Christ Was Born from a Virgin?

[Nicholas]

The concept you are questioning is called virgin birth. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend, but it's not a difficult concept to question either, considering the fact that everyone else on the planet has two mortal parents. Many people confuse virgin birth with the Immaculate Conception, which actually has to do with Mary's conception and not Christ's.

 

Virgin birth is a pervasive myth and it has existed long before the Christ story, at least in the Christian incarnation. Both Christians and Muslims profess a belief in Jesus Christ being born this way, though some Christians renounce it. Many Christians, especially those of anti-Catholic sentiment, consider it their prerogative to slander Mary in such renunciations.

 

The Church (R.C.) explains that Christ was concieved "ex nihilo" (from nothing) and that this is a miracle only possible with divine intervention. The fact that it is both uncommon and biologically unlikely is shrugged off by its consideration as a miracle. Most miracles involve the suspension or distortion of physical constraints--consider that creating loaves and fishes violates the law of conservation of mass and that walking on water sidesteps the law of gravity. Realize also that if Jesus' conception and birth seem to violate the unyielding rules of biology, so does the idea that he could be executed without remaining forever dead.

 

The notion that Christianity's validity as a religion rests upon the accuracy of our account of Mary's sex life is ridiculous. For someone, especially someone with only a superficial understanding of religious mythology, to proclaim "A true Christian must accept the Virgin Birth," is sort of upsetting.

 

Christianity's value as a belief system rests upon the idea that through unconditional love of God and fellow humans you can inspire similar love and goodwill in others, to a point where the "Kingdom of God" is created on Earth! The traditions, including all the stories in the Bible and all legends and myths associated with the history of the great covenant between humans and God, are for the enrichment of the community of faith.

 

If you look at the miracles Jesus performed, he usually did them to reward people's faith, not to confirm them. He was never providing evidence of his divinity, and the miracles are more a facet of his reputation than his ministry.

 

The virgin birth is supposed to be mythically indicative of Christ's greatness from birth, and it is supposed to indict God as the source of that greatness. If, instead of drawing that literary conclusion from the infancy narratives, you are distressed to the point of doubt, you should simply ignore it. The sum of Christian miracles are supposed to be reflections of the goodness of God, but in no way is God's goodness supposed to be derived from those miracles.

 

One can be of original sin and still be sinless. We all were at one point. if you believe that sort of thing.

 

Original sin is still sin. Christ was without sin on account of his divinity. Mary was without sin on account of the Immaculate Conception. The rest of us are stained with original sin, the debt of which Christ paid with his death. If you believe that sort of thing.

 

Now, at the risk of being flamed and criticized, how is accepting the Virginal Birth different from believing in fables of unicorns & mermaids?

 

It's not any different, except that virgin birth has religious significance to some, and mythical significance in general. Unicorns and mermaids are artifacts of fantasy, and though equally unbelievable to some, they are not as important to human knowledge as a whole.

 

Additionally, though there is not scientific evidence confirming virgin birth, science would have no way, at this point, to determine Christ's paternity. That is a much greater uncertainty than the notion that mermaids and unicorns have evaded paleontologists for centuries, and thus, though there is no evidence for either, there is more evidence against the latter.

 

As you may know, I have a very rational side. Sadly, for me, upon examination, Christianity does not give me peace of mind. One of it's fundamental facts (the bedrock one) is irrational and impossible to me.

 

That is sad, yes, but not rational. It is not rational to demand academic rigor to prove miracles, and it's instead a misleading approach to the study of religion, whether for scholarship or peace of mind. The virgin birth is hardly the "bedrock" doctrine of Christianity, and it was never presented as a fact. The reality that you misread a work of spiritually significant literature as a textbook of facts is not a testament to your rational side.

 

I read somewhere that when the Bible mentions "born of a virgin" they are referring to a cultural practice where a man and woman are married, and for a year do not consumate. Because Mary got pregnant within that time, she was still in her Virgin year, and so was a "virgin" when Jesus was born. Now we have a different idea of what virginity is, but try to force the conecpt of the Virgin Birth into our cultural understanding.

 

That is interesting; however, its inconsistent with the infancy narrative. In the Gospel, Mary specifically asserts that she has not had sex with anyone, and the angel has to make a special trip to inform Joseph, to whom she was not yet married, that it's alright that his faithful bride is already pregnant.

 

Looking back at this post, it's difficult for me to believe that the virgin birth is the one damning piece of evidence against Christianity. If we must have exhausting evidence for every miracle, is there anything in the Bible that is "rationally" acceptable? Can we believe that Moses parted the Red Sea? Can we believe that Christ reanimated Lazarus?

 

I think if you believe in a supernatural power, you have to be okay with the power sometimes manifesting itself supernaturally. If you can't reconcile certain natural realities (to the extent that you know them) with certain supernatural observations (whether first or second hand), your trouble is understandable, but not particularly admirable. Atheism is not a fast-track route to intellectualism, and faith does not exclude you from intellect.

 

Faith is a challenge, not a liability nor a comfort. Your challenge is to derive meaning, it is not to determine factuality. If you're reading religious texts the same way you read scientific texts, you aren't meeting that challenge.

[Moai]

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.

 

Sure. That is probably the most rational thing to do. But then, that means that Jesus isn't Divine.

[Moai]

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 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.

 

I edited out your post for the sake of brevity.

 

All of what you wrote could certainly be true. But it isn't Christianity.

