Literalism & Virgin birth...

[_richardMdBorn]

Reposted:

Spong Today we know that virgins do not conceive. In the 1st century Mediterranean world, however, where the mysteries of reproduction were not fully understood, the only way they could explain human greatness was to ascribe to the hero a supernatural heritage in which a divine being or presence acting upon a pure virgin produced a "god/man." Such stories were a dime a dozen in that world.

Richard Luke realized that virgins do not conceive apart from a miracle. Lk 1:34 “How can this be,” Mary asked the angel, “Since I am a virgin?” The New Testament teaches that the virgin conception was a miracle.

Roger, doesn't this show that Spong is a pretty sloppy exegete. The birth narratives are pretty short, yet Spong's statement is nonsense in light of Lk. 1:34.

[_Fortigurn]

So then where do you draw the line? Heaven and hell, no, virgin birth, yes? It seems entirely arbitrary to me. You appear to want to eat your cake (ie logic) and have it too.

No, that's not true. I don't reject heaven and hell because I believe they're simply one bridge too far for my credibility to stretch. I don't believe them because they simply aren't found in the Bible. In the Bible everyone goes to the grave when they die, and they are unconscious until they are raised for judgment.

[_JAK]

So then where do you draw the line? Heaven and hell, no, virgin birth, yes? It seems entirely arbitrary to me. You appear to want to eat your cake (ie logic) and have it too.

No, that's not true. I don't reject heaven and hell because I believe they're simply one bridge too far for my credibility to stretch. I don't believe them because they simply aren't found in the Bible. In the Bible everyone goes to the grave when they die, and they are unconscious until they are raised for judgment.

The issue in point is a matter of religious dogma or doctrine.

No shred of evidence supports any “virgin birth.”

Fortigurn stated:
No, that's not true. I don't reject heaven and hell because I believe they're simply one bridge too far for my credibility to stretch. I don't believe them because they simply aren't found in the Bible. In the Bible everyone goes to the grave when they die, and they are unconscious until they are raised for judgment.

The Bible is filled with internal contradictions. Language in which contradictions are not present is no more credible. It's religious mythology.

This is doctrine/dogma as well. People die and there is not one scintilla of evidence that “they are unconscious.” They are dead. There is overwhelming evidence to support that conclusion. People incinerated, or disintegrated (i.e. 9/11 tragedy) are dead.

Evidence supports the evolution of humans. In that evolution, there is no evidence that at some point life after death became reality. Ants die. Elephants die. Mammals die. And as a part of the family of mammals, humans die. There is evidence for time-frames in which humans invented gods and invented notions that death is only an illusion.

So any argument here is over religions claims/doctrines. Assertions which are not established through evidence skeptically reviewed, remain claims absent support.

Of course religious myths are alive and well. Third World myths in tribes of humans are as valid as any other made up stories such as those in Christian mythology. These myths are unreliable.

JAK

[_Fortigurn]

No shred of evidence supports any “virgin birth.”

I'm well aware of that. I take it as a matter of faith.

The Bible is filled with internal contradictions. Language in which contradictions are not present is no more credible. It's religious mythology.

Of course. Thank you for correcting me. I've been so foolish.

This is doctrine/dogma as well. People die and there is not one scintilla of evidence that “they are unconscious.” They are dead. There is overwhelming evidence to support that conclusion. People incinerated, or disintegrated (I.e. 9/11 tragedy) are dead.

It seems you didn't understand what I wrote. Think about what you wrote. Are you really denying that dead people are unconscious? When I say 'unconscious' I don't mean they're alive but they've just been knocked out, I mean that they no longer have a consciousness. They are not conscious. They are dead. They don't exist any more.

Evidence supports the evolution of humans. In that evolution, there is no evidence that at some point life after death became reality. Ants die. Elephants die. Mammals die. And as a part of the family of mammals, humans die. There is evidence for time-frames in which humans invented gods and invented notions that death is only an illusion.

I have no idea why you wrote this, since I am arguing specifically against notions that death is an illusion.

So any argument here is over religions claims/doctrines. Assertions which are not established through evidence skeptically reviewed, remain claims absent support.

I agree.

[_JAK]

No shred of evidence supports any “virgin birth.”

I'm well aware of that. I take it as a matter of faith.

The Bible is filled with internal contradictions. Language in which contradictions are not present is no more credible. It's religious mythology.

Of course. Thank you for correcting me. I've been so foolish.

JAK:
Seems a disingenuous comment.

