Do you believe Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus Christ?? (3 Viewers)

[mcflystargirl]

how do u kno god is a dude

Jesus.

 

[Iron]

now now fallout boy, no need for profanity

 

[mcflystargirl]

now now fallout boy, no need for profanity

who are you talking to iron?

 

[Lentern]

Did you just read what you posted... Because come on, no sane person can honestly rationalise any of those events.

I believe the thought process to apply goes something like: At the begining, the very begining, something needed to have caused what caused what caused what caused something to happen to get the ball rolling. That something as far as the eye can see mustn't have been bound by the laws of science as we presently understand them. Therefore if such a force did intervene on earthly matters it would be capable of circumventing what we consider to be the basic rules of science atleast temporarilly .

 

[Sprangler]

Jesus.

now now fallout boy, no need for profanity

who are you talking to iron?

rofl.

 

[Cookie182]

I believe the thought process to apply goes something like: At the begining, the very begining, something needed to have caused what caused what caused what caused something to happen to get the ball rolling. That something as far as the eye can see mustn't have been bound by the laws of science as we presently understand them. Therefore if such a force did intervene on earthly matters it would be capable of circumventing what we consider to be the basic rules of science atleast temporarilly .

"Dawkins himself, in a book meaningfully titled River out of Eden (1995) addresses the issue squarely, uncompromisingly, and without pulling any punches. For a start, Dawkins argues that part of the problem with the question of the meaning of life comes not from life or from evolution (not directly at least) but from ourselves. "We humans," he says, "have purpose on the brain"(96). The evidence of this, I would say is ubiquitous, from mindless sayings such as "Everything happens for a reason" to Rorschach tests and coincidental phone calls. The problem is not evidence of purpose or meaning, but rather a psychological propensity to project them onto the world.

...[C]hildren and primitives and possibly higher animals such as cats and dogs, share the propensity for projecting onto inanimate things and nonliving processes-such as thunder, wind, tumbling rocks and eclipses- mind and intentionality.

...If not mind and purpose in these things, the propensity is to think that there must be a mind and purpose behind them.

...But, says Dawkins, the mere fact we can ask a question- in this case, "What is the meaning or purpose of this?"- does not mean there has to be an answer. Like it or not, it might just be the case that there really is no meaning or purpose. In other words, the question might be the wrong question right from the start, maybe even an illegitimate question to begin with."

(Stamos, D 2008, Evolution and the Big Questions: Sex, Race, Religion and Other Matters, Blackwell, MA USA.)

(Dawkins, R 1995, River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Basic Books, NY)

 

[Lentern]

Dawkins himself, in a book meaningfully titled River out of Eden addresses the issue squarely, uncompromisingly, and without pulling any punches. For a start, Dawkins argues that part of the problem with the question of the meaning of life comes not from life or from evolution (not directly at least) but from ourselves. "We humans," he says, "have purpose on the brain"(96). The evidence of this, I would say is ubiquitous, from mindless sayings such as "Everything happens for a reason" to Rorschach tests and coincidental phone calls. The problem is not evidence of purpose or meaning, but rather a psychological propensity to project them onto the world.

...[C]hildren and primitives and possibly higher animals such as cats and dogs, share the propensity for projecting onto inanimate things and nonliving processes-such as thunder, wind, tumbling rocks and eclipses- mind and intentionality.

...If not mind and purpose in these things, the propensity is to think that there must be a mind and purpose behind them.

...But, says Dawkins, the mere fact we can ask a question- in this case, "What is the meaning or purpose of this?"- does not mean there has to be an answer. Like it or not, it might just be the case that there really is no meaning or purpose. In other words, the question might be the wrong question right from the start, maybe even an illegitimate question to begin with.

(Stamos, D 2008, 'Evolution and the Big Questions: Sex, Race, Religion and Other Matters', Blackwell, MA USA.)

That is all very reasonable but I think you are confusing, or perhaps deliberately merging cause with purpose. It might have been completely random, apathetic, non-conscious yes but if you, as I certainly do, subscribe to the notion that before any matter whatsoever existed there must have been influence from a force not bound by the laws of science as we presently understand them you accept there is(or was) something that our ordinary ideas of impossible and possible did not or does not apply to. Considering this the notion that Mary was impregnated by this higher power whilst apparently far fetched is not irrational.

