More on the virgin birth

[atheist buddy]

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.�

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23�The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel�-- which means, “God with us.�

24When Joseph awoke, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

That is what it says in the Book of Matthew about Jesus's virgin birth.

In short: Mary gets pregnant, Joseph knows that he had no part in that. So then Joseph has a dream that it was the Holy Spirit that got Mary pregnant.... and he believes it.

You believe that Mary was a virgin, because some guy you never met wrote down that Joseph - who he never met - had a dream that Mary's got pregnant without having sex.

Question for debate: ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

I mean, could there be a less justifiable belief than that?

Would you believe in pink flying elephants wearing top hats, if I told you that my cousin once dreamed of one?

When you had a nightmare as a child, what did mommy tell you? Did she ever explain to you that DREAMS ARE NOT REAL?

If, as an adult, you're capable of understanding that just because you dreamed that an ogre was going to hit you with a stone club, it doesn't mean that ogres are real, then why is it that you're not capable of understanding that just because some guy dreams that his wife got pregnant without having sex, it doesn't mean that virgin births are real?

[historia]

You believe that Mary was a virgin, because some guy you never met wrote down that Joseph - who he never met - had a dream that Mary's got pregnant without having sex.

Question for debate: ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

Your characterization here seems hopelessly simplistic.

First, traditional Christian belief in the virgin birth is not based just on this text in Matthew, of course, but also Luke's birth narrative, and perhaps also a wider set of Christian tradition on this doctrine.

Second, and more substantially, no one approaches the Bible as just a repository of "evidence" to which they may or may not ascend. The Bible is a sacred text produced by Christians for Christians. It's not trying to "prove" anything; it simply sets out the foundational stories and historical beliefs of that community. A person must first ascend to being part of that community and accepting a good number of other beliefs before getting to this text and doctrine.

To that end, a Christian (or Muslim) comes to accept the virgin birth of Jesus as a point of doctrine, not because they are persuaded by the evidence, as such. But rather because this is part of the tradition of those communities.

To suggest, then, that people believe this because "some guy had a dream and some (other) guy wrote it down" is so grossly simplistic as to make your question rather vacuous.

[historia]

By the way, I cant thank you enough for truly bringing the point home that yu have ZERO response to my OP argument. No attempt to address it, no decision to ignore my thread entirely, could have made it more clear that you concede that its absurd to believe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that something is true because you heard from some guy that some other guy DREAMED it.

Given the flippant way in which the OP question was asked, I suspect you won't get many serious responses. Which is unfortunate, as there are some interesting issues that could be discussed and debated here, while there is an endless number of mocking and self-congratulatory atheist threads on this subforum, of which this one would just be another boring example.

[atheist buddy]

You believe that Mary was a virgin, because some guy you never met wrote down that Joseph - who he never met - had a dream that Mary's got pregnant without having sex.

Question for debate: ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

Your characterization here seems hopelessly simplistic.

First, traditional Christian belief in the virgin birth is not based just on this text in Matthew, of course, but also Luke's birth narrative, and perhaps also a wider set of Christian tradition on this doctrine.

Second, and more substantially, no one approaches the Bible as just a repository of "evidence" to which they may or may not ascend. The Bible is a sacred text produced by Christians for Christians. It's not trying to "prove" anything; it simply sets out the foundational stories and historical beliefs of that community. A person must first ascend to being part of that community and accepting a good number of other beliefs before getting to this text and doctrine.

To that end, a Christian (or Muslim) comes to accept the virgin birth of Jesus as a point of doctrine, not because they are persuaded by the evidence, as such. But rather because this is part of the tradition of those communities.

To suggest, then, that people believe this because "some guy had a dream and some (other) guy wrote it down" is so grossly simplistic as to make your question rather vacuous.

You can invent structures of communities, and traditions and ascension to doctrines, and all that, but the bottom line remains that all of that structure of subsequent creeds, cultural zeitgeist, literature, culture, etc, is based on the foundational belief that Mary was literally and factually a virgin.

That is a statement about the physical world.

