We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
The jesus story isn't original
Replies
-
I can't really do justice to the words Mark used, but here's basically what he told me:
Let's just take the Aquinas quote at face-value, ignoring the finer details, the historical and social setting, etc. Aquinas is saying that heretics who lead people away from the Church are committing an evil every bit as great as other actions that civil authorities deem are worthy of death. Surely you can agree that if it is true that heretics are helping to take people to hell, they are doing something worse than murder. I know you don't believe any of that but I'm just asking you to consider what Aquinas is arguing. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily:
1. Leading people away from heaven and contributing to their going to hell is as bad as or worse than murder.
2. Our civil authorities deem murderers deserving of capital punishment.
3. Therefore, heretics are worthy of capital punishment.
If the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. That is what Aquinas is doing. Of course, there may be other considerations that would alter the conclusion even if one believes the first two premises. For instance, let's say our civil authorities don't agree on what will lead people to hell (or don't believe at all). Obviously the civil authorities are not going to agree with the first or second premise. If someone distinguishes between religious faith and physical actions and limits the role of government to one or the other, that will affect the conclusion. In any case, what Aquinas is doing is an exercise in moral reasoning.
I understand Patti. Yes using Aquinas's logic that he has complete knowledge of what God wants and what happens to everyone after they die he's making sense. But you have to use HIS logic for that to work. Anyone who believes differently... well they're the ones who get murdered.
Now if we throw in the CRAZY idea that hey, maybe Thomas Aquinas is just a man with no direct line as to what the creator of the universe wants and feels.. well then he's a monster. Advocating the murder of those who disagree with him.
His logic only works in the mind of a complete megalomaniac. It allows no room for the beliefs of other's who feel differently. Today we label it as unbelievably cruel, and righfully so.
Now how can the church claim any sort of "objective morality" when one day it's not only ok, but God's will to murder non-believers and another day it is no longer acceptable and will get you punished by God?
These are not the teachings nor the teachers to build a moral framework around.0 -
Wait wait wait. So, Patti, are you defending what Thomas Aquinas is advocating?0
-
didn't sound like it to me. It sounds like she explained what Aquinas is thought to have meant when advocating that stance. In a pretty understandable way, IMHO.
Why do you have such a hard-on for her? It's like you're just waiting for her to mis-speak or phrase herself in a way that you can use as a weapon against her? Your agression towards Patti is detracting from our debate threads, IMHO.
Her beliefs pose no threat to you. Take a ****ing chill pill bro.0 -
Okay I've been sitting on this and no christian will bring it up so I guess I'll have to.
So Isiah 7:14 is usually the verse where christians will claim that jesus was born of a virgin.
Translation and words have significance. If they don't then we can make up any definition for a word that we want. For instance if I say truck, though it's a vehicle for transportation, it's different from a car. Just like when you say jacket or shirt. Though they cover the body, they are 2 different items. So in Hebrew here is the verse:
hinneh ha‘almah harah veyoledet ben; veqara’t shemo ‘immanu ’el
If you look at the definition for "almah" in Hebrew it's translated as "young woman or maiden"
When the bible was translated into Greek, the Greek word "partenos" was used which in Greek means "virgin".
Now apologetics will say that a "young woman or maiden" back in that day was of marriageble age and probably a virgin, but really if the scripture was really talking about a "virgin" there is a Hebrew word to distinctly define it. The word is "bethulah". So like I mentioned earlier, words are important especially if we're talking about one of the most important descriptions of a person who is to be jesus mother according to prophecy.
If the significance of the Mary was that of a "virgin" then why was "bethulah" not used instead of "almah" so that NO ONE would be confused? As you can see, translations can have problems. In fact the catholic church has recently just started changing responses in mass because the translations from Latin weren't being used correctly.
If the translation was wrong, then this jesus wasn't born of a virgin after all. And that IMO would dismiss his "divinity" making his "story" just a copy cat of other man-gods of Greek mythology. If I were a betting man and DNA profiling was available back then, I would bet that Joseph is the father of jesus.
1. You are right that the Hebrew word translated as "virgin" does not require virginity but often implies it.
2. The Greek translation of the Old Testament does use the Greek word for "virgin". This translation was not done by Christians but by Jewish rabbis a century or two before Jesus (Septuagint). Christians are not responsible for the choice of the Greek word that means "virgin."
3. When the New Testament uses Isaiah 7:14 and applies it to Jesus, it is doing this using Hebrew methods of reading the Old Testament. Matthew cites various Old Testament texts using Hebrew interpretive techniques. The Jews believed that Messiah's coming would consummate/fulfill their entire history. For this reason, they expected the story of the Jews in the past to be reenacted in the Messiah. Matthew uses various Old Testament verses, including Isaiah 7:14, to show that the story of Israel is happening again in Jesus. Isaiah 7:14 has a particular fulfillment in Isaiah's time. Jesus "fulfills" this verse inasmuch as God gave another sign through a virgin young woman (this is a possible inference of Isaiah 7:14) and this time the child born is truly "God with us" in a sense that surpasses and fulfills everything else that God did before. I can show this kind of interpretation in many of the verses Matthew uses. I can also show that it was a very common approach to reading the Old Testament in the time of Jesus.
