Do you believe the Xmas story?

[Disturbed]

I don't believe that a woman can give birth via an angel sending in sperm to her body. The rest of the story is just also fiction but why even debate that when the virgin birth is the highlight?


If so, explain why you do. If not, why not.

[RPM]

1. virgin birth - just as unlikely as fat men in reindeer pulled sleds n/t

[Yuugal]

6. sacrilege!

Are you dissing Santa with only a week to go? He knows when you've been sleeping. Think about that.

I wrote Santa and asked for an Impeachment Hearing. He has never let me down before so I'm trusting in the Jolly Old Elf to get me through 2005.

ps- Libruls who steal xmas trees only get dirty high sulfur coal in their stockings.

[RPM]

7. you're confusing jolly fat men...

... the impeachment request should have gone to Ted Kennedy; not santa.

good luck with that, tho'

[Yuugal]

15. touche!

thanks for the belly laugh, I spit my raisin bran all over

[Cleita]

2. No.

The Son of God story was borrowed from the Greek story of Heracles, whose father was the King of the Gods, Zeus. But even the Greeks weren't gullible enough to believe the mortal Alcemene, Herc's mother, was a virgin.

On edit, the Heracles story was borrowed from an earlier tale of Danae, another conquest of Zeus, who fathered Perseus on her so this story has been around a long time. It was easier for kings to get loyalty from their subjects if they could claim they were decended from a god.

[signmike]

3. I believe in The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, and

Columbus.

Not so sure about Toledo, though.

;-)

[democrat in Tallahassee]

23. don't blaspheme the easter bunny; she lives in my house

or there will no easter candy for YOU!

[signmike]

56. I don't want the candy- I'm after those

colored bunny eggs!

Talk about a miracle.:o

[antigone382]

4. I'm an atheist, so I don't believe it, but I can understand why others do.

I used to be a Christian, and at the time I believed in the virgin birth. I saw it as a miracle, a mystery of faith. It's a matter of faith in the power of God, and it's not really something that can be explained.

Since then, I've lost my faith, but I don't think people who haven't lost that faith are stupid. I can respect that Christians who believe in the virgin birth are logical and intelligent, even if I don't personally share in that belief.

[RPM]

9. a fine line

to paraphrase the old line from spinal tap ("there's a fine line between clever and stupid")

There's a fine line between faith and ignorance

[ktowntennesseedem]

114. How True!

When faith is used to fill in the gaps that science, reason, and common sense cannot adequately explain, it can be a very useful and helpful thing. But when faith becomes a substitute for science, reason or common sense, or more accurately an excuse for laziness to avoid having to think about such things, nothing but ignorance and foolishness will come of it.

I am myself a person of deep faith, but someone shoot me if I ever disengage the mind and rely solely on the heart; the two must work in tandem, not in opposition.

[Stinky The Clown]

87. My deep, sincere thanks to the atheist

I continue to consider myself a Christian, although I long ago abandoned my original Roman Catholocism. I now practice no religion, but live my life in a way that I think any good Christian should (which all flows directly from the Golden Rule).

Thank you for stating so clearly and succinctly the matter of faith as it relates to the "Christmas story". It is as you say ..... a matter of faith. Unarguable, unprovable.

To those downthread who simply make fun of this, I respect and tolerate your lack of belief and your absolute right to joke about it. But I also know it offends me.

Thank you, again, antigone382, for saying what you said.

[AngryOldDem]

90. I second that

Mocking someone's faith or religious beliefs is out of bounds, and I'm astounded at those who think otherwise.

[jsw_81]

107. Why should it be out of bounds?

I'm astounded that people like you seem to feel that every idiotic belief system under the sun is worthy of respect and above criticism. The fact of the matter is that many of these beliefs are harmful and unworthy of any respect whatsoever. Should we respect fundies who believe that the universe is 6,000 years old and that virtually everyone on the planet will burn in Hell for eternity? Or Muslims who stone young women to death for adultery? Or fly planes into skyscrapers because "Allah" wants them to? Or African tribesmen who torture animals because the "spirits" tell them to? I'm not going to ever respect that kind of primitive crap.

We skeptics have held our tongue for far too long with regard to these kinds of idiotic, cruel, insane belief systems but we will hold our tongues no longer. There is no reason whatsoever why religious beliefs should be off limits to criticism. Period.

[Princess Turandot]

119. Semantics count a lot..

and in my case,they tell me why some of this discussion should be out of bounds. If you cannot have a discussion on religion without referring to any faith as an 'idiotic belief system', then you should not be posting about it, as far as I am concerned. There's a way to have a civil discourse about this without beginning with flat out insults to people whom you know have religious beliefs that you do not share.

I am assuming that you address your posts to people of any faith on DU, since we are the people who read them. I think there are very few 'fundies' here or people who wish to stone women for adultery, and I think that you know that. So, I have to conclude that you have no qualms about insulting and trashing people who share political beliefs with you. The first sentence of your post here makes me want to share nothing with you, given how tolerant your perspective is. You think that you are mocking religion when in reality you mock the notion behind this website.

[Liberal Christian]

5. Do I believe . . .

. . . that God was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth, in ministry in Galilee, was crucified, died, and rose again?

Yes I do.

Do I believe that Mary was a virgin? I believe it doesn't matter whether she was or not. I believe that if God wants to make something happen, it will happen. I believe that when God wanted to know what it was to be fully human, that happened in Jesus the Christ.

