Literalism & Virgin birth...

[_Bond...James Bond]

Just to throwing an idea out:

Does anyone think that Greek mythological stories where a God (Zeus or whomever) impregnates some human girl bare any resemblance to the Biblical account where God impregnates a human girl?

I'd also like to throw out getting pregnant outside of wedlock because "God did it" could possibly be one of the few (good) excuses possible before scientific testing to prove paternity. "God did it" could be useful if a love affair goes too far.

[_Fortigurn]

Just to throwing an idea out:

Does anyone think that Greek mythological stories where a God (Zeus or whomever) impregnates some human girl bare any resemblance to the Biblical account where God impregnates a human girl?

No, because in the New Testament account God does not impregnate a human girl. The God of the Old and New Testament is transcendant, and has no physical relations with humans (unless you're a Mormon).

I'd also like to throw out getting pregnant outside of wedlock because "God did it" could possibly be one of the few (good) excuses possible before scientific testing to prove paternity. "God did it" could be useful if a love affair goes too far.

Yes it could. There is evidence within the New Testament that Mary was indeed accused of having a child out of wedlock. This suggests to me strongly that the birth of Jesus (under whatever circumstances), was a genuine historical event.

[_Roger Morrison]

Good dialogue folks. I'll interject in bold:

Just to throwing an idea out:

Does anyone think that Greek mythological stories where a God (Zeus or whomever) impregnates some human girl bare any resemblance to the Biblical account where God impregnates a human girl?

No, because in the New Testament account God does not impregnate a human girl. The God of the Old and New Testament is transcendant, and has no physical relations with humans (unless you're a Mormon).

RM: Yes. because understanding the New Testament as Christianism does--rightly or wrongly--that is how THE story is presented... (Luke 1:35) "HG shall come upon thee...Highest shall overshadow thee...holy thing born of thee...the Son of God." LDS check (Alma 7:10) "...being a virgin...overshadowed and conceived..."

I'd also like to throw out getting pregnant outside of wedlock because "God did it" could possibly be one of the few (good) excuses possible before scientific testing to prove paternity. "God did it" could be useful if a love affair goes too far.

Yes it could. There is evidence within the New Testament that Mary was indeed accused of having a child out of wedlock. This suggests to me strongly that
the birth of Jesus (under whatever circumstances), was a genuine historical event.

RM: A good question, and conclusion, Jimmy. Ain't no other way IT can happen! Many barren folks 'pray' to "God" to conceive, knowing it can only happen with His blessing. OTOH, unwanted pregnancies are often accepted as, "the will of "God". by the way, LDS teach there are no illegitimate births, all are the will of "God"...

Liz, you said:

But if God did intervene in every individual's choices, what would the point be of living? RM: If "God" did not show his hand--figuratively--there would be NO life! 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. RM: That belief is in no way an LDS exclusive...

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. RM: A most worthy pursuit! Stay with it, Sis!! There are many aspects of the LDS doctrine that I strongly agree with. RM: Good is good wherever you find it... 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. RM: Of course. Nature's ("God's") way!! 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.

OK...but how about: "Jesus CHOSE to serve "God"! By tending, and nurturing humanity."?? Did "God" choose Edison to introduce 'electricity'? Einstein MC2??

To "accomplish a mission" is dependent on many things... But primarily the genetic package in ITS environment determines its success or falure. What the individual "chooses", and with what they are blessed/cursed with to move their mountain will stand as a testiment of their being...

As Roger sees it...warm regards...

[_richardMdBorn]

Hi Roger, sorry that it’s me a while to respond. My new comments are in bold

Richard It’s relevant since it contradicts his point.

Roger You see it that way. I don't. Possibly Spong doesn't either.

Let’s reexamine Spong’s original assertion.

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,

What mystery of reproduction was not fully understood. Spong explained that virgins do not conceive. Yet Luke shows that this WAS understood by Mary.

Luke 1:23 “How can this be,” Mary asked the angel, “Since I am a virgin?”

The New Testament teaches that the virgin conception was a miracle since the writers knew that virgins did not conceive apart from a miracle.

Roger He doesn't believe in "miracles" who ever declares them? As we know. the Bible, Old Testament & New Testament, is full of "miracles". Events that today are not considered actualities or historical realities.

Richard And who decided that? Does David Hume have the final say on what’s historical?

Roger What does "David Hume" have to do with anything/this-question? I come to "MY" conclusion through my process of reading, thinking, studying, thinking--more of the same, until "I" feel good with MY conclusion. The fore mentioned process is ongoing, for ME

You stated that that today they are not considered actualities. If you stated, “I think that they are not actualities”, I would agree with you. But your assertion went beyond your opinion.

Richard Christianity, like Judaism, is a historical religion. It has philosophical aspects, but it primarily makes historical claims. Takes away the miracles, and you affect Jesus’ claims to authority and what his mission was in coming to earth.

