Poster of naked Virgin Mary sparks unholy row

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Thor

The more I've studied science the more the 'randomness' makes perfect sense, you can learn about the universe being created from nothing, marvel at the biodiversity brought about by evolution and be in awe of nature when you truly spend the time to learn biology, astronomy, physics and chemistry.

This is funny. I used to think the same way but the more I studied chemistry the more the "randomness" didn't quite work (for me anyway). One of the more interesting aspects of nature is that, at a molecular level, it is common for molecules (and by extension larger groups of molecules ie. proteins/enzymes) to be naturally produced as a single mirror image. A simple example of this is your right and left hands are mirror images of one another. Your hands are physically the same but no matter what you do you can't turn your right hand into the left and vice versa. So, in nature only one compound (of a possible two) are naturally produced for all naturally occuring molecules (that can exhibit mirror images anyway) such as amino acids and monosaccharides. This notion is called chirality.

Ok, so why did I bring up that long diatribe? Well, where/what is the origin of chirality? Why does only one mirror image of an amino acid naturally form over the other? There are theories of why this phenomena came about but nothing has been proven. I'm not saying that some omnipotent being is responsible for this phenomena but I don't buy that this happened at random.

The processes of Nature often appear to occur at random but that might just be because we don't yet recognize the pattern.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Says who?

I'm Christian and I do not believe in the virgin birth.

So do I have a say over whether I'm Christian or do you have the last word on that?

If you don't believe in the virgin birth, I'd like to hear how a lot of your theology plays out, considering that the circumstances of Jesus' birth are an essential part of the salvation narrative - the virgin birth allows Jesus to skirt original sin, which is how he got to heaven, more or less. Prior to his sacrifice on mankind's behalf, original sin ensured that nobody could ascend to heaven. Since he was the first, he had to be without sin, and for that to happen, it had to be a virgin birth, not a birth from two human parents.

So if you don't believe in the virgin birth, you have a ton of Christian theology to develop and explain before you can use the title. You are, of course, free to hold your own beliefs - then you can call it whatever you want. And really, any belief system that brings you closer to God is fine. There are definitely faiths out there that include Jesus in their theology (the name of the one I'm thinking of escapes me..), and adopt only the parts that are important to them, but when you are talking about Christianity in the context of a (more or less) academic discussion about religion, it entails a certain core set of beliefs and theology, and the virgin birth is one of them.

[HPLovecraft]

It's kind of in bad taste, and I'm not Christian. I can see why it may offend some. Not sure why some people can't see why it would.

[photon]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

If you don't believe in the virgin birth, I'd like to hear how a lot of your theology plays out, considering that the circumstances of Jesus' birth are an essential part of the salvation narrative

I'm interested as well, though as I pointed out the whole idea of original sin and consequently the virgin birth facilitating Jesus going to heaven wasn't developed until hundreds of years later.. that's a lot of Christians who apparently weren't really Christians (including Paul I guess?).

Given that the author of Matthew quotes from Isiah, and his use of "virgin" from Isiah is from an incorrect Greek translation of the Hebrew, I'd say that's a pretty good point to start from to say that the virgin birth is nothing more than one gospel writer's attempt to ensure his narrative to fit his perception of prophecy. This is the same author who had Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two donkeys where the other gospels only mention one because of an incorrect reading of prophecy (or I guess it could have been changed by a scribe from the original).

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm interested as well, though as I pointed out the whole idea of original sin and consequently the virgin birth facilitating Jesus going to heaven wasn't developed until hundreds of years later.. that's a lot of Christians who apparently weren't really Christians (including Paul I guess?).

Given that the author of Matthew quotes from Isiah, and his use of "virgin" from Isiah is from an incorrect Greek translation of the Hebrew, I'd say that's a pretty good point to start from to say that the virgin birth is nothing more than one gospel writer's attempt to ensure his narrative to fit his perception of prophecy. This is the same author who had Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two donkeys where the other gospels only mention one because of an incorrect reading of prophecy (or I guess it could have been changed by a scribe from the original).

Everyone now knows that Jesus probably rode in on a dinosaur.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm interested as well, though as I pointed out the whole idea of original sin and consequently the virgin birth facilitating Jesus going to heaven wasn't developed until hundreds of years later.. that's a lot of Christians who apparently weren't really Christians (including Paul I guess?).