And that's what I celebrate on Christmas.

[demosincebirth]

22. Same here.

[Mabeline]

33. I agree

I also believe Mary was a virgin, but I don't believe an angel sent sperm into her. God spoke to Joseph, he and Mary were to be married soon, and He told Joseph Mary was to concieve His son and Joseph need not worry that Mary was untrue (my words) to him. Joseph took her to wife and if I am not mistaken he didn't "know her" until after the babe Jesus was born. God created all mankind, he didn't need to send sperm to impregnate her, her conceiving was one among many miracles.

[LostinVA]

86. I believe

Joshua (Jesus) was born, etc. But, it is doubtful he was born in Bethlehem. Or, if he was, it had nothing to do with a "decree" about a census. That is historically wrong. There are alot of sources for this, but a good layman read is Kenneth Davis', "Don't Know Much About the Bible." It is VERY interesting. For the record, Davis is a devout Christian.

This in no way negates believing Jesus was Christ.

[NMDemDist2]

8. it is technically possible for a virgin to give birth

penetration past the maidenhead is not necessary to deposit sperm close enough to make the journey to the egg

I make no comment on the divine aspects of the story

[Disturbed]

10. Hmmm.....

The Angel was a male and just how was that sperm sent in?

I am trying to stay with that one event and not stray onto other events.

[Cleita]

11. According to one of my religion teachers,

Sister Mary *Yellsalot*, the miracle was not the necessarily the fertilization of the egg, which could have happened without disturbing Mary's virginity, but the birth, hence virgin birth, which she also accomplished without losing her virginity. According to this nun, because Mary was born without original sin, she didn't suffer Eve's curse of bringing her children into the world in pain, so apparently Mary hicupped, Jesus materialized and she was still a virgin.

[NMDemDist2]

14. so was the same "hiccup" available to Mary when Jesus' little brother

was born? or did "bopping" hubby Joe negate that nice little perk?

according to Sister Mary?

/irony ROFL just kidding Cleita

[Cleita]

16. Oh sister didn't believe Jesus had brothers and sisters.

She said those references to his brother James were just chummy words for the inner circle "apostle family". *wink*, *wink*.

Joe took a vow of celibacy because God asked him too. Funny there is nothing in the NT about that, but Sister sweared by it.

[NMDemDist2]

17. ROFL so much for "be fruitful and multiply" then huh? n/t

[Pastiche423]

18. So...

Mary and Joseph never did the dirty?

Ever?

(According to Sister Mary *Yellsalot*)

[Cleita]

20. Nope, never.

They had to remain pure. Mary's real husband was the Holy Spirit according to sister, and Joe was a sort of guardian to keep her from being stoned as a harlot, so for them to do the wild thing would have made the relationship adulterous even though they were husband and wife on the earthly plane. I guess there were a bunch of angels hanging around all the time too making it hard to noogy in a one room hut anyway.

As you can tell my class used to make this poor nun jump through hoops trying to explain things to us that didn't make sense. Poor woman.

[UTDemocrat8204]

47. So what

did they do about their harmones according to the nun?

[Cleita]

74. I don't think we ever asked her. We didn't know

about hormones then, or I'm sure we would have.

[Strelnikov_]

85. Maybe Joseph Was Gay, And It Was A Marriage Of Convenience

You know, to avoid all those rumors about an unmarried carpenter.

And God decided to bless this selfless couple with a son, his son.

[signmike]

21. the Big J had a BROTHER?!

Damn, imagine being HIS little bro...I can hear it now "Jimmy, for Christ's sake, why can't you be more like Him?"
or
"Whaddaya mean YOU didn't break it? Don't you try to put it off onto Mr. Perfect."
"No, you do NOT need a boat. Just walk across the sea, your brother does it all the time."

or poor Jim; "Fish? AGAIN??!!"

_______________________________________

Something unrelated- on the news just now, a candle shop selling a candle that "Smells like Jesus".
??
It smells like a burning a guy who's been dead 2,000 years? :puke:

[antigone382]

26. LMAO! Holy Crap (no pun intended)!

Smells like Jesus?

That is TOO hysterical!

[UTDemocrat8204]

48. "Smells like Jesus?"

Is it a sweet flower fragrance?

[tjdee]

102. James was his brother, for one thing.

I think the biblical book of James is purported to have been written by Jesus' brother. Not sure if there were more.

All siblings are believed to have been Joseph's biological children.

[shimmergal]

52. Well, I never heard that version before. . .

but there's another way the baby could have been born and Mary stayed a virgin. Caesarean section. Of course the procedure was terribly risky in those days, and in a poor village in that part of the world, her surviving such a birth would have been the real miracle.

[Cleita]

76. The idea was that it was a miracle.

I think most of us envisioned something like Star Trek of the baby Jesus being beamed out of Mary's womb into the manger. No screaming, no blood and no fuss. Of course, when you think about it, why would God even bother with getting Mary pregnant in that case. Perhaps they should have presented the baby Jesus to Mary and Joseph at the time they wanted to already fully formed, sort of like God presented Eve to Adam.