 

[Cookie182]

That is all very reasonable but I think you are confusing, or perhaps deliberately merging cause with purpose. It might have been completely random, apathetic, non-conscious yes but if you, as I certainly do, subscribe to the notion that before any matter whatsoever existed there must have been influence from a force not bound by the laws of science as we presently understand them you accept there is(or was) something that our ordinary ideas of impossible and possible did not or does not apply to. Considering this the notion that Mary was impregnated by this higher power whilst apparently far fetched is not irrational.

Yes, I did jump the gun, I assumed you were implying cause=purpose. Not that it is a vile assumption to make, given the Christian paradigm loves to start with an "argument from design" etc and then make the illogical leap to assuming positivistic elements about a creator- that "he" loves us, can intervene in the natural world, is omnipotent/omnibenevolent etc and eventually arive at "the bible is true". Any reasonable person knows that even if evidence from design proved an intelligent "first-cause" this provides no further evidence for the claims of Christianity then it does for say Islam or any other of the 20000 religious traditions throughout history. Also you treat it like a dichotomy; if not a natural cause so far, therefore it is a supernatural one. This is an illogical leap.

Secondly, I do not agree that the universe was intelligently design, based on the evidence I have reviewed from the world's smartest minds like Dawkins, Miller, Gould. There is a wealth of material out there, I'm too busy to say anymore but you can reach your own conclusions (as long as you follow the evidence). The book I quoted above by Professor Stamos is an excellent source. Also review the now famous case Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al- pretty much ruled "beyond reasonable doubt" (the test every religion should be subjected to ) that ID is revamped form of creationism and solely not scientific. The tesimonies were from some of the world's sharpest minds- I would recommend reading Gordy Slack's "The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything" for a comprehensive overview and a good laugh at ID. The case- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Lastly, why do you think there needed to be a "first cause"? Could the universe itself not be eternal? Assigning the word "god" to it also does little. Its a mere netural descriptor in which small minds then forward positivistic claims about with zero evidence. The premise that everything needs a cause would then need to be given to the entity god also, which will cause an infinite regress. The constant discoveries in the realm of the Big Bang are cutting edge and exciting. I see no need at this point to place a "supernatural" label on an event which may well be proven to have natural origins.

 

[Iron]

Thousands of centuries ago huge, very heavily armoured creatures were evolved. If anyone had at that time been watching the course of Evolution he would probably expected that it was going to go on to a heavier and heavier armour, but he would have been wrong. The future had a card up its sleeve which nothing at that time would have led him to expect. It was going to spring on him little, naked, unarmoured animals which had better brains: and with those brains they were going to master the whole planet. They were not merely going to have more power than the prehistoric monsters, they were going to have a new kind of power. The next step was not only going to be different, but different with a new kind of difference. The stream of Evolution was not going to flow on in the direction in which he saw it flowing: it was in fact going to take a sharp bend.

In the same way, the virgin birth and Christ Himself brought to the world not only difference, but a new kind of difference. It does not speak of man's increasing dominance and power over all things, but rather offers peace and love and hope which gives endurance and strength to all who find it.

 

[Cookie182]

Thousands of centuries ago huge, very heavily armoured creatures were evolved. If anyone had at that time been watching the course of Evolution he would probably expected that it was going to go on to a heavier and heavier armour, but he would have been wrong. The future had a card up its sleeve which nothing at that time would have led him to expect. It was going to spring on him little, naked, unarmoured animals which had better brains: and with those brains they were going to master the whole planet. They were not merely going to have more power than the prehistoric monsters, they were going to have a new kind of power. The next step was not only going to be different, but different with a new kind of difference. The stream of Evolution was not going to flow on in the direction in which he saw it flowing: it was in fact going to take a sharp bend.

In the same way, the virgin birth and Christ Himself brought to the world not only difference, but a new kind of difference. It does not speak of man's increasing dominance and power over all things, but rather offers peace and love and hope which gives endurance and strength to all who find it.

Sup Iron? I'm not in the mood for a debate (doing 2 assignments) but I just want you to cut the verbosity and explain your point here (is there one?).

