Perhaps you could give us a working definition of a virgin here penatis, and then show us how Heracles mother fit this definition.

Thanks,

Nomad

Sec: Bah! I didn't presume anything. You asserted that a virgin birth was impossible. I said there is nothing inherently IMPOSSIBLE about God bringing about a virgin birth. Nor is there anything IMPOSSIBLE about a God existing. NONE OF THIS entails however that either of these things are ACTUAL. If you have some argument that demonstrates the IMPOSSIBILITY of either of them, present it...

penat:I agree that "NONE OF THIS entails however that either of these things are ACTUAL."

SecWeb: Nor does anything YOU have to say entail that either of these things are impossible.

penati: Again, you haven't shown that they are possible. Until that time, they are impossible.

SecWebL: Sorry, it just doesn't follow.

SecWebLurker: No. I said that God DOING something is not impossible. Of course, that entails that His existence is not impossible. And it certainly isn't in the broadly logical sense. So your implicit statement was unfounded. Does an abiogenesis researcher have to have evidence that life originated from simple abiotic precursors, in a completely naturalistic manner, before he says that it is POSSIBLE that it did? Of course not.

pen:This is a blatantly false analogy. You are comparing science with religion.

Sec: LOL, this is too funny...

penat: It is only "funny" to someone who places his faith in dreams and angels.

SecWeb: Listen man, if you can't see that a lack of evidence FOR something does not entail that it is IMPOSSIBLE, then you've got problems.

penati: Again, it is impossible until it is demonstrated that it is possible.

SecWebL: Only in the mind of penatis. No one had demonstrated that it was possible to get to the moon prior to the Apollo mission that made it. To claim that it was impossible before several major unsuccessful attempts would have just been idiotic.

penati: All you have are two contradictory stories: one about a dream and another about an angel. If that is enough to make you a BELIEVER in the virgin birth myth, then great. It is NOT enough for me. Also, the virgin birth story of Heracles predates the the virgin birth story of Jesus, so you cannot rule out borrowing on the part of the Greek-speaking Christian propagandists.

SecWebL: I've dealt with all of this. You have presented no Virgin Birth stories that predate that of Jesus.

SecWebLurker


[This message has been edited by SecWebLurker (edited March 01, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SecWebLurker:
[b]Sec: Bah! I didn't presume anything. You asserted that a virgin birth was impossible. I said there is nothing inherently IMPOSSIBLE about God bringing about a virgin birth. Nor is there anything IMPOSSIBLE about a God existing. NONE OF THIS entails however that either of these things are ACTUAL. If you have some argument that demonstrates the IMPOSSIBILITY of either of them, present it...

penat:I agree that "NONE OF THIS entails however that either of these things are ACTUAL."

SecWeb: Nor does anything YOU have to say entail that either of these things are impossible.

penati: Again, you haven't shown that they are possible. Until that time, they are impossible.

SecWebL: Sorry, it just doesn't follow.

No need to be "sorry." Until something is shown to be possible, it is reasonable to think it is impossible.

SecWebLurker: No. I said that God DOING something is not impossible. Of course, that entails that His existence is not impossible. And it certainly isn't in the broadly logical sense. So your implicit statement was unfounded. Does an abiogenesis researcher have to have evidence that life originated from simple abiotic precursors, in a completely naturalistic manner, before he says that it is POSSIBLE that it did? Of course not.

pen:This is a blatantly false analogy. You are comparing science with religion.

Sec: LOL, this is too funny...

penat: It is only "funny" to someone who places his faith in dreams and angels.

SecWeb: Listen man, if you can't see that a lack of evidence FOR something does not entail that it is IMPOSSIBLE, then you've got problems.

penati: Again, it is impossible until it is demonstrated that it is possible.

SecWebL: Only in the mind of penatis.

Hardly. I am logical. You are not.


SecWebLurker: No one had demonstrated that it was possible to get to the moon prior to the Apollo mission that made it. To claim that it was impossible before several major unsuccessful attempts would have just been idiotic.

You may characterize logical thinking as "idiotic" if you wish. That does nothing to change its correctness. Also, you continue to use a false analogy. You erroneously compare science with religion. They are mutually exclusive.


penati: All you have are two contradictory stories: one about a dream and another about an angel. If that is enough to make you a BELIEVER in the virgin birth myth, then great. It is NOT enough for me. Also, the virgin birth story of Heracles predates the the virgin birth story of Jesus, so you cannot rule out borrowing on the part of the Greek-speaking Christian propagandists.

SecWebL: I've dealt with all of this.

