The virgin story

[Willum]

Of course I have always found, in the spirit of Dennis Miller, that those people or cultures who put a high price on virginity are usually very immature.

However, allowing for that, an angel appears before Mary and gives her the good news, or opportunity, we presume she could have refused, to become the mother of Jesus.

But even scenarios on Earth, where teachers and students, trainers and cadets, officers and enlisted, are considered to have too much power over the subjects to ethically engage in procreation exercises.

How much less ethical for the lord of universe (assuming it really was the big G, and not a naughty tryst with Tiberius Panthera - like the Jewish of the time seemed to believe)... how much less ethical for the lord of the universe to subject himself "secretly" to some naive girl?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to do it publicly, say, and have a competition among likely candidates? Or at least an announcement to save the girl from the scandal of and inexplicable pregnancy? Why would you exclude women who proved themselves to be good mothers already?

Is there any other explanation for the virgin mother other than insecurity?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 30 by Justin108]

Justin. You and I disagree on much.

But surely we both recognize the principle 'choose your battles'. This forum has one rule: respectful dialogue.

As I look at the list, intelligence and even sanity do not appear.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 30 by Justin108]

So we are kind of opening a new subject:
This was about how willing Mary would actually be when confronted with what she was led to believe was the creator, and that since we deem it unethical for people in authority to use this kind of power to seduce for sex, how is this different for God.

Justin wishes to make this about divine sex.
It has already been pointed out to him that semantics are one thing, and the act of reproduction, sex, is another, but he seems to want to zig-zag between the two in order to make a point about God not having sex.

It has also been pointed out to him that there are many ways of having sex, differing by species. Humans are different from fish, so one would expect the divine to be different as well.

I can only leave it up to him, what is divine reproduction, if not divine sex.
Tell me how it is different, and why it should be considered something else.

What-cha got other than semantics?

[Justin108]

From where we left off in the other thread...

You have debunked nothing, this is a very disgusting post

What's disgusting about it? Does talking about sex make you uncomfortable?

obviously whatever God did to Mary to conceive was at least one way a omnipotent creature has sex.

Putting "obviously" in front of a claim does not make it true. Your argument is circular. You seem to suggest that it is logically impossible to reproduce without having sex. And when I point to an example of someone impregnating someone without sex, you simply redefine my example as "well it resulted in pregnancy so it was sex". Your argument is circular

Willum: all pregnancy comes from sex
Justin: X is an example of pregnancy without sex
Willum: no X is also an example of sex
Justin: why?
Willum: because it resulted in pregnancy and all pregnancy comes from sex

Theist: everything in the Bible is true
Atheist: X is an example of something in the Bible that is not true
Theist: no X is also true
Atheist: why?
Theist: because it says so in the Bible and everything in the Bible is true.

See why I said you give atheists a bad name? Your logic is as flawed as the theists you aim to debate.

If I used an example of a magic spell that made someone pregnant, you would simply redefine my example as sex because "that magic spell is also sex because it resulted in pregnancy".

Sex typically results in pregnancy, but contrary to your definition, sex is not defined as "that which makes you pregnant". It is possible for some forms of sex (homosexual sex) to never result in pregnancy. It is also possible to fall pregnant without having sex. If you artificially inseminate someone, this act is not sex.

artificial insemination
noun
medical : a medical process in which semen is used to make a woman or female animal pregnant without sexual intercourse

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... semination

If your definition of sex were true ("sex is defined as that which results in reproduction") then the above definition of artificial insemination would be a paradox. Merriam-Webster should be enough to dismiss your entire argument. Clearly, according to the medical definition of artificial insemination, reproduction without sex is possible. Your argument is moot.

Since you can't say what he did, you have no leg to stand on to say he did not.
You are simply wrong.

For the umpteenth time, the burden of proof is not on me. You are the one claiming God had sex with Mary. You have the burden of proof.

And while you're at it, can you perhaps address what I said in the post below?