[Nobody]

83. Indeed it is: Artificial insemination n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

12. Yes, you CAN shoot your eye out with a BB gun. n/t

[RPM]

19. hahahaahah

:toast:

[flygal]

60. HA! Great minds! That's the first thing I thought of when I saw

"A Christmas Story" LMAO

[Walt Starr]

13. As is the case with all other mythology

no

[Acryliccalico]

24. Agnostic

but I believe it was just a story to control the masses. Sound familiar??? :hippie:

[BernieBear]

25. Apparently as I understand it, the Hebrew word "virgin" 2000 years ago

meant unmarried. That's what I heard last week on Discovery Channel. So there you go, one mystery solved! BB :crazy:

[UTDemocrat8204]

49. Wow you

learn something new everyday. Do you know the name of the show?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

78. yep...

The translation(s) from the original writings are all garbled. It's not like they translated from the originals straight to english. Every time it was "translated" it was changed by the writers to fit their agenda, or at the very least was influenced by their experiences. So every version, in each language is different from the original.

[pelagius]

113. The Hebrew word in question is "almah"...

...which the Revised Standard Version of the Bible translates as "young woman" in contrast to the King James' "virgin". For this and other reasons, many evangelicals shun the RSV (and certainly the newer "inclusive language" NRSV) even though scholarly opinion holds that it is one of the best word-for-word translations to date.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

27. If you believe in an invisible god why not a virgin birth?

Anything is possible.

:shrug:

[karlrschneider]

28. Deities and their accoutrements were invented by fearful humans.

If you have 'pets', you are their 'god.'

[AliciaKeyedUp]

29. Do you just feel obliged to offend anyone who has faith?

Threads like this reflect badly on you, DU, Democrats and everyone else.

[Digit]

30. They have the right to their opinion....

You have the right to not read it.

[quaoar]

44. She also has the right

to be offended.

[Pastiche423]

61. I do not understand

How does this thread reflect badly on anyone?

[knitter4democracy]

72. The responses here are what others then use against us

When I got into an argument with someone at another board about a link she'd posted, she immediately brought up that I frequent this site and argued that it's an anti-semitic site since some people here are against Isreal's aggression and horrible treatment of the Palestinians. If someone sees many posts that seem nasty in content against something they think is important, such as faith, they think it's just a nasty site.

Personally, I do believe in the virgin birth, that it is important theologically, and that my Savior really did live and die on the Cross to be raised from the dead on the third day. Does that make me crazy? If you want to believe that, go ahead, but I think it takes more faith to have no faith when one looks at the wonders of the creation we live in. I'm not a freeper or anything like that, just an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Blessings.

[neebob]

80. Well, then let's not say what we think

because someone might use it against us. That's a dangerous argument, in my opinion. At what point do you stop using it?

[phylny]

98. You can't say derogatory things about

people of color, otherwise you're a racist. You can't say derogatory things about homosexuals, otherwise you're a homophobe. But you certainly CAN say derogatory things about Christians, and feel free to mock them, too. Evidently that's okay. At least it seems to be in the DU rulebook this way :shrug:

For the record, I believe Mary was a virgin, and gave birth to Jesus, who is my Savior. I make it easy on myself and don't think too hard on the "whys" because I consider these things to be miracles. It's the same way I view the whole "evolution" versus "creationism." I think God created the world, but I think it took billions of years to do so. I have no problem with the two differing viewpoints, because the bibilical story in Genesis is a story, a parable of sorts to explain how God created the universe. I don't think it took six days, but that's how the story goes.

The story in the bible says that Mary was a virgin, that an angel came to her and told her she would conceive through the Holy Spirit.

No problema.

[knitter4democracy]

109. I think it's best to be as respectful as possible

Like I said, when people see many nasty posts, they lable a site as nasty. It's not that we can't say what we want, it's that we need to be respectful. I'm often suprised at how mean some posters are and how personally they attack others. I look beyond that, obviously, but I've had to take breaks from these boards to cool down.

If someone, like a freeper, wants to hate us, they will no matter what's said. It's the people on the fence, the ones looking for answers I worry about losing because of someone not caring what anyone else thinks. A lot of people are tired of personal attacks in politics and the nastiness.

Just look at how offensive some of the posts on this thread are. Do you have to call my God names? Do you have to be nasty about my faith? I don't attack others for their faith, even though I know there are Christians who've done a lot of damage to a whole lot of people. That doesn't justify being mean to the Christians who are here--would we be here if we didn't already agree with progressive political principals? I'm often on another board, and somehow we manage to keep everything nice for the most part. Why not here?

[AngryOldDem]

88. Mocking the faith of a lot of people, for starters

When are people going to learn here that there is a difference between criticizing the leaders of a religion and ridiculing the belief system of a religion? Sometimes I think people here get the two confused, and cross the line. Christianity and Christians have taken their fair share of hits here since the election, but making fun of a particular religious belief should be seen as unacceptable here.

The Virgin Birth is a deeply held belief on the part of many. If you can't/don't/won't believe it, that is your perogative. But that does NOT give you the right to put that belief up for bashing. It's called, I believe, having respect.

Scroll back up and re-read post 4. That person has it exactly right.

[Djinn]

94. If this thread/original post

if offensivce to those who do beleive in the virgin birth of the son of god then the ENTIRE Christian religion is offensive to ALL Jews, as they do not believe that was the case - saying one doesn't believe something should not offend those that do unless their faith is less secure than they pretend.

