Did the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus

[skepticscott]

as described in the Gospels really, physically happen? Or did they not really happen, but rather fall into the category of myth/fairy tale/legend/made-up story?

Fence-straddlers, feel free to weigh in.

39 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	They really did happen
	3 (8%)
	They didn't really happen
	36 (92%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[ret5hd]

1. I know virgin births are possible...it happened to my seventeen y.o.daughter!

That resurrection stuff though...I'm just not so sure about.

[Lint Head]

3. Interesting. Always wondered about this. I've read of this

but without giving too many personal details how was it explained by the doctors.

[ret5hd]

4. Doctors? What kinda family do you think we are? Faith is all the doctorin' you need son!

[Major Nikon]

5. If you live far enough south it happens when brothers and sisters share bathwater

[johnnypanic42]

2. nothing against those who really believe in it

but here's something from hope-of-israel.org: "An Egyptian Virgin Birth story, told about 2,000 years before the Messiah, had many details identical with those found in the Gospel accounts." according to the website, the Egyptian story included a god announcing to a virgin that she was about to be impregnated, the virgin giving birth, and 3 men giving gifts to the godlike virgin-born child (like the 3 Magi!).
my view is that no religion is original, 'cause from the beginning they've been conveniently copying down ideas from previous ones. it's just interesting how people say religions are completely different, when really they have so many motifs and tropes in common that they must be related in some way.
also, there's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births
probably people didn't like to believe that their daughters were "impure", even when they became pregnant, so they decided to create stories where something magical happened instead. rich, complex, beautiful stories-but stories all the same.

[Major Nikon]

6. Some good followup questions...

Do you think Noah lived to be over 900 years old?

Do you think snakes, donkeys, and bushes can talk?

Do you think the earth is about 6,000 years old?

I could go on and point out all sorts of contradictions, but you get the idea. If the answer to any of these types of questions is no, then how exactly does one decide what parts of the bible are bullshit and what parts aren't? I can at least understand those who believe it's all true regardless of how ridiculous.

[skepticscott]

9. That's the question that "liberal" and "progressive" believers

simply can't answer. They dismiss biblical literalism, but are utterly unable to offer any objective criteria for determining which things in the Bible are true and which are not, which things (if any) were really said by God/Jesus and which were just made up out if thin air by someone else.

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. "I know it when I see it"

The hermeneutic of our local VERY SERIOUS theologians.

[hrmjustin]

7. Yes i believe those events happened.

[skepticscott]

10. Of course you do

I suspect there's at least one poster who will be happy to hear that.

[hrmjustin]

12. Whatever!

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

32. I do as well . . .

. . .

And the mockers? Oh, let them mock.

"Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.'"

2 Peter 3: 1-4 (NASB).

"He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself. Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you."

Proverbs 9: 7-8 (NASB).

[onpatrol98]

90. I believe these things as well...

I believe this as well. But, for people who do not believe, AND who do not want to believe and have NO desire to believe, it isn't going to make sense.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18) NIV

Not to mention, the notion of faith in anything beyond themselves is hard to process. But, faith is absolutely essential to Christians.

It is by faith and grace that we are saved.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9) NIV

And, it is impossible to please God with faith.

"And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."

[cleanhippie]

8. !

[skepticscott]

14. The most interesting thing about this thread

is the people who we know have read it, but are afraid to express an opinion or belief, even though they certainly have one.

[hrmjustin]

15. Maybe they don't want to be mocked.

[skepticscott]

16. If they can back up their opinions and convictions

with facts and logical arguments, that won't be a problem, now will it?

Do you also leave room for the possibility that they know their beliefs don't make rational sense, but are emotionally and psychologically unable to abandon them?

[hrmjustin]

17. You know we can't prove it.

[skepticscott]

18. That's not an answer to my question

But keep trying to tell me what I know.