4. Your argument makes the mistake of thinking that if Isaiah's text doesn't have to mean "virgin" then Mary wasn't a virgin! This seems illogical to me. The text in Matthew presents Mary as a virgin and then links this to Isaiah's text. It doesn't argue that because Isaiah speaks of a virgin therefore Mary must have been a virgin. Instead, the argument is:
Mary was a pregnant virgin.
Isaiah speaks of a virgin woman giving birth to a child who would be "God with us."
Mary is that woman (in the sense of supremely fulfilling the work that God has been doing in the history of salvation).
In other words, let's say Matthew was wrong in using Isaiah 7:14 in reference to Jesus, this would not have changed the fact that Mary was a virgin woman. (I'm not saying he was wrong, I'm just trying to explain my point.)
Your argument seems to be:
Isaiah says there will be a virgin girl that will give birth to a child; the Messiah (you point out that is not the only possible rendering of the word translated "virgin").
Mary was a young girl who gave birth to the (supposed) Messiah.
Therefore Mary must have been a virgin.
This is simply not the way Matthew argues. He takes it as a starting-point that Mary was a virgin and then links this to a prior text. You then add a final conclusion:
If Mary was not a virgin (based on the fact that Isaiah's word doesn't have to be translated that way),
Then Jesus' birth is a stolen, rehashed version of mythological virgin-birth stories.
This involves a huge leap in logic. To me this is like saying that Anaximander's ancient theory of fish turning into reptiles is the cause of Darwin's theory of evolution. Similarity does not imply origin. There is no evidence that Matthew knew anything about the myths of the Greeks and Romans. The more logical source of his interest in miraculous birth stories are the Old Testament stories of people like Sarah (who gave birth in her old age), Samson and Samuel's mothers who were also barren but gave birth after praying to God for a miracle. The virgin birth of Jesus is most naturally understood to the be climax of a series of miraculous stories about births of important people in the history of God's workings among human beings. The fact that we are still talking about Jesus and his birth today provides some support, I think, to the vast significant of his life. Might thsi be good enough reason to have more openness to the possibility that God was telling us something by his unique birth?0 -
didn't sound like it to me. It sounds like she explained what Aquinas is thought to have meant when advocating that stance. In a pretty understandable way, IMHO.
Why do you have such a hard-on for her? It's like you're just waiting for her to mis-speak or phrase herself in a way that you can use as a weapon against her? Your agression towards Patti is detracting from our debate threads, IMHO.
Her beliefs pose no threat to you. Take a ****ing chill pill bro.
Are you serious? Where to begin. She refuses to condemn genocide and slavery as long as it's commanded by the god of her bible, she ranted about the evils of the Penn State coach but then refuses to condemn the Pope for covering up the rape of thousands of children (it was a secular media hit job) and now she is defending the remarks of Thomas Aquinas who and by doing so just justified almost every case of religious genocide in history (we are doing it to save souls). So yes, I do have a hard on for her. Besides one other person who I berated for making generalized statements about the lazy poor, I have conducted myself according to forum rules and have not yet had a run in with any other person of faith or agnostic on here even though I think they are wrong. But that's because they are not advocating evil. So yes, I am aggressive, but no, I refuse your chill pill and challenge you to re-examine are threads again and see what is more morally offensive, my abrasive language or the the apologist?0 -
didn't sound like it to me. It sounds like she explained what Aquinas is thought to have meant when advocating that stance. In a pretty understandable way, IMHO.
Why do you have such a hard-on for her? It's like you're just waiting for her to mis-speak or phrase herself in a way that you can use as a weapon against her? Your agression towards Patti is detracting from our debate threads, IMHO.
Her beliefs pose no threat to you. Take a ****ing chill pill bro.
Are you serious? Where to begin. She refuses to condemn genocide and slavery as long as it's commanded by the god of her bible, she ranted about the evils of the Penn State coach but then refuses to condemn the Pope for covering up the rape of thousands of children (it was a secular media hit job) and now she is defending the remarks of Thomas Aquinas who and by doing so just justified almost every case of religious genocide in history (we are doing it to save souls). So yes, I do have a hard on for her. Besides one other person who I berated for making generalized statements about the lazy poor, I have conducted myself according to forum rules and have not yet had a run in with any other person of faith or agnostic on here even though I think they are wrong. But that's because they are not advocating evil. So yes, I am aggressive, but no, I refuse your chill pill and challenge you to re-examine are threads again and see what is more morally offensive, my abrasive language or the the apologist?
I have seen her condemn without hesitation all acts of pedophilia, regardless of who commits them. You're twisting things when you suggest otherwise, she just said she wants to wait and see if something the media reports is factual before she makes a decision. That's reasonable.
She also just explained the Aquinas quote, I never saw any part of that reply that defended it. She took extra effort to say, in the historical context, and based on his beliefs, here's the explanation for what he said. WHICH IS WHAT YOU ASKED HER TO DO.
Your abrasive language is more offensive to me than anything Patti believes. Her beliefs, your beliefs, anyone's beliefs, it makes no difference, they pose me no threat. By choosing her faith she hasn't done you any harm. Yet your purposefully choose language that is crafted to harm her and anyone else who chooses the Christian faith. So much for your "empathetic, I do what's right because that's how I want to be treated" stance. You're a **** to her because you can be. She never replies in kind.0 -
didn't sound like it to me. It sounds like she explained what Aquinas is thought to have meant when advocating that stance. In a pretty understandable way, IMHO.
