Virgin birth of Jesus

[blastula]

Oh, good grief, that's still all wrong.

 

[Lion IRC]

Which part ? All of it?
Mary was immaculate when she conceived Jesus in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit.

WAIT...are you just doing the old uber-skeptic thingy?
Obviously you can assert its "all wrong" if you wish to believe that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Which part ? All of it?
Mary was immaculate when she conceived Jesus in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit.

WAIT...are you just doing the old uber-skeptic thingy?
Obviously you can assert its "all wrong" if you wish to believe that.

The language of religion is funny. That's all religion is, just words. Pretend something is real and invent a word to describe it. Good stuff.

Using secular language to describe religious baloney always clears the air.

Carry on.

 

[Lion IRC]

I think it would be helpful to use secular language.
And the secular word is "miracle" or "supernatural"

Saying that Mary conceived her baby in the absolute state of virginity is the secular language you would use to make miracle claim. Saying that Mary lied and was not a virgin is the secular language one would use to propose a counter-claim.
Saying that a supernatural being caused Mary to immaculately conceive is likewise secular language. Secular language doesn't limit metaphysical claims from being stated.

 

[Juma]

Which part ? All of it?
Mary was immaculate when she conceived Jesus in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit.

WAIT...are you just doing the old uber-skeptic thingy?
Obviously you can assert its "all wrong" if you wish to believe that.

Check up "immaculated conception" on wikipedia before you waste more posts...

 

[Lion IRC]

I know what the term means.
Immaculate at the time she conceived Jesus in her (immaculate) womb.

Blessed among women. Most highly favored lady.
Gloria.


[YOUTUBE]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GF2BzUDeTkY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[James Brown]

 Immaculate_Conception

The Immaculate Conception, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, is the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary free from original sin by virtue of the foreseen merits of her son Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was conceived by normal biological means in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne, but God acted upon her soul, keeping it "immaculate".


The Immaculate Conception is commonly confused with the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Jesus's birth is covered by the Doctrine of Incarnation, while the Immaculate Conception deals with the conception of Mary, not that of her son.

My question remains: If God could do it for Mary, why couldn't he do it for everyone?

 

[bilby]

 Immaculate_Conception

The Immaculate Conception, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, is the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary free from original sin by virtue of the foreseen merits of her son Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was conceived by normal biological means in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne, but God acted upon her soul, keeping it "immaculate".


The Immaculate Conception is commonly confused with the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Jesus's birth is covered by the Doctrine of Incarnation, while the Immaculate Conception deals with the conception of Mary, not that of her son.

My question remains: If God could do it for Mary, why couldn't he do it for everyone?

But the new and more interesting question is 'Why is Lion IRC less knowledgeable about Christianity than the atheists he is debating?'.

Of course, accurate knowledge of what Christianity actually entails has always been a stimulus towards atheism - or at least, away from Christianity.

 

[Juma]

I know what the term means.
Immaculate at the time she conceived Jesus in her (immaculate) womb.

wrong.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think it would be helpful to use secular language.
And the secular word is "miracle" or "supernatural"

Horseballs. The secular equivalent for miracle might be "An impossible event that someone nevertheless believes is real."

Supernatural would be "having to do with religious stories, magical." Or the convenient claim that something is beyond scientific scrutiny.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

 Immaculate_Conception



My question remains: If God could do it for Mary, why couldn't he do it for everyone?

But the new and more interesting question is 'Why is Lion IRC less knowledgeable about Christianity than the atheists he is debating?'.

Of course, accurate knowledge of what Christianity actually entails has always been a stimulus towards atheism - or at least, away from Christianity.

So very accurate. It reinforces what atheists seem to get, that religion - like a lot of things - is more about comforting rituals than about having knowledge of anything real. People who ask a lot of questions about their religion don't have their religion anymore.

 

[Lion IRC]

What's amazing to me is that atheists here DONT understand the doctrine of Incarnation.
And that you insist on all Christians holding to a very recent and quite contentious notion that Mary and Jesus were both immaculately conceived.

Don't go spamming the thread over and over again with a Wiki page (of all things!) that does nothing more than describe an ambiguous doctrine which many Christians think is unbiblical and heretical.

Jesus was miraculously conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, sinless and became incarnate completely absent of male/female sexual intercourse. That is not true of Mary and her two biological parents who were both born into original sin.

So in order for Mary to be free from original sin, she would need to have become incarnate herself in the same way as Jesus. And there is no support for this idea in scripture. Hence, people are free to make doctrinal claims for or against the idea.

Oh WOW! Look everybody.
Here's a Wiki page that says Mary (the Mother of God) remained a virgin forever after she gave birth to Jesus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary

Somebody needs to educate all those Christians who think Mary had other children - like James.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You mean people like scientists?
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-urge-geological-congress-human-impact-earth

Dominance implies being in control. How are we in control over our carbon emissions? Trump's in complete denial.

