Virgin Birth

Been reading a "how to read" Nietzsche book. There's an idea that we become philosophical, not in response to a desire to become better, but as a natural process of becoming more profound.

More profound meaning of virgin birth? Or is the virginity part incidental? Is it really just mother and child: like Isis and Horus? It seems strange that this image would appear at the winter solstice. The trees look like skeletons.

You want to know my take on this? (Probably not is my guess)

There was no virgin birth. There was an attempt to proclaim it a virgin birth to prevent her demise. Since the people in those days were cruel to women who gave birth outside marriage. The way to protect her was to proclaim the pregnancy an act of god. Then jesus being a bastard, would also not be accepted by society. This would cause a double situation. Since it is not openly accepted, he would become reclusive towards people and at the same time he could sympathize with others who are outcast by society (the sick, the deranged and the social outcasts) This would ultimately lead Jesus to become a rebel to the social norms and reject the fabric of the held belief system. He would question their behavior and ask the question, if these are gods people, why are they so cruel? Thus the abandoning of the jewish faith and the making of a new religion.

Why would a society lift a woman into the status of giving birth to the son of god unless she could be "better" than any other woman who existed?

"She never tainted herself with the impurity of sexual pleasure."

If sex is so impure and it only becomes pure if there is a loving connection, then why not say that she was in love? Why because it strips away (pun intended) the god's son effect. If Jesus was just the son of another human man then where does the divinity come from?

I believe there was a jesus but he is definitely not the legend that he is given today. We all know this is human behavior to exaggerate a renown individual. We raise the respect of a person far beyond their actual reality. Stories are invented and details are invented. It can't be refuted that this practice does not happen or that Jesus somehow escape such a response. I think anyone who claims that Jesus is an exception is nothing other than naive.

Been reading a "how to read" Nietzsche book. There's an idea that we become philosophical, not in response to a desire to become better, but as a natural process of becoming more profound.

More profound meaning of virgin birth? Or is the virginity part incidental? Is it really just mother and child: like Isis and Horus? It seems strange that this image would appear at the winter solstice. The trees look like skeletons.

I think everything of Christ is shrouded in pagan mythology. Every new faith appears to be a reflection of that ancient adoration of the sun and stars. It would not surprise me to find that the representation of the sun as the figure of worship never needs higher entity to become visible to man, or something like that. I will try to find out.

Its mother earth who each year is cleansed by winter and is fertile, a virgin, for the new year. The sun in the winter equinox rises from mother earth and announces a new year.

You want to know my take on this? (Probably not is my guess)

There was no virgin birth.

I at least think that skepticism concerning the supernatural is an old old game. After all, these myths were invented if not observed, right? Even if they were invented as lies for less than laudable reasons, the lies weren't random but purposeful.

In nature a virgin birth of a male offspring is impossible, thus making the virgin birth of Jesus a miracle

I'm a little surprised you said it this way. It almost sounds as if you are saying that it does not matter if they are lies since they might have purpose behind them. Hmm. Not sure I could support such a reason. I can only assume you meant it a little different than how I took it. However; a new question would arise in me if this is really the case. If the intention is pure, why would there be a need to lie about it? Why not just go with the pure intention and state the purity of the truth? So are we going to say that is what they did? Or are we going to go back and ask why they didn't state it honestly? Oh, yeah that's right, the message is what is important.

I'm a little surprised you said it this way. It almost sounds as if you are saying that it does not matter if they are lies since they might have purpose behind them. Hmm. Not sure I could support such a reason. I can only assume you meant it a little different than how I took it. However; a new question would arise in me if this is really the case. If the intention is pure, why would there be a need to lie about it? Why not just go with the pure intention and state the purity of the truth? So are we going to say that is what they did? Or are we going to go back and ask why they didn't state it honestly? Oh, yeah that's right, the message is what is important.