mary, virgin or not

[Quiddity]

It is a scientific claim to say that the metaphysical entity you posit as God directly interferes with physical reality in miracles such as the supposed virgin birth. I believe this is a red herring.

If you feel this is legitimate scientific inquiry then you will quickly find yourself in an island amongst scientist. No skin off my back, good luck.

 

[Prophet]

If you feel this is legitimate scientific inquiry then you will quickly find yourself in an island amongst scientist. No skin off my back, good luck.

I have never once called it anything approaching legitimate.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Let's say that, God made that to happen. It seems to me, that for a female to become pregnant without a man, God did not have to break the laws of physics or chemistry at all.
Because, all the ingredients or chemical substances needed for body of a embryonic, already exist in a woman. So, it's just the matter of bringing all those substances together in the form of a human embryo. So, theoretically speaking, this is possible. It's just we don't have the science of it, as we don't have the science which can create life from dust. But according to evolution, life came from dust.

 

[Prophet]

Other examples of illegitimate scientific claims:

The earth is flat.

The sun rotates around the earth.

Heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.

 

[Prophet]

Let's say that, God made that to happen. It seems to me, that for a female to become pregnant without a man, God did not have to break the laws of physics or chemistry at all.
Because, all the ingredients or chemical substances needed for body of a embryonic, already exist in a woman. So, it's just the matter of bringing all those substances together in the form of a human embryo. So, theoretically speaking, this is possible. It's just we don't have the science of it, as we don't have the science which can create life from dust. But according to evolution, life came from dust.

If you went off to war for a few years and your wife became pregnant while you were gone, would you entertain her story of an immaculate conception?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

If you went off to war for a few years and your wife became pregnant while you were gone, would you entertain her story of an immaculate conception?

No, however, "if" someone is a true divine messenger from God, then, this a possible thing.
But that's not the point that I was trying to make. Neither I am suggesting that it is an easy thing to believe. I am just saying that, from a pure scientific disscution, such a thing is possible, without even breaking the laws of physics or chemistry. So, a miracle, is not necessary done by breaking the laws of physics or chemistry, as generally understood.
But other things such as believing in a physical resurrection of dead, would require breaking the laws, which is against science or logic.

 

[outhouse]

Other examples of illegitimate scientific claims:

The earth is flat.

The sun rotates around the earth.

Heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.

if you jump real high straight up! the earths rotation will make it so you land 3' from where you started

 

[eartheconomyspirit]

i was not aware that i made any claims, i dont know if she was a virgin or not, i was asking what others thought.

Here,s what I think. The concept of a savior born of a virgin is a religious myth that can be traced back to Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism precedes Chrsitianity by almost 2000 years. refer Wikipedia Interstingly Zoroastrianism may have interacted with Judaism around 600 BCE. One suggestion is that the Pharisees were innfluenced by it.

In the Nag Hammadi find, there is a reference from John in his apocrypha to Zoroaster. This is an ancient find, that could only be accused of inaccuracy by presuming malicious intent by its ancient author, but that,s another debate.

It,s my view that it's this savior concept that was applied to Jesus therefore to meet it,s requirements Mary had to be acclaimed (falsely) a virgin.

You'll also find in Zoroastrianism, many other inspirations for the mystical side of religion.

Don't however give up on Jesus to lightly. In the Gospel of Thomas there is a wisdom that relates to our authentic spirituality and would in my opinion sit well with buddhism. My view is that Jesus aware of Zoroastrianism was in the process of demistifiying religion. This is why we have the debate between Gnoticism and Othodoxy in the early BCE period. The Orthodox view got significant and controversial support from Constantine and Eusebius and that is why the Mystical view of the human condition won the day.

Also, in the Nag Hammadi documents, you,ll see a Zoroastarian flavoring to John and Peter is controversial in relation to Mary. Again, an opinion, When Jesus died on the cross he hadn't been able to convince all the apostles of his understanding. In Islam, we see this condition when Mohammed passes. a split in ideology emerges creating sects of a religion when the source departs.

Again another debate

 

[Quiddity]

I have never once called it anything approaching legitimate.

Ok, what did you mean by this:

"It is a scientific claim to say that the metaphysical entity you posit as God directly interferes with physical reality in miracles such as the supposed virgin birth."

....if not legitimate?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

the sumerians had interesting'' timelines...like kings who reigned for thousands of years.

Not really all that different than the supposed lifespan of various biblical figures.

the biblical timeline is far more reliable then any other ancient cutlure imo.

Actually it isn't. The Egyptian timeline predates the bible and we know who reigned and for how long. The same with the Chinese and even though the Sumerians may have listed, in their mythic stories, of figures living for thousands of years we know their culture predates the bible and in fact is where the bible gets most of its folklore.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Let's say that, God made that to happen. It seems to me, that for a female to become pregnant without a man, God did not have to break the laws of physics or chemistry at all.

Which laws of physics or chemistry are you referring to? The biblical myth circumvents the natural order by which women become pregnant. The the bible says "God is spirit"... then he broke the laws of physics and since he is spirit we can't assume he impregnated her with sperm thus he broke the laws of chemistry.

Because, all the ingredients or chemical substances needed for body of a embryonic, already exist in a woman.

No they're not.

So, it's just the matter of bringing all those substances together in the form of a human embryo.

I'm not sure you know this works.

So, theoretically speaking, this is possible.

