Moon landing vs. vrigin birth!

[R_Daneel]

You’ve got a double standard for things you consider evidence! Mut-em-ua, Tammuz, Zoroaster, Tukulti-Ninurta II, Ashurbanipal, Ra, Krishna, Karna, Attis, Auge, Dionysus, Horus, Melanippe, and Mithras’ mother’s hymens weren’t examined and we believe those stories as historical fact! If you disblieve one historical event (like Jesus’ virgin birth) and not other virgin births, you’re just pickin’n’choosin’!

Ah, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! You know… from now on I will choose not to believe those virgin births either!

 

[R_Daneel]

we may not know how the virgin birth was accomplished, but that doesnt say anything about the truth of the event. further, i can demonstrate that it is concievable with technology that we currently understand.

as the famous physicist, michio kaku talks about in this article, we can currently teleport particles. we expect to be able to teleport DNA within a decade or so.

discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/teleportation-very-possible-next-up-time-travel/article_view?searchterm=quantum+entanglement&b_start:int=2

we also know that DNA can be synthesized because nature already has. however here is a current success in doing so in the lab.

thefutureofthings.com/news/1212/scientists-create-synthesized-dna.html

given current technology, we can see that directly teleporting DNA and related chemical structures, into a womans egg is conceivable therefore the virgin birth of a male is conceivable. it may seem far fetched, but you cannot deny it is conceivable by current scientific understanding, much less any extrememly advanced process.

no magic needed

And presumably those sufficently advanced technologies will enable us to recreate God’s own DNA, and grow our own little pet-Jesuses. Oh, what a marvelous future it will be! Everyone can have a mini-messiah if they so choose. You know what? Let’s postpone it until it happens. I think that your predictive powers are on par with your analytical ones, and as such I have a few doubts about you qualifications as a “prophet”.

 

[tonyrey]

You fail to realise that all evidence presupposes the existence of the mind which interprets perceptions and constructs a mental image from them. The most important, valid and convincing evidence is to be found within ourselves.

Try again… bearing in mind that **all **our knowledge is based on our knowledge of our thoughts, feelings and perceptions. You are dominated by the notion that all our knowledge is based on our knowledge of the physical world…

The second flaw in your argument is that you ignore the context of the empirical evidence. The context of the moon landing is human activity - in the wider context of an unexplained physical universe which has no apparent value or purpose or raison d’etre. The context of the Virgin Birth is divine activity - in the context of the evidence for Design, the noblest moral teaching the world has known, the life and death of Jesus and the history of the Church which has survived for over two thousand years, extended all over the world and comprises one third of the total population.

Maybe I should have said that “true, but trivial”.

Trivial within your artificial, meaningless context of material objects.

It is your dogmatic assertion that there is this Big Daddy up there.

Belief in a heavenly Father is infinitely more adequate and intelligible than your dogmatic assertion that there is a blind goddess called Chance down under… It is significant that you don’t rely on her to make your decisions…

Your notion of evidence is defective from start to finish. You obviously take it for granted that evidence is based solely on what you see, hear, touch, taste and smell…

Not in the cases of past events. And I already stated that, many times.
You are merely postponing the moment of truth. Your notion of evidence is still based on reports of what others claim to have seen, heard, touched, tasted and smelled…

It is not only the number of believers, but the fact that they belong to an international organization which has survived for 2000 years, based on the noblest moral teaching known to the world which is reflected in the life and death of Jesus…

What does that prove?
Nothing to some one who rejects the value, meaning and purpose of life and invents his own values, meanings and purposes to please himself…

The most significant difference is that the astronauts’ mission to the moon was not necessary whereas the mission of Christ was essential. This is the only evidence that really matters in the long run: not what we discover about the moon but what we discover about ourselves… and the need for Christian love in an inhuman society…

This has nothing to do with the question at hand.
Of course it doesn’t - for some one who regards existence as meaningless, valueless and purposeless. You ignore anything that does not fit into your preconceived scheme of things - in which persons are insignificant accidents and freaks of nature.

How do you judge whether a claim is sensible or not? By applying scientific criteria?

