posted
I found a very interesting article at Religioustolerance.org concerning the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Before I make any decisions, I would like to hear any criticism of the article:
I hope you don't mind the assistance I'm requesting, but I do truly want to hear the views of both sides before I make any kind of decision, and I am simply not well enough versed in theology to tell a truth from a lie.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on. If a man could impregnate someone while keeping her a virgin, I think could God could do it quite easily.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without reading the article, it seems that if a being could and, depending on your school of thought, did create the Universe, I would imagine impregnating a woman without resorting to sexual intercourse wouldn't be especially complicated.
If I accept the concept of God and various miracles, the idea of a virgin birth is hardly less difficult to believe.
posted
I think it's really interesting. However, you sort of have to be Christian first to have an opinion on it at all, so I can't really contribute usefully, sorry.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding of the LDS faith is that the prophet Nephi in the Book of Mormon saw in vision the virgin Mary bearing the child Jesus, and that she was still a virgin even AFTER the child was born. Jesus is the firstborn spirit child of God the Father and also the only begotten son of God the Father after the manner of the flesh. The role of the Holy Ghost in the conception of Jesus Christ was that Mary had to be sanctified by the Holy Ghost that she might be able to endure the presence of God the Father. Again, Mary was a virgin. The mechanics of the actual conception is therefore beyond our current understanding.
Please don't misconstrue my answer to the question as proselyting. This is my opinion only.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’m not sure what you mean by telling a truth from a lie in this case. The article gives a good overview of the very wide differences of opinion on this doctrine. It may have overstated the “liberal” position slightly, as there are many liberal protestants that do believe in the virgin birth, but there are also many who hold the position the article describes. So . . . the article seems mostly accurate to me.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
One question that I have, it refers twice to other stories about heroic beings that were born around Dec 25. I'd been taught that December 25 was an aribitrary date chosen by a leader at some point to coincide with Winter Solstice so as to help bring more pagans into the faith. Is there any sort of evidence that suggests that December 25 is the actual date?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bit in the article about Mormon belief was a bit flaky. They make an outrageous statement about what some Mormons supposedly once believed and then state that it has never been a formal dogma. Why include anything on the site at all about what Mormons believe? Either get it right, or leave it out.
I don't mean to seem defensive, but it makes me wonder how deeply the writers were able to delve into the beliefs of the other religions represented in the article.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I actually found that comment rather insightful. I'd heard that belief from a Mormon source before, and then heard that it was not true from another Mormon source. The comment just acknowledged that there's some division on the issue, which seems pretty obvious, but that it is not offical church doctrine.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
I believe the point of the Dec 25th date was to show examples of how Christianity was changed to appeal more to Pagan beliefs of the time, as they are hypothesizing that the virgin birth was, too.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I am not sure that truth or lie is of significant value here (to me). Accepting Christ as the son of God is not dependant on a virgin conception. It is only relevant in trying to determine if the Bible has false information.
I think the article does a nice job of showing two very important points:
1. Our English scripture is a translation. More precisely it is a translation of a translation of a translation in most cases. It reminds me of the 'secret' game wher you sit kids in a line and whisper something to the first person and tell them to pass the message to the next person. The message from the last person in line is quite different than the original message - and this was using a common language. Translations will vary and will, quite often, be different than the original intent.
2. Dogma and doctrine is the attempt by the various followers of belief systems to structure a version of the Bible's teachings that are a rather simple guide. This is both the guide to how one should conduct their life and the principals on which their faith is built. It would be disingenious to think that folks could agree on one common set of rules unless all instances were addressed in the writings.
Through translation the bible can be a hard document to pin down. Faith, by its very intent, is asking that you believe in something that cannot be completely proven through empirical research. Purity of thought and soul is just not a reasonable thing to expect from anyone (including yourself) - so we have to anticipate that all teachings are shaded by the writer.
What does that mean to me - we are responsible for devining our own truth. Guidlines and principals are important in helping us discover those truths. Being a 'strict constructionist' with regard to the bible is a difficult proposition for me to be comfortable with.
As to me - I am an agnostic that teeters on the edge of athiesm. The pricipals of religion are, in many cases, attractive to me. I lack the ability to pull the trigger on the faith thingy...