You mean "hypothetically"....and No..it isn't.

It's just we don't have the science of it, as we don't have the science which can create life from dust. But according to evolution, life came from dust.

:sarcastic

 

[Prophet]

Ok, what did you mean by this:

"It is a scientific claim to say that the metaphysical entity you posit as God directly interferes with physical reality in miracles such as the supposed virgin birth."

....if not legitimate?

I apologize if my use of the word "scientific" seemed like I was in any way attempting to posit legitimacy. I have found many scientific claims to be absolutely illegitimate. I listed a few well-known examples of illegitimate scientific claims earlier.

You posit that God impregnates humans. I say this is similar to a belief that the sun orbits the earth. Fundamentalists eventually gave up the latter belief after the evidence became too great. With an entire epoch of human history available to you as evidence, at which point do you say to yourself that it takes a man and a woman to produce a child?

 

[Quiddity]

I apologize if my use of the word "scientific" seemed like I was in any way attempting to posit legitimacy. I have found many scientific claims to be absolutely illegitimate. I listed a few well-known examples of illegitimate scientific claims earlier.

You posit that God impregnates humans. I say this is similar to a belief that the sun orbits the earth. Fundamentalists eventually gave up the latter belief after the evidence became too great. With an entire epoch of human history available to you as evidence, at which point do you say to yourself that it takes a man and a woman to produce a child?

I'm at that point already; having kids and all. However, I'm not sure why my awareness of this somehow makes it impossible for God to do this? It's not like I believe this is the modus operandi of how things work; whereby God goes around doing it to all women (although in someway he does, as he wills everything into existance....but that's for some other day). Your beef is with my belief in God impregnating one women, no?

 

[outhouse]

I am sure God had a bunch of children who he sent down and they took wives..

How so?

I am sure someone on here might be able to add something on that. Might be in Genesis

I know it well, it says no such thing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Mythology is rife with demi-gods as the offspring of a god and a mortal. As with all mythology, reasoning adults understand that the fantastical elements are made up.

 

[cablescavenger]

How so?

I know it well, it says no such thing.

I was going by memory, maybe I took it literally, but it is here anyway.



Interestingly the thing about giants being in the earth in them days and being sons of God. I think that is because they would have been aware of dinosaur bones.


Genesis 6

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose . 3 And the LORD said , My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh : yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said , I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

 

[Pegg]

Actually it isn't. The Egyptian timeline predates the bible and we know who reigned and for how long.

the documents modern egyptologists use are very fragmentary though. They are the Palermo Stone which list the first five dynasties, the Turin Papyrus gives a list of kings and their reigns from the “Old Kingdom” into the “New Kingdom” and various stone inscriptions. Then they compile these into a chronology based on the writings of Manetho, an Egyptian priest of the third century B.C.E. And the problem with that is that Manetho's writings are not lists of successive rulers over Egypt, but of independent princes reigning at the same time in different regions. So trying to put a timeline to that sort of information is almost pointless.

The same with the Chinese and even though the Sumerians may have listed, in their mythic stories, of figures living for thousands of years we know their culture predates the bible and in fact is where the bible gets most of its folklore.

predating the bible does not negate the bible though. The sons of Shem (from whom the Isrealites sprang) transmitted their teachings and ideas orally from parent to child just as some nations still do today. So the fact that they didnt write things down until 1500bce does not mean their information is less valid then those who wrote their ideas down before that time,.

 

[outhouse]

I was going by memory, maybe I took it literally, but it is here anyway.



Interestingly the thing about giants being in the earth in them days and being sons of God. I think that is because they would have been aware of dinosaur bones.


Genesis 6

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose . 3 And the LORD said , My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh : yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said , I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Good catch

I always looked at "sons of god" to mean his early loyal followers

 

[Prophet]

I'm at that point already; having kids and all. However, I'm not sure why my awareness of this somehow makes it impossible for God to do this? It's not like I believe this is the modus operandi of how things work; whereby God goes around doing it to all women (although in someway he does, as he wills everything into existance....but that's for some other day). Your beef is with my belief in God impregnating one women, no?

You make one claim. I make another. Both claims are scientific.

I understand your claim to say that a metaphysical entity which you posit as God interferes in the physical universe according to a hidden will. Thus, there must exist physical phenomena with no physical cause as miracles must have supernatural cause. That is a clear scientific claim. You are saying there are things that could never be explained.

I, too, claim that God exists, but is bound by His perfect nature to never interfere in the physical universe. He causes His sun to rise and His rains to fall on good and evil alike never showing preference. My claim is, thus, quite different than yours scientifically in that I say that magic does not exist.

 

[Quiddity]

You make one claim. I make another. Both claims are scientific.

I understand your claim to say that a metaphysical entity which you posit as God interferes in the physical universe according to a hidden will. Thus, there must exist physical phenomena with no physical cause as miracles must have supernatural cause. That is a clear scientific claim. You are saying there are things that could never be explained.

I, too, claim that God exists, but is bound by His perfect nature to never interfere in the physical universe. He causes His sun to rise and His rains to fall on good and evil alike never showing preference. My claim is, thus, quite different than yours scientifically in that I say that magic does not exist.

Deistic?

At any rate, this is probably off into a tangent. If you'd like to continue and have plans to stick around this forum, maybe we can do a one vs. one on a topic of your choosing. PM me if you do.