Why do you have such a hard-on for her? It's like you're just waiting for her to mis-speak or phrase herself in a way that you can use as a weapon against her? Your agression towards Patti is detracting from our debate threads, IMHO.
Her beliefs pose no threat to you. Take a ****ing chill pill bro.
Are you serious? Where to begin. She refuses to condemn genocide and slavery as long as it's commanded by the god of her bible, she ranted about the evils of the Penn State coach but then refuses to condemn the Pope for covering up the rape of thousands of children (it was a secular media hit job) and now she is defending the remarks of Thomas Aquinas who and by doing so just justified almost every case of religious genocide in history (we are doing it to save souls). So yes, I do have a hard on for her. Besides one other person who I berated for making generalized statements about the lazy poor, I have conducted myself according to forum rules and have not yet had a run in with any other person of faith or agnostic on here even though I think they are wrong. But that's because they are not advocating evil. So yes, I am aggressive, but no, I refuse your chill pill and challenge you to re-examine are threads again and see what is more morally offensive, my abrasive language or the the apologist?
Adrian, you and I share beliefs that are so similar they are nearly indestinguishable. But even I find your debate style off putting. I say this only to help you. Personal attacks and vendettas have no place in debate.
At least Patti has the nerve to debate! There are hundred of other believers on this site who won't say a word here. They don't want to hear our opinions in the first place. They would be happiest if we would just shut up about it. Patti chooses to not only defend her own position but she listens to what we have to say. That deserves respect.
If you want to "win" a debate (and no one is winning anything here) do it with superior logic and reason. Do that and you don't need the vitriol. Your arguments will stand on their own merits.0 -
I love you Brett. Excellently worded.0
-
didn't sound like it to me. It sounds like she explained what Aquinas is thought to have meant when advocating that stance. In a pretty understandable way, IMHO.
Why do you have such a hard-on for her? It's like you're just waiting for her to mis-speak or phrase herself in a way that you can use as a weapon against her? Your agression towards Patti is detracting from our debate threads, IMHO.
Her beliefs pose no threat to you. Take a ****ing chill pill bro.
Are you serious? Where to begin. She refuses to condemn genocide and slavery as long as it's commanded by the god of her bible, she ranted about the evils of the Penn State coach but then refuses to condemn the Pope for covering up the rape of thousands of children (it was a secular media hit job) and now she is defending the remarks of Thomas Aquinas who and by doing so just justified almost every case of religious genocide in history (we are doing it to save souls). So yes, I do have a hard on for her. Besides one other person who I berated for making generalized statements about the lazy poor, I have conducted myself according to forum rules and have not yet had a run in with any other person of faith or agnostic on here even though I think they are wrong. But that's because they are not advocating evil. So yes, I am aggressive, but no, I refuse your chill pill and challenge you to re-examine are threads again and see what is more morally offensive, my abrasive language or the the apologist?
Adrian, you and I share beliefs that are so similar they are nearly indestinguishable. But even I find your debate style off putting. I say this only to help you. Personal attacks and vendettas have no place in debate.
At least Patti has the nerve to debate! There are hundred of other believers on this site who won't say a word here. They don't want to hear our opinions in the first place. They would be happiest if we would just shut up about it. Patti chooses to not only defend her own position but she listens to what we have to say. That deserves respect.
If you want to "win" a debate (and no one is winning anything here) do it with superior logic and reason. Do that and you don't need the vitriol. Your arguments will stand on their own merits.
Ok Brett. Debate is one thing, this is something entirely different. It is a sickness and I refuse to coddle it. What would would any of you say if I came on here and gave some random murderous atheist quote, like Stalin for example, in which he advocated for the murder of christians. What if I justified it as a moral exercise to save the world from the evils of religion. Would anyone have some strong language for me?
So I a completely capable of being polite and respectful and have done so in the past with every other person here including Patti. But sorry, the minute I hear the unmistakeable justification of evil for the sake of religious dogma, we are no longer in a debate, we are in a fight. So I have no problem stating here and now that everytime I here the some lame excuse about how the media distorted the Popes cover up of child rape, of how non believers have no justification for their morals, or how the advocay of murdering non-believers is just a moral frickin exercise, I'm gonna get really verbal, really quickly and I promise, because there will never be a time where I will don't tell these people to kiss my *kitten*.0 -
Implying and meaning are 2 different things. Again it basically boils down to what is interpreted by whomever did the translations. Keeping it simple: "bethulah" in Hebrew is virgin and ONLY means virgin. If it was THAT IMPORTANT, then there would have be definite use of the word. Why do you think that the Jews don't recognize jesus as god's son? It's THEIR book and christianity derived from Judaism. This is Apologetics at its best.1. You are right that the Hebrew word translated as "virgin" does not require virginity but often implies it.
2. The Greek translation of the Old Testament does use the Greek word for "virgin". This translation was not done by Christians but by Jewish rabbis a century or two before Jesus (Septuagint). Christians are not responsible for the choice of the Greek word that means "virgin."