[hrmjustin]

19. Ok.

[cleanhippie]

20. And you know there are more plausible expalnations for why you believe that.

[hrmjustin]

21. No doubt you have your opinion.

[cleanhippie]

23. No doubt you tell tell yourself what you need to so you feel better.

[hrmjustin]

24. I am realistic about my faith.

[cleanhippie]

25. If you say so.

[hrmjustin]

29. I just did.

[cleanhippie]

33. And now you feel better about yourself.

[hrmjustin]

34. No. I am just responding to you.

[swhisper1]

27. its not acceptable to deny the crutch of bullied people

religion, in my opinion is a control tool, period

[skepticscott]

31. No one is being denied anything

Just asked to acknowledge and own up to what they really believe.

[Brettongarcia]

11. Did the talking donkeys help write the Bible?

Apparently a talking snake originated at least a few lines.

Interestingly, the Bible was written in part by writers or scribes. And even the Bible warns about the " false pen of scribes." Scribes say false things, even when they claim to be writing the words of God.

Was the Bible warning about itself, in a brief moment of honesty?

"All have sinned." Even the authors of the Bible?

[Iggo]

13. Of course not. That's ridiculous.

[David__77]

26. I have no idea! I think it's possible.

...

[jonno99]

28. A more important question - imho is: do you believe that life spontaneously generated

from primordial goo?

Those who don't accept the idea of a "creator" are loathe to admit it, but they have their own god - of a sort. The name of their "god"?

Time

And the power of Time? Awesome. Because apparently, given enough Time - everything is possible. It's pretty amazing isn't it? Everything we see around us is a product of Time.

And so what if we puny humans haven't been able to create life ourselves during our various "goo puddle" experiments - we know that Time can do it (...or at least Time must be able to create life - because we're here...).

[ZombieHorde]

35. I wouldn't say "spontaneous."

I think life is a matter of cause and effect. Objectively speaking, life isn't any more amazing than non-life.

[jonno99]

36. I think

you need to define "amazing".

Objectively speaking, life isn't any more amazing than non-life.

[ZombieHorde]

37. Notable. nt

[mr blur]

39. Nifty derailment. But irrelevant.

And why is this "a more important question"? You' re the one that seems happy to accept the impossible.

[jonno99]

40. Why?

Because while the OP (for some reason - must be a slow news day) feels it is necessary to belittle those who hold extraordinary beliefs, I thought it apropos to point out a belief that is even more extraordinary - the unproven idea that life came from goo.

In the absence of such proof, I'm (yes) happy to accept the less fantastical idea that life came about by an act of conscious volition.

btw - when you say "impossible", I think what you mean is "not understood". I could say that life coming from goo is impossible - to which you might reply "Aha! that is only because we do not yet understand - but it happened!"

Ok, but imo, you've got the higher hurdle to overcome in terms of proof. IOW, it makes more sense that something extremely complex (life) came about - not by accident or chance, but by an act of will.

[skepticscott]

41. Where you got the "belittle" part is a mystery

But even if that were the case, we belittle "extraordinary" beliefs on this site all the time. Like the belief that climate change is a hoax. Or the belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Or the belief that cutting taxes on the rich will boost the economy. Given how much of public policy in this country and all over the world is dictated by religious beliefs, why should they not be subject to at least the same level of scrutiny and criticism, especially when they violate known laws of physics and biology?

As far as the origin of life goes, you really haven't thought about it very deeply, have you? How exactly did your actor capable of "conscious volition" or an "act of will" come into being out of energy and non-living matter in the first place? If a "god" or "creator" or "prime mover" (or however you want to label it) complex enough to deliberately create the "extremely complex" life that we see could arise that way, it is fundamentally more likely that the life we see arose without him/her/it/them. No matter how you slice it, if you add another link in the chain (especially a link without a shred of affirmative evidence), the likelihood goes down.

And I hope you're not going to say "we don't understand how god/the creator came into being...but it happened!"

[rug]

42. This pompous drivel for one thing.

Do you also leave room for the possibility that they know their beliefs don't make rational sense, but are emotionally and psychologically unable to abandon them?