I'm going to assume the"heavy armoured" are the dinosaurs (the prehistoric rulers if you will) and then we came along. Its nice to see you speaking of evolution for a change, but I'm wondering are you applying that there was an element of "purpose" or "thought" in natural selection here?

Debating the origins of life is tough, but once we jump into how life came to be today, science knows a lot. Evolution didn't "plan" for man- we are a lucky event and that is the beauty about it. In fact, "evolution" can't think- it is simply a mechanism that kicks in at the genetic level if certain prerequesities are met. As Dawkins notably highlighted in the The Selfish Gene genes act as though they are selfish- ie the only function (and many could say "purpose" to life, from a scientific not philosophical/spiritual P.O.V.) is to survive and replicate given necessary conditions.

The given fact is that one day, like all species we will be non-existent. The world won't miss us though, life will continue and new species will arise. This will occur until the point where the Sun implodes...

 

[Iron]

Maybe my point was that the 'logic' you claim doesnt always work out and surprising things are always happening in nature and in man, and in this way the virgin birth is a historically consistent spanner in the works which not only brought difference, but a new kind of difference.
You call us old and frail, but the Christians today are still very young beings. We have always been written off by Muslims or Protestants, the changes of industrialisation, nationalism and postmodernism, but we still remain stronger than ever. The fact is that we consider ourselves New men - evolved from your crude form of power-driven beast to an enlightened and loving being. Before the virgin birth, the assumption was that life is about power and dominance, that God would physically avenge the Jews, that the Romans would inherit the earth etc. We have broken from this cycle of violence and hate and become reborn into more authentic beings. You remain trapped in the past and locked in your ego

 

[moll.]

"... and having just been born, wee little Baby Jesus was filled with fear and dread as he lay in his manger, for, lying next to him admist all the blood and gore of the birthing process, was in fact what appeared to be his detached penis. Wailing at the top of his lungs at his poor eunuch-like fate, it was then that Baby Jesus realised that his penile gland was in fact still firmly attached, and it was actually his pseudo-mother's hymen which he was staring at."

 

[Riet]

If the universe needs a creator god does too.

 

[miegoreng]

What do Christians have over many of the other religions anyway? The process of them knowing the truth is similar to other religions. How can someone believe Mohummad be wrong and Jesus right? Muslims have similar arguments against athiests but how can they say Koran>Bible?

Anyways it's part of human nature to not change beliefs you firmly have, even if the truth was shoved clearly in their face. In general, if you have a preconcieved idea about soemthing, you will see what you want to see. Even the most intelligent people disagree, even though one side must be right and the other is wrong, and there is sufficient evidence nowadays to get the correct answer with only a tiny probability the answer is wrong. Jesus cured heaps of lepers and stuff apparently but it's too bad he doesn't help more. I mean heaps of people starve to death all the time, amonog various other deadly problems

 

[Iron]

Bc ours is a God with a human face

 

[Cookie182]

Bc ours is a God with a human face

lol

Jesus also brought his message through wit, careful linguistics and love.

The faceless mohammed brought a sword and many young wives.

/end.

 

[Cloesd]

Let me give you guys a scientific end all answer to this.


IF Mary was a virgin, when jesus was born, where did the other 23 chromosomes come from?

There's two possiblities, she either wasn't a virgin at all

OR

Jesus was a clone of mary (it does actually happen in nature, although very rarely, females impregnate themselves) but this would mean jesus was a woman.


/end thread


sorry for who's faith i'v shaken, and beliefs i'v dismantled.
(Not really, shame on you for believing that stuff and while being old enough to browse the net)

 

[КГБ]

Personally, the Christians belief is fucking more nuttier than the Muslims and the jews.

 

[orthentix]

birth would hurt twice as much if so lol.

 

[Lentern]

Let me give you guys a scientific end all answer to this.


IF Mary was a virgin, when jesus was born, where did the other 23 chromosomes come from?

There's two possiblities, she either wasn't a virgin at all

OR

Jesus was a clone of mary (it does actually happen in nature, although very rarely, females impregnate themselves) but this would mean jesus was a woman.


/end thread


sorry for who's faith i'v shaken, and beliefs i'v dismantled.
(Not really, shame on you for believing that stuff and while being old enough to browse the net)

Previously i've resisted such temptations as this but your so worth it as such in response to your commentary I say : Duh, he's God he can do anything he wants.