When the event is an actual physical event, yes. Do you have a better method?
Of course. I don’t apply scientific criteria within a meaningless context. It is as simple as that.

But if you assert that such an event actually happened (and your Biblical claims are much more unlikely than that), you had better come up with evidence, not just your word. I am afraid, you are not that credible.

I don’t claim to be credible! I simply claim that the claim that the Virgin Birth is credible because it occurred within **the meaningful context **of the need for liberation from human ignorance, selfishness, greed, hatred, violence and injustice.
There is overwhelming medical evidence that miracles have occurred. Obviously such a suggestion will be rejected by a person trapped in the self-imposed prison of the “Nothing exists but physical objects” hypothesis…

Give me a convincing evidence, and I will change my mind.

You already have plenty of evidence but as you are determined to reject it nothing will make you change your mind. Jesus said “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”

You who cannot even create life presume to legislate on the limits of possibility as if you have privileged insight into the nature of reality. You are merely exhibiting your own blind, unquestioning faith in the power of blind, inanimate, purposeless processes to create rational, purposeful beings - **the most colossal metaphysical conjuring trick ever performed…**The ludicrous claim that reason is ultimately unreasonable implies that your conclusions are worthless.

If someone is skeptical we are wasting our time and energy. He will only believe what he wants to believe. If your mental horizon is restricted to the things that have no meaning, value or purpose you will never accept any other reality. Believe in cosmic dust and that is all you will ever have… or be…

[/QUOTE]

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I would really like to see the list of all those people who examined Mary’s hymen both before and after the birth of Jesus took place. If I am not mistaken it is a Catholic dogma that Mary stayed a “virgo intacta” during her whole life. Were they the 12 apostles, who became Jesus’s companions even before he was born? That would be a “miracle”! Or who were they? Doctors? Mid-wives?

how about we take a medical doctors word for it?

vienna-doctor.com/ENG/Articles_ENG/hymen_en.html

The normal hymen is never actually “intact” since there is always an opening in it.

:blackeye:

 

[tonyrey]

The evidence for the Virgin Birth of Jesus is certainly not as exactly valid and convincing as the evidence for the moon landing. How can it possibly be compared to such an event in the history of science? It is quite absurd to attribute a greater probability to one rather than the other.

The truth of the teaching of Jesus and the love expressed in His life and death are of far greater significance than any other physical event in the history of mankind - except His Resurrection. Consequently they constitute overwhelming evidence for the unique nature of His birth and are far more convincing evidence than any human achievement!

 

[R_Daneel]

Belief in a heavenly Father is infinitely more adequate and intelligible than your dogmatic assertion that there is a blind goddess called Chance down under…

Only according to your wishful thinking - aka. blind faith.

 

[R_Daneel]

how about we take a medical doctors word for it?

I might have missed it, where does he say that the hymen can stay “intact” during a birthing process?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You’ve got a double standard for things you consider evidence! Mut-em-ua,

please show me the hieroglyphics that say this.

Tammuz,

not a virgin birth

Finally, Langdon, though not a copycatter, repeatedly refers to Tammuz’ “virgin mother” – he refers here to the earth, not a female figure who literally gave birth to Tammuz. This is illicit use of terminology, though Langdon does not suggest a parallel or influence.

Zoroaster,

not a virgin birth

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_(mythology)#Zoroaster

**“the myth of Zoroaster’s origin specifically describes the conjugal relations of his parents,” during which demons try to prevent Zoroaster’s conception. **

Tukulti-Ninurta II,

please demonstrate the heiroglyphs.

Ashurbanipal,

not a virgin birth

Ashurbanipal was born toward the end of a fifteen-hundred-year period of Assyrian ascendancy.

His father, Esarhaddon, youngest son of Sennacherib, had become heir when the crown prince, Ashur-nadin-shumi, was deposed by rebels from his position as vassal for Babylon

Ra,

not a virgin birth

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor

As a mother she gave birth to Ra each morning on the eastern horizon **and as wife she conceives through union with him **each day.

