by Terry 284 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Terry,
So, what does it matter?
I agree, insofar as I have a hard time grasping how a virgin birth account is meant to stir me to faith, spirituality, Nirvana or any higher plateau of understanding, compassion, empathy, etc.
However, it remains that there are many of these accounts from a number of different cultures and in each the possibility of human conception without intercourse is attributed to an extra-human source.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
ringo5: If someone asked you for the probability of this possibility, what number would you give?The probability of the possibility that humans can concieve without intercourse is 100%. It is now a proven fact. Many people alive today are not the product of sexual intercourse; QED humans could always have conceived without intercourse.
The fact that you misinterpreted a very simple question, if it was unintentional, demonstrates very well the problem with interpreting scripture.(scripture being the chief way Christians feel God revealed himself to them)
If it was intentional, it demonstrates how defenders of illogical ideas will throw red herrings out to muddy the argument.
If it is possible it has always been possible. Do you not know that basic fact of the way reality works? If not, I find that surprising.
The fact that after you avoided answering the intended question, that is "If someone asked you for the probability of this possibility occurring, what number would you give?", and proceeded to question my grasp of reality, is also not suprising, as ad hominem attacks are common tools of defenders of "divine and extra-human sources".
The probability of it occurring in any specific incident at any specific time period would obviously be adjusted to a more specific set of constraints
If you'd care to, I'll still like that (hopefully clarified) question answered. Or if you wish, a comparison of the probabilities of the following possibilities occurring,
1. Mary was impregnated the way the majority of impregnations happen (even today) or the possibility you raised,
This recently accepted possibility of conception without intercourse has always been possible, and communication of the possibility was consistently attributed to extra-human origins.
2. Mary was impregnated without intercourse but rather due to an extra-human source.
Cheers
ringo5,
You seem rather adroit at missing my point, so I thought to return the favor.
Or if you wish, a comparison of the probabilities of the following possibilities occurring ...
I'll decline, since whether the possibility occurred is entirely immaterial to how the possibility was communicated. The thread topic was fairly specific on the point. The knowledge of the possibility of human conception without intercourse has been attributed to extra-human sources for thousands of years, even though no human knew or claimed to know how to do it. Up until the early 1900s, when scientists started to speculate that it might be practically possible given technological advances, scientists believed it was not possible.
As far as I know, prior to the 1900s no human source has ever been credited with the knowledge that conception without intercourse is possible. Throughout human history, many extra-human sources have been credited with this special knowledge. I think this meets the criteria of the initial challenge.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
The Bible- (and other religious writings) writers needed a person in the story that was part God, part human. So what do you do then? You have a human woman give birth, but you substitute the human father with God. Since God created everything, including life, it wasn't a stretch to believe - even thousands of years ago (maybe especially thousands of years ago) - that God could plant an embryo with all the right "ingredients" inside a woman, so that she could give birth to this half-God. I really don't see the problem here, or why this should be so special.
Watching television has also always been possible, you just needed the right equipment. However, when the Bible speaks of people having visions, I doubt they were watching CNN.
The knowledge of the possibility of human conception without intercourse has been attributed to extra-human sources for thousands of years, even though no human knew or claimed to know how to do it. Up until the early 1900s, when scientists started to speculate that it might be practically possible given technological advances, scientists believed it was not possible.
Ah, those scientists have so much to learn from the bible, why did they stop?
I have argued that the possibility was revealed exclusively by extra-human sources (according to all accounts); these accounts were deemed facetious by the finest scientific minds as lately as the turn of the 20th century simply because they did not know how it could be accomplished. Now you deem them facetious simply because you do not know how they could have been accomplished back then. You no longer have the arguments of three generations ago at your disposal because we now know a few ways in which the feat could be accomplished. We have theorized many other ways, all of which are feasible given certain technological advances.
Your reasoning is flawed. There have been many things imagined by humans before it was known that they could actually happen. Do you think that people landing on the moon was revealed to H.G. Wells by extra-human means? Do you think that the concept of cloning was revealed to any of various science fiction authors by extra-human means? Just because something previously imagined can be brought to fruition through scientific means, does not indicate that imagining such a thing before hand requires divine (or otherwise special) revelation. Often, the reverse is true - because something has been imagined, it spurs people on to see if it can be done. The fact that many cultures have myths about immaculate conceptions, coupled with the fact that the theology of some is mutually exclusive of the others discredits your theory.
However, it remains that there are many of these accounts from a number of different cultures and in each the possibility of human conception without intercourse is attributed to an extra-human source.
Early cultures attributed just about everything to extra-human sources, the sun rising, rainbows, rain, illness, recovering from illness. It is hardly surprising that elements of their myths were also attributed to extra-human sources. But that is not proof.
I find this virgin birth = artificial insemination argument to be extremely unconvincing.
But if we continue on the whole virgin birth thing, it's important to remember that if it was a (very lame) revelation by god, then it means that Huitzilopochtli is the true god because of his virgin birth, and the Aztecs were right...
Or Laozi in the early 600 BC's, also born of a virgin.
Either that or George Lucas is the true god, for revealing Anakin Skywalker's virgin birth. That happened "a long time ago..." presumably long before Jesus or any of those other copycats.
Jesus actually came pretty late in the list of virgin births.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virgin_births
Lore
Lore,
I agree that Jesus came very late in the virgin birth listings. But I still haven't found any account that doesn't ascribe the happening to a strange, mystical being (at least) and almost always the ascription goes to deity.
For the record, I never said "virgin birth = artificial insemination" ... however if the accounts throughout history are correct in stating that pregnant women had not had intercourse, then obviously there was some method of artificial insemination or transference of genetic material into the wombs of the women in question.
I said that the possibility of a virgin becoming pregnant without intercourse is always attributed (throughout history) to extra-human sources. Very recently, after scientific skepticism yielded to scientific discovery, this possibility was proven true.
Since it is possible given certain technologies, it has always been possible given certain technologies. Especially is it possible if the accounts are also accurate in reporting extra-human sources. While their reports about extra-human sources are no doubt severely flawed in the technical particulars, there is no doubt that the existence of extra-human technology would easily account for all virgin birth stories.
As I have written many times before, anyone who believes in a being that isn't from earth believes in at least one extra-terrestrial. Anyone who believes these beings interact with earth also believes these being(s) have technology vastly superior to our own.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
I said that the possibility of a virgin becoming pregnant without intercourse is always attributed (throughout history) to extra-human sources. Very recently, after scientific skepticism yielded to scientific discovery, this possibility was proven true.
Just to pull focus back to reality....
If you toss a coin into the air and let it land willy-nilly you'll get heads or tails.
But--heck! It is possible for it to land on edge and stay there.
Does this change the law of probability? No.
The context of pregnancy without sex would fall into the category of coin-landing-on-edge. An anomaly is an anomaly. It is the exception which proves (i.e. "tests") the rule.