 

And that is the point of this thread, I think. If Jesus came to Earth to die for our sins etc. then He MUST NOT have Original Sin in Him. Hence not being a product of sex (the men who wrote the Bible were REALLY wigged out about sex).

 

Every belief system has a set of rules. You stray from the rules, you are no longer operating within that belief system. Science has rules. Electronics has rules. Web pages have rules.

 

Anyone can make up any religion they want. They could even call it Christianity. But in order to consider yourself a believer in BIBLICAL Christianity you have to accept all the assumptions necessary to make it work.

[Joelle]

And that is the point of this thread, I think. If Jesus came to Earth to die for our sins etc. then He MUST NOT have Original Sin in Him. Hence not being a product of sex (the men who wrote the Bible were REALLY wigged out about sex).

 

Yes, yes, that's the point of my thread. Thank you for putting it in a nutshell!

 

Every belief system has a set of rules. You stray from the rules, you are no longer operating within that belief system. Science has rules. Electronics has rules. Web pages have rules.

 

Anyone can make up any religion they want. They could even call it Christianity. But in order to consider yourself a believer in BIBLICAL Christianity you have to accept all the assumptions necessary to make it work.

 

Yes, I completely agree with you. That was another point I was trying (and kind of failed) to make.

[Moai]

The concept you are questioning is called virgin birth. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend, but it's not a difficult concept to question either, considering the fact that everyone else on the planet has two mortal parents. Many people confuse virgin birth with the Immaculate Conception, which actually has to do with Mary's conception and not Christ's.

 

Yep.

 

Virgin birth is a pervasive myth and it has existed long before the Christ story, at least in the Christian incarnation. Both Christians and Muslims profess a belief in Jesus Christ being born this way, though some Christians renounce it. Many Christians, especially those of anti-Catholic sentiment, consider it their prerogative to slander Mary in such renunciations.

 

They renounce it because it is hard to accept such a thing, but the fact remains Jesus doesn't work without it.

 

The Church (R.C.) explains that Christ was concieved "ex nihilo" (from nothing) and that this is a miracle only possible with divine intervention. The fact that it is both uncommon and biologically unlikely is shrugged off by its consideration as a miracle. Most miracles involve the suspension or distortion of physical constraints--consider that creating loaves and fishes violates the law of conservation of mass and that walking on water sidesteps the law of gravity. Realize also that if Jesus' conception and birth seem to violate the unyielding rules of biology, so does the idea that he could be executed without remaining forever dead.

 

Yep.

 

The notion that Christianity's validity as a religion rests upon the accuracy of our account of Mary's sex life is ridiculous. For someone, especially someone with only a superficial understanding of religious mythology, to proclaim "A true Christian must accept the Virgin Birth," is sort of upsetting.

 

Upsetting, but also true. You also have to accepts the sun stopping in the sky, a global flood, the fact that if a cow sees dark sticks it will have spotted offspring and on and on and on.

 

Christianity's value as a belief system rests upon the idea that through unconditional love of God and fellow humans you can inspire similar love and goodwill in others, to a point where the "Kingdom of God" is created on Earth! The traditions, including all the stories in the Bible and all legends and myths associated with the history of the great covenant between humans and God, are for the enrichment of the community of faith.

 

Most of the stories in the Bible aren't about "unconditional love", but rather murder and oppression of those who are not believers.

 

If you look at the miracles Jesus performed, he usually did them to reward people's faith, not to confirm them. He was never providing evidence of his divinity, and the miracles are more a facet of his reputation than his ministry.

 

Quite a few of them were dome at random as well. I often think of the miracle of Jesus casting out demons. A young woman, I think, was demon possessed, so Jesus cast the demons into some pigs, and they drowned themselves. No record is made as to whether or not the farmer was compensated for the loss of his livestock, which I find funny. I also wonder why there aren't demons any more. It seems at one point they were everywhere, and now there aren't any.

 

The virgin birth is supposed to be mythically indicative of Christ's greatness from birth, and it is supposed to indict God as the source of that greatness. If, instead of drawing that literary conclusion from the infancy narratives, you are distressed to the point of doubt, you should simply ignore it. The sum of Christian miracles are supposed to be reflections of the goodness of God, but in no way is God's goodness supposed to be derived from those miracles.

 

Why ignore it? Why not reject it? I don't think that any of the miracles as described in the Bible happened.

 

One can be of original sin and still be sinless. We all were at one point. if you believe that sort of thing.

 

Original sin is still sin. Christ was without sin on account of his divinity. Mary was without sin on account of the Immaculate Conception. The rest of us are stained with original sin, the debt of which Christ paid with his death. If you believe that sort of thing.

 

Now, at the risk of being flamed and criticized, how is accepting the Virginal Birth different from believing in fables of unicorns & mermaids?

 

It's not any different, except that virgin birth has religious significance to some, and mythical significance in general. Unicorns and mermaids are artifacts of fantasy, and though equally unbelievable to some, they are not as important to human knowledge as a whole.

 

They aren't different. Christianity doesn't contribute to human knowledge at all, either. It sets out to explain certain spiritual questions (badly, IMO), but that's about it.

 

Additionally, though there is not scientific evidence confirming virgin birth, science would have no way, at this point, to determine Christ's paternity. That is a much greater uncertainty than the notion that mermaids and unicorns have evaded paleontologists for centuries, and thus, though there is no evidence for either, there is more evidence against the latter.

 

Interesting point. It is said that the two different geneologies given for Jesus consist of one for Mary and one for Joseph. That makes me wonder why bother to include a family tree for a man who isn't Jesus' father in the first place.