[skepticscott]

44. It's a question

You're free to answer yes or no, and to back it up.

I suspect you'll take the same road as justin did, though.

[rug]

45. Of course it is.

Nothing to see here.

[skepticscott]

47. I win that bet

Thanks for not disappointing.

[jonno99]

43. Oh please, are you suggesting that the OP was anything but an opportunity to belittle?

it is fundamentally more likely that the life we see arose without him/her/it/them

Why? As demonstrated by what?

[skepticscott]

46. "An opportunity to belittle"?

Not even sure what that is.

I explained the "why" to you. I can't understand it for you.

Your utter failure to offer a coherent response to my questions is duly noted. I can only assume you're not at all interested in discussion, just deflection and obfuscation.

[jonno99]

49. LOL

Not even sure what that is.

A not very coordinated side-step. Some advice: if someone exposes your BS, just take it like a man and admit it. Your dancing around is unbecoming.

And your "questions"? Really, they are like quibbling about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. What is the point - if you don't believe in angels?

And yes my "deflection" was clearly stated in my first post. Obfuscation? Sorry - that's been all you..

[skepticscott]

51. Nice try

Well, actually, not even that.

I'll repeat my questions, so that everyone with sense can see how utterly UNlike "quibbling about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin" they are:

We belittle "extraordinary" beliefs on this site all the time. Like the belief that climate change is a hoax. Or the belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Or the belief that cutting taxes on the rich will boost the economy. Given how much of public policy in this country and all over the world is dictated by religious beliefs, why should they not be subject to at least the same level of scrutiny and criticism, especially when they violate known laws of physics and biology?

How exactly did your actor capable of "conscious volition" or an "act of will" come into being out of energy and non-living matter in the first place?

Feel free to dodge and dance all you want. But there's only one person on this thread that will swallow it.

[jonno99]

52. I agree with your statement:

why should they not be subject to at least the same level of scrutiny and criticism, especially when they violate known laws of physics and biology?

Which is exactly the point of my original post: You're dinking around "discussing" points of religious doctrine for the single purpose of belittling anyone who believes. I simply upped the ante.

Please tell us, which "known laws of physics and biology" support the idea that life came from primordial goo? Seriously, I'm curious to know how it happened...

[skepticscott]

53. Ummmm...all of them, dude

No physical laws are violated by the origin of life from non-living matter.

Still waiting for your answer to this:

How exactly did your actor capable of "conscious volition" or an "act of will" come into being out of energy and non-living matter in the first place?

Your utter failure to offer any sort of coherent response is again duly noted.

And btw, you'd sound less like a creationist tool if the silly and uninformed phrase "primordial goo" weren't spilling out of your mouth every other paragraph. You might want to work on that.

[jonno99]

55. Your own words describe your response:

Your utter failure to offer any sort of coherent response is again duly noted.

And this doozy:

No physical laws are violated by the origin of life from non-living matter.

Perhaps I missed it, but which particular law allows for the spontaneous occurrence of life from inanimate matter?

[skepticscott]

57. Yes, you did miss it

Which particular law allows you to breathe? Which particular law allows you to enjoy the taste of food?

Are you getting it yet? Everyone else is.

And since you're obviously stumped by my question, despite the fact that it goes to the heart of your claim, I see no reason to waste any more of my life on you.

[jonno99]

58. I see -

Everyone else is "getting it", and yet no one can produce life from inanimate matter - why is that?

[mr blur]

54. Please don't tell me what you think I mean.

I need many things in life but being patronized by you is not one of them.

I do not have to offer you proof of anything; I'm not the one making extraordinary claims.

[jonno99]

56. Your words:

I'm not the one making extraordinary claims

And yet you can offer up no proof for your "ordinary" claims - why is that?

I do not have to offer you proof of anything

And yet you require it from everyone else who offers a contrary opinion. Noted.