No, you have not. You have a couple of contradictory fairy tales as evidence. That is it.

SecWebLurker: You have presented no Virgin Birth stories that predate that of Jesus.

Yes, I have. Go back and read the thread again. The mother of Heracles was a virgin at conception. Heracles was the product of Zeus and a human mother. The story predates the virgin birth myths of Matthew and Luke. The two Christian propagandists may have been influenced by the Greek myth.

Like the mother of Jesus in Matthew and Luke's stories, Alcmene was a virgin (had slept with no man) when she conceived Heracles.

"[After a squabble over some stolen cattle and the death of a man named Electryon, the following takes place:] Amphitryon, accompanied by Alcmene, fled to Thebes, where King Creon purified him and gave his sister Perimede in marriage to Electryon's only surviving son...But the pious Alcmene would not lie with Amphitryon until he had avenged the death of her eight brothers... [Here, Amphitryon gets together an army.] Then, aided by Athenian, Phocian, Argive, and Locrian contingents, Amphitryon overcame the Teleboans and Taphians, and bestowed their islands on his allies...
"Meanwhile, Zeus, taking advantage of Amphitryon's absence, impersonated him and, assuring Alcmene that her brothers were now avenged-since Amphitryon and indeed gained the required victory that very morning-lay with her all one night, to which he gave the length of three...Alcmene, wholly deceived, listened delightedly to Zeus's account of the crushing defeat inflicted on Pterelaus...and sported innocently with her supposed husband for the whole thirty-six hours. On the next day, when Amphitryon returned, eloquent of victory and of his passion for her, Alcmene did not welcome him to the marriage couch so raptuously as he had hoped. 'We never slept a wink last night,' she complained. 'And surely you do not expect me to listen twice to the story of your exploits?' Amphitryon, unable to understand these remarks, consulted the seer Teiresias, who told him that he had been cuckolded by Zeus; and thereafter he never dared sleep with Alcmene again, for fear of incurring divine jealousy." Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, Vol II,, pp. 85-86.

Graves cites the following sources for the mythical account of Heracles' birth: Apollodorus; Tzetzes; Hesiod; Hyginus; Pindar; and Lucian.

Also, please read the following by Diodorus Siculus: "Alkmene was taken by Zeus, through a deceit, and she bore Herakles. Thus, the root of the family tree, through both his parents, is said to go back to the greatest of the Gods (Zeus), in the way we have shown. The excellent begotten in Herakles is not only in his great acts, but was known before his birth. When Zeus lay with Alkmene, he tripled the length of the night, and, in the increased length of time spent in begetting the child, he foreshadowed the exceptional power of the child who was to be begotten. All in all, this union was not done because of erotic desire, as with other women, but more for the purpose of creating the child." Library of History 4.9.1-10, as quoted in Documents for the Study of the Gospels, P. 135. Diodorus Siculus was a GREEK historian who lived in the first century BEFORE the common era.

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by penatis:

"...Meanwhile, Zeus, taking advantage of Amphitryon's absence, impersonated him and, assuring Alcmene that her brothers were now avenged-since Amphitryon and indeed gained the required victory that very morning-lay with her all one night,
Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, Vol II,, pp. 85-86.

Quote:

..."Alkmene was taken by Zeus, through a deceit, and she bore Herakles...

Thank you for the sources penatis, but as you can see, Alkmene did not remain a virgin, nor did she think of her conception of Herakles as coming about in anything except the usual way.

Considering how Matthew and Luke present the story (especially Luke who gives us Mary's side), there is really no commonality in the story at all. Well, a god does impregnate her, but only by taking on the shape of her lover, so even this connection is tenuous at best.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the theory, put forward by some NT scholars that the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth is pattered on the birth of Isaac or Moses?

Be well,

Nomad

penatis:
No need to be "sorry." Until something is shown to be possible, it is reasonable to think it is impossible.

SecWebLurker: No, its not reasonable. Its ridiculous. We wouldn't be doing abiogenesis research if we thought it was IMPOSSIBLE for life to arise naturalistically would we? We wouldn't have tried to get to the moon if we thought it was IMPOSSIBLE, would we have? Columbus wouldn't have made the voyage if he thought it was impossible, would he have?

penati: Again, it is impossible until it is demonstrated that it is possible.

SecWebL: Only in the mind of penatis.

penatis: Hardly. I am logical. You are not.

SecWebLurker: Hahaha...right.