 

As you may know, I have a very rational side. Sadly, for me, upon examination, Christianity does not give me peace of mind. One of it's fundamental facts (the bedrock one) is irrational and impossible to me.

 

That is sad, yes, but not rational. It is not rational to demand academic rigor to prove miracles, and it's instead a misleading approach to the study of religion, whether for scholarship or peace of mind. The virgin birth is hardly the "bedrock" doctrine of Christianity, and it was never presented as a fact. The reality that you misread a work of spiritually significant literature as a textbook of facts is not a testament to your rational side.

 

The whole Bible is presented as fact. The question is, why accept the spiritual claims in a book that obviously lacks common sense?

 

I read somewhere that when the Bible mentions "born of a virgin" they are referring to a cultural practice where a man and woman are married, and for a year do not consumate. Because Mary got pregnant within that time, she was still in her Virgin year, and so was a "virgin" when Jesus was born. Now we have a different idea of what virginity is, but try to force the conecpt of the Virgin Birth into our cultural understanding.

 

That is interesting; however, its inconsistent with the infancy narrative. In the Gospel, Mary specifically asserts that she has not had sex with anyone, and the angel has to make a special trip to inform Joseph, to whom she was not yet married, that it's alright that his faithful bride is already pregnant.

 

The Gospels were written so long after the fact that it is impossible to say what Mary herself asserted. She may have been lying. She may not ahve said anything.

 

Looking back at this post, it's difficult for me to believe that the virgin birth is the one damning piece of evidence against Christianity. If we must have exhausting evidence for every miracle, is there anything in the Bible that is "rationally" acceptable? Can we believe that Moses parted the Red Sea? Can we believe that Christ reanimated Lazarus?

 

It isn't the "one", it is one among many. And the answer to all your questions above is "no".

 

I think if you believe in a supernatural power, you have to be okay with the power sometimes manifesting itself supernaturally. If you can't reconcile certain natural realities (to the extent that you know them) with certain supernatural observations (whether first or second hand), your trouble is understandable, but not particularly admirable. Atheism is not a fast-track route to intellectualism, and faith does not exclude you from intellect.

 

Faith is a challenge, not a liability nor a comfort. Your challenge is to derive meaning, it is not to determine factuality. If you're reading religious texts the same way you read scientific texts, you aren't meeting that challenge.

 

True. However, in the case of the Bible, it MUST be true in order for Jesus to be Divine, not just some guy with a few good ideas.

 

If you are a believer, you are an atheist, too. It's just that as an actual atheist, I reject one more god than you do. Notice that you assume that the Christian god is the only one, as if it is a zero-sum game, when in fact it is not.

[Nicholas]

But then, that means that Jesus isn't Divine.

 

The mystery of Christ is that he was both fully human and fully divine. I understand that, as a skeptic, you have little interest in this paradox, but you are not equipped to debunk it with a single detail about Mary's sex life.

 

The theological doctrine of Christ's divinity does not rest on his birth. The sperm of Joseph (or anyone else--gasp!) does not negate the Assumption of the Holy Spirit.

 

If Jesus came to Earth to die for our sins etc. then He MUST NOT have Original Sin in Him. Hence not being a product of sex

 

Original Sin has absolutely nothing to do with sex. Consider that Mary's parents had hot biblical sex with each other, and still produced a child free of original sin.

 

Every belief system has a set of rules.

 

You are not accurately representing the rules of Christianity, and from what I can see you are a misleading arbiter of what is Christian. You have a superficial understanding of Christian concepts, but not enough to be deciding what is and what is not true Christianity, in my opinion.

[bluetuesday]

All of what you wrote could certainly be true. But it isn't Christianity.

 

in fact what i wrote IS christian. but you won't find it in the bible, which has sadly become the yardstick most of the world measures jesus christ by. and if it's not in there it must automatically be wrong. this is so illogical and so tragic i can't even find the words to express it.

 

and we're here arguing about whether jesus was born of a virgin, and stressing about whether that can be proved or whether it's a matter of faith, and all the time we're missing the fact that jesus IS alive today, in spirit, and will tell people the answers to their questions right now if they seek him and ask.

 

it's just such a great shame that the people who created christianity didn't think to ask the guy whose name they're using what HE wanted people to know and think about him. jesus could be furious about the way christianity is operating in his name, but the world wouldn't know because it thinks that unless that fury is in the good book, it can't possibly be true.

 

sheesh. someone get me a brick wall.

[Moai]

But then, that means that Jesus isn't Divine.

 

The mystery of Christ is that he was both fully human and fully divine. I understand that, as a skeptic, you have little interest in this paradox, but you are not equipped to debunk it with a single detail about Mary's sex life.

 

The theological doctrine of Christ's divinity does not rest on his birth. The sperm of Joseph (or anyone else--gasp!) does not negate the Assumption of the Holy Spirit.

 

If Jesus came to Earth to die for our sins etc. then He MUST NOT have Original Sin in Him. Hence not being a product of sex

 

Original Sin has absolutely nothing to do with sex. Consider that Mary's parents had hot biblical sex with each other, and still produced a child free of original sin.

 

Every belief system has a set of rules.

 

You are not accurately representing the rules of Christianity, and from what I can see you are a misleading arbiter of what is Christian. You have a superficial understanding of Christian concepts, but not enough to be deciding what is and what is not true Christianity, in my opinion.

 

I actually have a very deep understanding of Christianity, in its various forms. My father was a Baptist minister, and I attended a Jesuit college, where I was taught Formation Of Christian Doctrine, The Reformation, etc.