Since there is overwhelming evidence that Mary was not a virgin, for the claim that she WAS a virgin to be met with anything other than ridicule, then the evidence for her virginity must be substantial indeed.

Luke, which is the only Gospel other than Matthew in which Mary's virginity is even mentioned, was written at least 20 years after Matthew was.

As unreliable as an anonymous statement from 70 years after the event is (that's what Matthew is), Luke, written 90 years after Jesus's birth, is even less reliable.

All we have, that is tangible, to persuade us that Mary was a virgin, is an anonymous guy 70 years later saying that Joseph had a dream about Mary being a virgin, and some other anonymous guy 20 years after that expanding on that same story.

Everything else, as you yourself admit, is just a secondary structure of traditions built over the centuries by people who already believed in the fairy tale.

I'm sorry, but the very first mention of Mary being a virgin is when in 70AD some guy said that Joseph had a dream that Mary was a virgin.

It doesn't matter one iota that the modern Christian's belief in the Virgin Birth is not based directly on Matthew, but on subsequent traditions developed by others BASED ON MATTHEW. That makes it worse, actually.

Let me put it this way: Is there any reason to believe in the virgin birth that is MORE reliable than Matthew?

[Zzyzx]

.

First, traditional Christian belief in the virgin birth is not based just on this text in Matthew, of course, but also Luke's birth narrative, and perhaps also a wider set of Christian tradition on this doctrine.

Yes, there are two accounts by anonymous writers who cannot be shown to have any direct knowledge of the pregnancy / virginity / birth, who wrote decades or generations after the claimed event.

Aren't those "accounts" (or folklore tales) also ones that include Cuckold future husband accepting his betrothed's pregnancy after a DREAM that it was "divine" in origin (Matthew 1:20-25), and embellished with tales of a star leading people and stopping over a birthplace, a concocted trip to Bethlehem, angels, etc?

There are absolutely NO accounts of the birth or life of Jesus other than those in religion promotional literature.

Would you consider similar unsupported, unverifiable tales sound and convincing evidence if presented by a religion other than Christianity? If the honest answer is NO, why accept them for a favorite religion and reject them for other religions?

Second, and more substantially, no one approaches the Bible as just a repository of "evidence" to which they may or may not ascend. The Bible is a sacred text produced by Christians for Christians.

Correction: Part of the bible, the Old Testament, was produced by Jews for Jews.

Unfortunately, Christians often attempt to inflict the New Testament (by Christians for Christians) upon NON-Christians. If they kept it to themselves and their churches there would be less opposition.

It's not trying to "prove" anything; it simply sets out the foundational stories and historical beliefs of that community.

However, Christians here and elsewhere attempt to use the bible to prove that their religious beliefs are true (even though that is not allowed by Forum Rules and Guidelines).

A person must first ascend to being part of that community and accepting a good number of other beliefs before getting to this text and doctrine.

Are Non-Christians capable of reading and understanding the bible?

To that end, a Christian (or Muslim) comes to accept the virgin birth of Jesus as a point of doctrine, not because they are persuaded by the evidence, as such. But rather because this is part of the tradition of those communities.

Agreed. Those who believe the virgin birth story do so because they want to believe the church dogma.

To suggest, then, that people believe this because "some guy had a dream and some (other) guy wrote it down" is so grossly simplistic as to make your question rather vacuous.

Actually, the writers of the claimed virgin birth tale are 1) not identifiable by Christian scholars and theologians, 2) cannot be shown to have any information about the pregnancy or to have witnessed anything they wrote about (decades or generations later – events that probably happened before they were born), 3) did not identify their sources of information (which cannot be evaluated)

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 13 by atheist buddy]

I think you are seriously underestimating the power of confirmation bias. When you combine what Historia said with what we understand about psychology. It is not hard to see why even people who have read the scriptures will profess this belief. They simply disregard the facts that oppose the original thesis. I mean this is a group of people that already believe that he rose from the dead there are talking snake and donkeys and a lot of other stranger things than a virgin birth. So its not really a stretch to see why they would believe it let alone defend it even if its irrational. They simply unconsciously disregard the facts that oppose their thesis.

