Arjuna
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 08:16 am
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.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,212 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Dec, 2009 03:46 am
@Arjuna,
I think the virgin part is symbolic and important. Does this hint at a transcendence of lust? Notice also all the blue that surrounds her in paintings.

Blue is a higher energy wavelength than red. Perhaps in the same way the Eros of a mother is a higher frequency than lust. Christ seems to symbolize the transcendent function. What if we conceived every human as both Mother and Christ?

If we are "red," we are caught in the lower frequency energy of lust, anger, vanity. We do not cradle our inner Christ (transcendent function.) If we are "blue," we have turned away from the lust of the flesh to tend toward our transcendence.

Virgin Mother is also an obvious paradox. This helps point at its symbolic nature. Paradox often hints at what other statements cannot...?

Just thoughts. So many more are possible on such a rich theme.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 03:47 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;107267 wrote:
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 have read that a virgin birth of a baby girl is possible, but medical science tells us that a virgin birth of a male is impossible, this begs the question was the virgin birth of Jesus a divine miracle?
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 04:16 am
@Arjuna,
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.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 10:04 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;119882 wrote:
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.


As long as we do not confuse, "virgin birth" with "the immaculate conception", I am happy. The former implies that latter, but the latter does not imply the former.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 06:04 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;107267 wrote:
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.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 06:26 am
@xris,
xris;120426 wrote:
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.


My thoughts exactly. In fact I think this is so accurate that I even consider myself a sun worshiper. Without the sun, we wouldn't be here. It is the one thing that we all can agree with and that alone qualifies itself to hold high position. Why toss it out for something in which you have never experienced? You know the sun, you see it every day and it provides everything you have unconditionally. It doesn't care who you are, or what you do, except if you decide to worship with your own self interest in mind or vanity, it will curse you with cancer. But that goes without saying. Praise the light! It shone for you! There was a star that died for you to exist. (the last one is a true statement)
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 10:31 pm
@Krumple,
In human parthenogenesis the daughter would be a clone of her mother. If Jesus had been a girl, it would have been possible that his birth was the result of human parthenogenesis but as Mary had no Y chromosome that rules that out as a possibility.
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 11:03 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Of course in those ancient times, all sorts of earthly beings (Ceasars, etc), were fathered by a god and born of a virgin. The mythical lore of the times is full of examples, it is merely an indication of status. The tendency to seek scientific explanations or use literal interpretations is entirely a modern notion.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jan, 2010 04:28 am
@prothero,
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.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 08:03 pm
@xris,
xris;120632 wrote:
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.


Fertility and virginity are not the same, but I will admit that they are related. I think it makes good sense to trace Goddesses back to the dirt, but for me that's still not the end of the story.

Woman is deeply symbolic, I think. Mothers are by no means unimportant to us. A person could steer towards Freud as well as the dirt. I encourage a pile-up of perspectives.

---------- Post added 02-07-2010 at 09:06 PM ----------

Krumple;119882 wrote:
You want to know my take on this? (Probably not is my guess)

There was no virgin birth.


I agree. I don't think there was a virgin birth either. For me, this is no big deal. I'm interested in interpreting the myth. What mental states does this myth record/transmit? I can't help but think that from the beginning there were those who took miracles as "realities" and those who understood them as symbols. 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.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 09:40 pm
@Arjuna,
In nature a virgin birth of a male offspring is impossible, thus making the virgin birth of Jesus a miracle
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 09:49 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;125968 wrote:
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.


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.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 10:17 pm
@Krumple,
Alan McDougall;126000 wrote:
In nature a virgin birth of a male offspring is impossible, thus making the virgin birth of Jesus a miracle
Unless Jesus was actually a woman dressed up as a man. Although I guess that would have been a little hard to hide toward the end.

Krumple;126001 wrote:
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.
If you're about to be burned at the stake for refusing to admit that Mary was a virgin, then I'm right behind you with baseball bat in hand. You have a right to say it's a lie and my baseball bat will secure that right just in case the court doesn't. Some back-up would be nice, of course. No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

But if you're home safe and sound... couldn't there be something being expressed by the symbol... something honest.

Joan of Arc was also famous for being a virgin. She was known as La Pucelle (the virgin.)
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 11:55 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;126001 wrote:
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 not trying to be difficult, I promise. You might view me as skeptic who became skeptical as to the possibility of sincere skepticism.

I don't think man functions without some sort of myth. Mythlessness itself can be just that sort of myth. I see humans as symbolic animals who tend to incarnate some conception (metaphor/myth) of virtue/good/right.

I'm not denying that the truth/lie distinction is useful, but pointing at its limits. I think that philosophy itself is mythological, although in less obvious way. Miracles, to me, are most valuable as myths. Walking on water, for instance, is symbolic or allegorical. So is the Virgin Birth.

But this is just my temporary truth. I admit my tone may have implied a claim on the universal, but this is a hard habit for any of us to break. Reality is one, they tell us (or imply). Sounds like monotruism? Is monotruism an echo of monotheism? Have we really escaped "superstition" or have we just changed myths?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Virgin Birth
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 01:37:52