 

If the Virgin Birth is not central to Christianity, why include the story in the book? I didn't make that up as a challenge for Jesus' Divinity, those who wrote the Bible considered it central to explaining why Jesus was special.

 

I have no interest in the paradox of Jesus' humanity and Divinity, as I don't think there is such a thing as "Divinity". That is a question for Christians to ponder--which they have done, with less than satisfying results. Hence them still being at it.

 

Mary and Joseph could not have had sex with each other before Jesus was born. That would mean that the Bible is incorrect. And, if the Bible is incorrect about that, can't we then ask what ELSE the Bible describes incorrectly?

 

My point is if you can't accept the Virgin Birth, don't think that the Earth was created in six days, or any other story in the Bible you don't like, why keep any of it?

 

Ask yourself this question: If you are engaged to a woman who confesses virginity and shows up at your house pregnant (and you never had sex with her) would you believe her when she said that she didn't either? Why or why not?

[Nicholas]

Upsetting, but also true.

 

I meant upsetting to mean that it's offensive to hear self-proclaimed experts deciding what is and what is not Christian, not upsetting in that it's so true it distresses me.

 

Regardless, you are no longer engaging in discussion. Instead, you see Christianity as some sort of intellectual enemy that you've valliantly defeated by poking holes in the infancy narrative.

 

As with most atheists, you intentionally do not study religion, and thus when you don't get it, it's our fault. It's equally frustrating to see an Atheist attempt to debunk religious concepts that they not only do not understand but possess absolutely no desire to learn about than it is to read a stubborn Creationist ask why there are still monkeys.

 

Why ignore it? Why not reject it?

 

Go ahead. Your rejection of the virgin birth is not some quantum leap in human knowledge.

 

This Dan Brown notion that Christianity can be destroyed by casting doubt on a single story in the Bible is misinformed if not delusional.

 

Some atheists understand Christianity, they just don't believe in it. You are not one of those people.

 

If you are a believer, you are an atheist, too. It's just that as an actual atheist, I reject one more god than you do.

 

It's a cute buzzphrase, but that's it. An atheist believes that God does not exist, which is the exact antonym of someone who believes in God. The fact that you believe in one less God than I do makes all the difference. I do not disbelieve in other religions, I simply have no opinion on them.

[Moai]

in fact what i wrote IS christian. but you won't find it in the bible, which has sadly become the yardstick most of the world measures jesus christ by. and if it's not in there it must automatically be wrong. this is so illogical and so tragic i can't even find the words to express it.

 

So you can add to and take away from the Bible as you see fit? That's news to me. That's also a no-no according to the Bible. What other information do you have that you consider Christian?

 

and we're here arguing about whether jesus was born of a virgin, and stressing about whether that can be proved or whether it's a matter of faith, and all the time we're missing the fact that jesus IS alive today, in spirit, and will tell people the answers to their questions right now if they seek him and ask.

 

It can't be proven. That isn't the point, I don't think. I think that the point of this thread is how a believer can believe such a thing, considering how outlandishly impossible such a thing is. It is certainly a matter of faith. A whopper of a leap of faith, IMO.

 

What if I ask Jesus if what you say is true, and He tells me it isn't?

 

it's just such a great shame that the people who created christianity didn't think to ask the guy whose name they're using what HE wanted people to know and think about him. jesus could be furious about the way christianity is operating in his name, but the world wouldn't know because it thinks that unless that fury is in the good book, it can't possibly be true.

 

sheesh. someone get me a brick wall.

 

We only have the Bible to tell us what to know and think about Him. And, if Jesus is so furious AND still alive, why isn't He doing anything about it?

[Joelle]

Mary and Joseph could not have had sex with each other before Jesus was born. That would mean that the Bible is incorrect. And, if the Bible is incorrect about that, can't we then ask what ELSE the Bible describes incorrectly?

 

Yes, another point I tried (and failed) to make.

 

Ask yourself this question: If you are engaged to a woman who confesses virginity and shows up at your house pregnant (and you never had sex with her) would you believe her when she said that she didn't either? Why or why not?

 

I asked this same question to some Christian males, and their answers were weak.

 

From now on, my posts will say "Yeah, what Moai said."

[burning 4 revenge]

as stated many times before, it seems perfectly obvious that the virgin birth story is an appropriation of the demigod status that was a very prevelent concept in the ancient world

 

the interesting question is, did jesus himself claim it. we'll never know for sure but i suspect he did

[Nicholas]

the fact remains Jesus doesn't work without it.

 

You can't say "the fact remains," unless a fact has actually been presented. The idea that Jesus cannot be divine without having been born from a virgin is not theologically sound, therefore it cannot be presented as fact.

 

I actually have a very deep understanding of Christianity, in its various forms. My father was a Baptist minister, and I attended a Jesuit college, where I was taught Formation Of Christian Doctrine, The Reformation, etc.

 

Your "deep understanding" is not evident from your posts. Instead, you seem to be debating evasively to mask key misunderstandings about theology, religion, and sacred text.

 

If the Virgin Birth is not central to Christianity, why include the story in the book?

 

Some Gospels included it, some did not. None of the Gospels pass the infancy narrative off as eyewitness, which is why no Gospel writer is mentioned to have attended the birth, let alone the Assumption. Very little of the Gospel is presented as a blow-by-blow of what happened. Scriptural study is not simple, and the fact that you have access to biblical text does not mean you are equipped to interpret it, let alone debunk it.

 

I didn't make that up as a challenge for Jesus' Divinity, those who wrote the Bible considered it central to explaining why Jesus was special.

 

That's not why it was included. The Gospels were not written to explain why Jesus was special. Jesus is a character in a story about God's relationship with man, not the subject of an exhaustively researched biography.

 

I have no interest in the paradox of Jesus' humanity and Divinity, as I don't think there is such a thing as "Divinity". That is a question for Christians to ponder--which they have done, with less than satisfying results. Hence them still being at it.

 

If you have no interest in the paradox, why are you intent on debunking it?

 

The reality is that you are interested in it, but not enough to actually research it, just enough to criticize our attempts to relate it to you.

 

My point is if you can't accept the Virgin Birth, don't think that the Earth was created in six days, or any other story in the Bible you don't like, why keep any of it?

 

Oh, you see, that's a question for Christians to ponder.

 

There are two possibilities.

 

1) Religion is complex and the scholarship thereof is an actual discipline; theological concepts require more than bathroom reading, and an actual interest (though not neccesarily a belief) in religion is required to properly study these concepts.

 

2) All Christians are idiots, and the smart Christians secretly know Christianity is BS, they just haven't gotten around to formally renouncing it yet.

 

I know as an Atheist you lean towards number two. If that's the case, any discussion between theists and atheists is futile.

 

Ask yourself this question: If you are engaged to a woman who confesses virginity and shows up at your house pregnant (and you never had sex with her) would you believe her when she said that she didn't either? Why or why not?

 

I wouldn't believe her. If an Angel of God came upon me and instilled within me the peace of God, I might answer differently, as Joseph did.

 

It's fine if you don't believe the stories, but if you're going to tell them, you should at least tell them right.

[bluetuesday]

So you can add to and take away from the Bible as you see fit? That's news to me. That's also a no-no according to the Bible.

 

you're making the (mistaken) assumption that all christians think the bible is literally accurate and the complete and utter word of god. of course 'according to the bible' you can't take stuff away from the bible or add to it. you can't expect the bible to argue against itself. the bible contains many contradictions, flaws, allegories, fables and metaphores that lots and lots of christians accept as not being fact. it's a religious document, not a factual account of the creation of the world or the relationship between man and god.

 

What if I ask Jesus if what you say is true, and He tells me it isn't?

 

please do. you should never believe what i say. always check sources. that's the first rule of using the brain god gave you. to answer your question fully i would need to talk to you about progressive revelation and the meaning of the word 'true'.

 

And, if Jesus is so furious AND still alive, why isn't He doing anything about it?

 

you think because he isn't knocking on your door or turning up on david letterman he's doing nothing?!

[burning 4 revenge]

if you don't believe in the bible, why do you believe jesus is god?

 

did he come talk to you, or something, because he has some explaining to do

[Moai]

Upsetting, but also true.

 

I meant upsetting to mean that it's offensive to hear self-proclaimed experts deciding what is and what is not Christian, not upsetting in that it's so true it distresses me.

 

I never said I was an expert, but I have read the book in question, and I am not an idiot. Aren't I supposed to interpret the Bible for myself anyway? Isn't that the point? If it isn't why read the Bible at all?

 

Regardless, you are no longer engaging in discussion. Instead, you see Christianity as some sort of intellectual enemy that you've valliantly defeated by poking holes in the infancy narrative.

 

Not at all. I don't believe in the infancy narrative (I don't believe in any of it, actually). But whether I believe it or not won't (and shouldn't) effect the attitudes of a believer one iota.

 

As with most atheists, you intentionally do not study religion, and thus when you don't get it, it's our fault. It's equally frustrating to see an Atheist attempt to debunk religious concepts that they not only do not understand but possess absolutely no desire to learn about than it is to read a stubborn Creationist ask why there are still monkeys.

 

I am not being stubborn. AND I have studied religion extensively, I just don't believe it. Have you studied all of the religions you so happily reject in favor of yours? I'm sorry that you haven't raised a point I haven't come across a thousand times, but that isn't my fault. Blame your material.

 

If your particualr brand of Christianity allows you to accept the easy things and reject the hard things, good for you. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. I'll ask again: Why do reject certain things and not others? How do you know what is ok to reject and what isn't?

 

Why ignore it? Why not reject it?

 

Go ahead. Your rejection of the virgin birth is not some quantum leap in human knowledge.

 

This Dan Brown notion that Christianity can be destroyed by casting doubt on a single story in the Bible is misinformed if not delusional.

 

Some atheists understand Christianity, they just don't believe in it. You are not one of those people.

 

I think I understand it fine. I never claimed that debunking one story debunks the whole thing (although it does start the process), we just happen to be discussing one aspect on this thread.

 

I am not attempting to "destroy" anything. Why do you feel so persecuted by someone who only disagress with you? And why lump me in with other people, instead of just addressing what I wrote? Is it that you can't answer my questions (which is what I think it is) or YOU don't understand Christianity well enough to think of something original.

 

And it isn't just Dan Brown or me or atheists that think the whole book must be true for any of it to be true. Creationism would not exist if Christians didn't believe that, too.

 

Protestants have very different ideas about the Bible than do Catholics. I am sure that whichever brand of faith to which you subscribe is "right" and the other is misguided and "wrong". They just don't get it. They aren't interested in Christianity at all, right?

 

If you are a believer, you are an atheist, too. It's just that as an actual atheist, I reject one more god than you do.

 

It's a cute buzzphrase, but that's it. An atheist believes that God does not exist, which is the exact antonym of someone who believes in God. The fact that you believe in one less God than I do makes all the difference. I do not disbelieve in other religions, I simply have no opinion on them.

 

Sure you do. You reject them. Do you have a statue of Shiva in your house? Why not? Do you pray six times a day facing East? Why not? You have no opinion on them because you have never studied them and you have never studied them because you reject them out of hand. But god forbid someone reject YOUR belief system, or ask you to explain it.

 

I don't believe that any human being at any time was conceived without a sperm and egg. I also don't believe that people rise from the dead--especially after three days.

 

It is also you who entered the arena of discourse to rationally explain the unexplainable. If you had said, "Well, I believe in the Virigin Birht because the bible says it and I have faith that the Bible is true" there is no discussion. Faith is unassailable. BUt in attempting to explain it, you have to bcak up your statements with something approaching rational thought and logic. It would look better for you if instead of getting angry and frustrated with me, you just answered the questions.

[Joelle]

"Well, I believe in the Virigin Birht because the bible says it and I have faith that the Bible is true" there is no discussion. Faith is unassailable.

 

Moai, this shows you're kinder than me. For me, if a Christian told me that, it would NOT be the end of discussion. To me, faith is not unassailable, as I view faith as a choice - a choice to place trust & loyalty. I would ask,"Why not believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy, too? Like Jesus, they're supernatural. With God, ANYTHING is possible. They're miracles, too!"

[Moai]

the fact remains Jesus doesn't work without it.

 

You can't say "the fact remains," unless a fact has actually been presented. The idea that Jesus cannot be divine without having been born from a virgin is not theologically sound, therefore it cannot be presented as fact.

 

Jesus must have been without sin in order for His sacrifice on the cross to have any bearing on saving anyone. Isn't that central to Christianity, that Jesus died for our sins?

 

I actually have a very deep understanding of Christianity, in its various forms. My father was a Baptist minister, and I attended a Jesuit college, where I was taught Formation Of Christian Doctrine, The Reformation, etc.

 

Your "deep understanding" is not evident from your posts. Instead, you seem to be debating evasively to mask key misunderstandings about theology, religion, and sacred text.

 

Really? Where? You and I disagree about whether the Virgin Birth is central to Christianity, which is fine. I'll ask again: If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, then how could He be without sin--as it is through this that Original Sin is transmitted?

 

 

Some Gospels included it, some did not. None of the Gospels pass the infancy narrative off as eyewitness, which is why no Gospel writer is mentioned to have attended the birth, let alone the Assumption. Very little of the Gospel is presented as a blow-by-blow of what happened. Scriptural study is not simple, and the fact that you have access to biblical text does not mean you are equipped to interpret it, let alone debunk it.

 

If that were true, why bother to translate the Bible into English, since I'll never understand it in the first place? And why do the Gospels differ so much? I agree that study of scripture is difficult. Making sense of it could take a lifetime. Christian scholars are STILL AT IT. This begs the question as to why something that was put here to save all mankind is so difficult to grasp...

 

I have also read a great many commentaries on the Bible by "experts". Why are they not qualified to interpret the Bible? Is the concordance in my NIV wrong? If so, why? Because they disagree with you?

 

I didn't make that up as a challenge for Jesus' Divinity, those who wrote the Bible considered it central to explaining why Jesus was special.

 

That's not why it was included. The Gospels were not written to explain why Jesus was special. Jesus is a character in a story about God's relationship with man, not the subject of an exhaustively researched biography.

 

Then why include His geneology? And if Jesus is a character in a story, fine, but doesn't that also mean He was no Divine, then? I think all of the stories in the Gospels are included in order to demonstrate that Jesus was, in fact, Divine. But maybe I lack the tools to interpret it correctly. Me and millions of other people, obviously.

 

I have no interest in the paradox of Jesus' humanity and Divinity, as I don't think there is such a thing as "Divinity". That is a question for Christians to ponder--which they have done, with less than satisfying results. Hence them still being at it.

 

If you have no interest in the paradox, why are you intent on debunking it?

 

I am not. I am participating in a discussion forum relating to the idea. All I maintain is that Jesus MUST have been born of a Virgin, or He wasn't Divine.

 

It seems you don't accept the Virgin Birth, yet you believe Christ Divine. How? Why? And if you reject the virgin birth, what else do you rejct, and why?

 

The reality is that you are interested in it, but not enough to actually research it, just enough to criticize our attempts to relate it to you.

 

How have I been critical? I am only asking questions.

 

My point is if you can't accept the Virgin Birth, don't think that the Earth was created in six days, or any other story in the Bible you don't like, why keep any of it?

 

Oh, you see, that's a question for Christians to ponder.

 

There are two possibilities.

 

1) Religion is complex and the scholarship thereof is an actual discipline; theological concepts require more than bathroom reading, and an actual interest (though not neccesarily a belief) in religion is required to properly study these concepts.

 

True. However, one can study religion and not believe it. I used to be a believer, but I read the book for myself and now I reject it. I would imagine that most if not all the men studying religion actualy are believers. ANd that's great. The paradoxes with regards to religion are difficult if not impossible to explain. But, if someone wants to dedicate his life to such a thing, good for them.

 

To attempt to belittle me or my opinion simply is certainly your right, but also misguided. Greater men than I have raised these exact same questions. I have read many of them. I have also read extensively on the nature of belief--Michael Shermer's "How We Believe" is great, by the way. He has a Phd, by the way. IS he equipped to interpret the Bible? How can I tell who is and who isn't? And what if I'm wrong? Will I go to Hell anyway?

 

2) All Christians are idiots, and the smart Christians secretly know Christianity is BS, they just haven't gotten around to formally renouncing it yet.

 

I never said Christians are idiots. Some are, some aren't. Someone can be very bright and still believe nutty things. Beyond that, religion isn't about being smart or dumb, it is about faith. I do think that if most Christians actually studied what their belief system entails they would reject it. But most don't know or care, and so what? Someone can be a Christian and never open the Bible for himself, and that's fine with me.

 

I know as an Atheist you lean towards number two. If that's the case, any discussion between theists and atheists is futile.

 

Nope. Start questioning what you know. It is intersting that you do to atheists what you (wrongly) accuse me of doing to Christians.

 

Ask yourself this question: If you are engaged to a woman who confesses virginity and shows up at your house pregnant (and you never had sex with her) would you believe her when she said that she didn't either? Why or why not?

 

I wouldn't believe her. If an Angel of God came upon me and instilled within me the peace of God, I might answer differently, as Joseph did.

 

It's fine if you don't believe the stories, but if you're going to tell them, you should at least tell them right.

 

When did I tell them wrong? I didn't recall relating one Bible story specifically. And by your above statement, you do accept the Virgin Birth. That's cool. Why?

[bluetuesday]

if you don't believe in the bible, why do you believe jesus is god?

 

did he come talk to you, or something, because he has some explaining to do

 

i always wonder what people mean when they use the phrase 'don't believe in the bible'. i don't think the bible is the complete word of god, but i believe that much of the new testament is a great guide for how to live a good life and get to know god better.

 

i believe that jesus was divine, but not in the way the bible tells it. i believe we are all sons and daughters of god and that jesus was an exceptionally good example of how to live.

 

yes, jesus came to talk to me. he didn't turn up at my door with a bottle of wine and a dvd. he is a spiritual being. he speaks through the subconscious and the conscious mind in a way that you're aware it's not YOU who's thinking the thoughts you're having.

 

but explaining it is like trying to explain what it feels like to go bungy jumping. words don't come close to replicating the feeling.

[Moai]

Moai, this shows you're kinder than me. For me, if a Christian told me that, it would NOT be the end of discussion. To me, faith is not unassailable, as I view faith as a choice - a choice to place trust & loyalty. I would ask,"Why not believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy, too? Like Jesus, they're supernatural. With God, ANYTHING is possible. They're miracles, too!"

 

Well, I would still be fascinated, and I would start asking all sorts of questions, but I would do my best to leave science and biology out of it.

 

Not having faith, I don't understand what someone who has it gets out of it.

[Moai]

Yes, another point I tried (and failed) to make.

 

 

 

I asked this same question to some Christian males, and their answers were weak.

 

From now on, my posts will say "Yeah, what Moai said."

 

You are so sweet!

[Nicholas]

if you don't believe in the bible, why do you believe jesus is god?

 

There is a difference between not believing that the Bible is a collection of irrefutable facts, as if titled "The Bible: A Canonical History of Biblical Times," and rejecting the teachings of the Bible.

 

Sacred text is not intended to be studied the same way one would study historical text. Treating the Bible as a historical and objective text is a red herring, and arguing against its value by attacking its accuracy is a straw man argument.

 

I never said I was an expert, but I have read the book in question, and I am not an idiot.

 

What do you mean when you say you have read the book in question? The Gospel? The entire Bible? What language did you read it in? How old were you? What were you thinking about at the time? What background research had you done? Reading the Bible for prayer and studying it for knowledge are different.

 

Have you studied all of the religions you so happily reject in favor of yours?

 

What religions have I rejected?

 

I think I understand it fine.

 

You don't though. You misunderstand it at a fundamental level, the very second you asserted that the fact that miracles defy rational explanations means that Christianity is in fact irrational.

 

You do not understand Christianity at all if you consider virgin birth to be its bedrock, you do not understand the Gospels if you believe they are assertions of Christ's divinity, and you do not understand sacred text in general if you believe their fallibility devalues them.

 

If your particualr brand of Christianity allows you to accept the easy things and reject the hard things, good for you.

 

What have I rejected? The belief that scripture is meant to be read letter-for-letter as though completely factual is not dogma. You are incorrect in that assertion.

 

Why do you feel so persecuted by someone who only disagress with you?

 

Persecution? I don't feel persecuted. I know you think your trite observations about religion (which amount to, essentially, "hey, phenomena which is by definition without explanation cannot be explained!") are somehow insightful, but it doesn't seem too threatening to me.

 

Protestants have very different ideas about the Bible than do Catholics. I am sure that whichever brand of faith to which you subscribe is "right" and the other is misguided and "wrong". They just don't get it. They aren't interested in Christianity at all, right?

 

I've never said one belief about the Bible is right and another is wrong. I have said that there is a right way and a wrong way to study the Bible, or even to frame it contextually in the vast pool of human knowledge that exists. Scholarship, and utilizing it effectively, transcends denomination, or even faith. There are atheists who easily understand the concept of miracles and their place in mythology, and they wouldn't be foolish enough to think that belief systems are threatened by the accuracy of myth.

 

Do you have a statue of Shiva in your house? Why not? Do you pray six times a day facing East? Why not? You have no opinion on them because you have never studied them and you have never studied them because you reject them out of hand.

 

I do not have a statue of Shiva in my house that I am aware of. I do not pray six times a day facing East.