Phrenology was the same way there were perfectly rational intelligent people that believed in phrenology even though it makes absolutely no sense merely off of confirmation bias.

The common "cold" is another example of confirmation bias. My wife's grandmother still believes that the cold will cause people to get sick and she was a nurse! Bless her heart

Just think about how many people believe going outside in the cold will cause you to get sick or catch the common cold. I am guessing you know a few.

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 13 by atheist buddy]

I think you are seriously underestimating the power of confirmation bias. When you combine what Historia said with what we understand about psychology. It is not hard to see why even people who have read the scriptures will profess this belief. They simply disregard the facts that oppose the original thesis. I mean this is a group of people that already believe that he rose from the dead there are talking snake and donkeys and a lot of other stranger things than a virgin birth. So its not really a stretch to see why they would believe it let alone defend it even if its irrational. They simply unconsciously disregard the facts that oppose their thesis.

I hear what you're saying, but still can't accept it. Historia is being exposed to excruciatingly clear and persuasive arguments against his/her belief. How can he/she be immune to logic?

I don't understand it.

Even if I believed something with all my heart, I'd eventually come around and stop believing it if irrefutable evidence against my belief was presented to me. Might it take me longer to abandon my false belief than it might take a smarter person, or one less emotionally invested in the false belief than I? Sure.

But I think I'd eventually figure it out! Donkeys can't talk. OF COURSE!!!

What is it that lets a christian be as familiar with the Bible as any atheist, just as knowledgeable of the arguments against this religion, and yet somehow still believe, and do so for years?

I would have bought the confirmation bias thesis in the pre-internet world. But in today's world the thesis doesn't cut it.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 16 by atheist buddy]

Confirmation Bias is immune to information. Look at Mormons. John Smith was a convicted con artist before he got his Gold plates. Yet its one of the fastest growing christian denominations out there.

Here is a recent classic example the Birthers for example. There is clear irrefutable easily accessible information on the nature location and time of President Obama's birth. Yet people who are Birthers simply disregard this infromation.

Its not the access to information that is the problem. The problem is much deeper than that. When you are indoctrinated for an extensive period of time your beliefs become essential to your idea of self identity. Information that is counter to this idea of self is rendered as dangerous and is simply discarded through any number of rationalizations.

So consider this the environment the subject lives in likely surrounded by like minded individuals and everyone communicates and participates in this environment establishing group think layering on top of the confirmation bias. This feeds in on itself. It can also be expanded beyond religion. Look at politics on both sides of the aisles there is irrational rhetoric that people well and truly believe even though all the evidence to the contrary.

You ask are you kidding me and really that is a good question to ask. I am not going to sit down and defend the virgin birth as that would be insane for me to do. But when we sit down and try to understand why people believe in the things that they do it becomes easier to empathize with their position and thus have a dialogue about it.

Perhaps pointing out the information isn't good enough.

When you look at group polarization theory. It stipulates that when to opposing groups have a discourse the more one group argues against the other groups position and vice versa the more entrenched each group becomes. Directly addressing each groups flaws promotes extremist behavior and thinking. So how do you crack the nut on the virgin birth? Well that is a long and complicated dialogue that could very well take years to untie. It is not as simple as pointing out that they are wrong.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

No they are not kidding you. If you are under the assumption that the bible is the inerrant word of god it is not stating a falsehood everything in it is true. Furthermore there are a few psychological mechanisms at play here.

Group Think
Cognitive Dissonance
Confirmation Bias

I am considered a heretic amongst the sects because I rejected the church over group think 45 years ago and now have come back on my own terms because I found an answer to the cognitive dissonance (I like the term double think as quaintly historical from 1984) which allows me to interpret most Christianity in confirmation of my theology --- would not a thesis that is true look the same as a confirmation bias because, since it is true, all info must confirm to that truth?

When other Christians first run across my position they claim "That is not in the bible!" and later this switches to "You interpret anything to agree with your interpretation?" Does this mean I am onto something true to the Bible or that I am a master at confirmation bias....cool question, eh?