Personally I don't even really beleive that Jesus existed, he's a little too similar to other deities for it to be a coincidence, I certainly do not beleive a young unwed women at the time was neither shunned by her intended nor stoned to death for being pregnant, but just like for those that DO beleive it all really boils down to a "feeling" you either belive or you don't - NEITHER view is offensive

[knitter4democracy]

111. We're not saying that disagreeing is offensive

It's how people are disagreeing. I'm not offended that people don't choose my faith. I do get offended when people call my God names and decide to get nasty about it. I'm not offended that you don't believe Jesus existed, that's your right--views aren't offensive, how they're said can be.

[amazona]

31. the virgin birth story was not meant to be literal

Though I went to a lowly public high school, I was taught that in pre-Christian days, it was not uncommon for well-bred young virgins to serve for a short period as holy prostitutes. Any children borne of these unions were considered "virgin" births. Of course we couldn't discuss Christian mythology, only the mythology of those who are safely long dead, like the ancient Greeks and Romans...but it was left plenty clear that the Christian "virgin birth" story was an example of an old pagan tale being pressed into the service of the new religion.

I haven't really investigated further but I'm going to assume that most Christians do not believe in a literal virgin birth. It is more a symbolic thing. Yes, Jesus was a child of God -- but we are all children of God.

[Disturbed]

32. Son of God

Is that not an essential part of this story?

In my reading of the bible this birth is not meant that all human beings are the children of God but that Jesus was the direct son of God. It is also in this book that Jesus was a reincanation of another person. Of course, most refences to this concept were excised out of this book. btw I read somewhere that Buhdda was also born from a virgin. Muddying up the waters now aren't I?

I don't feel that my topic is insulting to anyone. I just don't beleive in much of what is in the bible even though there are some lessons within it that may be helpful for many to live their lives. Most of the stories are fiction in my view but can be instructive. The virgin birth story is not believable and was borrowed from other myths to promote the Jesus Christ worship. Would this religion have lasted this long without all of the miracles attached? I don't think so.

[UTDemocrat8204]

50. Do you know

who Jesus was supposed to be before he was carnated as Jesus? Never heard that before but I highly believe in reincarnation (have some memories myself).

[amazona]

92. I thought King David

I'm a Presbyterian myself and this is not part of our canon so I'm working off some pretty faint memories. Everyone agrees that Jesus was descended from the House of David on the side of Joseph, er, his father, which is another clue that the "virgin birth" story was not literal. However, *IF I recall correctly* I have encountered claims once or twice that before reincarnation was declared a heresy (I'm thinking at the COuncil of Nicea) many believed that Jesus was David reborn.

[ScaRBama]

68. Faith is the unseen.....

You can take everything that you have ever read or heard of and it's all based upon faith if you were not there to see it with your on eyes. Everything you do involves some form of faith.

[Geek_Girl]

39. I would say the opposite

Most Christians believe in the Virgin Birth. It goes along with their faith. If your going to have faith in God and faith in the bible then you would have faith in the Virgin Birth as a Miracle.

I don't find the Virgin Birth any less believable than the resurrection of Jesus Christ and every Christian believes in the resurrection.

[Nikia]

34. I don't think that would necessarily be a difficult miracle

If God created so much other stuff, it wouldn't be that hard for Him to create a viable within a human female. It may have been even easier if Jesus was female (a physical clone) but moleculear biologists are close to making humans without sperm so it would be easy for God.
Of course, perhaps virgin did just mean unmarried.
Regardless, I think that Catholic theology is wrong about Mary remaining a virgin. The New Testament does not suggest that at all.

[UTDemocrat8204]

51. Of course

how else could Jesus have a brother? There's no mention of him being a virgin birth either.

[knitter4democracy]

73. Church tradition says that St. James was a cousin

St. Joseph had a sister named Mary as well, and she is the mother of St. James. "Brother" was a term used loosely in that time and often included close cousins, half-brothers, step-brothers, and such. The clue for that is in the listing of the women staying at the cross. First of all, there are two Marys, one of whom is listed as the mother of James and John. Secondly, why would Jesus need to turn over the care of his mother to St. John the Beloved if she had other living sons to take care of her? Remember, the worst off in those days were unattached women--widows with no children to take care of them in old age or women in similar circumstances.

There's a very good explanation of this in the latest issue of Again Magazine, an Eastern Orthodox magazine out of California from Conciliar Press.

[renaissanceguy]

35. It also depends on how you view Jesus

If it's as a disciple, or a great teacher, then you might be less inclined to believe the story.

[BiggJawn]

36. It's possible.

Jean Sheppard COULD have almost blinded himself with a Red Ryder BB-Gun...

What? Oh, the OTHER "Christmas Story"? No way...

[SillyGoose]

37. I do but

I am a Catholic who has been through 11 years of Catholic school. I believe in the Blessed Mother and respect her as a revered icon of the Catholic Church. What you are referring to is known as the "Immaculate Conception" which means being with child without having had intercourse. That would be a miracle and I do believe in miracles.

The highlight of the Christmas story is the birth of Christ himself, not necessarily that he was born of a virgin IMHO.

[Disturbed]

38. OK

How, exactly, did this "miracle" occur?

[SillyGoose]

42. according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church

the Holy Spirit "sanctified her womb".

[AngryOldDem]

89. The Immaculate Conception

refers to Mary. She was conceived without sin so that she could bear Jesus. Getting this confused with the Virgin Birth is common.