3. When the New Testament uses Isaiah 7:14 and applies it to Jesus, it is doing this using Hebrew methods of reading the Old Testament. Matthew cites various Old Testament texts using Hebrew interpretive techniques. The Jews believed that Messiah's coming would consummate/fulfill their entire history. For this reason, they expected the story of the Jews in the past to be reenacted in the Messiah. Matthew uses various Old Testament verses, including Isaiah 7:14, to show that the story of Israel is happening again in Jesus. Isaiah 7:14 has a particular fulfillment in Isaiah's time. Jesus "fulfills" this verse inasmuch as God gave another sign through a virgin young woman (this is a possible inference of Isaiah 7:14) and this time the child born is truly "God with us" in a sense that surpasses and fulfills everything else that God did before. I can show this kind of interpretation in many of the verses Matthew uses. I can also show that it was a very common approach to reading the Old Testament in the time of Jesus.
4. Your argument makes the mistake of thinking that if Isaiah's text doesn't have to mean "virgin" then Mary wasn't a virgin! This seems illogical to me. The text in Matthew presents Mary as a virgin and then links this to Isaiah's text. It doesn't argue that because Isaiah speaks of a virgin therefore Mary must have been a virgin. Instead, the argument is:
Mary was a pregnant virgin.
Isaiah speaks of a virgin woman giving birth to a child who would be "God with us."
Mary is that woman (in the sense of supremely fulfilling the work that God has been doing in the history of salvation).
In other words, let's say Matthew was wrong in using Isaiah 7:14 in reference to Jesus, this would not have changed the fact that Mary was a virgin woman. (I'm not saying he was wrong, I'm just trying to explain my point.)
Your argument seems to be:
Isaiah says there will be a virgin girl that will give birth to a child; the Messiah (you point out that is not the only possible rendering of the word translated "virgin").
Mary was a young girl who gave birth to the (supposed) Messiah.
Therefore Mary must have been a virgin.
This is simply not the way Matthew argues. He takes it as a starting-point that Mary was a virgin and then links this to a prior text. You then add a final conclusion:
If Mary was not a virgin (based on the fact that Isaiah's word doesn't have to be translated that way),
Then Jesus' birth is a stolen, rehashed version of mythological virgin-birth stories.
This involves a huge leap in logic. To me this is like saying that Anaximander's ancient theory of fish turning into reptiles is the cause of Darwin's theory of evolution. Similarity does not imply origin. There is no evidence that Matthew knew anything about the myths of the Greeks and Romans. The more logical source of his interest in miraculous birth stories are the Old Testament stories of people like Sarah (who gave birth in her old age), Samson and Samuel's mothers who were also barren but gave birth after praying to God for a miracle. The virgin birth of Jesus is most naturally understood to the be climax of a series of miraculous stories about births of important people in the history of God's workings among human beings. The fact that we are still talking about Jesus and his birth today provides some support, I think, to the vast significant of his life. Might thsi be good enough reason to have more openness to the possibility that God was telling us something by his unique birth?
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I am interested, which one of those supports the notion of an actual categorical imperative that is not grounded in the notion of a supreme being?What I am arguing is that atheism may certainly make claims like a-b but can't for c-d. In the atheist world, there is no objective grounds for human value (or for any other value) except subjective considerations that may or may not be interesting to others. Both the Christian and the atheist may agree that murder should be prohibited but we do so for different reasons.
I, for one, do not believe in the existence of a categorical imperative. You're wrong, however, when you say that there are not atheists who do. There are atheists that base their ethics / morals on kantian ethics, social contract theory, virtue ethics, ethical egoism etc etc etc
Some of those philosophies do indeed support the concept of a categorical imperative that is divorced from any theological standard.
Personally, I tend to lean towards descriptive moral relativism in the abstract and social contract theory for practical concerns.0 -
Implying and meaning are 2 different things. Again it basically boils down to what is interpreted by whomever did the translations. Keeping it simple: "bethulah" in Hebrew is virgin and ONLY means virgin. If it was THAT IMPORTANT, then there would have be definite use of the word. Why do you think that the Jews don't recognize jesus as god's son? It's THEIR book and christianity derived from Judaism. This is Apologetics at its best.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Some of them did recognize Him as just that, some of them still do? Fact is, though Jesus mentions any number of prophecies He fulfills, that is not one of them. I am really not sure of the significance.0 -
I would love to engage with this more thoroughly, but am short on time (the kids are running rampant, and I just rounded out an overnight shift in the hospital). Long story short, I find this plausible. However, my world view is theistic, and I find it more plausible that moral law is grounded in a supreme being. I also think that natural law is, as well, and that consistency between the two (some natural behaviors appearing very like moral behaviours) does not, to my mind, argue against this. However, I will get back to this, I promise!I think most biologists and neuroscientists would agree that humans are essentially selfish, and that our natural instincts are to ensure our own survival at all costs. I think I remember that you have kids? Presumably you have had to teach them, as all small children have to be taught, to think of others, rather than only themselves, and to behave considerately and unselfishly, which rather argues that these behaviours are learned rather than inherent. Instead of 'moral' behaviour being instinctive, I would suggest that societal pressure exists to make sure we conform to a certain moral code and standards of considerate behaviour. Religion codified these behaviours, and in doing so, continues to exert an almost-insurmountable influence on Western values and mores.
Even Peter Singer has gotten to the point where he agrees that Darwinian logic implies a rather awful ingrained code of conduct in humans, and has come to advocate an intentional, methodical form of altruism as a means of overcoming that flaw. Altruism just seems to have no real purpose (at least, when applied past our own immediate familial pool) in survival. How it is, though, that we can overcome our genetic influences (when free will appears illusory) to practice such a thing, I don't know. I don't think he knows, either.
I do think altruism, kindness, selflessness, etc. IS inherent. Maybe not technically, not at the moment of birth. But you can't grow up without these things.
We're social creatures who rely on one another to survive. We need to be cared for for a very long time when we're young. Without empathy we don't survive as a species. Period.
We have to think about what gets labeled as "selfish" behavior. We naturally do what will benefit us most, or our family/tribe/nation etc. But being social creatures what more often benefits us is to live in harmony with one another, even to help others to our own detriment if there is some greater reward. That's where our goodness comes from. We see that it has an advantage. To put it quite simply, doing good benefits humans.
Through empathy we can realize that truly "bad" behaviors deserve punishment, because we wouldn't want those same things to happen to us. If we see people stealing and killing we want them to be stopped. We've always felt this way. Murder and theft didn't enjoy a free ride before the Ten Commandments. They never have.
And if it's through divinity that we get these morals I have to ask where the animal kingdom gets theirs from? Yes animals can exhibit perfectly moral behavior. Chimps can even risk their lives for one another. There's no benefit in that for them. They are being selfless and noble. They have no god, no bible, no codified practices.
Morality. No God required.0 -
Implying and meaning are 2 different things. Again it basically boils down to what is interpreted by whomever did the translations. Keeping it simple: "bethulah" in Hebrew is virgin and ONLY means virgin. If it was THAT IMPORTANT, then there would have be definite use of the word. Why do you think that the Jews don't recognize jesus as god's son? It's THEIR book and christianity derived from Judaism. This is Apologetics at its best.
Implication is a form of "meaning." Words take on all sorts of connotations through usage. The English dictionary is filled with multiple meanings for words. These meanings evolve through usage and change with regularity. I know you want to keep this matter "simple" (translation: keep the subject where it will support your claims?) but the reality is that the Hebrew word we are discussing often carried the implied meaning of virgin. That is why the Jewish translators of that Hebrew word used the Greek word for "virgin." Christians didn't do that. Jews not recognizing Jesus as the Son of God has little or nothing to do with Isaiah 7:14. The issues are much more complicated than that. However, it should be noted that the author of the book of Matthew was a Jew, as were all but one of the authors of the New Testament books. Christianity began within Judaism. Most Jews have rejected Christianity primarily because Jesus did not "fit" what they expected and desired in a Messiah. That is much bigger than how you interpret one verse. I hope you do not mean to suggest by "apologetics" that I'm just defending my faith as an exercise in argument for the sake of argument. I'm defending what I believe because I believe it is true and that it is a beautiful treasure to me and I want to share it with others. I respect those who disagree with me but because I believe my faith I want to try and help others understand why I believe it. Certainly not trying to convert anyone nor defend any deplorable actions done in the name of Christianity.0 -
[0
-
[
I agree completely!0 -
[I agree completely
Wait- someone on here agrees with me??? Say it isn't so!0 -
"Virgin birth" defines him separate from being a mere mortal. If he was mortal, then he was either crazy (we've seen many of those even in the present), super smart.
Some of them did recognize Him as just that, some of them still do? Fact is, though Jesus mentions any number of prophecies He fulfills, that is not one of them. I am really not sure of the significance.0 -
"Virgin birth" defines him separate from being a mere mortal. If he was mortal, then he was either crazy (we've seen many of those even in the present), super smart.
Some of them did recognize Him as just that, some of them still do? Fact is, though Jesus mentions any number of prophecies He fulfills, that is not one of them. I am really not sure of the significance.
Gosh, in Christian doctrine (of which I am no expert), it seems that it primarily frees Him from original sin (and other arguable notions). I don't see, otherwise, why He needed a virgin (He certainly spend a great deal of time with women who were otherwise), or even why the incarnation had to occur as it did (except to free man from judgement). I think, really, that this is just a discussion as to whether He properly fulfilled a prophecy in Isaiah in a virgin birth, or if the NT just states as bald fact that He was born of a virgin.0 -
[I agree completely
Wait- someone on here agrees with me??? Say it isn't so!
I'll try not to let it happen again!0 -
It's the man-god divinity attribute. If he wasn't born of a virgin, then he's no different than any other man. That's part of the enamor with christianity.
"Virgin birth" defines him separate from being a mere mortal. If he was mortal, then he was either crazy (we've seen many of those even in the present), super smart.
Some of them did recognize Him as just that, some of them still do? Fact is, though Jesus mentions any number of prophecies He fulfills, that is not one of them. I am really not sure of the significance.
