Virgin birth of Jesus

[Tom Sawyer]

As Forrest Gump said I may not be a smart man...
But I know that asexual reproduction is not a miracle.
Amazing yes. But not impossible or unheard of.
God is awesome !

Oh, come on dude. You know that God totally banged her. The whole "virgin birth" thing was just something that he told the Holy Spirit so that it wouldn't get pissed off at God screwing around behind its back.

 

[PyramidHead]

As Forrest Gump said I may not be a smart man...
But I know that asexual reproduction is not a miracle.
Amazing yes. But not impossible or unheard of.

In humans?

 

[Lion IRC]

As Forrest Gump said I may not be a smart man...
But I know that asexual reproduction is not a miracle.
Amazing yes. But not impossible or unheard of.

In humans?

In higher life forms?

 

[bilby]

I find the F-bomb a very rational and persuasive contribution to thoughtful discourse.
It truly conveys a level of intellectual superiority for which Internet atheists are renowned.

What the fuck is an F-bomb?

 

[Eric H]

Science has a lot of clues, and can tell us a great deal about the earliest moments of the universe that dramatically limits what might have occurred immediately before.

Science can only say, what might have occurred. So it seems there should be no expectations to believe that our scientists have the full truth, as to how our universe came to be.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Science does not have a clue as to how the universe came to be. The big bang is an unsatisfactory solution, because it cannot explain where the matter of the universe came from.

From? What else is there?

The universe is real. We can observe it. Not the tiniest part can be made to go away.

Now lets see about gods. Lets start with, "What do gods come from? Lets observe one. Lets see a tiny part of one.

People don't really have gods, at least judging by universal standards. People are pretending to have gods. But if we're into inventing double standards well then we can have all kinds of things, gods included. I'll be the first quadrillionaire. All my assets are invisible.

 

[Eric H]

The universe is real. We can observe it. Not the tiniest part can be made to go away.
.

Ok.

Now lets see about gods. Lets start with, "What do gods come from?

There is no final convincing proof to a sceptic, that God exists, believers rely of faith and trust.

It has been said that the Big Bang produced vast amounts of hydrogen, helium, and small amounts of lithium. All of the matter in the universe, and all of the matter that will ever be in the universe, is derived from that initial pool of three elements. So lets start with, what did these three elements come from?

I'll be the first quadrillionaire. All my assets are invisible

Can I come to you for a loan, I need half a quadrillion to build an invisible shed at the bottom of my garden.

 

[AJ113]

Science can only say, what might have occurred. So it seems there should be no expectations to believe that our scientists have the full truth, as to how our universe came to be.

Religion can only say, what might have occurred. So it seems there should be no expectations to believe that our theists have the full truth, as to how our universe came to be.

 

[DrZoidberg]

How is one to understand the virgin birth of Jesus?

Is there any way it can be understood as allegorical? A literal understanding seems to me has always been and still is the belief of the Catholic Church and it must be recognized as the linchpin for Christianity. Without a virgin birth there is no divine Saviour and all of the faith becomes false.
There is obviously no physical planting of sperm. If Joseph did not have any input, how does his genealogy to David matter at all? It is supposed to be an important fulfillment of prophecy.

I am sure these questions have been answered by believers and scholars and unbelievers from the beginning of the Christian cult. I would not expect to get an honest answer from the parish priest of our community. He probably would consider it an affront as it pretty well suggests that I believe the whole edifice of the Catholic Church is built on delusion and perhaps even fraud.


Maybe someone here has some answers. I had been a member of the Catholic Church for nearly 25 year and I don't remember the virgin birth ever being explained, just stated as fact as the Bible reports it.

I think it's a pagan heritage. Anybody famous, aka a hero, has to have a divine father. That's just how it worked in the pagan world. For all of these they'd come up with myths to explain how the divine impregnation worked. Since Jesus was famous, he had to have been the off-spring of God. But early Christianity put great value on abstinence. It was a very sex negative religion. So we got virgin birth.