[phylny]

99. IIRC, from the days when I was a Catholic,

Immaculate Conception means that MARY was conceived without sin, not that she conceived Jesus in a "sinful" way (and for the record, no I don't think sexual intercourse is sinful!)

[Skittles]

40. it is pure silliness

nt

[Spiffarino]

41. Which one?

There are three different versions in the New Testament. Mark wrote closest to Jesus' time, so maybe that's the right one. I dunno.

Furthermore, I don't think the Xmas story is very important to Christianity. Xmas is a pagan holiday that we co-opted for the Nativity to keep the Solstice-lovers happy. Jesus' teachings about the redeeming power of love is the message, and it's being all but drowned out by Bush-worshippers.

[Disturbed]

43. Sanctifying the womb?

Does sanctifying mean impregnating?

The angel injected the sperm into her vagina without using his penis?

[shimmergal]

54. There's another way to do that too--the turkey baster.

[UTDemocrat8204]

45. Even though I'm Christian

and do believe in Jesus I've always wondered if she really was a virgin or if that means she was a virgin and was with Joseph or something? But in the story it talks about how Joseph isn't the father and how he and her had to hide that information cause it was a big issue back then on affairs and she would have gotten stoned. It does seem out there.

[quaoar]

46. Do I believe the Xmas story?

In a broad sense, yes.

Do I think it was embellished at some point later on? Yes.

I believe there is much about the life and ministry of Jesus that has been suppressed -- especially his relationship with Mary Magdalene -- because it did not fit into the orthodoxy of the early church.

[UTDemocrat8204]

53. Mary Magedeline (sp?)

did write a book but because of her being a woman she didn't get her book in the final canon which is really sad. I'm sure she had some great stuff written since they seemed to be close. I remember hearing rumors or wonderings if they ever had a relationship. I know I always wondered.

[Solon]

115. The Book of Mary is an interesting read...

Sadly it is incomplete, though it had some interesting tidbits on the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdelene. I'm going on faint memory here, but I think that she and him had a private moment before the Romans came to crucify him. Afterwards, Jesus' apostles badgered her about what he said to her, and she wouldn't tell. They also complained about her being his favorite apostle and a few other things, I found the story refreshing, though I may have gotten the details wrong.

[Clark2008]

55. What is an X-mas?

Christ-mas, I know.

I know, I know - X-mas from the Greek - but retailers of today only want to shorten the name.

Now.. when you get to the Virgin birth. WHO CARES? Jesus was a great and wonderful man so let's leave it at that.

[amazona]

93. Xmas celebrates the martyrs

When people were persecuted for their beliefs under Roman rule, they used the X and also the sign of the fish as a secret code to tell others they were Christians. Xmas is a holy word, not an insult. People who object to it weren't paying attention in Sunday school.

[shimmergal]

57. Seriously, now--

I don't think the virgin birth is the highlight of the story.

The whole mythos-- having to seek shelter in an stable, the angels singing, the shepherds and wise men coming with their gifts, even the stable animals standing around as silent witnesses--is one of the most beautiful stories in the Bible. It's one I usually recommend as a good Bible story for kids, even little kids.

This doesn't mean I necessarily believe these parts of the story happened just the way they've come down to us, either. The point is, it's a wonderful story, and story, or myth, or metaphor, sometimes has a way of encompassing more truth than can be found in provable fact.

As for the "virgin birth." It's very simple. There are at least three different roles, or aspects, of fatherhood. They CAN exist separately. We recognize this today; it's quite obvious in cases of adoption, stepparenthood, etc.
There's biological or genetic fatherhood, functional fatherhood (the guy who actually acts as a father to the child) and social fatherhood (whoever is recognized by the culture as being the child's father.)
Now, Joseph was definitely Jesus's functional father and probably his biological father too, but in Christian tradition, God is his social father. Apparently ancient Judaism recognized the triple aspects too--the levirite (sp?), the duty of a man to impregnate the widow of his dead brother so the brother could have a child of his own, shows the importance of the distinction to them.

And what's so great about virginity anyway? I'm convinced that it has been enforced in so many cultures on adult women because men are worried about their wives having a basis for comparison. Surely
God wouldn't be equally insecure, would he?

[Old Mouse]

58. In for a penny, in for a pound

Why do people try to argue the scientific possibility of orthodox belief? The very bedrock of this belief is that reality - science - is suspended or modified at the will and whim of God.

If you are someone who believes in the virgin birth, you would also believe it is inexplainable, or rather UN-disprovable, by science. There is no explaining this belief in insupportable miracles except to call it faith.

People find connection to a spiritual source at whatever level their personal mythology is comfortable with.

[nemo137]

59. I don't think the virgin birth is a highlight

or, it's only a highlight if you hold to the doctrine of immaculate conception (Mary was concieved without sin).

[Disturbed]

62. Oh. now that is an interesting point.

Sexual intercourse is sinful so the Savior surely could not have been concieved in that manner?

The entire story does need to be woven together as a virgin birth because Jesus was supposed to be the son of god who died for mankind's sin on the cross and rose up after he was dead and decended into heaven. Whoever believes in Jesus Chris as their savior will be saved.That is the basic story is it not?

