Literalism & Virgin birth...

[_Yoda]

For Roger:

This was my initial post.

I'm not sure the exactness of the time-line--"9 decades"--is all that important. To me, what is worth seriously considering is the question, "was Jesus born of a young woman inseminated by "God" or by her husband Joseph?" And, if by Joseph, does the fact of Jesus being mortal, invalidate his teachings as we have them in the "Sermon On The Mount" that humanity is to deal charitably, and empathetically with one another? As well to honour "...all that "God" grants us..."

IMSCO, debunking the "Virgin Birth" in no way diminishes Jesus. In reality (mine) it makes him more accessible, believable and a-kin... Warm regards, Roger

I completely agree! And, I will take it one step further. I don't think that Jesus being the literal descendant of Joseph and Mary diminishes his role as being divine, or being the Savior of the world.

If God is God, why could He not appoint Jesus to be sent down during that particular time to that particular family, just as He does with all of us? Jesus being the son of Joseph gave him the dynastic lineage to lead the Church during that time frame.

Some Schmo later responded with the following, which, in turn, prompted my response:

Wow... just... wow. *Cue Twilight Zone music.*

Yep, god can do anything he darn well pleases, can't he? How convenient! He can even do whatever it takes for full grown people to suspend all logic in order to hold on to beliefs that a nine-year-old can see through.

Is the only thing that allows you to publicly admit you believe the virgin birth is the fact that you're anonymous on the net? I'm seriously embarrassed for all Bible literalists. I mean, really... you'll believe pretty much anything if it's called "divine."

If you were addressing me, I think you misread my post. I was stating that I didn't believe in the virgin birth. I was disagreeing with the "Mormon" notion that in order for Christ to be divine, he had to have the seed of both God the Father and Mary.

My point was....Why couldn't Jesus still be divine, and all of his teachings be just as valid if he was the child of Mary and Joseph? I think this whole idea that Mormonism has adopted regarding "spiritual genetics" is balderdash(to use Harmony's expression). If God is really God, He has the ability to give divine power to Jesus, or to anyone else He chooses. Why this blind thinking that He has to go through the same means of mortal man to do so? If God has the power to control the elements, He can operate on laws that we do not understand yet. Does that clarify where I am coming from?

It seems like you and I see eye to eye on this issue, Roger. It's interesting to talk with someone about this without fear of being called a heretic, etc. This certainly isn't a topic I could discuss in Sunday School. LOL

I haven't read Sprong's work. I'll have to take a look. Gardner recently published a follow-up to "Bloodline of the Holy Grail". I'm probably going to check it out next.

[_Some Schmo]

If you were addressing me, I think you misread my post. I was stating that I didn't believe in the virgin birth. I was disagreeing with the "Mormon" notion that in order for Christ to be divine, he had to have the seed of both God the Father and Mary.

My point was....Why couldn't Jesus still be divine, and all of his teachings be just as valid if he was the child of Mary and Joseph? I think this whole idea that Mormonism has adopted regarding "spiritual genetics" is balderdash(to use Harmony's expression). If God is really God, He has the ability to give divine power to Jesus, or to anyone else He chooses. Why this blind thinking that He has to go through the same means of mortal man to do so? If God has the power to control the elements, He can operate on laws that we do not understand yet. Does that clarify where I am coming from?

No, I caught that you didn't believe in a virgin birth, and I would never speak this way to you anyway because you're just too darn cool. I couldn't live with myself.

The difference between the two of us is primarily in the idea that anything can be "divine" in the first place. I don't believe in anything that can't be proven, so anything supernatural is out of the question.

No big deal though. I still like you. ;)

[_Yoda]

If you were addressing me, I think you misread my post. I was stating that I didn't believe in the virgin birth. I was disagreeing with the "Mormon" notion that in order for Christ to be divine, he had to have the seed of both God the Father and Mary.

My point was....Why couldn't Jesus still be divine, and all of his teachings be just as valid if he was the child of Mary and Joseph? I think this whole idea that Mormonism has adopted regarding "spiritual genetics" is balderdash(to use Harmony's expression). If God is really God, He has the ability to give divine power to Jesus, or to anyone else He chooses. Why this blind thinking that He has to go through the same means of mortal man to do so? If God has the power to control the elements, He can operate on laws that we do not understand yet. Does that clarify where I am coming from?

No, I caught that you didn't believe in a virgin birth, and I would never speak this way to you anyway because you're just too darn cool. I couldn't live with myself.

The difference between the two of us is primarily in the idea that anything can be "divine" in the first place. I don't believe in anything that can't be proven, so anything supernatural is out of the question.

No big deal though. I still like you. ;)

Aw, shucks! :) I like you, too!

If you're interested in Christ from strictly a historical perspective, the book I mentioned, "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" by Laurence Gardner is really fascinating stuff.

It provides some very plausible explanations for a lot of the myths associated with Christ's ministry.

I do believe in the divine. We'll have to agree to disagree about that. ;) However, I think that the true nature of God and Christ are very different from how they are currently portrayed in Mormonism.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Liz, yea it's nice to be in a free-exchange envionment... You said:

If God is God, why could He not appoint Jesus to be sent down during that particular time to that particular family, just as He does with all of us? Jesus being the son of Joseph gave him the dynastic lineage to lead the Church during that time frame.

This is a VERY LDS teaching that is possibly held by other Christian sects... Which leads in many directions: Some romantic, "marriage-made-in-Heaven", parent-child prexistance relationship, etc... However, it leaves unanswered the harsh realities of dysfunctional relationships and heartless human sufferings from birth-defects (for lack of a better term) to human abuses and environmental happenings...

"If God is God" as you say, is this the unconditional "God" of the Universe, that Jesus introduced? Do you really think "he sends us down at appointed times..."? "...just as He does with all of us..." If so, how do you account for still-births, infant mortality, abusive homes, pediphilia(sp?), rape, incest, etc...

I think the "God" concept you seem to express hardly fits the "God" of natural laws and consistancy that we have grown, in the past 6+/- centuries, to depend on for our "daily-bread"... by living the principles upon which the "bread" is delivered...

Ya get what i'm tryin' to say?? Warm regards, Roger

[_Yoda]

"If God is God" as you say, is this the unconditional "God" of the Universe, that Jesus introduced? Do you really think "he sends us down at appointed times..."? "...just as He does with all of us..." If so, how do you account for still-births, infant mortality, abusive homes, pediphilia(sp?), rape, incest, etc...

I'm not sure whether or not God sends us down to specific families at specific times in all cases. However, obviously, if He was sending down the Savior of the world, there would be some need to do that.

I actually subscribe to the LDS way of thinking regarding still births and infant mortality. These spirits were unusually righteous and didn't have to prove themselves on this earth as we do. Whether this concept is true or not, it does provide at least some sense of comfort in dealing with the unexpected death of a child.

Abusive parents, rape, incest, etc. are all products of not only unrighteous, but evil choices made by adults. Unfortunately, God can't control the individual choices people will make.

[_Gazelam]

Liz:

I actually subscribe to the LDS way of thinking regarding still births and infant mortality. These spirits were unusually righteous and didn't have to prove themselves on this earth as we do. Whether this concept is true or not, it does provide at least some sense of comfort in dealing with the unexpected death of a child.

All people have to prove themselves. No one gets a free pass. It is said that many will have to prove themselves in the millinium.

[_Yoda]

Liz:

I actually subscribe to the LDS way of thinking regarding still births and infant mortality. These spirits were unusually righteous and didn't have to prove themselves on this earth as we do. Whether this concept is true or not, it does provide at least some sense of comfort in dealing with the unexpected death of a child.

All people have to prove themselves. No one gets a free pass. It is said that many will have to prove themselves in the millinium.

How hard will it be to "prove yourself" in the millenium, I wonder. After all, won't Christ be reigning personally upon the earth during this time? I would say it would be pretty difficult not to have your calling and election made sure during this time frame.

Just food for thought.

;)

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Liz, you said:

I'm not sure whether or not God sends us down to specific families at specific times in all cases. However, obviously, if He was sending down the Savior of the world, there would be some need to do that.

I actually subscribe to the LDS way of thinking regarding still births and infant mortality. These spirits were unusually righteous and didn't have to prove themselves on this earth as we do. Whether this concept is true or not, it does provide at least some sense of comfort in dealing with the unexpected death of a child.

RM: I guess?? IF, "...some sense of comfort..." is a need, then what does "truth" matter?? "unusually righteous spirits..."?? Seems mystical fantasia with not an iota of evidence... Could be a proposition that brings some in... ATST, it drives many away... To each their own...

Abusive parents, rape, incest, etc. are all products of not only unrighteous, but evil choices made by adults. Unfortunately, God can't control the individual choices people will make.

Liz, you sometimes don't demonstrate much consistancy ;-) In one place you say, "God" can do 'anything'! Something many are anxious to see; besides keep the planets in orbit et-al... Now you say, "God can't control the individual..." Which obviously he doesn't... Because he "can't" or 'won't'???

Always amuses me when folks say, Satan has power over humanity, while "God" doesn't... Can you see how absurd such thinking and beliefs are??? To teach such stuff to children is nothing short of irresposibility... Oh well, warm regards, Roger

[_Yoda]

Now you say, "God can't control the individual..." Which obviously he doesn't... Because he "can't" or 'won't'???

You're right. It would have made more sense for me to say, "God won't control the individual."

It's obvious that he could, if he chose to.

But if God did intervene in every individual's choices, what would the point be of living? I suppose I still have too much of the LDS doctrine ingrained in me. I do believe that we have a purpose for being here, and that we are responsible for utilizing our agency to make proper choices.

I suppose my thoughts at times, are inconsistent, because I'm trying to decipher for myself what makes the most sense for me to believe and what doesn't. There are many aspects of the LDS doctrine that I strongly agree with. However, there are aspects that I think can be looked at in a different light, and a positive result can still be reached.

The original topic of the thread, the validity of the virgin birth, is one of those facets where I tend to differ with mainstream Christianity. My belief, based on several readings which ring true to me, is that Jesus is the biological son of Mary and Joseph. I still think that Jesus was chosen by God to be the Savior of the world, but I don't see why he would necessarily have to be the literal offspring of God the Father to accomplish his mission here.

[_Gazelam]

Liz:

I actually subscribe to the LDS way of thinking regarding still births and infant mortality. These spirits were unusually righteous and didn't have to prove themselves on this earth as we do. Whether this concept is true or not, it does provide at least some sense of comfort in dealing with the unexpected death of a child.

All people have to prove themselves. No one gets a free pass. It is said that many will have to prove themselves in the millinium.

How hard will it be to "prove yourself" in the millenium, I wonder. After all, won't Christ be reigning personally upon the earth during this time? I would say it would be pretty difficult not to have your calling and election made sure during this time frame.

Just food for thought.

;)

I can't think of the scripture reference at the moment, but as I understand it, just because Christ reigns on Earth, doesent mean all will be following him. Just as people here have a witness of the spirit, but refuse to follow that witness. Christ may be reigning, and angels teaching, but there will still be those who will be rebellious during the millinium. All will be tested just as they are now. Remember, 1/3 of the host of heaven rebelled when the very plan of the father himself was presented. Just because the church will be strong and healthy, and a theocrasy in place, doesent mean things will be any easier for those who need to make decisions for themselves.