Krishna

not a virgin birth

Krishna belonged to the royal family of Mathura, and was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva

Karna,

not a virgin birth

hinduism.suite101.com/article.cfm/panch_kanya_or_five_virgins

Kunti
Kunti was the classical unwed mother. As a girl she was taught an unusual mantra by Durvasa and immediately **summoned Surya and bore his son Karna, whom she discarded in the river to avoid ostracism. Married to an impotent husband **she, with his consent, summoned Dharma, Pawan and Indra and had sons, Yuddhishthir, Bhim and Arjun, through them. She had to go through the trauma of Arjun killing Karna only after which she revealed the secret of her eldest son.

sacred-texts.com/hin/db/bk02ch06.htm

Sûrya Deva said :-- “O Kunti! What for you called me, by virtue of the Mantra? Calling me, why do you not worship me, standing before you? O beautiful blue one! Seeing you, I have become passionate; so come to me.** By means of the mantra, you have made me your subservient so take me for intercourse.” **Hearing this, Kunti said :-- “O Witness of all! O knower of Dharma! You know that I am a virgin girl. O Suvrata! I bow down to you; I am a family daughter; so do not speak ill to me.” Sûrya then said :-- “If I go away in vain, I will be an object of great shame, and, no doubt, will be laughed amongst the gods; So, O Kunti! If you do not satisfy me, I will immediately curse you and the Brâhmin who has given you this mantra. **O Beautiful one! If you satisfy me, your virginity will remain; no body will come to know **and there will be born a son to you, exactly like me.” Thus saying Sûrya Deva enjoyed the bashful Kunti, with her mind attracted towards him; He granted her the desired boons and went away.

Attis,

not a virgin birth

The gods don’t like the obnoxious Agdistis, so Dionysus sneaks up and puts wine in Agdistis’ water to put him to sleep. While he is asleep, Dionysus ties a rope around** Agdistis’ genitals, ties the other end of the rope to a tree, yells “Boo!” and – well, you can take it from there.

From the resulting blood, a pomegranate (or almond) tree springs up,** and much later, Nana happens by, picks some of the fruit, and puts it in her lap, and then it disappears – upon which, she finds herself pregnant with Attis.

Auge,

not a virgin birth

In Greek mythology, Auge (pronounced /ˈɔːdʒiː/[1]) a daughter of Aleus and Neaera and priestess of Athena Alea at Tegea, bore the hero Telephos to Heracles. **Her father **had been told by an oracle that he would be overthrown by his grandson.

Dionysus,

not a virgin birth

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus

In Greek mythology, Dionysus is made out to be a **son of Zeus **and the mortal Semele; other versions of the myth contend that he is a **son of Zeus **and Persephone.

Horus

not a virgin birth

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

The most commonly encountered family relationship describes Horus as the son of Isis and Osiris but in another tradition Hathor is regarded as his mother and sometimes as his wife.

Melanippe

not a virgin birth

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanippe

1.Daughter of the Centaur Chiron
2.Daughter of Aeolus and Melanippe (Hippe). Also known as Arne.
3.Daughter of Althaea and Oeneus
4.Sister of Hippolyte and daughter of Ares
5.Daughter of the winged horse Pegasus and Ocyrhoe the centauress

and Mithras’

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_Mysteries

not a virgin birth

Mithras is born from a rock.

mother’s hymens weren’t examined and we believe those stories as historical fact! If you disblieve one historical event (like Jesus’ virgin birth) and not other virgin births, you’re just pickin’n’choosin’!

non- of these are virgin births or conceptions.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I voted that I agree with the claim, although for a different reason than many others have posted…

I put that I agree, because the evidence is the same. We are trying to determine whether or not something actually happened, not whether or not it’s likely to happen, so numbers or experimentation is irrelevant.

That being said, the documentation for both instances is the same. Modern technology at the time of the occurance is used to show the validity of the claim (writings, numbers, video, etc) Now, we are talking a gap of some 2,000 years, so there is no video evidence of the virgin birth, but the modern technology of the day (writings) show that it did happen.

There are sworn statements of eye witnesses on both accounts.