[nemo137]

108. You're getting things confused

The divinity of Jesus (the He is True God) is based on him being the Son of God - either physically or spiritually the Son of God. This much I believe in. The humanity of Jesus (the He is True Man) is based on him being born of a woman, like every other human being ever. The argument is that Jesus had to have been concieved by the power of God so that he would be both human (through his mother) and divine (through his father). The Protestant view is that is that his divine fatherhood was enough to remove the taint of original sin. The dogma of Immaculate Conception is that Mary also had to be free of original sin for Jesus to be able to redeem the world.

For what it's worth, I do believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin. I can't offer proof to you, but I believe it.

[JanMichael]

63. I get frustrated reading threads like this

The bible as we uneducated Americans (and no, I don't want to hear about our Great Diploma Mills in this country) know it was translated several times until it has appeared in it's present form on your bookshelf.

The word "virgin" was translated from a Greek word that had nothing to do with whether or not a woman had had intercourse or not.

However, virgin births are common in religious myth: even the Buddha was a virgin birth. Have some real fun and do some research (or just "google" for the seriously intellectualy lazy) into "Mithra." Check out the birth circumstances, and his birthday. Check out what people called him.

Threads like this SHOULD challenge people to think, and read--however, messing with someone's deeply held myths can turn ugly...and generally that's what happens on DU-

Good luck to you and future religious threads.

Stephanie

[malaise]

64. Catholic skepticism

My mother and I had several serious debates over the years since I challenged her deep belief in Catholicism since I was 12.

When I was twenty I asked her what her response would be if I came home pregnant and told her that an angel had touched me and I was about to give the world the second virgin birth. She laughed and said she would demand the name of 'that blasted man'. That was a priceless moment. It's all rubbish. Modern religion was invented by men to reinforce worldviews that would make that particular group dominant.

The only laws that matter and that are disobeyed at our peril are the laws of nature.

[CJCRANE]

65. Krishna

in the Hindu religion was also a virgin birth as far as I know.

I think Muslims also believe that Jesus was a virgin birth. Where they differ with Christianity is that they believe he was only a prophet, not the Son of God.

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. But in context, the modern meaning does appear appropriate

"You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.”“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

Luke 1:31-35.

So, if you take Luke as reliable, Mary realised that this was not the normal process.

[Az]

118. This is a theory not a defined fact

The word in question has a questionable history. It can mean either definition. Thus we on the skeptical side prefer to side with the young woman definition while the beleivers continue with their interpretation.

[devinsgram]

66. Who was it that said,

If you repeat a lie enough times, it begins to sound like the truth.

[warrior1]

67. Parthenogensis: Virgin birth.

happens in nature everyday

pär&180;thenôjĕn´esĬs) , in biology, a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops into a new individual without fertilization. Natural parthenogenesis has been observed in many lower animals (it is characteristic of the rotifers), especially insects, e.g., the aphid . In many social insects, such as the honeybee and the ant, the unfertilized eggs give rise to the male drones and the fertilized eggs to the female workers and queens. The phenomenon of parthenogenesis was discovered in the 18th cent. by Charles Bonnet. In 1900, Jacques Loeb accomplished the first clear case of artificial parthenogenesis when he pricked unfertilized frog eggs with a needle and found that in some cases normal embryonic development ensued. Artificial parthenogenesis has since been achieved in almost all major groups of animals, although it usually results in incomplete and abnormal development. Numerous mechanical and chemical agents have been used to stimulate unfertilized eggs. In 1936, Gregory Pincus induced parthenogenesis in mammalian (rabbit) eggs by temperature change and chemical agents. No successful experiments with human parthenogenesis have been reported. The phenomenon is rarer among plants (where it is called parthenocarpy) than among animals. Unusual patterns of heredity can occur in parthenogenetic organisms. For example, offspring produced by some types are identical in all inherited respects to the mother.



so if this tale ever occured the baby would have been a girl and hell we can't have that in the patriarchal bible now can we?

No I don't believe the story either.

[tx_dem41]

69. As symbolism for the basis of a faith-based system....

I believe it.

[Freebird12004]

70. I believe

in - Dragons, Good Men and other Fantasy Creatures

[Red State Rebel]

71. Yes, I believe.

I refuse to be ashamed of my faith. I'm sorry so many here think to be a democrat and a Christian are mutually exclusive. It's not. There are a lot of Christian democrats and the more you rant and rave against them, the more of them you risk alienating them. As long as this attitude prevails, we will never make headway in the red states.

I'm not saying you have to believe, just respect the beliefs of others.

[Midlodemocrat]

82. I believe as well

as a cradle Catholic, we venerate the Blessed Mother and the sacrifice she made for mankind. I believe it with all my heart and soul.

[GingerSnaps]

112. Should we respect

Right wingers who think that they are the Christian establishment and everything that they believe is written in the book of Joeb or gold?

[Mabel Dodge]

75. My husband claims he's a "Bokononist"

He got his religion from a book too, only his was "Cat's Cradle". Anyway Bokononists believe that religions are good, just pick your lies carefully or they can come back and bite you in the ass.

He also feels that religion and faith are two different things. Faith is a beautiful thing that truly can heal the sick and make miracles happen.

Religion on the other hand, is an organized attempt to make everyone homogenous in their beliefs. Religious nuts are the fascists of faith.

Hopefully I've picked well....I'm a Pagan.

[neebob]

77. No

but I don't believe in God, either. If he did exist, he wouldn't have rules like the one where his son has to be crucified to save everyone else.