SecWebLurker: No one had demonstrated that it was possible to get to the moon prior to the Apollo mission that made it. To claim that it was impossible before several major unsuccessful attempts would have just been idiotic.

penatis: You may characterize logical thinking as "idiotic" if you wish. That does nothing to change its correctness. Also, you continue to use a false analogy. You erroneously compare science with religion. They are mutually exclusive.

SecWebLurker: LOL@"You continue to compare science with religion"...Someone needs to see the Wizard about a brain...In ANY area -science, historical research, theology, etc., we NEVER *know* something is impossible because there is, as yet, no PROOF of it, unless of course we either a) make metaphysical assumptions or b) deem it "logically impossible", which means it entails some sort of logical contradiction. The most we can say is "This usually doesn't happen...". Even the laws of physics are just inductive generalizations. They are descriptive of what usually goes on. If you claim the laws of physics are absolute and can and will never be breached, you make a metaphysical assumption. You assume uniformity.

You want to carve out some little niche for religion only and apply your rule of "I need proof or else its impossible", but you yourself write: "Until something is shown to be possible, it is reasonable to think it is impossible." Oh, SOMETHING? So this idiotic rule (that has nothing to do with logic) applies to more than JUST virgin births? Like aliens, Columbus' voyage, the moon-landing, abiogenesis research, etc.?

SecWebL: I've dealt with all of this.

penatis: No, you have not. You have a couple of contradictory fairy tales as evidence. That is it.

SecWebLurker: Call it what you like. It doesn't bother me penatis. By the same standards you call the virgin birth a fairy tale, your position that virgin births are impossible is equally a fairy tale. And SETI is searching for fairty tales in outer-space.

There is no evidence for other forms of intelligence in our universe. Does that mean that their existence is impossible? Huh, Mr. Logic? It must...SETI must be wasting millions searching for a fairy tale.

SecWebLurker: You have presented no Virgin Birth stories that predate that of Jesus.

penatis: Yes, I have. Go back and read the thread again. The mother of Heracles was a virgin at conception. Heracles was the product of Zeus and a human mother. The story predates the virgin birth myths of Matthew and Luke. The two Christian propagandists may have been influenced by the Greek myth.

SecWebLurker: Heracles is the product of physical sex between a god and a human. Hence, its not a virgin birth. Its a virgin having sex and getting pregnant.

SecWebLurker

[This message has been edited by SecWebLurker (edited March 01, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SecWebLurker:
penatis:
No need to be "sorry." Until something is shown to be possible, it is reasonable to think it is impossible.

SecWebLurker: No, its not reasonable. Its ridiculous. We wouldn't be doing abiogenesis research if we thought it was IMPOSSIBLE for life to arise naturalistically would we? We wouldn't have tried to get to the moon if we thought it was IMPOSSIBLE, would we have? Columbus wouldn't have made the voyage if he thought it was impossible, would he have?

We are not trying to prove virgin births are we? We are not trying to prove that dreams are reality are we? We are not trying to prove that angels exist are we? You don't seem to understand the difference between science and religion/superstition.

penati: Again, it is impossible until it is demonstrated that it is possible.

SecWebL: Only in the mind of penatis.

penatis: Hardly. I am logical. You are not.

SecWebLurker: Hahaha...right.

Thanks for agreeing.

SecWebLurker: No one had demonstrated that it was possible to get to the moon prior to the Apollo mission that made it. To claim that it was impossible before several major unsuccessful attempts would have just been idiotic.

penatis: You may characterize logical thinking as "idiotic" if you wish. That does nothing to change its correctness. Also, you continue to use a false analogy. You erroneously compare science with religion. They are mutually exclusive.

SecWebLurker: LOL@"You continue to compare science with religion"...Someone needs to see the Wizard about a brain...In ANY area -science, historical research, theology, etc., we NEVER *know* something is impossible because there is, as yet, no PROOF of it, unless of course we either a) make metaphysical assumptions or b) deem it "logically impossible", which means it entails some sort of logical contradiction.

Yes, someone needs to see "the Wizard" and find out what science thinks of virgin births and angels and dreams of virgin births and holy spirits.

SecWebLurker: The most we can say is "This usually doesn't happen...".

WE CAN SAY THAT VIRGIN BIRTHS NEVER HAPPEN.

SecWebLurker: Even the laws of physics are just inductive generalizations. They are descriptive of what usually goes on. If you claim the laws of physics are absolute and can and will never be breached, you make a metaphysical assumption. You assume uniformity.

I have stated that virgin births, as related by Matthew and Luke, are impossible until someone demonstrates they are.