Gosh, in Christian doctrine (of which I am no expert), it seems that it primarily frees Him from original sin (and other arguable notions). I don't see, otherwise, why He needed a virgin (He certainly spend a great deal of time with women who were otherwise), or even why the incarnation had to occur as it did (except to free man from judgement). I think, really, that this is just a discussion as to whether He properly fulfilled a prophecy in Isaiah in a virgin birth, or if the NT just states as bald fact that He was born of a virgin.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Growing up catholic (my parents still are very devout), going to a catholic school, and even having to attend catechism for first communion, confirmation, etc. I've really shunned the way that catholicism works so much on proselytizing people around the world, especially the poor and uneducated. When it comes to community, helping the needy, providing academics, etc. I think it's great. But the religion makes up so many of it's own doctrines and sacraments with many not even having relevance to the bible, it's sad. The church has billions of dollars yet most of the money is spent on proselyzing rather than helping. Better to build a church than a shelter. The pope can make up an new "law" (the most recent I believe was against pedophilia) and catholics are bound by it. It's especially maddening when abortion is not allowed, yet neither is contraception.Implying and meaning are 2 different things. Again it basically boils down to what is interpreted by whomever did the translations. Keeping it simple: "bethulah" in Hebrew is virgin and ONLY means virgin. If it was THAT IMPORTANT, then there would have be definite use of the word. Why do you think that the Jews don't recognize jesus as god's son? It's THEIR book and christianity derived from Judaism. This is Apologetics at its best.
Implication is a form of "meaning." Words take on all sorts of connotations through usage. The English dictionary is filled with multiple meanings for words. These meanings evolve through usage and change with regularity. I know you want to keep this matter "simple" (translation: keep the subject where it will support your claims?) but the reality is that the Hebrew word we are discussing often carried the implied meaning of virgin. That is why the Jewish translators of that Hebrew word used the Greek word for "virgin." Christians didn't do that. Jews not recognizing Jesus as the Son of God has little or nothing to do with Isaiah 7:14. The issues are much more complicated than that. However, it should be noted that the author of the book of Matthew was a Jew, as were all but one of the authors of the New Testament books. Christianity began within Judaism. Most Jews have rejected Christianity primarily because Jesus did not "fit" what they expected and desired in a Messiah. That is much bigger than how you interpret one verse. I hope you do not mean to suggest by "apologetics" that I'm just defending my faith as an exercise in argument for the sake of argument. I'm defending what I believe because I believe it is true and that it is a beautiful treasure to me and I want to share it with others. I respect those who disagree with me but because I believe my faith I want to try and help others understand why I believe it. Certainly not trying to convert anyone nor defend any deplorable actions done in the name of Christianity.
Anyway, I know many good people who are catholic. I know many good people who are agnostic and atheist. I also know many good people who are Muslim, Jewish, Buddist, Pagan, etc. And I can truly say that I don't believe in god because I can't think of a being like that who justs wants people to suffer unless they give in. Sounds very narcisstic and that's a human element. It makes much more sense that the bible (and most religious books) were written by men for men.
I'm sure you're a great person and kind and generous, but I don't attribute that to a god you follow. I attribute it to you just being a good human.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
A good read about Morality without God:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-07-31-atheism-morality-evolution-religion_n.htm
As atheists know, you can be good without God
By Jerry A. Coyne Updated 8/1/2011
We see the instinctive nature of moral acts and judgments in many ways: in the automatic repugnance we feel when someone such as Bernie Madoff bilks the gullible and trusting, in our disapproval of the person who steals food from the office refrigerator, in our admiration for someone who risks his life to save a drowning child. And although some morality comes from reason and persuasion — we must learn, for example, to share our toys — much of it seems intuitive and inborn.
As a biologist, I see belief in God-given morality as American's biggest impediment to accepting the fact of evolution. "Evolution," many argue, "could never have given us feelings of kindness, altruism and morality. For if we were merely evolved beasts, we would act like beasts. Surely our good behavior, and the moral sentiments that promote it, reflect impulses that God instilled in our soul."
So while morality supposedly comes from God, immorality is laid at the door of Charles Darwin, who has been blamed for everything from Nazism to the shootings in Columbine.
Why it couldn't be God
But though both moral and immoral behaviors can be promoted by religions, morality itself — either in individual behavior or social codes — simply cannot come from the will or commands of a God. This has been recognized by philosophers since the time of Plato.
Religious people can appreciate this by considering Plato's question: Do actions become moral simply because they're dictated by God, or are they dictated by God because they are moral? It doesn't take much thought to see that the right answer is the second one. Why? Because if God commanded us to do something obviously immoral, such as kill our children or steal, it wouldn't automatically become OK. Of course, you can argue that God would never sanction something like that because he's a completely moral being, but then you're still using some idea of morality that is independent of God. Either way, it's clear that even for the faithful, God cannot be the source of morality but at best a transmitter of some human-generated morality.
This isn't just philosophical rumination, because God — at least the God of Christians and Jews — repeatedly sanctioned or ordered immoral acts in the Old Testament. These include slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46), genocide (Deuteronomy 7:1-2; 20:16-18), the slaying of adulterers and homosexuals, and the stoning of non-virgin brides (Leviticus 20:10, 20:13, Deuteronomy 22:20-21).
Was God being moral when, after some children made fun of the prophet Elisha's bald head, he made bears rip 42 of them to pieces (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Even in the New Testament, Jesus preaches principles of questionable morality, barring heaven to the wealthy (Matthew 19:24), approving the beating of slaves (Luke 12:47-48), and damning sinners to the torments of hell (Mark 9:47-48). Similar sentiments appear in the Quran.
Now, few of us see genocide or stoning as moral, so Christians and Jews pass over those parts of the Bible with judicious silence. But that's just the point. There is something else — some other source of morality — that supersedes biblical commands. When religious people pick and choose their morality from Scripture, they clearly do so based on extrareligious notions of what's moral.
Further, the idea that morality is divinely inspired doesn't jibe with the fact that religiously based ethics have changed profoundly over time. Slavery was once defended by churches on scriptural grounds; now it's seen as grossly immoral. Mormons barred blacks from the priesthood, also on religious grounds, until church leaders had a convenient "revelation" to the contrary in 1978. Catholics once had a list of books considered immoral to read; they did away with that in 1966. Did these adjustments occur because God changed His mind? No, they came from secular improvements in morality that forced religion to clean up its act.
Where, then?
So where does morality come from, if not from God? Two places: evolution and secular reasoning. Despite the notion that beasts behave bestially, scientists studying our primate relatives, such as chimpanzees, see evolutionary rudiments of morality: behaviors that look for all the world like altruism, sympathy, moral disapproval, sharing — even notions of fairness. This is exactly what we'd expect if human morality, like many other behaviors, is built partly on the genes of our ancestors.
And the conditions under which humans evolved are precisely those that would favor the evolution of moral codes: small social groups of big-brained animals. When individuals in a group can get to know, recognize and remember each other, this gives an advantage to genes that make you behave nicely towards others in the group, reward those who cooperate and punish those who cheat. That's how natural selection can build morality. Secular reason adds another layer atop these evolved behaviors, helping us extend our moral sentiments far beyond our small group of friends and relatives — even to animals.
Should we be afraid that a morality based on our genes and our brains is somehow inferior to one handed down from above? Not at all. In fact, it's far better, because secular morality has a flexibility and responsiveness to social change that no God-given morality could ever have. Secular morality is what pushes religion to improve its own dogma on issues such as slavery and the treatment of women. Secular morality is what prevents ethically irrelevant matters — what we eat, read or wear, when we work, or whom we have sex with — from being grouped with matters of genuine moral concern, like rape and child abuse. And really, isn't it better to be moral because you've worked out for yourself — in conjunction with your group — the right thing to do, rather than because you want to propitiate a god or avoid punishment in the hereafter?
Nor should we worry that a society based on secular morality will degenerate into lawlessness. That experiment has already been done — in countries such as Sweden and Denmark that are largely filled with non-believers and atheists. I can vouch from experience that secular European nations are full of well-behaved and well-meaning citizens, not criminals and sociopaths running amok. In fact, you can make a good case that those countries, with their liberal social views and extensive aid for the sick, old and disadvantaged, are even more moral than America.
Clearly, you can be good without God0 -
It's the man-god divinity attribute. If he wasn't born of a virgin, then he's no different than any other man. That's part of the enamor with christianity.
"Virgin birth" defines him separate from being a mere mortal. If he was mortal, then he was either crazy (we've seen many of those even in the present), super smart.
Some of them did recognize Him as just that, some of them still do? Fact is, though Jesus mentions any number of prophecies He fulfills, that is not one of them. I am really not sure of the significance.
Gosh, in Christian doctrine (of which I am no expert), it seems that it primarily frees Him from original sin (and other arguable notions). I don't see, otherwise, why He needed a virgin (He certainly spend a great deal of time with women who were otherwise), or even why the incarnation had to occur as it did (except to free man from judgement). I think, really, that this is just a discussion as to whether He properly fulfilled a prophecy in Isaiah in a virgin birth, or if the NT just states as bald fact that He was born of a virgin.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I am not sure how that is true?
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin (or young woman) will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
When I look at this, I see that a) something in this verse implies a birth that is a sign, ie is odd enough that it will be recognizable as a message from God. If it is not a vigin birth, than what is the implied sign? b) that whatever is unique about the birth is intended to be a sign, not necessarily a component of process. That is, it was not done because it had to be that way, but because it would be useful for people to see it done that way.
What is unique about Christ is that He is fully God, and that He is fully man. There is nothing in that particular alchemy that requires being born of a virgin. It merely requires that He have a preincarnate, eternal existance and yet also be born a man. I suppose God could just have made Him from the dust like Adam, or attached the "spirit" of Christ to a newly conceived egg of two human parents (a heresy that has actually been around the block), or any of a number of weird alternatives. This particular course, apparently, was the best way in Gods judgment, and certainly the one in line with prophecy. I also consider it dispensable, that is, the loss of it would not undermine my faith. I have several things in Christianity like that (biblical inerrancy is one of the big ones I could let go of, if I had to).0 -
A good read about Morality without God:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-07-31-atheism-morality-evolution-religion_n.htm
As atheists know, you can be good without God
By Jerry A. Coyne Updated 8/1/2011
Why it couldn't be God
But though both moral and immoral behaviors can be promoted by religions, morality itself — either in individual behavior or social codes — simply cannot come from the will or commands of a God. This has been recognized by philosophers since the time of Plato.
Religious people can appreciate this by considering Plato's question: Do actions become moral simply because they're dictated by God, or are they dictated by God because they are moral? It doesn't take much thought to see that the right answer is the second one. Why? Because if God commanded us to do something obviously immoral, such as kill our children or steal, it wouldn't automatically become OK. Of course, you can argue that God would never sanction something like that because he's a completely moral being, but then you're still using some idea of morality that is independent of God. Either way, it's clear that even for the faithful, God cannot be the source of morality but at best a transmitter of some human-generated morality.