I think Jesus was probably a very charismatic person who was also a bit delusional, and the people who believed him told tales that got taller and taller as time went on. And it all started because his mother got pregnant by someone other than her husband. Beyond that, I won't speculate. But that is the explanation that makes the most sense, in my opinion.

And speaking of stories that are hard to believe, last night I watched a movie (on TBN) about Noah's Ark with John Voight as Noah and Mary Steenburgen as his wife. No way that ever happened.

[arwalden]

79. Right! It Reminds Me Of Delia Giving Birth To Alvis

Murphy: (voice-over) On a frosty winter's night, a wagon appeared at the gates of Fort Klugman carrying pioneers to the frontier.

A covered wagon arrives at a 19th-century wooden fort.

A young woman in the party called Delia was heavy with child.

A young woman, Delia, is riding in the front of the wagon with a Michael Landon lookalike.

And though she had journeyed with the virile young men for nigh on one year, none had lain with her, though she was comely.

Four Michael Landon lookalikes, with different hair colors and facial hair but otherwise identical, share a bed. Delia appears between them, from beneath the sheets, with bare shoulders. The men gather closer around her.

And on this frosty winter's night, young Delia's water broke, almost freezing her to the seat of the wagon.

Delia and the driver are sitting in the front of the wagon, and a dark stain spreads across the front of her dress.

And the pioneer's beseeched the soldiers to grant them entrance, so that she could give birth to her child in the hospital there. But due to an outbreak of syphilis among the soldiers, the hospital was full.

A soldier opens the gates of the fort, and the hospital is seen, with beds filled by Ranger Roger, Adam Reed, Master Lou, and others.

And so there in the stable, among the feed and tack, and the... the... whatsis, Delia gave birth to a son, whom she called Alvis, as was her wont.

Delia, with the asstance of a midwife, gives bitrh in a pile of hay in the stable. The five men with Delia look on.

And since none of the men in the party were the father, it was decided among them that the birth of this child must truly be a miracle.

The men smile widely.

And it was so, for above the fort, there suddenly and miraculously appeared an awesome and mighty comet. And so brilliant was its light, that there came from all the tribes - which the soldiers had not yet decimated - shamans.

A comet appears above the fort, and three shamans in traditional dress take notice.

And they rode upon buffalo as was there heathen custom, bearing gifts, offerings of whiskey and firearms.

The shamans, riding buffalo, arrive at the stable and present their gifts. All are bathed in light emanating from the baby.

And when the shamans saw the child, they were in awe, for he glowed as bathed in the light which was truly not of this world, so -

Quick cut to..

[frustrated_lefty]

81. Virgin birth?

No.
Was there a nifty philosopher by the name of Jesus? Prolly. Was there a wise woman by the name of Mary? Prolly.

Why or why not? It's just the way my faith leans. By the way, I also tend towards matriarchal theologies.

The God or Goddess don't fix our lives; they show us how to live. That's just my personal opinion.

[Nobody]

84. If you go back to the earliest teachings of Christianity

Mary conceived normally and Joseph was the father. Otherwise why is it that in two of the gospels, the entire lineage of Joseph is given. If he wasn't the father, why not list all of Mary's forebears instead?

Back then, virgin meant "young woman". It was just later on that the Christian Church became obsessed with sex and tried to convince people that sex was sinful.

Priests used to be able to marry and have children.

[wyldwolf]

91. I once read an article saying this... wish I still had it

[knitter4democracy]

110. That's not true

The lineage of Joseph is given, as he was the legal guardian. Check the wording again: Jesus was "of Joseph," not begotten by Joseph, which meant that he wasn't the real father but the legal father. Also, the gospels and epistles were written in Greek, and virgin means virgin, not young woman. The early church always emphasized the virgin birth.

You might want to check out the other half of Christianity: the Eastern Orthodox Church. Our priests can marry and have children, just as was decided at the first church council. We're not so weird about sex. We haven't changed much in two thousand years.

[jellybelly]

95. No way

I may be wrong and I don't have sources for this but I once remembering reading that the writers of the New Testament were so adament about unifying jews and gentiles under Christ that they made Jesus out to be Emmanuel, the true messiah of the jews. But they wrongly translated the Hebrew story of Emmanuel into Greek. Emmanuel was born to a young woman, and the "translators" mistaken that verse to mean Emmanuel, born to a VIRGIN woman.
If that isn't true the apostles had to prove the divinity of Jesus so a tale of virgin birth did just fine.

[OxQQme]

96. consider this

http://www.sitchin.com/adamgene.htm

<snip>



Technologies of the gods

DID ADAM HAVE THREE PARENTS?

News of advances in artificial human reproduction –- the treatment of infertility, In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF), genetic enhancement, cloning -– have become commonplace. Yet a headline over a recent news report caught my attention and aroused my curiosity:

IVF Creates Fetuses With Three Parents

The report, as rendered in the New Scientist issue of 18 October 2003, concerned “a woman that has become pregnant through a procedure that combines a controversial IVF method with one of the techniques used for cloning.”

The feat was performed by American scientific teams at a Chinese Medical Science University and concerned a woman who failed to conceive, even through IVF techniques, because her embryos stopped developing after two days. The new procedure, using IVF (In-Vitro Fertilization) methods, first removed the woman’s egg, fertilized it with her husband’s sperm outside the womb, and then –- and that was the innovation –- obtained the eggs of another woman (“the donor”), emptied them of their genetic nuclei, re-injected into these donated eggs the fertilized material from the woman’s egg, and then re-implanted the manipulated eggs in wombs (the woman’s or that of a donor).