My main evidence is that the virgin birth myth was not original. It came way later. As long as Christianity existed in a mainly Jewish community positing a virgin birth had no function. It wasn't until Christianity spread to pagan lands that Jesus needed to fit in with the pattern of pagan heroes. It's not just virgin births. It's all manner of typically pagan trappings that the Jesus myth was overlaid with.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So lets start with, what did these three elements come from?

What do you mean by that? It's like asking where the pear tree in my back yard came from.

I'm guessing that by your question my best answer is to ask where gods come from. So where do gods come from, but more importantly, where are they, what are they, what do they sound like, what do they look like, why do they make universes, do they have smells, where are they going, what are they doing, etc.?

The difference of course is that the universe is here and is real. You have to tell me how it is not immortal, not everywhere all the time, how it just goes away, etc. Most importantly, you have to explain convincingly to yourself- and share that explanation if you like - why you hold the universe to one standard but your gods to no standard. That's the real question.

It is refreshing and restorative to pretend, even when one knows one is pretending and acting. But that doesn't make dragons and gods and wizards real, just enjoyable to make believe.

 

[credoconsolans]

What I want to know is why there is such widespread aversion to normal procreation? It's not just many religions like Christianity, Buddhism, the ancient Greek, Roman, and Egyptian religions, but also non-religious claims of virgin births. Even Genghis fucking Khan was supposedly born of a virgin, wasn't he?

Because it's commonplace.

Divinity has to be - not commonplace.

Hence virgins having babies. Hence nuns and priests staying away from sex.

Ah, for the good ole days when sex was seen as something even the gods enjoyed and encouraged as a gift.

 

[bilby]

Science has a lot of clues, and can tell us a great deal about the earliest moments of the universe that dramatically limits what might have occurred immediately before.

Science can only say, what might have occurred. So it seems there should be no expectations to believe that our scientists have the full truth, as to how our universe came to be.

That's true; but then nobody has the 'full truth'. Not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing.

Religion doesn't have any truth at all - and one of the many lies inherent in religion is that belief or faith is a path to truth. Many religions double-down on this by claiming that faith is a path to the whole truth. But it's obviously a lie, because religion has no utility. Understanding of basic science leads to wonders such as the Internet on which we are having this discussion. Understanding of basic religion achieves nothing at all. The dark ages are an example of what a huge font of new knowledge religion can provide - despite centuries of faith and piety, not one new advance in the treatment of plagues and diseases, not one agricultural advance to ward off famine.

Pretending to know everything is a sure fire way to never finding out anything. Science doesn't know everything, but that is a vast improvement over knowing nothing; or worse still, 'knowing' a bunch of things that aren't true.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

Amen.

 

[Eric H]

That's true; but then nobody has the 'full truth'. Not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing.

Everybody knows something.

Religion doesn't have any truth at all

We are asked to do unto others, as we would have them do unto us, we are asked to help the poor and disadvantaged. there must be some truth.

Understanding of basic science leads to wonders such as the Internet on which we are having this discussion.

The internet is a wonderful place for fraudsters, exploitation and hackers to enjoy themselves.

Understanding of basic religion achieves nothing at all.

All the law of God hangs and depends on loving god, and loving our neighbour as we love ourselves. If we could do this, the world would be a better place.

The dark ages are an example of what a huge font of new knowledge religion can provide - despite centuries of faith and piety, not one new advance in the treatment of plagues and diseases, not one agricultural advance to ward off famine.

We allow twenty thousand children to die needlessly every day as a result of grinding poverty, preventable disease and starvation. We spend billion in the civilised world on dieting, because we over eat. There is enough food to go round, we choose not to be fair and kind to those living in poverty, rather we exploit them.

The world needs both science and God.

 

[bilby]

Everybody knows something.

Religion doesn't have any truth at all

We are asked to do unto others, as we would have them do unto us, we are asked to help the poor and disadvantaged. there must be some truth.

None of which requires gods or religions

Understanding of basic science leads to wonders such as the Internet on which we are having this discussion.

The internet is a wonderful place for fraudsters, exploitation and hackers to enjoy themselves.

So is the rest of reality. Fraud and exploitation pre-date the Internet by at least 10,000 years.

Understanding of basic religion achieves nothing at all.

All the law of God hangs and depends on loving god

Then it is based on fiction

and loving our neighbour as we love ourselves.

Which doesn't require gods or religions

If we could do this, the world would be a better place.

Sure. But your attempt to force gods into a statement of the bleeding obvious doesn't help us to get there

The dark ages are an example of what a huge font of new knowledge religion can provide - despite centuries of faith and piety, not one new advance in the treatment of plagues and diseases, not one agricultural advance to ward off famine.

We allow twenty thousand children to die needlessly every day as a result of grinding poverty, preventable disease and starvation. We spend billion in the civilised world on dieting, because we over eat. There is enough food to go round, we choose not to be fair and kind to those living in poverty, rather we exploit them.

The world needs both science and God.

And yet the bits with the most god are the worst shit-holes; while the bits with the least god are the best places to live - with the lowest levels of poverty and the highest levels of science.

Your conclusions are directly opposite to the evidence. Religion is observably a net negative force in our world. At every level, crime, poverty and disease are directly correlated to religiosity.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We allow twenty thousand children to die needlessly every day as a result of grinding poverty, preventable disease and starvation. We spend billion in the civilised world on dieting, because we over eat. There is enough food to go round, we choose not to be fair and kind to those living in poverty, rather we exploit them.

The world needs both science and God.

Why not just love the universe? Sounds like your god would prefer we love the universe as it accomplishes his ends as you understand them. Are gods so juvenile that they need attention.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We allow twenty thousand children to die needlessly every day as a result of grinding poverty, preventable disease and starvation. We spend billion in the civilised world on dieting, because we over eat. There is enough food to go round, we choose not to be fair and kind to those living in poverty, rather we exploit them.

The world needs both science and God.

Why not just love the universe? Sounds like your god would prefer we love the universe as it accomplishes his ends as you understand them. Are gods so juvenile that they need attention.

Just wanted to add that if you can't love the universe - that's your neighbor too, can't see the need to try to make it better and more peaceful, and do that without an emotional attachment to a fantasy about a magic spaceman, what exactly have you been smoking? Whatever it is it's distracting you from what you say you are supposed to be doing. Something is definitely short-circuited in that thought process.

 

[LordKiran]

Christianity depends on the divinity of Jesus, therefore any explanations surrounding Jesus coming from the Church will confirm Jesus' divine status in one way or another. Logically Jesus' divine status makes absolutely zero sense, and isn't based on any evidence we know of today, so that people actually believe it confirm there is 'truth in numbers'.

I mean.. a billion people couldn't be wrong could they?

I don't know about the old world denominations, but Christianity conceptually does not rely upon or even require a divine element. Really the whole 'god in heaven' angle is superfluous fluff, as evidenced by enlightenment era Deism.

 

[Juma]

Christianity depends on the divinity of Jesus, therefore any explanations surrounding Jesus coming from the Church will confirm Jesus' divine status in one way or another. Logically Jesus' divine status makes absolutely zero sense, and isn't based on any evidence we know of today, so that people actually believe it confirm there is 'truth in numbers'.

I mean.. a billion people couldn't be wrong could they?

I don't know about the old world denominations, but Christianity conceptually does not rely upon or even require a divine element. Really the whole 'god in heaven' angle is superfluous fluff, as evidenced by enlightenment era Deism.

Deism is not christianity.

 

[LordKiran]

I don't know about the old world denominations, but Christianity conceptually does not rely upon or even require a divine element. Really the whole 'god in heaven' angle is superfluous fluff, as evidenced by enlightenment era Deism.

Deism is not christianity.

To be a Christian is to be a disciple of Christ and his teachings. That is all that is required for the title. They most certainly were Christian. Deists did not oppose Christ's moral primacy, only that he was of a divine nature.