More like 80-90 years, not hundreds, and that doesn't seem like that long considering there would have been a strong oral tradition and many non-canonical works circulating before the big-4 became definitive..

Regardless, it would be disingenuous to rely solely on hermeneutics as the basis for dismissing a tenet of faith that has been scrutinized by the faithful since the very earliest emergence of the Christian church as its own system of belief. Many other texts existed during the time frames we are talking about, and ultimately, only the current canon was selected. Clearly the contemporary scholars and church leaders of the time were undertaking their own exegesis, selecting the texts that most closely explained their understanding of the faith.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by photon

that's a lot of Christians who apparently weren't really Christians (including Paul I guess?).

I wouldn't say they weren't Christians, because clearly they believed in Christ. Maybe proto-Christians would be a better term. But those very earliest converts and believers brought with them a lot of theological "baggage" from their own backgrounds, interpreting and understanding in faith the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in light of that background. So there wasn't one unified or consistent theology until later, when the Church leaders started putting some serious effort into developing it.

But I can tell, from going back and reading your posts that you already know this - I'm not arguing with you (I don't even disagree with you I don't think).

Do you know, by the way, of any Christian denominations that don't believe in the virgin birth? I can't think of any offhand. The reason I say that is that I don't know of any other Christian explanations of Jesus' divinity.

[photon]

Yeah you are right, more like 80ish years, I was just thinking 2nd century.

No, unless you get into gnosticism or docetism (of which there must be some around the world) or something. I can't think of any large denominations either that don't believe in the virgin birth, at least not "officially" don't believe. Though in more liberal congregations the belief might be more mythical than actual.

EDIT: Some more polls:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b7.htm

60% of Methodist ministers polled didn't believe in the virgin birth.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That is an ignorant and tiresome argument. Tiresome because you've used it a number of times. Ignorant because you know there are 2 different covenants at play and Christians are not expected to maintain the first. You also know that homosexuality is spoken against in the New Testament.

According to the book of Matthew, Jesus would not have agreed with this.

From Matthew 5:

17"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.


It was Paul who was credited with the separation of Christianity from Judaism. There is historical evidence that Paul clashed with an early Christian sect that viewed Christianity as an offshoot of Judaism - and believed that all Christians must first be Jews. The requirement of circumcision would be a limiting factor in finding male converts to this religion. Followers of Jesus in this movement were expected to follow Torah law and eat kosher, for example. Paul led a different movement which removed the following of Jewish law, which made his interpretation much more accessible to gentiles. Eventually, it was his belief system which won out.


The reason that most Christians today reject Torah law is because of something which atheists mention all the time - the bible is inconsistent in message. Jesus in the book of Matthew says that following Mosaic Law is a necessary part of salvation - elsewhere it says that it is not necessary (and Paul goes a step further to suggest that following Mosaic Law could prevent salvation). What is a person to believe?

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You being an Atheist I understand you believe your existence will be brief and has no purpose. That obviously makes you a little bitter. But if you must spread your bile to a thread about things you don't believe in could you at least be original?

No god is required to give life purpose. I am sure that Stalin firmly believed that his life had purpose, even though he was an atheist. I can't speak for all atheists, but I can speak for myself. As an atheist, I don't believe that there will be any heavenly reward, and I realize that all rewards will happen on earth. Our time is finite, so I will do what I can to make the most of my time here. Part of that is spending time with my daughter, and some is spent discussing matters of faith with strangers on the internet, as examples. I am not sure where you get the idea that we are "obviously... a little bitter".

Contrary to what some Christians believe, you do not need a god in your life to have purpose, to be happy, or to be moral. Morality can fit within an evolutionary world view.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by photon

Yeah you are right, more like 80ish years, I was just thinking 2nd century.

No, unless you get into gnosticism or docetism (of which there must be some around the world) or something. I can't think of any large denominations either that don't believe in the virgin birth, at least not "officially" don't believe. Though in more liberal congregations the belief might be more mythical than actual.

EDIT: Some more polls:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b7.htm

60% of Methodist ministers polled didn't believe in the virgin birth.

It could be argued that the Mormons don't believe in a virgin birth - their teaching is that Mary conceived by having intercourse with God. Or something like that.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

It could be argued that the Mormons don't believe in a virgin birth - their teaching is that Mary conceived by having intercourse with God. Or something like that.