SecWebLurker: You want to carve out some little niche for religion only and apply your rule of "I need proof or else its impossible", but you yourself write: "Until something is shown to be possible, it is reasonable to think it is impossible." Oh, SOMETHING? So this idiotic rule (that has nothing to do with logic) applies to more than JUST virgin births? Like aliens, Columbus' voyage, the moon-landing, abiogenesis research, etc.?

I don't want anything. Until virgin births and fairies are proven to exist, I say they do not. If you think they do, present evidence.

SecWebL: I've dealt with all of this.

penatis: No, you have not. You have a couple of contradictory fairy tales as evidence. That is it.

SecWebLurker: Call it what you like. It doesn't bother me penatis.

I call it what it is. I am not here to bother you.

SecWebLurker: By the same standards you call the virgin birth a fairy tale, your position that virgin births are impossible is equally a fairy tale.

I have told no fairy tales. Matthew and Luke have.

SecWebLurker: And SETI is searching for fairty tales in outer-space.

Another virgin birth, as related by a dream and an angel?

There is no evidence for other forms of intelligence in our universe. Does that mean that their existence is impossible? Huh, Mr. Logic?

Well, Mr. Superstitious, scientific endeavors are NOT superstitious endeavors, are they. Of course, you may think someone is attempting to demonstrate the exisence of fairies. I don't have any belief in them.

SecWebLurker: It must...SETI must be wasting millions searching for a fairy tale.

If you think they are looking for fairies, then, yes, I think it is a waste of money.

SecWebLurker: You have presented no Virgin Birth stories that predate that of Jesus.

penatis: Yes, I have. Go back and read the thread again. The mother of Heracles was a virgin at conception. Heracles was the product of Zeus and a human mother. The story predates the virgin birth myths of Matthew and Luke. The two Christian propagandists may have been influenced by the Greek myth.

SecWebLurker: Heracles is the product of physical sex between a god and a human. Hence, its not a virgin birth. Its a virgin having sex and getting pregnant.

You asked for evidence of a virgin birth story that predated the time of Jesus. I provided that. Only YOU fail to see the similarities in the stories.



[This message has been edited by penatis (edited March 01, 2001).]

Penatis,

Sec: "You have presented no Virgin Birth stories that predate that of Jesus."

You: "The mother of Heracles was a virgin at conception."

Two points.

1. How was she a virgin when she conceived if she conceived by having sex?

The miracle of Jesus' conception is not that Mary had sex with a divine figure and therefore conceived a divine figure. The miracle was that she conceived without any sexual act at all, with a divine figure or otherwise.

2. Even granting point 1, are you ignoring the difference between a virgin BIRTH and a virgin CONCEPTION?

I thought SecWL made the difference quite clear.

penatis:
No need to be "sorry." Until something is shown to be possible, it is reasonable to think it is impossible.[/b]

SecWebLurker: No, its not reasonable. Its ridiculous. We wouldn't be doing abiogenesis research if we thought it was IMPOSSIBLE for life to arise naturalistically would we? We wouldn't have tried to get to the moon if we thought it was IMPOSSIBLE, would we have? Columbus wouldn't have made the voyage if he thought it was impossible, would he have?

penatis: We are not trying to prove virgin births are we? We are not trying to prove that dreams are reality are we? We are not trying to prove that angels exist are we? You don't seem to understand the difference between science and religion/superstition.

SecWebLurker: We are searching out the possibility for that for which we have no evidence. No one assumes their impossibility because we have no evidence, contrary to your general belief that "Until something is shown to be possible, it is reasonable to think it is impossible."

penati: Again, it is impossible until it is demonstrated that it is possible.

SecWebL: Only in the mind of penatis.

penatis: Hardly. I am logical. You are not.

SecWebLurker: Hahaha...right.

penatis: Thanks for agreeing.

SecWebLurker: I was laughing at you. I wasn't agreeing. Quote a philospher or a textbook on logic that says something must be PROVEN before it is considered anything other than impossible.

SecWebLurker: No one had demonstrated that it was possible to get to the moon prior to the Apollo mission that made it. To claim that it was impossible before several major unsuccessful attempts would have just been idiotic.

penatis: You may characterize logical thinking as "idiotic" if you wish. That does nothing to change its correctness. Also, you continue to use a false analogy. You erroneously compare science with religion. They are mutually exclusive.

SecWebLurker: LOL@"You continue to compare science with religion"...Someone needs to see the Wizard about a brain...In ANY area -science, historical research, theology, etc., we NEVER *know* something is impossible because there is, as yet, no PROOF of it, unless of course we either a) make metaphysical assumptions or b) deem it "logically impossible", which means it entails some sort of logical contradiction.

penatis: Yes, someone needs to see "the Wizard" and find out what science thinks of virgin births and angels and dreams of virgin births and holy spirits.