[mr blur]

89. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Either you're confused or deliberately obtuse. Either way, nothing to see here.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. time is not a god unless you add new meanings to the definition of what constitutes a deity.

And yes how RNA got started is not known, although there are quite a few theories. Science has no problem with "don't know" - that's where the fun starts.

[jonno99]

50. Please note that I qualified the word "god". I termed it as such because

we are talking about belief & faith in some external "thing".

As you said it's unknown how RNA got started, but it is accepted (believed?) by many that it happened on it's own - naturally.

So where does "faith" come in? It is accepted as fact (faith?) by many that given enough Time, the right conditions eventually occur, and then, life happens.

And to be fair, Time has a sister - the deity Water. We never see a story about space exploration that doesn't extol the virtue of Water and her potential role in bringing forth life (c'mon, it's ok to chuckle...).

What is interesting to me is that the faith in Time & Water is absolute in many circles - and yet it is without proof.

A religion? no, not in the strict sense. But it is a belief "system"...

[trotsky]

59. The idea that life arose from "primordial goo" is the only one we have any evidence for.

Complex organic molecule found in interstellar space
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29368984

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

In September 2012, NASA scientists reported that PAHs, subjected to interstellar medium (ISM) conditions, are transformed, through hydrogenation, oxygenation, and hydroxylation, to more complex organics — "a step along the path toward amino acids and nucleotides, the raw materials of proteins and DNA, respectively".[22][23] Further, as a result of these transformations, the PAHs lose their spectroscopic signature which could be one of the reasons "for the lack of PAH detection in interstellar ice grains, particularly the outer regions of cold, dense clouds or the upper molecular layers of protoplanetary disks."[22][23]

PAHs are found everywhere in deep space[24] and, in June 2013, PAHs were detected in the upper atmosphere of Titan, the largest moon of the planet Saturn.[25]

If you are sitting on any evidence for your creator god, please present it. A Nobel prize awaits.

[jonno99]

60. If a creator exists, he certainly doesn't need any help from me. And don't you think it's

best to be careful with the use of language?

The idea that life arose from "primordial goo" is the only one we have any evidence for.

No one has yet proven that life can come from inanimate matter; rather the grand assumption has been made that it must be possible - because we (supposedly) have no evidence of a creator.

Of course whoever can prove that life can come from the inanimate - now that will win the Nobel prize...

[trotsky]

62. Uh, that's kinda how this all works.

Dude, your arguments remind me of the simplistic stuff creationists tried over and over to push on the old Usenet groups like talk.origins. Every single one of your talking points is straight outta that creationist playbook. I'm surprised you haven't tried the "747 in a junkyard" trope yet.

Where did life come from? We have to look at the evidence.

We have evidence that the building blocks of life are found throughout the cosmos, and that they arise via natural processes. We have zero evidence that a personal creator intervenes in the universe to do anything.

Show me some evidence for your theory, and it can be considered. Until then, the only evidence we currently have is that life arose spontaneously from inanimate matter. Quite frankly you are embarrassing yourself and your religion by clinging to simplistic creationist myths.

[jonno99]

64. So you have no actual proof that life can occur spontanously? got it.

But if I can't produce proof of my position, then I'm the (only) one that should be embarrassed?

That is an odd bit of reasoning...

[trotsky]

66. I have more evidence than you do for your hypothesis.

And that is just a fact.

[jonno99]

69. Sure - you have an existing world with living people.

How it all came to be is merely a guess on your part.

And that is just a fact.

[trotsky]

74. Yes, I understand your mindset.

As I said, I recognize it from debates with other young-earth creationists in the early days of the Internet.

Here's what you are unable to grasp: your explanation is also just a guess. But the big difference is, my "guess" has evidence to support it - which at the very least makes it a hypothesis, while yours does not. If you can present some, by all means proceed.

I know you won't, though, and will try to push back once again. You can have the last word either way - I don't need to waste any more time with a creationist.

[jonno99]

80. "Yes, I understand your mindset."

And I understand yours as well.

What makes you think I am unable to grasp the concept of a "guess"? Of course my position is a guess. When have I ever claimed some special knowledge?

The difference is that my "guess" is based on the rational concept that extreme complexity indicates/requires a mind.

Your "guess" is that extreme complexity is possible from mind-less processes. And thus far, your "mind-less" hypothesis has not been proven.

Of course, you will continue to cry foul declaring "there is no proof of this 'mind' that you claim!" - and I would agree with you. I have no proof.

But I will ask you to provide something - anything - that gives you confidence that mind-less processes can produce the complexity of the simplest life-form - can you provide it? I think not.

So again, in the absence of such proof, I am very comfortable with the more rational position - that extreme complexity requires a mind.

[cpwm17]

61. We know that time exists.

There is no mystery there. We experience time every waking moment (we have much to learn about what time actually is, though.) But we have zero evidence for any god.

Everything is not possible with time, but everything that is possible will happen given enough time. We know that life is possible because we experience it in every waking moment and see it all around us.

The transition from chemistry to biology wouldn't likely have been obvious when the first life form began. The first life would have been extremely simple, and it would have only had to have happened one time in the ancient and huge Universe to evolve us. On Earth, all life uses the same genetic code, so that strongly indicates we are all related to one original life form.

In the massive and old Universe, a huge number of chemical reactions and events happen every second. That is a lot of lottery tickets played over many billions of years. Given enough time, some simple life form is probably likely to arise.

In a universe started by a god, there is only one starting point, and that starting point is the most complicated starting point imaginable: a god. All of reality only gets one shot at having a god as its starting point, with no explanation possible on how this starting point got here. And unlike time or life itself, we have zero evidence for this god.

[jonno99]

63. Thank you -

Given enough time, some simple life form is probably likely to arise

Yes, this is the statement of faith - my point from the beginning of this thread. The spontaneous generation of life is relatively simple - just give it some Time (and Water).

And yet we have no proof that it is possible - only the theory that it must be, because there is no other (palatable) alternative.

that starting point is the most complicated starting point imaginable: a god.

And here is the problem, yes a god is an extremely complicated starting point, but you're making a huge assumption that spontaneous life is even possible - we just don't know - it hasn't been proven.

And my bottom line is that in the absence of such proof, I'll not rule out a conscious mind as the source of life.

[cpwm17]

65. A god is a huge step backwards in our understanding on how the Universe works and life got here.

A god explains what we know is possible, life and the Universe, with something we have no evidence of existing: god. A god fills our knowledge gaps (and often the god explanation ignores what we already know) with magic.

How did this god get here? How does this god do its work? How can this god poof everything in to existence? Theists seem incurious about that. God is no different than magic

Science has been very successful in coming up with natural explanations on how the Universe works. Our knowledge gaps are getting filled in all of the time. God explanations hold back science.

[jonno99]

67. I disagree -

God explanations hold back science.

I think it is just the opposite. Having confidence that there is structure and purpose in the universe (as opposed to randomness and purposelessness) is an excellent foundation for learning.

Do you truly think that non-theists are the only ones who exhibit curiosity?

[cpwm17]

70. Science proves there is structure in the Universe

as opposed to being driven by the whims of a higher power. Natural processes are generally predictable, that is why science works.

[jonno99]

72. "Natural processes are generally predictable" - it's convenient how that turned out -

almost as if by design...

[Act_of_Reparation]

68. Be honest, now.

And my bottom line is that in the absence of such proof, I'll not rule out a conscious mind as the source of life.

Are you simply "not ruling it out", or do you accept that a conscious mind is the most best explanation for the existence of life?

[jonno99]

71. It is not unnatural to assume that something of extreme complexisty was

made/manufactured/created.

And until it is proven otherwise, it is still the best explanation that you don't something (life, matter) from nothing...

[cpwm17]

73. That's a self-defeating argument since you must now answer who made god.

Science claims that complex life came from less complex life and chemistry – the more complex from the less complex (there is already massive evidence for evolution.) Theists claim the opposite: the complex came from the more complex.

So who made God?

[trotsky]

75. C'mon, you have to know the cop-out answer to that one.

You just define "God" as having always existed. Creationist arguments are so primitive.

[jonno99]

76. "you must now answer who made god" -

Well actually I don't.

His existence - or non-existence - is not dependent upon my agreement or my abilities.

We (you) can't demonstrate/replicate how even the simplest form life came from inanimate matter.

And yet from that ignorance you feel qualified to demand: "who made god?"

Ask me that after someone has created even a single blade of grass - from scratch...

[cpwm17]

78. Grass is a product of billions of years of evolution.

Last edited Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Grasses didn't arise from scratch, and there was no grass anywhere until billions of years after the existence of the first forms of life. All life now on earth came from billions of years of evolution. The earliest and simplest forms of life have been extinct for billions of years.

Since it is impossible to know everything, you feel you are qualified to make stuff up from scratch.

[jonno99]

79. No - I simply asked what makes you qualified to ask:

"Who made God" - when you can't even explain how the simplest form of life came about...

[cpwm17]

81. No, I'm using your own argument against you.

It is not unnatural to assume that something of extreme complexity was made/manufactured/created. And until it is proven otherwise, it is still the best explanation that you don't something (life, matter) from nothing...

Since you believe that the Universe and life are "of extreme complexity", they must have been "made/manufactured/create", that means you must believe that God "was made/manufactured/created" since it is of "extreme complexity". And it also means you must believe that whatever "made/manufactured/created" God must have been "made/manufactured/created"...etc.

So God couldn't have been the ultimate beginning, which violates most definitions of God.

[jonno99]

82. No - you're misconstruing my response to a previous question.

My original point remains: we (you) can't explain the process by which life originated.

And yet you continue to fall back on demanding from me: "who made god?"
(and then in the same thread YOU whine about how "it is impossible to know everything&quot

[cpwm17]

83. That was my way of saying that you're making an argument for a predecessor to God.

If you think that God is the starting point then your whole argument for God self-defeats, ie, if you think the original and simplest form of life must have had a creator, because of its complexity, then your God, which is far more complex than anything known to science, must have had a creator.

[jonno99]

84. Agreed - as long as I (or you) get to define the

parameters for the existence of a deity - which we don't, so the point is moot.

If God exists, our inability to explain (or "prove&quot him does not in any way negate his existence.

[cpwm17]

85. You make impossible demands from science.

And since science can't know everything, then your magical-sky-being must be real and arbitrarily cannot be questioned.

That is a formula for believing in any nonsense you wish.

[jonno99]

86. Or - it is simply dealing with reality. Our agreement is not required. nt

[Act_of_Reparation]

77. No, I don't think it is unnatural.

But I don't think it is very reasonable, either. Nor do I agree that, in the absence of certainty, any and all proposed explanations are equally valid.

[Vogon_Glory]

30. Probably not, but

Regarding the Virgin Birth, probably not except that some scientific research on real-life teleportation made me move over from the "definitely not" to the uncommitted.

As for the Resurrection, I don't believe that Jesus assumed a physical body like He had before his crucifixion. Of course I'm neither a literalist nor an inerrantist and probably would have been invited to one of those big religiously-inspired outdoor roasts as a guest of honor in centuries past.



😜

[ZombieHorde]

38. I really doubt it. nt

[Arugula Latte]

87. Of course they did! Also, a monster swallows the sun at night, and a giant turtle holds the earth!

[NeoGreen]

88. It is Turtles all the way down...

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

The origins of the turtle story are uncertain. It has been recorded since the mid 19th century, and may possibly date to the 18th. One recent version appears in Stephen Hawking's 1988 book A Brief History of Time, which starts:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
—?Hawking, 1988[1]