Roger ..historical claims..." are fine to "make". ARE (ALL?) the "claims" believeable is THE question. To some YES; to others NO... "Jesus' claims" are in the 'text', for what ever reasons &/or purpose. However, the principles of goodwill, justice and magnanimity among men taught/demonstrated by Jesus' character is HIS mission.

The New Testament teaches that Jesus came to die as an atoning sacrifice.

Jn 3:16-18 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Richard, i'll respond in UL to what you said:

You stated that that today they are not considered actualities. If you stated, “I think that they are not actualities”, I would agree with you. But your assertion went beyond your opinion.

RM: OK, IMSCO "...they are actualities." Actually, i'm not sure where/when i made that statement--but it must have been with real intent :-)

Quote:
Richard Christianity, like Judaism, is a historical religion. It has philosophical aspects, but it primarily makes historical claims. Takes away the miracles, and you affect Jesus’ claims to authority and what his mission was in coming to earth.


Quote:
Roger ..historical claims..." are fine to "make". ARE (ALL?) the "claims" believeable is THE question. To some YES; to others NO... "Jesus' claims" are in the 'text', for what ever reasons &/or purpose. However, the principles of goodwill, justice and magnanimity among men taught/demonstrated by Jesus' character is HIS mission.


The New Testament teaches that Jesus came to die as an atoning sacrifice.

Quote:
Jn 3:16-18 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

RM: I'm familiar with the scripture, and the traditional/fundemental/evangelical/agreed-upon interpretation of it... However, IMSCO, that understanding tends to limit--through mysticification--the mortal effectiveness of the "Son" when considered from my perspective. Which is:

Who ever believes Jesus' message--whether aware of its origin, or not--which is "I give you TWO NEW Commandments, Love "God" (by loving/respecting his creations) AND your fellow humans..." Those who believe and do accordingly will have an eternal life!

True, Christ did not condemn the world--except the self-righteous, who condemned and laid heavy burdens... It is by understanding Jesus' laws of charity and reciprocation that the world WILL--not might--be saved by Him, AND His teachings applied in the affairs of human interaction.

I further state, without equivocation, Christianism as it is promolgated in its numerous persuaisions is condemned already because, THEY condemn the world that Jesus didn't! (Ever THINK about that?) Because THEY don't believe that Jesus-stuff really works HERE & NOW!

So, compromise with Mammon, and worship with tokenism: tithes and offerings to buy passage into Heaven where the 'obedient' will live forever with "God"!

What a scam, sham and shame!! We're living with "God" NOW!! Today's the day to meet/find "God"!

I do tend to rant when triggered... But, there is a turning to truth that will eventually undo some of the misconceptions that religion has presented as fact... Warm regards, Roger

[_richardMdBorn]

Hi Roger,

What do you mean by "be saved by Him".

Richard

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Roger,

What do you mean by "be saved by Him".

Richard

A trick question? ;-) That was coupled with "AND His teachings..." Without "Him" no teachings of "His" THAT when understood and FAITHFULLY applied WILL bring to pass peaceful cohabitation of humanity without prejudices...

THEN, humanoids will be tolerant of, and accepting without fear, each other. Secure in ourselves we will have no need to feel threatened by others... We will live happily in OUR 'sects', and others will do the same...

The "Good News" was, and is, "...use MY tools/yoke to satisfy your personal/psyche needs--as "God" freely supplies your physical needs--and peace will bring, you-all, blessings that war never will..."

Maybe a little more than you asked for, but: Why not??? Warm regards, Roger

PS: Ever watch Joel Osteen? He seems to teach (not preach) along those lines...

[_richardMdBorn]

Roger PS: Ever watch Joel Osteen? He seems to teach (not preach) along those lines...

I watched him once for a few minutes. He gave me the creeps. Elmer Gantry has more credibility to me than JO.

[_Yoda]

I'm bumping this thread because this was an awesome discussion of very different ideas where everyone kept level heads. I would like to see more of this happening.

I haven't seen Roger post in a long time. I had forgotten how much I missed his perspective until re-reading this thread.

Now that Dr. Peterson lurks here again, and occasionally chooses to participate, I wonder if we might be able to coax him into commenting on some of the exchanges here.

;-)

[_ajax18]

What do the answers-to/opinions-of either of those 'fundamental' Christian dogmas have to do with living a moral, socially contributing life in the 21st century?

What does life after death have to do with living a moral life? Everything for me. I find atheist reasons for acting selflessly unsatisfying. Questions of how ones self interest can work together with the common good are something that cold science still fails to adequately answer even in the 21st century. Moral questions are why I see religious belief in the supernatural and unseen as continuing to grow even if science definitively reduces all the stories to myth.

If the myth is not true, it's just not worth it. I interact with society occasionally. On the other hand, I myself am with me all the time.