[Replying to post 30 by Justin108]

[Willum]

[Replying to post 33 by Justin108]

So, artificial insemination is an act whereby a turkey baster is inserted into a female.
It is a phallus inserted causing conception.
There is no emotional context, but that is not required for sex.

Sex, indeed can involve only one person. Parthenogenesis as in frogs. Sexual intercourse is not sex, it is sexual intercourse, that is why it is two words, not one. As has been pointed out to you, eggs can be disseminated into the sea for example, and meet up with sperm randomly, such as with fish. Trees offer another example.

You are the one using the argument from ignorance stating that since we don't know God's insemination mechanism, sex was not involved.

So, just because your imagination is constrained, doesn't mean I am making a specious argument.

So, you solve for X.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 33 by Justin108]

And while you're at it, can you perhaps address what I said in the post below?

[Replying to post 30 by Justin108]

Sure, reading the follow-on post, I determined you couldn't be bothered to read the whole OP, and were being argumentative, after a few back-and-forths I figured you were simply mocking or deliberately derailing the OP with a bit of trivium, and so I abandoned it as there didn't seem to be any point in continuing, again, you wanted to focus on the "sex" and not the matter.

[Justin108]

So, artificial insemination is an act whereby a turkey baster is inserted into a female.

Your strawman aside, artificial insemination is the act of inseminating a female through means other than sex. If you feel like you'd want to use a turkey baster, then sure...

It is a phallus inserted causing conception.
There is no emotional context, but that is not required for sex.

Are you saying a turkey baster is a phallus??

phallus
[fal-uh s]
noun, plural phalli [fal-ahy] (Show IPA), phalluses.
1.
an image of the male reproductive organ, especially that carried in procession in ancient festivals of Dionysus, or Bacchus, symbolizing the generative power in nature.
2.
Anatomy. the penis, the clitoris, or the sexually undifferentiated embryonic organ out of which either of these develops.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/phallus

According to your definition, a doctor who performs the act of artificially inseminating a woman is actively having sex with that woman. Am I understanding your definition correctly?

You are the one using the argument from ignorance stating that since we don't know God's insemination mechanism, sex was not involved.

I am not making any declarative statements, I am questioning your declarative statement. I am questioning your open claim that God, as a matter of fact, had sex with Mary. For the thousandth time, stop trying to shift the burden of proof on to me. If you would like to change your claim to "maybe God had sex with Mary" then sure... but you basing entire arguments on the presumption that God did, as a matter of fact, have sex with Mary makes every one of those arguments baseless.

So, just because your imagination is constrained, doesn't mean I am making a specious argument.

Your argument is a circular, baseless assumption. Circular as demonstrated in post 33 and baseless in that the Bible never said God had sex with Mary.

Sure, reading the follow-on post, I determined you couldn't be bothered to read the whole OP, and were being argumentative, after a few back-and-forths I figured you were simply mocking or deliberately derailing the OP with a bit of trivium, and so I abandoned it as there didn't seem to be any point in continuing, again, you wanted to focus on the "sex" and not the matter.

This of course after accusing me of flawed logic which you refused to provide an example of.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 36 by Justin108]

You win. Fish do not have sex.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/66960/ho ... h-have-sex
Neither do omnipotent creatures, like Zeus when he did the deed as a coin, or as rain, etc..
A turkey baster does not look like a phallus at all or deliver semen.
The burden of proof is not on me. Sex as I used the term, was the act of conception. A very reasonable use of the word - even if some wish to use an argument from ignorance to dissuade it AND not provide a contradictory mechanism. Even though you are the one trying to assert I turned it into a porn movie. You are not the one to prove this... about an imaginary event. I need to prove imaginary events.

NEXT

This of course after accusing me of flawed logic which you refused to provide an example of.

You really don't get that people get tired of arguing things off topic, when it appears all someone wishes to do is argue? I don't roller skate down stairs either.
Perhaps if you were arguing on the topic.

[Justin108]

You win. Fish do not have sex.

You are imagining arguments I never made. I never said that there is only one way to have sex. What I did say is that all instances of reproduction are not necessarily through sex. But nice strawman. We can chalk that up to your list of fallacies.