This is doctrine/dogma as well. People die and there is not one scintilla of evidence that “they are unconscious.” They are dead. There is overwhelming evidence to support that conclusion. People incinerated, or disintegrated (I.e. 9/11 tragedy) are dead.

It seems you didn't understand what I wrote. Think about what you wrote. Are you really denying that dead people are unconscious? When I say 'unconscious' I don't mean they're alive but they've just been knocked out, I mean that they no longer have a consciousness. They are not conscious. They are dead. They don't exist any more.

JAK:
Dead people are dead. “Unconscious” implies a person is living.

“Knocked out” also implies that a person is living.

JAK previously:
Evidence supports the evolution of humans. In that evolution, there is no evidence that at some point life after death became reality. Ants die. Elephants die. Mammals die. And as a part of the family of mammals, humans die. There is evidence for time-frames in which humans invented gods and invented notions that death is only an illusion.

I have no idea why you wrote this, since I am arguing specifically against notions that death is an illusion.

JAK:
It does not appear that way. As you stated:

“I don't believe them because they simply aren't found in the Bible. In the Bible everyone goes to the grave when they die, and they are unconscious until they are raised for judgment.”

So any argument here is over religions claims/doctrines. Assertions which are not established through evidence skeptically reviewed, remain claims absent support.

I agree.

You stated:
“I don't believe them because they simply aren't found in the Bible. In the Bible everyone goes to the grave when they die, and they are unconscious until they are raised for judgment.”

JAK:
Some don’t go “to the grave.” Some/many who died in the 9/11 tragedy (as example) did not “go to the grave” as your words might imply. No evidence supports any notion of “they are unconscious until they are raised for judgment” as you appear to claim.

Or are you merely another of disingenuous posters on this bb as has been pointed out?

Fortigurn stated:
I take it as a matter of faith.

JAK:
An irrational position. Hence you cherry pick on what you wish to be irrational and on what you wish rational explanation. --whimsical

JAK

[_Fortigurn]

Some don’t go “to the grave.” Some/many who died in the 9/11 tragedy (as example) did not “go to the grave” as your words might imply.

Yes, I'm afraid they went to the grave. This does not necessarily mean 'They were buried intact in the ground'. They certainly do not continue to live on elsewhere, as you words might imply.

No evidence supports any notion of “they are unconscious until they are raised for judgment” as you appear to claim.

Are you joking? Do you have evidence that consciousness survives death? My statement 'they are unconscious until they are raised for judgment' is my description of what the Bible says. I am not claiming that there is any evidence for a future resurrection and judgment, though I find it absurd you would ask for evidence that consciousness does not survive death.

An irrational position.

In your opinion.

Hence you cherry pick on what you wish to be irrational and on what you wish rational explanation. --whimsical

No I do not cherry pick what I wish to be irrational or rational. A blind faith is irrational. An informed faith is not irrational.

[_Gazelam]

In regards to your sleeping till the time of judgement:

1 Peter 3:19-20
"19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. "

also

1 Peter 4:6
"6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."

Christ went to the Spirit World and taught those who had not heard the gospel in this life. They arent simply sleeping, they await the time of judgement in the world of spirits.

Gaz

[_Fortigurn]

In regards to your sleeping till the time of judgement:

1 Peter 3:19-20
"19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. "

also

1 Peter 4:6
"6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."

Christ went to the Spirit World and taught those who had not heard the gospel in this life. They arent simply sleeping, they await the time of judgement in the world of spirits.

Gaz

1 Peter 3:19, 1 Peter 4:6.

[_Gazelam]

Neither of your links dispose of the teaching that there is a place of waiting for the day of judgement. On the contrary your links propose the idea themselves. As your link sugests, the gosple is not taught as a "second" chance to those who have already heard it, rather it is an opportunity for tose who did not have the opportunity to accept Christ for the first time and take his name upon them by proxy by a Baptism for the Dead. (1 Cor. 15:29)

Gaz

[_Fortigurn]

Neither of your links dispose of the teaching that there is a place of waiting for the day of judgement. On the contrary your links propose the idea themselves.

Of course there's a place of waiting for the day of judgment, that's not under dispute. What is under dispute is what that place is, where it is, whether those waiting are conscious, and who has access to it.

As your link sugests, the gosple is not taught as a "second" chance to those who have already heard it, rather it is an opportunity for tose who did not have the opportunity to accept Christ for the first time and take his name upon them by proxy by a Baptism for the Dead. (1 Cor. 15:29)

That is not what it said.