These 3 things virtually guarantee that the assumptions made in the bible are not questioned.

Ahhh, I question assumptions made IN the Bible for the sectarian pov every day and teach a new interpretation, a new assumption if you will all the time. If questioning assumptions proves I am a good witness then hey!

Likewise not everyone really has the time to examine their religion in detail and go along with the assumptions made by others to get by with their belief.

Yes they do, but not only for the reasons you mention but also because the Holy Spirit has not spoken to a 'Church' about these new things, only some people.

So when we see things that might seem ludicrous even though they probably are there are genuine reasons why a person might believe even if the idea is not really all that rational. Are brains essentially work against us in this regard that is why you see the majority of populations sharing a belief that Jesus was born of a virgin.

The main problem with the experienced Christian is that the meeting with GOD experience is the start of a new thing...we KNOW GOD is real at a level that being called insane is pffft. So we believe in GOD ALMIGHTY and HE is looking after us to share heaven with us. And if EL SHADDAI says something illogical is true, our natural instincts are to find the problem that makes them seem irrational, not to quest in the validity of what HE says or HIS validity either for that matter.

In fact, we understand that the automatic anti-christ option of naturally assuming that all illogical things in the Bible prove HE is insane or non-existent as proof of being a sinner lost in sin. That is how tight we wire our stuff. Based on our experience.

Peace, Ted

[myth-one.com]

I make massive donations to atheist or secular causes such as Planned Parenthood, the Richard Dawkins Foundation, American Atheist or LGBT Equality, and because I do, I pay less taxes. You have to pay more taxes as a result. If my atheistic charitable deductions weren't allowed, I'd end up paying more taxes, the IRS would have more revenue, and your taxes could be lowered.

I make the following statement in all honesty and sincerely -- no joking:

Good for you, Atheist Buddy!

It is better to give than to receive is a truism among theists and atheists alike.

As stated before, I have no objection to not paying taxes on donations to charitable organizations -- religious or otherwise.

But should money given voluntarily by members of a religion to fund and promote that specific religion be defined as charitable donations?

The vast majority of that money will go towards efforts to propagate those beliefs -- not to help the poor and needy.

And thank you, thank you, thank you, for continuing to fail to even ATTEMPT to address the issue that to believe in the boogie man, in ogres, in flying pigs or in virgin births because some guy wrote down that some guy told him that he had a dream about it, is completely and utterly insane.

Ok, your "short synopsis" was as follows:

In short: Mary gets pregnant, Joseph knows that he had no part in that. So then Joseph has a dream that it was the Holy Spirit that got Mary pregnant.... and he believes it.

The important thing in the Matthew verses would be that Joseph received this info from "an angel of the Lord" -- not that he simply dreamed it up.

Then your question for debate was:

Question for debate: ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

I mean, could there be a less justifiable belief than that?

This event that you believe to be so extremely foolish, permeates out daily lives over 2000 years later -- in our date calculations, our money, our politicians cannot get elected with saying "God bless America", etc, etc, etc.

While that does not prove its truth, it makes one wonder if most of the people can be fooled all of the time.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to myth-one.com]

This event that you believe to be so extremely foolish, permeates out daily lives over 2000 years later -- in our date calculations, our money, our politicians cannot get elected with saying "God bless America", etc, etc, etc.

While that does not prove its truth, it makes one wonder if most of the people can be fooled all of the time.

I would say the invention of agriculture has had a far lasting and deeper effect on the course of human events than the birth of Jesus. Also early Christians were divided on the issue. it was not until after 325 CE that a solidified version of Christianity came to be. Even still it splintered into two main belief systems which would become the eastern orthodox and the beginnings of the catholic church. The idea of God Bless America did not come about until the 1950's before that there was no issue in not saying it. This whole idea of god bless america or the changes to the pledge of allegiance was a result of the red scare. That has more to do with the rise of communism than the birth of Jesus.

Finally that is just from our point of view largely the virgin birth does not effect the vast majority of people on earth. There is about 7 billion people on this earth and only 1.5 billion christians. So no the vast majority are not fooled all the time.