Neither do omnipotent creatures, like Zeus when he did the deed as a coin, or as rain, etc..

1. Zeus is not omnipotent
2. Zeus literally turned himself into animals and had sex. This is not speculative as your scenario with God and Mary, this is spelled out for us. The legends outright tell us that Zeus turned into an animal and had sex. That's the key difference. In the legends of Zeus, it outright states that Zeus had sex. In the Bible, there is no mention of God ever having sex with anyone.

A turkey baster does not look like a phallus at all or deliver semen.

What does it matter what it looks like??? Are you seriously arguing that "a turkey baster looks like a penis and so therefore it counts as sex". What??

The burden of proof is not on me.

Yes it is. Did you make the claim that God had sex with Mary? Yes. Does that mean you have the burden of proof? Also yes.

Sex as I used the term, was the act of conception.

Then you used the term incorrectly. If a doctor artificially inseminates a woman, they are not having sex. You can't suddenly make it sex because "that's how you use the term".

A very reasonable use of the word - even if some wish to use an argument from ignorance to dissuade it AND not provide a contradictory mechanism.

What contradictory mechanism do you expect me to use...? The fact that you demand a contradictory mechanism makes your argument an argument from ignorance

If God didn't make the universe, then what did? - argument from ignorance
If God didn't make Mary pregnant with sex, then how did he make her pregnant? - also an argument from ignorance

This is an especially amusing failure on your part because not only are you falsely accusing me of using a fallacy, you are instead guilty of that very fallacy you are accusing me of.

Even though you are the one trying to assert I turned it into a porn movie.

Can you quote me doing this please?

This of course after accusing me of flawed logic which you refused to provide an example of.

You really don't get that people get tired of arguing things off topic, when it appears all someone wishes to do is argue? I don't roller skate down stairs either.
Perhaps if you were arguing on the topic.

Then the appropriate response would be "please stay on topic", not "you are using flawed logic". Are you going to give me an example of the flawed logic you mentioned or are you going to try to bury this under more Red Herrings?

Willum: you used flawed logic
Justin: where?
Willum: umm.. well... ok well you went off topic! < this part here is the Red Herring in case you missed it


On the topic of "going off topic"; part of the OP is this

How much less ethical for the lord of universe (assuming it really was the big G, and not a naughty tryst with Tiberius Panthera - like the Jewish of the time seemed to believe)... how much less ethical for the lord of the universe to subject himself "secretly" to some naive girl?

This is exactly what I am addressing, so how am I going off topic?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 38 by Justin108]

I drew analogies, your imagination won't let you use context... like I said, you win.
God did not have sex with Mary. Let me rephrase what I said...
God had magic sex with Mary, by which I mean iaw with what ever the Bible says.
It doesn't indicate other things!

Now, please go back and address the OP in this context.
Which really is what it's about.

Though Zeus has been known to transform himself into animals, he was the first to practice immaculate conception: Dionysus, as a coin, as rain, etc..

You know what Justin, I think you have dragged me down to your level and beaten me with experience. Looking back, I don't even see the point of the conversation.

[polonius]

The Virgin birth story arose from a mistranslation of Is 7:14 which tells that a young woman (of marital age) will conceive a bear a child. The Hebrew word is "almah" but mistranslated in the Greek as "parthanos" or virgin. Unfortunately that was the translation Matthew used.


The child was named Emmanuel and there was nothing miraculous about him.

Isaiah 7:14New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman[a] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:14New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign;[a] the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.

Isaiah 7:14New English Translation (NET Bible)
14 For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:14Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


Almah (עַלְמָה‎ ‘alm�h, plural: ‘ăl�m�ṯ עֲלָמוֹת‎) is a Hebrew word for a maiden or woman of childbearing age who may be unmarried or married.[1] It does not, in and of itself, indicate whether she is a virgin, for which a different Hebrew word betulahis used. The Septuagint version of the Old Testament renders both Hebrew words almah and betulah as the same Greek word parthenos. The term occurs nine times in the Hebrew Bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah