Joelle Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 At the risk of being flamed and criticized, I must admit there's a fundamental Christian fact that I have a hard time accepting. The fact I'm referring to is: Christ was born from a virgin. In this day and age, how do you Christians accept this? Do you accept it at face-value without scientific evidence? Have you ever examined this Christian fact? With all due respect, I am highly skeptical of Christ's virginal birth. To me, I consider it a biological impossibility (and to a certain extent, an intellectual absurdity). Additionally, there's practically no evidence to support Christ's virginal birth to convince me otherwise. Christians, enlighten me, please. I'm interested in how you accept Christ's virginal birth as "fact."
amaysngrace Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Christians, enlighten me, please. I'm interested in how you accept Christ's virginal birth as "fact." I don't know about others but, for me, it's all about faith. There isn't much I question about my Christianity, or God. I believe Jesus was the son of God and therefore immaculate conception is within my realm of logic. Don't really quite know why I've never questioned it before, but I attribute it to my faith.
magichands Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 People who have "limited themselves" to oral and anal sex are virgins these days. Maybe it "dripped in" from somewhere?
Outcast Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 There's no scientific fact proving love exists, either.
HokeyReligions Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Most of the 'miracles' in the Bible seem impossible to me. Ressurecting the dead? Walking on water? Loaves and fishes? Like they say - it's all about faith.
Moai Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary, not Jesus. Jesus was the Virgin Birth. If, in fact, a human female became preganant without insemination the offspring would have to be female.
superconductor Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 A virgin birth is a mythical construct used by ancient authors and storytellers to foretell the greatness of a particular person. Legend says that Alexander the Great and King Arthur were also borne of virgins. It's a metaphor, not to be taken literally.
westernxer Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 It's a metaphor, not to be taken literally. Try convincing the believers. </snicker>
Author Joelle Posted July 12, 2006 Author Posted July 12, 2006 There's no scientific fact proving love exists, either. Well, I think equating love & birth is inaccurate. Love is an emotion that cannot be physically examined & measured. On the other hand, birth is biology that CAN be physically examined & measured. That's why it's supported by science. My concern is that virginal birth is a biological impossibility (due to scientific evidence in this day and age).
amaysngrace Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 My concern is that virginal birth is a biological impossibility (due to scientific evidence in this day and age). So I'm confused...does this mean that a virginal birth isn't a vaginal birth?
Author Joelle Posted July 12, 2006 Author Posted July 12, 2006 It's a metaphor, not to be taken literally. Well, if this is true, and if Christ was sired by a man, he is not the Son of God (in the Christian sense). Additionally, if Christ is sired by a man, he is part of Original Sin. He is not pure (in the Christian sense). Then he cannot be the Messiah. All Christian doctrines are baseless, and the religion is a sham. You see, the Virgin Birth MUST be accepted as a fact. Otherwise, the religion has no legs to stand on.
magichands Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Scientists know that they don't know very much. You give humanity far too much credit. Take cloning. Cloning is cool, but oh so crude.
westernxer Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 So I'm confused...does this mean that a virginal birth isn't a vaginal birth? Virginal birth = having a child even though no penis was inserted nine months earlier.
Author Joelle Posted July 12, 2006 Author Posted July 12, 2006 So I'm confused...does this mean that a virginal birth isn't a vaginal birth? Yes, what Westernxer said.
sugarplum Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 hey....I am not a church-goer, however I have studied religion(s) extensively. I am not going to say a virgin birth did or did not take place. But if it did......it would not have the requirement of being biologically possible because it would be a "miracle" and would not have the same physical requirements or boundaries of an ordinary birth. On a side note I have also watched numerous programs on Discovery Channel (no, really) on Christianity and I remember this very subject being addressed. There were real scientists, experiments, interviews with doctors, etc. All very scientifically done. I am not saying one should be "called to God" or not via cable TV - just saying there is info and scientific research out there if one is interested. There are books on the subject as well that are written objectively.
sugarplum Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Additionally, if Christ is sired by a man, he is part of Original Sin. Of course. The idea was that he was a "man" intentionally in order for the rest of mankind to relate.
amaysngrace Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Virginal birth = having a child even though no penis was inserted nine months earlier. Um, okay. But did He have a vaginal birth?
sugarplum Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 It's a metaphor, not to be taken literally. This contradicts what is written in regard to Joseph and Mary. If the story is true.
Author Joelle Posted July 12, 2006 Author Posted July 12, 2006 But if it did......it would not have the requirement of being biologically possible because it would be a "miracle" and would not have the same physical requirements or boundaries of an ordinary birth. So you think God is above the laws of nature? Based on my pragmatic experience, I don't think he is. Additionally, I think the Christian writer C.S. Lewis implied this as well. There are principles even the Lord follows (and limited to).
westernxer Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Um, okay. But did He have a vaginal birth? Most likely. Definitely wasn't a C-section.
magichands Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Um, okay. But did He have a vaginal birth? I don't think there was any other kind back then. If you want the mother to live, that is.
westernxer Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Rumor has it Mary had a great set of hips on her.
sugarplum Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 I don't think there was any other kind back then. If you want the mother to live, that is. Yeah. Cesareans have been performed since ancient times. It is believed that Cesar was possibly born via cesarean. But usually the mother was already dead or dying because most often they did not survive. But it was done even back then.
Author Joelle Posted July 12, 2006 Author Posted July 12, 2006 Of course. The idea was that he was a "man" intentionally in order for the rest of mankind to relate. Nope, the Christian principle is that Jesus is EXEMPT from Original Sin because he's the Son of God (not son of man). He was sinless & pure. That's why God sent him to be sacrificed for humanity. Christ is the bridge between humans & God.
sugarplum Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 So you think God is above the laws of nature? Based on my pragmatic experience, I don't think he is. Additionally, I think the Christian writer C.S. Lewis implied this as well. There are principles even the Lord follows (and limited to). I did not state my own beliefs. But if a being were to create the universe, as Christians believe, then yes, I would think He were above the laws of nature. I did not base any of my personal research on the writings of C.S. Lewis. I have read his books and also his biography. I know he had a PhD in literature. I dont recall where he studied theology or religion. Do you know?
Recommended Posts