SecWeb: Science itself doesn't have anything to say about any of these things, and plenty of scientists believe in their actual occurence.

SecWebLurker: The most we can say is "This usually doesn't happen...".

penatis: WE CAN SAY THAT VIRGIN BIRTHS NEVER HAPPEN.

SecWebLurker: You can say it as an article of faith, but you have no evidence for this claim. All you know is that you "ain't ne'er seen one", but that isn't really evidence of anything.

SecWebLurker: Even the laws of physics are just inductive generalizations. They are descriptive of what usually goes on. If you claim the laws of physics are absolute and can and will never be breached, you make a metaphysical assumption. You assume uniformity.

penatis: I have stated that virgin births, as related by Matthew and Luke, are impossible until someone demonstrates they are.

SecWebLurker: Yeah, we've been reading along.

SecWebLurker: You want to carve out some little niche for religion only and apply your rule of "I need proof or else its impossible", but you yourself write: "Until something is shown to be possible, it is reasonable to think it is impossible." Oh, SOMETHING? So this idiotic rule (that has nothing to do with logic) applies to more than JUST virgin births? Like aliens, Columbus' voyage, the moon-landing, abiogenesis research, etc.?

penatis: I don't want anything. Until virgin births and fairies are proven to exist, I say they do not. If you think they do, present evidence.

SecWeb: I've already given my reasons for accepting the VB. I don't feel any need to convince you of them. And since you think they are impossible, there's no point in discussing evidence. No evidence can convince someone of that which they "know" to be impossible. So it is your poor logic that leads you to rule out evidence of the supernatural a priori.

Either a VB is impossible or it isn't. Make up your mind. If its possible, then we can talk about evidence. If its impossible, then there cannot possibly be any evidence for it.

SecWebL: I've dealt with all of this.

penatis: No, you have not. You have a couple of contradictory fairy tales as evidence. That is it.

SecWebLurker: Call it what you like. It doesn't bother me penatis.

penatis: I call it what it is. I am not here to bother you.

SecWebLurker: Well, I simply disagree with you. I guess we'll just go on restating our positions all year.

SecWebLurker: By the same standards you call the virgin birth a fairy tale, your position that virgin births are impossible is equally a fairy tale.

penatis: I have told no fairy tales. Matthew and Luke have.

SecWebLurker [in penatis mode]: I submit that you have told the fairy tales.

SecWebLurker: And SETI is searching for fairty tales in outer-space.

penatis: Another virgin birth, as related by a dream and an angel?

SecWebLurker: Nope, extra-terrestrial intelligences, which by your criteria, are an impossibility (i.e. a "fairy tale"). You should give em a call...I wonder if they'd find your "logic" convincing...

There is no evidence for other forms of intelligence in our universe. Does that mean that their existence is impossible? Huh, Mr. Logic?

penatis: Well, Mr. Superstitious, scientific endeavors are NOT superstitious endeavors, are they. Of course, you may think someone is attempting to demonstrate the exisence of fairies. I don't have any belief in them.

SecWeb: If that for which there is no evidence as yet, is IMPOSSIBLE, then searching for extra-terrestrials is a search for the IMPOSSIBLE. And a belief in the IMPOSSIBLE is superstitious, isn't it? It doesn't matter who's believing it.

SecWebLurker: It must...SETI must be wasting millions searching for a fairy tale.

penatis: If you think they are looking for fairies, then, yes, I think it is a waste of money.

SecWeb: By your criteria, they are.

SecWebLurker: You have presented no Virgin Birth stories that predate that of Jesus.

penatis: Yes, I have. Go back and read the thread again. The mother of Heracles was a virgin at conception. Heracles was the product of Zeus and a human mother. The story predates the virgin birth myths of Matthew and Luke. The two Christian propagandists may have been influenced by the Greek myth.

SecWebLurker: Heracles is the product of physical sex between a god and a human. Hence, its not a virgin birth. Its a virgin having sex and getting pregnant.

penatis: You asked for evidence of a virgin birth story that predated the time of Jesus. I provided that. Only YOU fail to see the similarities in the stories.

SecWebLurker: A virgin birth is when there is NO SEX involved.

tic toc tic toc....penatis chomps away at my clock....

SecWebLurker

[This message has been edited by SecWebLurker (edited March 01, 2001).]