Mister Scratch wrote:I must say, the "Uh, well, God probably knows much more & etc." type of apologetic response has to be about the lamest of all of them. What is the point of having doctrine at all if it fails to tell us anything?
I, for one, never understood the value to mankind's salvation of knowing the name of the star nearest the place where God resides. I mean, who cares if it's named Kolob or Krypton? Does it really matter? Similarly, I fail to see how it helps mankind attain salvation by knowin in what way Jesus was conceived. What's next--whether the pearly gates swing or slide open?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
You guys and your dirty little minds are disgusting.
and:
... before you run off into the mud
Thinking of sex as "dirty" and "disgusting" is precisely what causes the squirming referenced in the OP. The thought of heavenly, pure, divine beings participating in that kind of activity causes discomfort and leads to the effort to redefine previous teachings so that actual godly intercourse is ruled out as an unseemly option.
Early Mormon leaders appear to have been more accepting of sexuality, what with their teachings about polygamy, sex in the CK, and the literal impregnating of the "virgin" Mary by the father god.
In contrast, the origin of the virgin birth tradition is clearly a result of the idea that human sex is a filthy activity, and a divine being cast as a saviour should not be the result of such, but rather the result of an "immaculate" (clean or non-sexual) conception.
krose wrote:Thinking of sex as "dirty" and "disgusting" is precisely what causes the squirming referenced in the OP. The thought of heavenly, pure, divine beings participating in that kind of activity causes discomfort and leads to the effort to redefine previous teachings so that actual godly intercourse is ruled out as an unseemly option.
Early Mormon leaders appear to have been more accepting of sexuality, what with their teachings about polygamy, sex in the CK, and the literal impregnating of the "virgin" Mary by the father god.
In contrast, the origin of the virgin birth tradition is clearly a result of the idea that human sex is a filthy activity, and a divine being cast as a saviour should not be the result of such, but rather the result of an "immaculate" (clean or non-sexual) conception.
I don't care how comfortable you are with sexuality. Discussing the sex life of your parents is reserved for weirdos and Oedipus-Complexes.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
asbestosman wrote:You might wanna check it out in the local library too. Mine has saved me oodles of moolah on book expenses not to mention storage space. Of course, The Dude and I have a great library system where we live.
As far as I know, the closest reasonable public library from me is about a gallon of gas away from my house each way. At $3 a gallon, it would hardly save me anything at all to buy the book, which is listed on Amazon right now for like $10, plus I don't have the spend the hour or two round trip and finding the book at the library, or getting them to order it in from another library, or whatever. I guess this is why Amazon has so much of my money. I haven't really checked out a book from the library since I was a kid.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
This is a pretty timely thread for me. I just had a conversation about the virgin birth with a Christian recently who made the comment, “You know, there are other ways to get pregnant than sex.” With barely suppressed laughter, I said, “And those would be…?” She refused to give details, so I asked, “You think maybe god was sucking her breasts, couldn’t contain himself, blew his wad and the sperm got everywhere? Just what are you suggesting?”
When you really explore this story for what it is, you can only come up with the incredibly ludicrous, as this thread has demonstrated, and only goes to show how utterly stupid the belief is in the first place. It is fun to speculate on, however.
For instance, maybe Mary and god did have sex. Would this be where the common sex shout-out, “Oh god! Yes, god, yes!” originate from? Did she think the sex was divine? Did god buy her dinner first? Was this a first date? If so, wouldn’t that make Mary pretty easy? What about the sex before marriage thing? Does that apply to everyone except potentially loose virgins? Are licked cupcakes ok as long as god does the licking? Did Joseph accept the sloppy seconds because technically, she was still a virgin? And is she only a virgin because god isn’t a man?
We could go on forever with these questions, and it would only further serve to demonstrate how incredibly stupid this belief really is.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Holy crap, Truth Dancer! I just ordered a copy of this book for $1.79 plus shipping too. Wow. It'll do me less than $6 total. Not bad!
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
krose wrote:In contrast, the origin of the virgin birth tradition is clearly a result of the idea that human sex is a filthy activity, and a divine being cast as a saviour should not be the result of such, but rather the result of an "immaculate" (clean or non-sexual) conception.
As far as I know, Mormon leaders join with non-Mormon Christian leaders in believing that the "virgin birth" meant not only that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth, but remained a virgin through the birth process. The tradition comes from apocryphal writings which far predate the puritanical religious atmosphere of nineteenth century America.
"Immaculate conception" as I understand it is an entirely separate concept that doesn't have to do with the conception of Jesus, but rather of Mary, so "virgin birth" doesn't impact on it.
Interestingly, the virgin birth of Jesus is also described in the Qur'an, with the implication that God's/Allah's "will" is all that is necessary:
003.046-003.048 (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).
He will speak unto mankind in his cradle and in his manhood, and he is of the righteous.
She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? He said: So (it will be). Allah createth what He will. If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
I ofte discuss religion with my mum, whom has studied in depth far beyond anything I have seen as of yet, and can even think to comprehend, these sort of discussions often leave me thinking or not wishing to discuss such things again.
I remember one such discussion being on the 'imacculateness' of Christ's birth. It was proposed that the birth was immaculate because Mary among another ten women were in a cave in darkness and a man had went in and had sex with one of them, but no one knew which and neither did the man. I am not sure if the man was God or not. I can't quite remember. I am not sure this was a literal idea or a symbolic idea, but it sure is interesting.
"Immaculate conception" as I understand it is an entirely separate concept that doesn't have to do with the conception of Jesus, but rather of Mary, so "virgin birth" doesn't impact on it.
Wow, you are correct. It's that she was born free from original sin. I had always assumed (incorrectly) that it was the Jesus conception. Thanks for the heads up.