It always amazes me when otherwise intelligent men like Coyne get hung out by philosophy. Using something as tired and refuted as the euthyphro dilemma in the 21st century is not a good sign. I like Coyne's science (biology is the handmaiden of medicine, or is it the other way around), but he is so very strident when it comes to ethics, morality, and philosophy. That "debate" with John Haught was a travesty.0 -
There's nothing objective about religious morality.
^^^ This. The end.
I don't know, is the point of a belief in objective morality that we already have it, intact, or that there is one that is yet to be completely puzzled out? Some of the plain "rule following" in Christianity is an admission that we do not completely understand the "highest good" and are placing ourselves under He who does. Yet, we also believe that we can grow in love the more time we spend seeking it, and become better free moral agents.0 -
Just dropping in again briefly - yes the Aquinas quote is harsh, but please, for heavens' sake (no pun intended!
) take the quote in its' historical context and don't only read it in the framework of a modern, multi-cultural, multi-faith world. I find it very frustrating, and saddening, when people react to historical quotes as if they were made in their own era. Context is critical when considering the statements of historical figures.
I don't particularly like a lot of Aquinas' philosophy, but when I consider the context in which he wrote, his thought processes become much more comprehensible. Doesn't mean I like them, or that I am endorsing or encouraging Genocide, just that if I try to understand the circumstances, I understand more clearly the reasons behind the quote. Taken from a modern perspective, without regard to the context, the quoted passage is exceedingly difficult to defend or understand. Taken in context, while I may not agree, I can comprehend why he felt that way. The same applies to any historical or ancient document, including the Bible and other such texts. If we insist on reading them without regard to the context in which they were written, many things are problematic or inconsistent. If we consider context, many of these issues are minimised or vanish completely.
I know, I said 'briefly'... oops.0 -
Just dropping in again briefly - yes the Aquinas quote is harsh, but please, for heavens' sake (no pun intended! ) take the quote in its' historical context and don't only read it in the framework of a modern, multi-cultural, multi-faith world. I find it very frustrating, and saddening, when people react to historical quotes as if they were made in their own era. Context is critical when considering the statements of historical figures.
I don't particularly like a lot of Aquinas' philosophy, but when I consider the context in which he wrote, his thought processes become much more comprehensible. Doesn't mean I like them, or that I am endorsing or encouraging Genocide, just that if I try to understand the circumstances, I understand more clearly the reasons behind the quote. Taken from a modern perspective, without regard to the context, the quoted passage is exceedingly difficult to defend or understand. Taken in context, while I may not agree, I can comprehend why he felt that way. The same applies to any historical or ancient document, including the Bible and other such texts. If we insist on reading them without regard to the context in which they were written, many things are problematic or inconsistent. If we consider context, many of these issues are minimised or vanish completely.
I know, I said 'briefly'... oops.
What is the the time needed to have passed before something is no longer bad, just a sign of the times? Is it a decade, a century, or a millenia? This argument only seems that we can not be judgemental of the dead because it was a different time period is interesting to me. And it only seems to be applied to the religious. When does Hitlers behavior become not evil? Or the dunce protesting military funerals, or Stalin, or Mao, or Ghengis Khan, or the Romans? How about racism in America before the civil rights movement?0 -
Just dropping in again briefly - yes the Aquinas quote is harsh, but please, for heavens' sake (no pun intended! ) take the quote in its' historical context and don't only read it in the framework of a modern, multi-cultural, multi-faith world. I find it very frustrating, and saddening, when people react to historical quotes as if they were made in their own era. Context is critical when considering the statements of historical figures.
I don't particularly like a lot of Aquinas' philosophy, but when I consider the context in which he wrote, his thought processes become much more comprehensible. Doesn't mean I like them, or that I am endorsing or encouraging Genocide, just that if I try to understand the circumstances, I understand more clearly the reasons behind the quote. Taken from a modern perspective, without regard to the context, the quoted passage is exceedingly difficult to defend or understand. Taken in context, while I may not agree, I can comprehend why he felt that way. The same applies to any historical or ancient document, including the Bible and other such texts. If we insist on reading them without regard to the context in which they were written, many things are problematic or inconsistent. If we consider context, many of these issues are minimised or vanish completely.
I know, I said 'briefly'... oops.
Ah. The context argument.
Ok.
Please enlighten me. Tell me how the time and place makes the murder of those who do not believe in Christ acceptable. Tell me what I'm missing that makes slaughter not only justified, but part of a solid moral foundation.
You won't. You can't. It was wrong then, it's wrong today.
And you people accuse atheists of having a subjective morality as if it were a negative thing. While you excuse barbarism and wholesale slaughter done in the name of your God.0 -
I've got a 60-second window to respond to this just now, but will reply in more detail later. If you read my post carefully you will see that I clearly say that I neither endorse or encourage Genocide, and that I dislike some of Aquinas' philosophy.
The point I was trying to make is that it is important to consider the context in which a statement is made if you wish to understand why someone thinks as they do. The same applies to Hitler or Stalin, or any historical figure you care to name - you may not like their ideas, but if you consider their particular circumstances, you may better understand why they think as they do. Isn't "Know thine enemy" a wonderful quote?
And please, do not refer to me, or anyone else as "you people" - it's very unpleasant.0
This discussion has been closed.