I don't think the Mormons unequivocally say one way or the other. It's very hard to find concrete LDS theology on the matter, at least online.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That is an ignorant and tiresome argument. Tiresome because you've used it a number of times. Ignorant because you know there are 2 different covenants at play and Christians are not expected to maintain the first. You also know that homosexuality is spoken against in the New Testament.

Not at all, when people quote selective parts of the bible and ignore others thats ridiculous. If you don't like the argument, tell your fellow Christians to stop quote mining what to agree with and what to ignore.

You being an Atheist I understand you believe your existence will be brief and has no purpose. That obviously makes you a little bitter. But if you must spread your bile to a thread about things you don't believe in could you at least be original?

Is this the love the neighbor or golden rule part of Christianity that makes you so cold and hateful? Its pretty arrogant, rude, ignorant to suggest without worshiping a guy in the sky makes a life shallow, brief and have no purpose.

Its actually quite the opposite, I am reminded how special, unique and lucky our existence is in this Universe and that we should do our best in our lives because this is our one and only shot at this. While others, probably you included think this is just a practice or nothing to worry much about. Afteral you just need to think you are going to heaven, hate on people who don't agree with you and waste you life

Just playing that hate game with you.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That is an ignorant and tiresome argument. Tiresome because you've used it a number of times. Ignorant because you know there are 2 different covenants at play and Christians are not expected to maintain the first. You also know that homosexuality is spoken against in the New Testament.

You being an Atheist I understand you believe your existence will be brief and has no purpose. That obviously makes you a little bitter. But if you must spread your bile to a thread about things you don't believe in could you at least be original?

How do you feel about buying slaves? Or the inferiority of Women?

Also if you don't like athiests making assumptions about your beliefs why respond with garbage like that. Athiests I know are not bitter at all, and I'm sure the poster isn't either.

I'm confused as to how thats an ignorant and tiresome argument. I personally find it very strange how many many religious people pick and choose what to follow in the bible and ignore other parts.

If you believe that strongly in one aspect such as being against homosexuality, why not believe in every other asinine aspect of the bible.

Honestly I really have no problem with people's beliefs, but when they infringe on the rights of others (homosexuals for example) then I have a problem with it. A poster earlier stated that homosexual marriage threatens the family, it's garbage like that, that produces hatred towards other groups, and is downright unproven and silly. When I read things like that I really question the intelligence of those making the statements.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Doctordestiny

Let me tell you the kind of Christian I am. I've commented behind your point.

• Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry - I don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry. If they want a union ceremony, fine. Just don't marry them. I think it threatens the family. I am tolerant of homsexuals and have some as friends and business associates, by the way.
• Stem cell research is wrong - I don't know. Don't know enough about it. If it doesn't destroy a life, I'm fine with it.
• A woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world. - I'm opposed to abortion for the reason you've stated. I consider it taking a human life. I don't think we should take a human life for any reason, except self defence or equivalent.
• The natural world exists to serve man - I think it does.
• Humanity is the center of the universe - I think we are, although I don't discount the possibility of there being other races created by God.
• Don't question the bible/word of God - I don't question the word of God, but don't believe the Bible is entirely to be taken literally.

Wow....

You take some parts of the bible literally but other parts you don't take literally.. I find that very strange.

I think religion can be a good thing, but there is no way the bible should be taken literally, it really doesn't apply to today. Be a good person etc etc, that makes sense, but it should definitely not be taken literally.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

This is funny. I used to think the same way but the more I studied chemistry the more the "randomness" didn't quite work (for me anyway). One of the more interesting aspects of nature is that, at a molecular level, it is common for molecules (and by extension larger groups of molecules ie. proteins/enzymes) to be naturally produced as a single mirror image. A simple example of this is your right and left hands are mirror images of one another. Your hands are physically the same but no matter what you do you can't turn your right hand into the left and vice versa. So, in nature only one compound (of a possible two) are naturally produced for all naturally occuring molecules (that can exhibit mirror images anyway) such as amino acids and monosaccharides. This notion is called chirality.

Ok, so why did I bring up that long diatribe? Well, where/what is the origin of chirality? Why does only one mirror image of an amino acid naturally form over the other? There are theories of why this phenomena came about but nothing has been proven. I'm not saying that some omnipotent being is responsible for this phenomena but I don't buy that this happened at random.