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Without reading the article, it seems that if a being could and, depending on your school of thought, did create the Universe, I would imagine impregnating a woman without resorting to sexual intercourse wouldn't be especially complicated.
If I accept the concept of God and various miracles, the idea of a virgin birth is hardly less difficult to believe.
-Trevor
What I have never gotten are shows that use scientific data to prove miracles. For instance - The Nile often turns red because of mineral deposits so maybe the Moses story is true. That's interesting but it rather DISPROVES it being a miracle which is supposed to defy logic.
posted
Amancer, it may be insightful to you, but its garbage to many other Latter-day Saints. True, some have SPECULATED that sex was involved between Mary and God in a time when the idea of artificial reproduction was unheard of (Mormons consider Miracles simply advanced uses of Scientific knowledge usually beyond our comprehension. Perhaps those who proposed it didn't have a lot of imagination on the issue). But, that is like saying that 5 percent of people in the United States believes that only white people are the Children of God, and therefore its a major consideration in the whole of the United States.
It is because of the blatant lack of explaining what the majority believe that it is simply wrong. Now, I am not saying there aren't those LDS who still consider an actual sexual union between Mary and God a possibility (She would still be a Virgin because it was a Celestial rather than a mortal union). But, that number has dropped off considerably over the years and at best the Scriptures on the subject are vague.
posted
Michelle - I think they are attempting to prove that while these events did occur, they weren't divine intervention as much as natural phenomena.
Not that successfully proving and explaining Biblical miracles will sway the faithful, but apparently it's a hobby.
posted
Occaisional, that's pretty much what the article said. It was taught by some, it was never doctrine, and the number of people believing it has dropped off in recent years.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many [is not the same as the word "some"] religious leaders in the Mormon church once taught that Mary conceived after God engaged in sexual intercourse with her. However, this is now rarely taught within the church [frankly, it is now never taught. At best it would be mentioned on a local level somewhere. However, the conception by sex concept hasn't been stated for at least 50 years, if not 90 by higher authorities], and has never been a formal dogma [true enough, but it doesn't explain what is usually taught. The statements are an innacurate and far from complete summary. But hey, when it comes to Mormonism I am not surprised by such sloppiness].
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article isn’t about detailing what Mormons (or any other specific group) believe. It’s intent (or so it seems to me) is to show the broad spectrum of beliefs on this issue. The “sex with God” belief is mentioned as one possible, though uncommon, belief. No church’s current doctrine is given in great detail, with the possible exception of the RC. Why do you think the LDS teaching should have been?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I believe it is misleading. Words that you use such as "some" and "uncommon" and such are NOT used in the details.
I would like to change your last question to "What do you think the LDS teaching should have been?"
Some early religious leaders in the Mormon church once taught that Mary conceived after God engaged in sexual intercourse with her. She was still considered a virgin as a mortal, for it would have been a Heavenly event. The teaching was never considered a doctrine. Today the idea is uncommon and almost never taught. The prevailant teaching is that the process involved the Power of the Holy Ghost and direct intervention from God, but details are considered vague.
posted
Your point has been noted regarding the 'error' in the article as far as whether a lot of Mormons, some Mormons, or a few Mormons ever held the belief. I don't think it invalidates the rest of the article. Let's move on, yes?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Michelle - I think they are attempting to prove that while these events did occur, they weren't divine intervention as much as natural phenomena.
Not that successfully proving and explaining Biblical miracles will sway the faithful, but apparently it's a hobby.
-Trevor
Oh, I have definitely seen that angle too but a lot of times the experts are religious scholars which does imply some belief in the spiritual.
Posts: 152 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like how the site gives equal weight to the Mountain Meadows Massacre and every other event in LDS history. I guess we deserve it for our years of lying and obfuscation. And when we explain the MMM often we do so as if it were somehow justified by prior experience, which it wasn't.
I am 34, was born in the faith, and have never until today seen anywhere the claim that Mary was impregnated via sex. But maybe I'm really obtuse.
P.S. Per Storm Saxon's request, I'll simply weigh in that I always assumed virgin birth was literal, albeit a mystery.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
