unexplicable, the unexplainable the miraculous.

 

Religion tries to determine a philosophy for how we should exist and science seeks to determine why we exist. I think it is a real shame that they are generally seen as being in opposition, a synthesis of morality and science and an approach to faith that is based upon seeking the commonality rather than highlighting the difference would be a good step towards resolving many of the problems the planet faces today, global warming, natural disasters, famine and religious conflict.

 

Returning to the OP's question for me it is much more important to accept the teachings and principles of christianity, than to disect any one of the details, for me also accepting the resurection is much more significant in embracing a belief in christianity,than accepting the virgin birth, but either way it is all about accepting that the expaination for the miraculous is the intervention of God.

 

For me also I see no reason why Mary would need to have been a virgin in order to accept that Jesus is the son of God.

 

Blind Otter makes a really valid point abot the hebrew word Almah.

The gospels we know today, were writen in Hebrew and were then later translated into Latin and finally English.

 

The Hebrew word Almah means young women. (The Hebrew word for a woman who has not had sexual intercourse is Bethulah). Almah translates into Latin as Virgo, which translates into English as Virgin. However the Latin word for a woman who has not had sexual intercourse is Virgo Intacta. In English the word Virgin means a woman who has not had sexual intercourse, not a young woman. Probably the closest word we have to Virgo is Maiden which is a word that we rarely now use, but it's kind of implied that a maiden should be a virgin. The Latin term Virgo Intacta is still used to absolutely clarify that a woman has not had penetrative sex, despite engaging in sexual activity.

 

Words have to also be understood and translated in the context of how they were used within society. There were very complex conventions around betrothal, marriage sex and procreation at the time all of which related to a marriage contract not being finalised until a womans fertility was confirmed and supported the proof of a childs paternity and lineage.

 

I see it as very significant that the word Virgin in reference to Mary is only actually used in two of the four gosples, the first published gospels of Mark and John make no reference to the Virgin Birth. One only has to compare the king James version of the bible with the new english languauge bible to have an insight into how the language can change. Over time and translation from one language to another the meaning too can change.

 

I find it also very interesting that it is only the Roman Catholic Church that reveres the Virgin Mary. I would suggest that when the Roman Catholic Church was first established it was very important to emphasise the virginity of Mary as a means of distancing her from the Fertility Goddess of Pagan belief systems.

 

For a Christian today I think the imporant thing is to embrace the miracle of Jesus's birth, death and subsequent resurrection. To me if one can have faith in the validity of he resurrection, then surely one can have faith in the validity of the virgin birth.

 

You can accept the virgin birth as a literal statement of fact, or you can believe that the virgin birth may not be a literal virgin birth but an allegorical way of explaining how Jesus is the son of God.

I would also suggest that a central part of faith in Christianity is the acceptance that miracles happen.

 

Finally coming back to science and the pragmatic approach, who says for certain that it would be absolutely impossible for a contemporary young woman who was a virgin intacta not to become pregnant if a man were to ejaculate over her naked vagina? As a sexually active woman, who does not wish to become pregnant, that's not something I would do, even if it carried no risk of diseases!

[Moai]

If you are going to be a Christian, you have to accept ALL of it. Sorry, but those are the rules.

 

Science has deomnstrated that the Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around. It is clear from the Bible story of Jericho (God stops the Sun in the sky to make the day longer) that the man who wrote that thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

 

If the Bible is Divinely Inspired, why didn't God let whomever know that little fact?

 

It is true that science gives tentative explanations for things. That is what makes it so valuable. It is self-correcting. Religious dogma is not. In the face of mountains of evidence, it remains the same.

 

Certainly, if there is a god, all things would be possible for Him/Her/It. I don't see impossible things happening around me all the time, though.

 

Ever notice the fact that all of the "miracles" we hear and read about happened at a time when our understanding of the world was much, much smaller than it is now?

 

Back to my main point: For Christianity to work, the Bible HAS to be literally true, and you HAVE to accept all of it, not just the parts that you like.

 

If Adam and Eve did not eat from the Tree of Knowledge, then how did Man get original sin? And if Man does not have original sin, there is NO REASON for Jesus to have existed.

 

Now, if you take the Bible to be literally true, we can use common sense and science to see if it holds up. And it doesn't.

 

There is no evidence of a global flood. None. In fact, a global flood is not possible. The Gospels themselves don't agree on how long Jesus lay dead. But it is common to say that it was three days and three nights. Jesus must have been pretty rank when He reanimated. Of course, God could have stopped Him from rotting, sure, but that is a big enough miracle in and of itself.

 

I can't remember which Gospel it is (Mark), but one of them describes not only Jesus but an entire graveyard full of people reanimating. How is that hundreds of zombies roaming the streets in various states of decay was not alarming enough to have anyone who saw it write that down? The Romans had historians at that time, as did the Jews--not a word about it.

 

As far as Jesus being born of a virgin, He had to have been. Otherwise, he would be part of Original Sin, and therefore not totally innocent, and therefore His sacrifice wouldn't work. Those are the rules, I didn't make them up.

 

Also, the whole Jesus idea is almost word for word the same as the Egyptian myth about Horus. The myths from that region are sick with reanimation stories--probably because of the natural cycles witnessed in the Nile region. Like dung beetles.

 

Science doesn't "disprove" anything. It only explains phenomenon we see around us. Because it must be asserted that the Bible is literal fact, we can use science (and common snese) to test the various claims in it. Not only is it not internally consistent, the miracles described could not have happened--otherwise we would see evidence of their occurrence.

 

And why aren't miracles happening now? Why did god take the time and put out the effort to free the Hebrews from bondage (another story for which there is no evidence), and yet He stood by and did nothing when 6 million of them were murdered?

 

If the answer is because the reject Jesus, then God is not a very nice being. Small children, younger than the age of reason were gassed right alongside their parents. They didn't have a chance to accept Jesus, so why were they punished for a thought crime they had no knowledge of?

 

I am not Jewish, so I do not share the same spirituality. Yet, if I had the power to stop the Holocaust in one fell swoop I would have. Anyone with an ounce of compassion would have, I would think. I would hope God is AT LEAST as compassionate as I am, yet He did nothing. So, am I more benevolent than God? And if so, why would I worship a being that isn't even as nice as I am?

 

Whether the Bible is true or not is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is a god. It is a safe bet that He/She/It isn't the one described in the Bible, though. Reason and faith are by definition mutually exclusive.

 

All of that said, if faith in the Bible and God (or any other book or god) helps you make it through your day, helps you make sense of the world, and also helps you to be a better person, then knock yourself out.

[Moai]

Faith is the cornerstone. Faith is an emotional word as it is so associated with religious faith, that it can cause offense to some to apply the same word to other forms of belief such as a belief that there is no God or a belief in a scientific theory.

 

Modern science depends on an enourmous amount of faith, acceptance in the "truth" of theories. Pure mathematics itself, which provides the possibility of stating E=mc2 is all based upon a set of assumptions.

 

The pure mathematician or physicist has to accept these assumumptions in order to carry out even the simplist of equations.

 

The faith that one puts in science is not the same as the faith one puts in God, and to equivocate the two is to belittle both.

 

Certainly science is based on assumptions. The main one is that everything that happens has a natural explanation. That assumption has been proven to be a correct one.

 

Assertions in science can be verified through experimentation and observation. Assumptions in religion cannot.

 

I do not see what you describe as an "enormous amount of faith" in science. Theories explain facts. Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level. All the time. Everywhere. I do not use faith to determine that, it happens every time it is tried. The principles of lift are well understood--we have sent men to the moon based on these principles.

 

Germ theory has been deeomnstratedd to be accurate. Small pox has been erradicated, and polio is almost gone. When is the last time anyone in the West has contracted typhoid--wars not withstanding?

 

We have no idea why gravity exists. Yet, nobody would dispute that there is such a thing as gravity. Gravity is not accepted on faith. I do have "faith" that one day we will figure it out, but that is faith based on the fact that we have explained a great many things--many of them thought unexplainable just a few centuries ago. So is that really "faith" at all, or just a rational belief based on previous results?

 

As great a tool as science is, it cannot address other fundamental questions. Why are we here? Why is there matter, as opposed to not? Why am a male and not female (in the sense that such an occurrence is random)? What is the purpose of my existence? None of these questions are scientific ones. But, just because science can't address them 1) doesn't mean that science is useless or that 2)the questions are meaningless.

[blind_otter]

Back to my main point: For Christianity to work, the Bible HAS to be literally true, and you HAVE to accept all of it, not just the parts that you like.

 

I dunno. It seems to me like you could read it as a bunch of allegories. fables. tales told to teach lessons. That kinda thing. Written from the cultural perspective of that time. I'm just saying.

[bluetuesday]

If you are going to be a Christian, you have to accept ALL of it. Sorry, but those are the rules.

 

i tend to agree with you. the rules must be obeyed. because they are the rules. god save the rules. the first rule of the rules is, you must not question the rules. yeah, i kinda hate rules. although i must say, there is a rule that says rules were made by man, not man for the rules. this is the only rule i like.

 

If Adam and Eve did not eat from the Tree of Knowledge, then how did Man get original sin? And if Man does not have original sin, there is NO REASON for Jesus to have existed.

 

a. maybe the concept of original sin is wrong. maybe we're not filthy sinners drowning in our own genetic unworthiness. maybe we're children of god, and the whole dirty sinners bit is just a way to get people to follow rules made up by some guys who wanted power over everyone through organised religion.

 

b. if we're NOT dirty scum-sucking sinners, maybe jesus has another function. maybe he came to be an EXAMPLE of how to live. maybe, as he said, he came for judgment. maybe he came to show us the way the truth and the life of how to live in order to find the kingdom of god within us. maybe vicarious atonement for all the sins we could ever commit WASN'T the reason for jesus' life.

 

As far as Jesus being born of a virgin, He had to have been. Otherwise, he would be part of Original Sin, and therefore not totally innocent, and therefore His sacrifice wouldn't work. Those are the rules, I didn't make them up.

 

there's that word again.

 

Small children, younger than the age of reason were gassed right alongside their parents. They didn't have a chance to accept Jesus, so why were they punished for a thought crime they had no knowledge of?

 

they were killed because one man had a plan to rescue a country from economic desolation and he convinced that country to support him because the people of that country wanted their old lives back and because the whole world turned its back for long enough to allow the sensless murder of millions of people to happen.

 

If I had the power to stop the Holocaust in one fell swoop I would have. Anyone with an ounce of compassion would have, I would think. I would hope God is AT LEAST as compassionate as I am, yet He did nothing. So, am I more benevolent than God? And if so, why would I worship a being that isn't even as nice as I am?

 

i believe i know the answer to this riddle. do you really want to know?

 

i will explain this as simply as i can. it's long, but it's important.

 

 

the universe is not only created by god, is IS god.

 

god is light and light is energy and energy is matter. and the entire universe and everything in it is made from the creative energy of god, held in matter form.

 

man is created out of god's own substance and in his own image.

 

part of that 'image' is that man has a little bit of god's creative power. not a lot, but a bit. god couldn't give us a whole load of creative power because we're children, we couldn't be reponsible with it. oops! i just had a wrong thought and destroyed the andromeda galaxy. see? we're too irresponsible yet. but as manifestations of god we have some creative power.

 

creative power is the power to manifest what you can imagine.

 

god said 'let there be light' and there was light. god's creative power is so vast, he creates at the sound of his voice and his vision becomes an instant material reality.

 

that vision of god is the universe, the planets and people like us.

 

free will is a law of god without which, the universe would not exist.

 

in order that we can be creative like god - in our small way - we have to have free will. free will is the power to choose what we want to create. without creative choice, there is no free will.

 

so we arrive on this planet, with the power to create our reality. and we will create whatever we focus our attention on long enough.

 

one word for this is karma. karma is not a cosmic punishment, it is the result of a universal law that man is creative and will manifest what he focuses his attention on.

 

throughout human history, spiritual teachers have told us to do unto others as we have them do unto us. it doesn't matter what 'religion' they represent, the message is always the same.

 

and they have told us this because they know the secret of life and they understand karma.

 

that secret is - the universe is a mirror. it will reflect back to you what you send out. if you send good things out, if you send out love and kindness, you will by and large receive good things back. if you send out bad things, if you send out hatred and division, you will by and large receive bad things back.

 

it doesn't happen instantly, but it is a universal law that eventually, you reap what you sow.

 

now free will comes with a price. the price is, we have to be free to choose our reality. and in order to be free, some things need to remain hidden from us. one of those things is irrefutable evidence that god even exists.

 

currently on this planet, our reality is pretty bad. wars, religious terrorism, fear, family breakdown, drugs, murder, holocaust, hopelessness.

 

you are right, god has the power to step in this instant and completely wipe out all darkness.

 

but it is his law of free will, the very law that makes the entire universe possible, that prevents him from doing this. he loves us too much to violate our free will. and stepping in would prevent us from being free to choose our reality.

 

however, he has told us for millennia to forgive, to love and to do no wrong. and he has sent messengers like jesus, to show us how to live.

 

and yet we still sit here, focusing our creative energy on fear and hatred and division - thereby actually creating the very conditions we are complaining about - while expecting god to swoop down and wipe it all away.

 

so the answer to your question is this. god doesn't act because WE are god and WE don't act.

 

if we truthfully stopped blaming other people for the mess on this planet and decided to change the only thing we can change - ourselves - evil would cease to exist.

 

we are all children of god, given power to change the conditions on this planet. and evil exists because we allow it to.

 

yes, it is A LOT easier to blame someone else, some ultimate authority for the problems on this planet. that way we don't have to change ourselves.

 

but god is not responsible for the problems on this planet. we are.

 

THAT'S why god didn't step in to save people in nazi germany, or rwanda, or cambodia, or on 9/11.

 

because doing so would not only violate the law of the universe that allows you to live your life in ignorance and disbelief of him, it would deny you the free will choice to create something that was in opposition to god's vision for this planet.

 

and it is ONLY through that choice which allows you to create hell on earth or the kingdom of god on earth, that you, me, and everyone else, will learn what we are on this planet to learn.

 

and that lesson is: we are all sons and daughters of god who will self-destruct unless we take responsibility for our lives, for our planet and for each other.

 

it is only when we learn that lesson that we begin to truly love each other, overcome evil and begin the long journey home to be one with god.

 

do you understand? god is unconditional love and perfection and cannot therefore create hatred and imperfection.

 

if you want to see an end to evil on this planet, you must, we all must, stop thinking of it as someone else's problem.

 

at its most simple, evil exists because we all allow it to.

 

Whether the Bible is true or not is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is a god. It is a safe bet that He/She/It isn't the one described in the Bible, though.

 

if you carefully consider what i've told you in that long explanation above, you will see that this is a very astute thing to say.

[Joelle]

Moai, I agree with you. You're more eloquent and persuasive than I am.

 

I have read this thread in its entirety, and the OP reiterates the same point, oftentimes even the verbiage is the same.

 

Yes, I do repeat myself because some posters seem to ignore points from my previous posts (or maybe they haven't read my previous posts, which is understandable, as this thread is long).

 

I'll try not to repeat myself anymore.

 

So far, to me, no one here has successfully reconciled the idea of the Virgin Birth with modern science. Truthfully, I don't know how some of you would discredit modern science when you use automobiles, electricity, cell phones, running water, internet, etc. Those are products of modern science, folks. How could you discredit the principles that has bought you those products?? And you place more faith (trust & loyalty) in the Virgin Birth? Not intellectual.

 

Like I said before, people can place their faith in whatever they choose. It's their choice.

 

My next question is: If a doctrine of Christianity is unrealistic/untrue, wouldn't the promises of Christianity be unrealistic/untrue as well?

[blind_otter]

Moai, I agree with you. You're more eloquent and persuasive than I am.

 

 

 

Yes, I do repeat myself because some posters seem to ignore points from my previous posts (or maybe they haven't read my previous posts, which is understandable, as this thread is long).

 

I'll try not to repeat myself anymore.

 

So far, to me, no one here has successfully reconciled the idea of the Virgin Birth with modern science. Truthfully, I don't know how some of you would discredit modern science when you use automobiles, electricity, cell phones, running water, internet, etc. Those are products of modern science, folks. How could you discredit the principles that has bought you those products?? And you place more faith (trust & loyalty) in the Virgin Birth? Not intellectual.

 

 

Yeah, um. Ok. Here's the deal. Cell phones and electricity aren't really something that most people attribute to supernatural forces. So, you know. Apples and oranges.

 

Also, I've said this before, but trying to scientifically explain a supernatural event is like attributing the cause of a chemical reaction to the hand of God. Again, apples and oranges.

 

I really encourage you to wikipedia this information because AFAIK you started this thread to bash on christianity, not to really authentically debate, because I've seen a lot of people answer your questions quite "intellectually", even citing their sources (thanks be), and you kinda just gloss over them or ignore them completely.

 

I'm just SAYING.

[Joelle]

I really encourage you to wikipedia this information because AFAIK you started this thread to bash on christianity, not to really authentically debate, because I've seen a lot of people answer your questions quite "intellectually", even citing their sources (thanks be), and you kinda just gloss over them or ignore them completely.

 

I guess you and I have different definitions of "intellectual." My definition of intellectual relates to rational evidence, not based on emotions, subjective experiences, or mystical thinking.

 

I think you're confusing "reasonable" to "intellectual." I think many posters were reasonable in their thinking, as they provided reasons for their beliefs, but their evidence was not rational. Thus, their beliefs were "reasonable" but not "intellectual."

