I think the theological point of the VB is not that he was born without a father but that he was conceived without sex. Sex is dirty you know. You can’t conceive God by doing the nasty.
:eek: Cite!
I think Diogenes the Cynic and I have crossed swords over hyperbole before… but without trying to reaoolcate the burden of proof, I would say that
is seriously flawed.
From all that we know, restoring the dead to life is highly, highly unlikely - so much so that claiming that it happened is an extraordinary claim, and requires an extraordinarily high degree of proof.
But it’s not impossible. For one thing, it’s unclear what “dead” means. Wounds that that meant death two thousand years ago do not mean death now. A person who is “legally dead” may be brought back to life even now after hours of “legal death.” While it’s true that even now, a stint of days is unheard of, I’d suggest that may be conquered by technology as well sometime down the line. If, a hundred years from now, we can take a “corpse” and use nanotechnology to repair the damage from a few days’ worth of death-related deteroriation, and then shock the heart back into beating, we’ve arguably defeated death, if you want to speak poetically, or we’ve redefined what “death” actually is. The body is merely a collection of biochemical processes; the small fact that we are NOW stymied past a certain point of damage to those processes does not mean we always will be. Indeed, the progress we have already made along those lines is dramatic.
So… Diogenes’ underlying POINT is certainly on the money: evidence for the resurrection of Christ must be strongly compelling in order to permit the inference that the story is true - more strongly compelling that re-told stories collected in a book that was not subject to peer review or fact-checkers. That, I certainly agree with. But Diogenes’s WORDS - that the event is impossible - are not accurate. Highly unlikely, yes. Impossible, no.
- Rick
When I read Cecil’s piece on this some time back, it made me smile when he said that there was only one known case of a virgin birth. Knowing Cecil’s writing style, I assumed he was being facetious with it.
Since deftriver is banned, I wanted to follow up on a few things:
For the same reasons that physicists working with interactions, models of reality, quantum physics, laws of permission and denial, verification and falsification, etc, don’t find it necessary to have to test every single claim of supernaturalism. There are good reasons why the US patent office can reject claims outright that involve perpetual motion machines. There are other basic well established laws that also can show us without again having to test every single one that make a claim to ESP, travel faster than the speed of light, or any other supernatural claims such as dead bodies flying into the air. Everything the body of knowledge we have accumulated over the centuries and what we call science has continued to show a very natural world. There are no compelling reasons or facts to show for accepting anything supernatural. David Hume’s criteria for miracles works for me. What is more likely: Have the laws of nature gone cuckoo, or have human beings distorted the facts? Not sure why the NT miracles aren’t any more plausible to you as the OT ones.
Oh, and BTW, if God could create a child miraculously from a virgin, He could just as easily make the child male or female as He pleases, no?
Someone, please pass the parsimony.
JZ
I just wanted to say, here…
If you grant the existence (and I know some of you do not) of a God (or gods, whatever), you pretty much automatically grant that He (they) can intervene in ways that we humans cannot explain. I.e., a miracle.
From there, inisiting that said miracle follow the other established laws of the universe is pretty much non-sequiter.
I personally don’t see where the existence of God violates the known Universal laws in any way. I just don’t expect his earthly workings to be readily explainable by science. I really cannot comprehend the innate hostility to people of faith from our more terrestrial minded brothers. Belief in God does not make you scientifically illiterate, just as being a scientist does not disquailfy one from religious belief. The fact that I beleive in God doesn’t make me a raving nutcase: I accept the scientific view of natural origin (evolution, for those of a creationist bent), but I attribute the motive force behind it to God. Why does that always earn me the scorn of both scientific and religionist types?
It is not science’s job to explain the supernatural, because by definition it cannot. It is not religion’s job to define the physical, scientific regulation of the universe because it cannot.
Science, after all, is what we call observation. If these miracles (alleged, I know) were not observed under reproducible conditions, there is nothing for science to comment on.
Well, I’m surprised nobody mentioned the fact that not ALL Christians believe in the Virgin Birth BECAUSE the Pope said so, I don’t think that either the Orthodox or the Protestants believe it because of that.
The idea the Catholics follow the Pope like zombies is ludicrous. First because EVEN when he says something about religious plenty of Catholics feel free to disregard him. Second becuse even if you obeyed him, he doesn’t have the power to declare mathematical laws or wahtever.
As to discussing the physical facts of miracles. If miracles can’t happen, well there is no discussion (it’s like trying to explain square circles). If they DO exist, well, the whole point of a miracle is that they break the normal laws of physics.
Of course, this thread ain’t the place to discuss the existance of miracles.
I still don’t get the whole transsexual thing.
I think most of us who believe in G-d, also believe to some degree in evolution. I agree science can co-exist with religion without a problem. Your question about why it causes scorn in both camps is easy. There are people in religion and people in science who are biased and intolerant. Who cares what those people say. Unless they succeed in creating “victims”, they’re harmless. If they succeed in creating victims, the victims are to blame. No whining allowed here, it attracts the predators.:eek:
Quick Question, here… Whay are people using the designation as G-d? Did God suddenly become a dirty word when I wasn’t looking? or is this some form of Tetragrammation I haven’t been previously aware of?
It is a Jewish tradition of avoiding writing the name somewhere that it might be treated with less respect than is considered proper (for example, writing it on a chocolate wrapper that is destined to be thrown in the bin).
First, I am impressed that a “throwaway” “joke” comment from a disrelated question has spawned such a discussion. It has gone from very opinionated with no factual support, to fairly ‘logical’ references with some very interesting choices for examples : )
Second, I wanted to throw out a couple thoughts on some of what I’ve seen.