The key change in the previously-recorded procedures was that by using the donor’s egg even without its normal DNA, the DNA that comes only from the woman -- mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA –- has been preserved in the recombined egg. By having the mtDNA not of the woman but that of the donor, conception and pregnancy took hold.

Thus, not only procedurally but also genetically, the fetus had three parents: The woman, the male partner, and the female donor.

Now, Read the Sumerian Texts…

This report caught my attention because it sounds very much like the problems, and the solutions, encountered by Enki and Ninmah (later known as Ninti) when they engaged in genetic engineering to fashion “The Adam” -– the Earthling -– by upgrading the wild Homo erectus found in southeast Africa to become Homo sapiens (you and me).

The Sumerian creation texts -– yes, texts, not one but several –- have been reported by me in my first book, The 12th Planet, enlarged upon in Genesis Revisited, and then rendered in maximal detail in The Lost Book of Enki (2002). The methods used, the trial and error, the involvement of the young son of Enki Ningishzidda, are all there. But after the successful fashioning of the male Adamu, the efforts to fashion a female counterpart failed. It was then that Enki realized that the problem might be the re-implanting of the fertilized egg in the womb of an Earthling female.

“For a counterpart to Adamu to be fashioned, in the womb of an Anunnaki female conception is needed!” so did Enki say.

Success came after Enki’s spouse, Ninki, volunteered to have the recombined egg implanted in her womb. The change, the recent experiments reveal, was that the source of the mtDNA was that of Ninki, an Anunnaki female, and not the Earthling mother.

Ti-Amat –- the biblical Eve -– thus had the DNA of three parents.

Once again, modern science corroborates the Sumerian knowledge.

[Borgnine]

97. It's a nice story.

I respect the real-life Jesus, and try my best to follow his ideals. However, that doesn't mean I believe he was the Son of God, his mother was a virgin, etc.

I look at it as a nice story for the holidays, much like Santa Claus and Frosty. It's also quite a nice change of pace for people to be focusing on his birth and life rather than his bloody, violent death.

[HEyHEY]

100. I thought you meant ralphy and the BB gun

[tjdee]

101. Hi, that's why it's a miracle.

I'm not sure what my own feelings on that are.

BUT--
I certainly believe in miracles, large or otherwise. If you believe in God in the first place, you probably believe he can do whatever he likes, including impregnating a virgin.

[genieroze]

103. Yes I believe. eom

[vetwife]

104. Yes I believe !!

I never made my faith a secret here. My faith and my belief.
Do I believe in Ralphie and shooting out your eye..no..LOL

Do I believe in Joseph and the Virgin birth.....the manger and No room at the inn..Absolutely !

[lgardengate]

105. I believe it totaly

I believe in the power of God to do ANYTHING. Nothing is impossible with God.

[jsw_81]

106. No

It's a nice story but also an obvious myth. It's utterly astonishing (and somewhat depressing) to see how so many otherwise rational people will believe that these sorts of myths are literally true. Never underestimate the power of childhood indoctrination.

[Az]

116. No, and I am not even convinced that he was born

I am open minded but unconvinced that an individual named Jesus existed. I find the lack of evidence concerning his existance to be very troubling. If even the least controvercial aspects of the bible were true there should be a paper trail about this person a mile wide. And yet there is nothing. No contemporary evidence supporting his existance is to be found.

[Stunster]

120. The problem as I see it...

The reason people give for denying the virginal conception of Jesus is that it's 'scientifically impossible'. But what does it mean to say that something is scientifically impossible?

Believe it or not, it's very hard to say what is scientifically impossible in actual fact, as against 'impossible, if our scientific beliefs are correct.'

Examples: a Newtonian scientist would have denied, as being scientifically impossible, three phenomena that are now experimentally well confirmed: i) time dilation; ii) the curvature of space; iii) quantum non-locality. Indeed, quantum mechanics in general would have struck pretty much every scientist in the 19th century as impossible, and inconsistent with the laws of nature.

The moral is: nothing can possibly count as a 'violation of a law of nature', because the notion of 'a violation of a law of nature' is incoherent: if something really is a law of nature, then it can't be violated. And if something actually happens, then by definition it cannot be impossible---in other words, it must be possible, and hence there can't actually be a law making it impossible---i.e. it's not a law. All such an event violates, if it violates anything, is our belief as to what the true laws of nature are. But then we just correct and reformulate our beliefs. The laws themselves stay the same. Our beliefs about them change.

The other thing I would add is that the belief that there is no reality that is not amenable in principle to scientific understanding is not itself a proposition that can be proved by science. To hold such a belief is to accept a philosophical worldview, not provable by science. Scientific materialism is thus itself a scientifically unprovable 'faith'. Proponents of this faith cannot empirically disprove the virginal conception of Jesus. Rather, they assume it didn't happen because it conflicts with their own faith---the scientifically unproven and unprovable doctrine known as scientism or scientific materialism. In fact, whether that doctrine is even true is heavily contested within contemporary mainstream analytic philosophy.

You might want to take a look, for instance, at World Without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism, by Michael Rea. In fact, there are even good scientific reasons for doubting the doctrine of scientific materialism. See, for example, the excellent book, Ancient Faith and Modern Physics, by Stephen Barr.