So yes, there is the same amount of evidence. The moon landing DID Happen. The virgin birth, likewise, DID happen. And dissenters show that no matter what the claim, or how backed up it is, not everyone will believe. Belief is a choice.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Correct. It does not “prove” it. However, it makes it very unlikely.

absolutley false.

if thats the case, the fact that the sun has risen billions of times makes it highly unlikely it wont, but we know that it one day will not.

induction doesnt mean anything with quadrillions of experiments, because they can all be shown false with just one observation.

syntax spent days explaining this to you.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And presumably those sufficently advanced technologies will enable us to recreate God’s own DNA, and grow our own little pet-Jesuses. Oh, what a marvelous future it will be! Everyone can have a mini-messiah if they so choose. You know what? Let’s postpone it until it happens. I think that your predictive powers are on par with your analytical ones, and as such I have a few doubts about you qualifications as a “prophet”.

so let me get this straight, instead of admitting im right, a male virgin birth is conceivable. you just think of the most inflammatory thing to say, hoping to distract from the fact that your postion is wrong?

it seems a lot like cognitive dissonance.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

so let me get this straight, instead of admitting im right, a male virgin birth is conceivable. you just think of the most inflammatory thing to say, hoping to distract from the fact that your postion is wrong?

it seems a lot like cognitive dissonance.

No pun intended, right?

I’m sorry, I just couldn’t resist that one!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I might have missed it, where does he say that the hymen can stay “intact” during a birthing process?

yes, you did miss it.

let me reqoute it for you

The normal hymen is never actually “intact” since there is always an opening in it.

see? if its never actually “intact” then it doesnt stay ‘intact’ during the birthing process. “intact” may simply be a comment on the state of being a virgin, and not the particular physical state.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No pun intended, right?

I’m sorry, I just couldn’t resist that one!

oops!

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

oops!

 

[Shin]

There’s a missing poll option here. You only have two choices.

You forgot:

• The evidence for virgin birth is more valid and certain than the evidence for the moon landing, because God Himself testifies to it rather than man.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There’s a missing poll option here. You only have two choices.

You forgot:

• The evidence for virgin birth is more valid and certain than the evidence for the moon landing, because God Himself testifies to it rather than man.

yup!

thats a great idea!

 

[tonyrey]

Only according to your wishful thinking - aka. blind faith.

Why is it that you regard yourself as immune to blind faith in view of the fact that you are incapable of explaining how irrational, irresponsible particles have conjured up rational, responsible persons? You seem to believe you alone have infallible insight into the nature of reality… You accuse theists of having blind faith yet your wishful thinking is evident in your inability to present one solid argument to support your hypothesis that everything exists for no reason or purpose whatsoever - including the grey tissue inside your skull to which you attribute the power to reach that conclusion! If that isn’t literally blind faith nothing is! It is not surprising that a mindless organ should produce such mindless absurdities… Probably the mind varies in its rational capacity according to the extent to which it regards itself as the outcome of irrational events. Perhaps it even becomes motivated by a type of death wish and desire to return to its pristine state as the result of reluctance to acknowledge the implications of being rational… After all, responsibility can be very irksome… And to be obliged to acknowledge human rights is the very last straw! It is far more convenient to regard them as concoctions of naked apes or selfish genes… and to put moon landings at the summit of “human” achievement… (Or should it be inhuman?)

 

[TomD123]

This entire discussion is absurd. The moon landing and virgin birth are not comparable!

There is no scientific evidence that a virgin birth “could happen” and there never will be because it can’t happen natrually. It never has and never will. However, it can happen supernatrually i.e. by a miracle. If a virgin birth could happen, then why was Mary so shocked to hear she was pregnant? Of course there is no evidence for a virgin birth, so why should we be looking for any? Christians believe in the virgin birth not because science allows it but because we trust in God’s ability to break physical laws and we trust in the Bible.

The moon landing has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VIRGIN BIRTH.

 

[Image_of_God]

As I have said on the other thread, if you are so absolutely certain that the moon landing occurred and the virgin birth didn’t, then prove it. If you cannot, then what you are simply doing here is appealing to the reason of others, which you have been consistently told is the basis for which we chose or don’t chose to believe in past events…not evidence.