But even if we were in control it still wouldn't prove dominance. I'm not sure you understand what the word means.

Toss them in shark infested water without a boat and see how dominant they feel then.

A human tossing another human into shark infested water is about human domination of events - not sharks. Did you know humans pass laws protecting sharks from being hunted/fished?

It's about protecting ourselves. If we fuck up our immediate environment the eco system gets borked and we die.

We're like a helpless child slowly sinking in the mud. But too stupid to fix it before a disaster.

Let them traipse naked and without any tools across the African savannah and see how dominant they feel then.

We already did that survivor challenge. And guess what? We made it.
We DID start out naked and with no tools (probably in somewhere in Africa.)
Are humans on the endangered species list?

Just surviving isn't dominance. It means we're on par with the other creatures of Earth.

One thing I wonder about. Why is it important to you? And what's with the arrogance? You're grasping at straws proving dominance. Increasingly stupid straws. Why isn't it good enough to be just an ordinary species, just struggling to get by on the planet?

Humans are on a world that is made up of 70% water most of which will kill us if we try to drink it.

That water is probably the most precious commodity on Earth. It keeps us alive.
Our drinking water comes from those very oceans!

And that means we're dominating it how?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think it would be helpful to use secular language.
And the secular word is "miracle" or "supernatural"

Saying that Mary conceived her baby in the absolute state of virginity is the secular language you would use to make miracle claim. Saying that Mary lied and was not a virgin is the secular language one would use to propose a counter-claim.
Saying that a supernatural being caused Mary to immaculately conceive is likewise secular language. Secular language doesn't limit metaphysical claims from being stated.

It's occams razor. She had an incentive to lie about it and nobody else has been immaculately conceived. The obvious conclusion is that she lied about it. There is also no way to establish virginity other than just her word.

Let's turn the question around. Why do you think the obvious answer is wrong? What's your line of reasoning?

 

[DrZoidberg]

What's amazing to me is that atheists here DONT understand the doctrine of Incarnation.
And that you insist on all Christians holding to a very recent and quite contentious notion that Mary and Jesus were both immaculately conceived.

Don't go spamming the thread over and over again with a Wiki page (of all things!) that does nothing more than describe an ambiguous doctrine which many Christians think is unbiblical and heretical.

Jesus was miraculously conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, sinless and became incarnate completely absent of male/female sexual intercourse. That is not true of Mary and her two biological parents who were both born into original sin.

So in order for Mary to be free from original sin, she would need to have become incarnate herself in the same way as Jesus. And there is no support for this idea in scripture. Hence, people are free to make doctrinal claims for or against the idea.

Oh WOW! Look everybody.
Here's a Wiki page that says Mary (the Mother of God) remained a virgin forever after she gave birth to Jesus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary

Somebody needs to educate all those Christians who think Mary had other children - like James.

I understand the doctrine. It's still laughable and obviously stupid. Expect any non-Christian to laugh at your gullibility when you mention it. It's just a dumb belief.

Unless of course Mary was wholy a fictional character in which case she's as much a virgin as Aragorn is king of Gondor

 

[Lion IRC]

I think it would be helpful to use secular language.
And the secular word is "miracle" or "supernatural"

Saying that Mary conceived her baby in the absolute state of virginity is the secular language you would use to make miracle claim. Saying that Mary lied and was not a virgin is the secular language one would use to propose a counter-claim.
Saying that a supernatural being caused Mary to immaculately conceive is likewise secular language. Secular language doesn't limit metaphysical claims from being stated.

It's occams razor. She had an incentive to lie about it and nobody else has been immaculately conceived. The obvious conclusion is that she lied about it. There is also no way to establish virginity other than just her word.

Let's turn the question around. Why do you think the obvious answer is wrong? What's your line of reasoning?

There's nothing illogical about God doing stuff like miracles. There's no need to 'lie' about a miracle being miraculous.

Mary doesn't claim to have become pregnant inexplicably or by some biologically 'normal' parthenogenesis. She isn't a biologist trying to explain the event. She has been visited by the archangel Gabriel. She doesn't need to lie about it.
And her husband has likewise accepted God's will. Why does he need to justify his loyalty to his God and his betrothed by begging and pleading for other people to believe? He already knows that some won't.

Do Joseph and Mary care whether atheists believe them? Probably not.
They have more important stuff going on in their life.

Do I care whether you believe Joseph and Mary? Not really.
You disbelieve EVERYTHING in the bible that involves miracles and a power Higher than yourself.
Why are you focussing on this one?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's occams razor. She had an incentive to lie about it and nobody else has been immaculately conceived. The obvious conclusion is that she lied about it. There is also no way to establish virginity other than just her word.

Let's turn the question around. Why do you think the obvious answer is wrong? What's your line of reasoning?

There's nothing illogical about God doing stuff like miracles. There's no need to 'lie' about a miracle being miraculous.

The lie is that she said it was a miracle that probably wasn't a miracle. That's the lie. It's a question of what's the most believable. Mary's version isn't especially convincing is it? Try writing it down. One column for things that support her version. And one column with non-supernatural explanations that don't. I'm sure you'll quickly figure out that all we've got is the word of a teenage girl who risks being stoned to death if she's found to be adulterous.

True, that if you posit an actor in a system that is omnipotent then nothing is illogical. But you've also robbed yourself of any ability to draw conclusions. About anything. If you believe in an omnipotent agent knowledge is not possible.

Let's ignore that the entire concept of miracles (as well as supernatural) is nonsense. Anything that actually happens in this world is natural. If "miracles" would occur we'd just have incorporated them into the laws of physics already.

Mary doesn't claim to have become pregnant inexplicably or by some biologically 'normal' parthenogenesis. She isn't a biologist trying to explain the event. She has been visited by the archangel Gabriel. She doesn't need to lie about it.

Pregnancy is a biological event. Miracle or otherwise. And perhaps the archangel Gabriel wasn't an archangel. He just said he was and slept with Mary the regular way. Maybe he got her drunk and her memories of the events are hazy.

There's so many possible explanations of this that aren't miraculous and are a hell of a lot more likely.

And her husband has likewise accepted God's will. Why does he need to justify his loyalty to his God and his betrothed by begging and pleading for other people to believe? He already knows that some won't.

Do Joseph and Mary care whether atheists believe them? Probably not.
They have more important stuff going on in their life.

I can't tell if you're joking or not? Joseph falling for Mary's bullshit about not sleeping with somebody else doesn't prove anything. It only proves his gullibility. He also has an incentive to believe it. Who wouldn't want their girlfriend to have been faithful to them? I just feel sorry for this guy.

Do I care whether you believe Joseph and Mary? Not really.

Then why are you posting in this thread?

You disbelieve EVERYTHING in the bible that involves miracles and a power Higher than yourself.

Miracles is a scientific line in enquiry if there ever was one. When scientific evidence emerges that supports miracles I'll believe. But until then I won't. We've never come across hermaphroditic human. Which Mary supposedly is. There are no hermaphoditic mammals. Some tissue samples, giving us the DNA would help. She must have a pretty severe genetic anomaly to make this possible. It's an extraordinary claim and we've got nothing but the word of a teenage girl to go on.

Why are you focussing on this one?

It's in the title of this thread. Thread titles are a clue as to the thread's topic. Not discussing it in this thread would be derailing and is in poor form.

 

[Lion IRC]

...why are you posting in this thread

You asked me a question. And now you're asking me why I answered.
Don't be disingenuous.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There's nothing illogical about God doing stuff like miracles. There's no need to 'lie' about a miracle being miraculous.

Mary doesn't claim to have become pregnant inexplicably or by some biologically 'normal' parthenogenesis. She isn't a biologist trying to explain the event. She has been visited by the archangel Gabriel. She doesn't need to lie about it.
And her husband has likewise accepted God's will. Why does he need to justify his loyalty to his God and his betrothed by begging and pleading for other people to believe? He already knows that some won't.

Do Joseph and Mary care whether atheists believe them? Probably not.
They have more important stuff going on in their life.

Do I care whether you believe Joseph and Mary? Not really.
You disbelieve EVERYTHING in the bible that involves miracles and a power Higher than yourself.
Why are you focussing on this one?

Secular translation follows:

There's nothing illogical about an alleged invisible supercreature that lives in the sky doing stuff like making impossible things happen. There's no need to 'lie' about an impossible event being an impossible event.

The human mother of the half human/half supercreature offspring doesn't claim to have become pregnant inexplicably or by some biologically 'normal' parthenogenesis. She isn't a biologist trying to explain the event. She has been visited by a winged humanoid and servant of the supercreature that lives in the sky. She doesn't need to lie about it.
And her husband has likewise accepted the alleged supercreature that lives in the sky's will. Why does he need to justify his loyalty to his alleged supercreature and his betrothed by begging and pleading for other people to believe? He already knows that some won't.

Do two characters in an obviously fictional story and the earthly parents of a half human/half supercreature offspring care whether people who know these stories are pretend believe them? Probably not.
They have more important stuff going on in their life.

Do I care whether you believe the two fictional characters who are the earthly parents of the half human/half supercreature offspring? Not really.
You disbelieve EVERYTHING in the book containing these obviously fictional accounts that involves impossible events and an alleged supercreature.
Why are you focussing on this one?

 

[bilby]

...why are you posting in this thread

You asked me a question. And now you're asking me why I answered.
Don't be disingenuous.

If you don't care what others think about this topic, why were you posting in this thread BEFORE Dr Z asked you a question?

Don't be disingenuous.