 

Also, I regret that I come across as bashing Christians. I was reacting to some harsh posts against me. I will restrain my tone.

[burning 4 revenge]

I guess you and I have different definitions of "intellectual." My definition of intellectual relates to rational evidence, not based on emotions, subjective experiences, or mystical thinking.

 

I think you're confusing "reasonable" to "intellectual." I think many posters were reasonable in their thinking, as they provided reasons for their beliefs, but their evidence was not rational. Thus, their beliefs were "reasonable" but not "intellectual."

 

Also, I regret that I come across as bashing Christians. I was reacting to some harsh posts against me. I will restrain my tone.

 

How can you say your'e not eloquent? That was one of the most eloquent posts I've ever read on LS. Good for you

[The slayer]

I guess you and I have different definitions of "intellectual." My definition of intellectual relates to rational evidence, not based on emotions, subjective experiences, or mystical thinking.

 

I think you're confusing "reasonable" to "intellectual." I think many posters were reasonable in their thinking, as they provided reasons for their beliefs, but their evidence was not rational. Thus, their beliefs were "reasonable" but not "intellectual."

 

Also, I regret that I come across as bashing Christians. I was reacting to some harsh posts against me. I will restrain my tone.

 

Do you really mean that? As it looks as if by your definition noone who studys, philosophy, theology,the arts, anthropology, politics, culture or society could be called an intellectual. None of these disciplines can be based on "rational evidence"

 

What do you mean by "rational evidence"? and can you give an example of something you would consider "intellectual"?

 

To me intellectual means simply using your intellect to think about something, which I would say every poster here has done.

[burning 4 revenge]

most of those things you mentioned utilize rational evidence

[engravefeelthevoid]

It is a rather interresting question...I too am a critical thinker..nowadays we are very aware of our capabilities of proving..and we are familiar with many facts that have been proven wrong due to our scientific strength..technology and mind...that many people don't accept things unless they were proven scientifically....but let's look at it from another angle...what are the chances that jesus was not born from a vergin...was there a person following his mother at all times? if his development in the womb was 9 months..why 9 months? doesn't that number indicate the natural fetus development time period? and how hard it is for us to prove it isn't so....

 

so now we have two points...

1-What are the chances that his mother was inseminated by another person and she hid it? nobody was with her 24/7

 

2-can we prove the previous point? ofcourse not..so it's rather hard to beleive jesus was a born from a vergin..and it is easy to falsify christianity...

[quankanne]

to clarify, one last time "virgin birth" does NOT equal "Immaculate Conception." The former applies to Jesus, the latter to Mary, describing how how each respectively arrived here. For there to be a "virgin birth," Mary had to be spiritually pure to be chose to bear the Christ-child. No stain of sin in her soul so that Jesus wouldn't have the stain of original sin in the human part of his dual nature.

 

The point of my post was asking how Christians (who live in this day and age with running water, electricity, Internet, etc.) how they could place their faith (trust & loyalty) in something that's mystical & magical.

 

unlike B4R's viewpoint that the alternative is unthinkable, I say it works because I don't have a problem with accepting both the real (running water and advances of science) and the spiritual because I am tapped into my spiritual side. My thought is that someone who isn't developed as strongly in their spirituality has a harder time grasping the supernatural that is God, because that person is bound by the five senses that make things make sense. Tapping into the spirituality of something allows you to go past the natural (what you see, hear, taste, smell or feel) into the supernatural, so that "real" isn't mutually exclusive to "supernatural."

 

Modern science depends on an enourmous amount of faith, acceptance in the "truth" of theories. Pure mathematics itself, which provides the possibility of stating E=mc2 is all based upon a set of assumptions.

 

exactly! We've put all our faith into those definitions we've assigned to what we consider "absolutes" so much so that we take it for granted that it is the only answer available. Six time five will always equal thirty. Why? Because it's a mathematical truth we accept. But what if somewhere else in the universe, the result is different, and we learn of it? Is our belief rendered obsolete, or do we accommodate the new answer while still holding our own?

[Joelle]

To me intellectual means simply using your intellect to think about something, which I would say every poster here has done.

 

At the risk of repeating myself , I think you and I have different definitions of "intellectual."

 

Truthfully, I am unable to clarify myself anymore than I did in post #119. I already explained it to the best of my ability.

 

How can you say your'e not eloquent? That was one of the most eloquent posts I've ever read on LS. Good for you

 

Thank you. You're very kind to say that! Alas, as you can see, there some that still don't understand me.