The processes of Nature often appear to occur at random but that might just be because we don't yet recognize the pattern.

Random events do create organized things. We know this, but its not as if we fully understand chirality or many other things.

But because something is not yet understood gives it no special meaning. The illusion of organization in our universe is a result of a lot of chaos, mind you one day we could if we exist that long, understand the total theory of everything and how all things come to exist and the processes in which they work.

[photon]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

It could be argued that the Mormons don't believe in a virgin birth - their teaching is that Mary conceived by having intercourse with God. Or something like that.

Heh, I always forget to think about the Mormons, it's an artifact of my upbringing. It was drilled into me to think of them as an evil cult.

[photon]

Regarding original sin and the virgin birth, I thinks science again speaks to this.

The Genographic Project is a project to trace the ancestry of humans across the globe. All human males share the same Y chromosome which traces back to a single male 60,000 years ago (which is different than everyone sharing the same common female ancestor more than twice that long ago).

Which doesn't really fit with the doctrine of original sin.

I'd be curious to see how some Christians resolve this; I know there's plenty of Christians who accept evolution (for example), and those that don't subscribe to a literal virgin birth, is the doctrine of original sin also in that same group, something that made sense at the time but now not really relevant today (other than to say that all humans are flawed and wrestle with what's right sometimes)?

Coming from a literal bible background it's hard for me to understand sometimes how one can view large chunks of the Christian story as myth but still have a Christianity at all.

[Doctordestiny]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

You take some parts of the bible literally but other parts you don't take literally.. I find that very strange.

You don't think the Bible can be a mixture of allegory, metaphor and fact? God created everything. According to my beliefs, that's a fact. That he created it in six days is not fact, again according to my beliefs. That what I mean.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

According to the book of Matthew, Jesus would not have agreed with this.

From Matthew 5:

17"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

You do realize who Jesus was speaking to don't you? This was a sermon to the Jews. They were under the law.

Jesus first of all declared he hadn't come to destroy the law. This would have answered any naysayers who would have been accusing Him of breaking the law. He then declared He came to fulfill the law.

Next in verse 19 Jesus set the standard for the Kingdom of Heaven. Now you have to understand that heaven wasn't a promise in the old covenant. Land and prosperity was but, not Heaven. This was new territory. Jesus said that whosoever broke the least of the commandments would be least in the kingdom of heaven. For the crowd that gathered that standard would be overwhelming. They knew the law. Not a single one of them would have thought: I can do that! All of them would have known that they had broken the law. The faithful would have made offerings for their sins on several occasions. Obviously their law keeping wouldn't get them too far in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus(the one who was going to fulfill the law) ends by declaring that whoever kept and taught the law perfectly would be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. He alone would achieve that standard. A standard He himself set publicly at the start of His ministry.

Later on Paul spoke of the law being our schoolmaster to bring us to Messiah:

Gal 3:22-24 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

One doesn't look for a Saviour until they realize they need saving. The law shows us our need.

Jer 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

You have to understand that the covenant that Christians are under today is a new one. It isn't a modified old covenant.

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

It was Paul who was credited with the separation of Christianity from Judaism. There is historical evidence that Paul clashed with an early Christian sect that viewed Christianity as an offshoot of Judaism - and believed that all Christians must first be Jews. The requirement of circumcision would be a limiting factor in finding male converts to this religion. Followers of Jesus in this movement were expected to follow Torah law and eat kosher, for example. Paul led a different movement which removed the following of Jewish law, which made his interpretation much more accessible to gentiles. Eventually, it was his belief system which won out.

Credited By who? Some 21 century academic who thinks the Bible is a collection of myths? Acts is the history book of the first century church. It is an eye witness account. According to Acts it was first revealed to Peter that salvation was extended to the Gentiles(see Acts ch 10-11). The Jerusalem church upon hearing Peter's testimony of the circumstances of the first Gentile coverts glorified God:

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Paul actually went to the Jerusalem church for confirmation of his understanding that Gentiles didn't have to live under the Jewish law in order to be saved. They agreed with him and gave him a letter stating that fact(Acts 15:1-31). The only thing your historian got right was that Paul clashed with Jews who wanted Gentile converts to practice elements of Judaism. Both the book of Acts and Paul's letters testify to that. I find it ironic that you an Atheist are siding with them.