Please pardon me if these were covered and I missed it : )
These in no real order, but I’ll put them in separate posts (if it helps).
I know it is Jewish tradition not to write the Name of God. also referred to as the Tetragrammation, because the name which is translated as Jehovah in Latin is too holy to be committed to paper which may be destroyed. However, the name of God is not “God”. “God” is merely the English term for what he is. A title, if you will, much like the Hebrew El Elyon or other variations.
Not that this English title for the Deity should not also recieve respect, but it seems to me that the title doesn;t necessarily require as elaborate ritual treatment as the Name itself.
There seems to be a digression about the semantical differences between saying Heaven, and the heavens. The heavens being for most of the ancient ppls the sky “out there”. While for us this may mean going through the various layers of atmosphere and on through to “outer space”, for the ancients it usually meant moving “beyond”. The places that gods lived were generally “on high”. And I seem to recall the the ancient ziggurats had at the top of their heights a carnal bed for mating with one’s deity (god/goddess/etc). One of the thoughts conveyed in the book of Hosea is that Israel had set up “high places” for worship, which implied the worshipping of other gods.
I would not agree that the ancients thought that their gods (or God, for that matter) came from or lived/existed in what we define as “outer space”. Merely looking at the Layout of the World Tree Yggdrasil with it’s various domains (heims/gards) shows this.
This “other place” is defined differently in various mythologies (and we are very semantically limited due to translation into English), but place names such as Heaven, Nirvana, Asgard, Elysium Fields, Happy Hunting Grounds, Seven Heavens, Olympus, etc (just to name some of those that I would guess are more well known to the modern eye) are usually assigned to where one goes after they die, and/or where one’s deity resides. (I have bypassed concepts of Hel/NIflheim, Hell, Tartarus, Limbo, etc., since we are mainly discussing where one’s deity resides, and not “other” potential places those dead may inhabit.)
Now if you truly wish to pursue the other side, read the book “Spaceships of Ezekiel?”. In it the author attempts to show that Ezekiel’s vision of God on his throne in the ‘heavens’ is really a spaceship. : ) It’s actually not bad as close encounters books go. Gives logical (and honestly scientific sounding) reasons and examples for why the author believes what he does.
The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has an interesting duality. The priests are apparently expected to be both servants of the ppl, and leaders of the community.
Not to get TOO bogged down with detail… The beliefs of the RCC were primarily laid down by several ecumenical councils (made up of representatives of several catholic churches, of which the RCC is one - “first among equals”). The first of which, I believe, was organized by The Roman emperor Constantine (The 1st Nicene Council). The last one, to my knowledge was Vatican II. (A quick link listing them: http://www.newadvent.org/almanac/14388a.htm)
One of the last councils (Vatican I) discussed the papal infallibility. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm
The following is from the infallibility entry in the catholic encyclopedia - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
“it is only in the episcopal body which has succeeded to the college of Apostles that infallible authority resides, and that it is possible for the authority to be effectively exercised by this body, dispersed throughout the world, but united in bonds of communion with Peter’s successor, who is its visible head and centre.”
For those who are not “in the know” the RCC considers the Pope as “Peter’s successor”.
And finally, 2 links with the “official” Catholic answer about the virgin birth of Jesus:
The Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/402802.htm
The Catholic Catechism:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1K.HTM
Okay, since I’m the one who’s guilty of the missing o’s, I’ll answer that. I did originally ask someone of the Jewish faith why they spelled G-d the way they did. They explained it as a sign of repect for the sacred name and nature of G-d. Also as protection from careless treatment of the name, but it all goes back to respect. I’m not sure it matters what actual name you use, English or Latin, when it comes to respect. I’m not of the Jewish faith, but I do have alot of respect for it. I’m not Christian either. I have a very stong belief and faith in G-d, though. I do have this tiny little problem with uh…being irreverent at times. My sense of humor seems to be a spawn of the devil (kidding, sort of). Anyway, I was touched when they explained it to me and just started doing it too, just to remind myself that I needed to try harder. It doesn’t seem like a particularly elaborate ritual to me. It does help remind me.
I can certianly appreciate that, and I admire your stance. I have this teeny tendency to get irritated with religious folk, tho, who tend to think of “God” (or G-d, if you will) as being God’s name.
I.e., “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”.
I like to point out to those people that God is not God’s name, or, at least, not a name he claims for himself in scripture.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the KJV translators originally settled on “God” (the English descriptive noun for what God is, capitalized to denote a proper personal noun) to avoid printing the various Hebrew names that God used for himself, and especially for the Teragrammation.
Well I don’t have a religion anymore, so thankfully your teeny tendency just flies right by me. :rolleyes: I can’t help but comment on your little nitpick though. It actually doesn’t matter if the concept and name for G-d(sorry, the o’s just won’t co-operate) is uh…S*nwacker, then that is the name I will show respect for. Your mother’s name is not “mom”, but “pufnstuff’s mom” is enough of a description to leave no doubt who we’re talking about and should still be respected. The actual name doesn’t matter to me. It’s what it means and my attitude of respect for it.
Okay, the word was supposed to be Sinwacker.
[note to self: make sure removal of vowel doesn’t create potential for incorrect interpretation!]
That’s Mr God to you.
In English usage though, the term ‘God’ has pretty much turned into a name - even though it may not bear any relation to the original Hebrew.
Isn’t it true to say that the Hebrew name for God is also derived from a term (the “I Am”)?