 

That doesn't mean that I reject the pantheon of Hindu gods nor do I reject traditional Muslim prayer (which is actually five times a day, not six).

 

As for the assertion that I have "never studied" other religions, you are mistaken, but that's not really relevant.

 

But god forbid someone reject YOUR belief system, or ask you to explain it.

 

I am not threatened by people who reject Christianity. I am also not threatened by people who ask to have concepts explained; on the contrary, I'm usually delighted to do it. The very first post I made in this thread I did just that.

 

I was operating under the assumption that someone actually had a question about what Christians believe; I didn't know they were trying to argue ridiculously that Jesus is not divine because his mother had sex.

[Nicholas]

Jesus must have been without sin in order for His sacrifice on the cross to have any bearing on saving anyone. Isn't that central to Christianity, that Jesus died for our sins?

 

That doesn't follow. How is Jesus' divinity derived from his mother's virginity?

 

If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, then how could He be without sin--as it is through this that Original Sin is transmitted?

 

Once again, Jesus' sinlessness came from his divinity, it did not come from the evasion of Original Sin. You are confusing the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

 

If that were true, why bother to translate the Bible into English, since I'll never understand it in the first place?

 

I didn't say you'll never understand it. I just observed that you don't.

 

And why do the Gospels differ so much?

 

Why is "Saving Private Ryan" so much different than "The Thin Red Line" ?

 

Things can be written about the same thing but written for different reasons, by different people, and with different ideas in mind. Once again, the Gospels are not intended to be biographies of Jesus.

 

Making sense of it could take a lifetime. Christian scholars are STILL AT IT.

 

The fact that intellectual curiousity has not been fully satisfied is not indicative of failure to "make sense of it." Theology, like all academic disciplines, is never complete.

 

Then why include His geneology?

 

Geneology is culturally significant, which is why it might have been considered by Biblical authors. For example, Jesus is related to David, an important King in Israel's history.

 

Joseph is Jesus' father, which is why he's the left side of Jesus' family tree. Sperm has little to do with paternity, at least at this time; consider that many men had sons by concubines, and that their family trees would not be altered because their wife did not contribute to the child's genetics. If that were the case, many kings would not be considered legitimate.

 

And if Jesus is a character in a story, fine, but doesn't that also mean He was no Divine, then?

 

I think all of the stories in the Gospels are included in order to demonstrate that Jesus was, in fact, Divine. But maybe I lack the tools to interpret it correctly.

 

Maybe. The Gospels are not a series of arguments for why Christ was the son of God.

 

If a given Christian depended on the Gospels being 100% factually accurate in order to believe in God/Jesus, that person is in bad shape. I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped believing after a simple challenge such as "Hey, people can't walk on top of water!" or "Hey, you can't have a kid unless you have sex!"

 

All I maintain is that Jesus MUST have been born of a Virgin, or He wasn't Divine.

 

It's fine to maintain that. I could maintain that 2+2=5. People who understand mathematics would disagree with me, just as people concerned with theology disagree with your conclusion that the virgin birth is at all related with Christ's divinity.

 

It seems you don't accept the Virgin Birth, yet you believe Christ Divine. How? Why? And if you reject the virgin birth, what else do you rejct, and why?

 

I do not reject the Virgin Birth. I do, however, consider the event unimportant.

 

I am only asking questions.

 

There is a notable difference between questions asked in search of answers and questions asked in search of victory. If you really want your question answered, here's your answer, take it or leave it: The accuracy of the account of Jesus' conception does not threaten the idea of his divinity.

 

However, one can study religion and not believe it.

 

Some do--but the scholarship goes a little beyond reading "the book" and deciding whether or not you like it.

 

To attempt to belittle me or my opinion simply is certainly your right, but also misguided.

 

I'm not belittling you. I'm just underwhelmed by your scholarship. It's cool that you don't believe in God. I'm not driven to convert you. But the conclusions you are drawing about Christianity are incorrect.

 

I do think that if most Christians actually studied what their belief system entails they would reject it.

 

How would you know? What have you studied? Reading the Bible isn't enough. In some cases, it's a handicap. Imagine if someone read Genesis and all of the sudden they stopped believing in evolution. Not only would they have not made any spiritual progress, they'd also understand less of God's creation, essentially accomplishing the opposite of the scriptural author's intent.

 

When did I tell them wrong? I didn't recall relating one Bible story specifically.

 

You asked " If you are engaged to a woman who confesses virginity and shows up at your house pregnant (and you never had sex with her) would you believe her when she said that she didn't either?"

 

My point was that you weren't telling the story correctly. The question you asked isn't a situation that paralells the story of Mary and Joseph.

[burning 4 revenge]

Maybe a more interesting question at this point would be was Christ a virgin?

[Joelle]

Well, personally, I believe God exists, and that's why I'm seeking Him. I have some mathematical evidence that supports God may exist. Yes, mathematical evidence (rational evidence), not mystical thinking. As you may know, mathematics is the language & logic of science. Mathematics is science's backbone. See, I think that God & logic can coexist and support each other.

 

In seeking God, I am examining Christianity. Sadly, in light of these posts, I still don't think Jesus represents God. Intellectually, I think Christianity is discredited.

 

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to show the mathematic evidence on the internet. It's much, much easier in person with paper & pencil. The evidence is very easy to understand. It doesn't take a math whiz to follow. That's the beauty of it - the principle is simple and elegant!

 

The mathematical evidence involves the summation notation. Is anybody familiar with it?