Virgin Birth Myths

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

What is the essence of religion but spirit? What is everything in religion supposedly pointing to... rules or spirit? The rules are a way of guiding people to spirit, right? And what is spirit other than a common essence... which you don't believe in? I know a lot of people who combine/respect science and SPIRIT -- both of which are nature-oriented -- so, that makes sense to me. Can you see? But science and "religion" is more like combining fact and fiction. Religion is about ideology -- and ideology is not spirit. What are your thoughts on that distinction? Is your focus on ideology or spirit?

Religion is only objectively meaningful as an expression of the Spirit but it is only through the help of the Spirit as opposed to earth spirits that animal Man can evolve into conscious Man.

But without an appreciation for levels of reality connecting qualities of being the idea of the conscious evolution of human being seems absurd.

Without the foundation of a conscious universe this transformation of Man’s being from animal Man into conscious Man seems impossible. So if you want to at least understand what is meant by the conscious universe, read this page

Science is concerned with increasing horizontal knowledge or linear knowledge while the essence of religion is concerned with universal vertical understanding or the quality of Now and acquiring a human perspective. That is why they are complimentary. I doubt if the modern attachment to fragmentation will allow it but at least for the minority whose minds will survive the effects of technology, contemplating the conscious universe will lead to answers concerning the basic human questions. I guess what else can be asked of a world which thrives on the denial of reality. The page including this excerpt from Jacob Needleman’s “A Sense of the Cosmos” concludes with what is posted. Can you be open to it without either believing or denying the hypothesis?

http://www.tree-of-souls.com/spirituali ... leman.html

We must explore this thought further, for it can help us to see why the idea of a conscious universe appears to modern man as naive, as either a daydream or a nightmare. Science, as we know it, searches the universe for order and pattern. To pursue this search carefully, objectively, the scientist struggles to be free of his feelings, his inclinations to believe. He may follow hunches--what he calls "intuitions"--but in the final analysis he wishes for proofs that will compel the intellect, and only the intellect. The entire organization of modern science, the community of experimenters and researchers, the teaching of science in the schools, the training of specialists, is based on this ideal of proof that compels the mind.

Looked at in this way, we may conclude that the practice of modern science is based on a demand for human fragmentation, the division between thought and feeling. Searching for an outer unity, the scientist demands of himself an inner disunity. Perhaps "demands" is not the right word. We should simply say that in his practice the scientist endorses the division and inner fragmentation from which all of us suffer in our daily lives.

We now see why a conscious universe makes no sense to modern science. In the ancient teachings, higher mind or consciousness is never identified with thought associations, no matter how ingenious they may be. If these teachings speak of levels of reality higher than human thought, they are referring, among other things, to an order of intelligence that is inclusive of thought. Consciousness is another word for this power of active relationship or inclusion. Can the power to include ever be understood through a process of internal division and exclusion? Fascinated by the activity of thinking, and drawn to it to the extent of psychological lopsidedness, is it any wonder that we modern scientific men almost never directly experience in ourselves that quality of force which used to be called the Active Intellect, and which in the medieval cosmic scheme was symbolized by a great circle that included the entire created universe?

[Science Fan]

Nick A: Science has given us the secrets of religion, since religion is something that exists, and can be readily explained by science. Religion started off as ancestor worship, and mainly exists today to promote tribalism. That's why religious fundies are typically racists and xenophobes. Religious dress codes are there to encourage inbreeding within the tribe, mainly a way of controlling the female members, like the use of a burka. How easy is it for non-Muslim men to pick up on Muslim women who wear burkas? Basically impossible, which is the idea. The same is true with dietary codes. These are ways of promoting the tribe, against those outside the tribe, so it makes sense that religion started off as ancestor worship. This is also why religious groups typically hate homosexuality, pre-marital sex, the use of birth control devices, masturbation, and porn. Any religious member who believes these things will be sexually driven to marry young and start pumping out kids.

Notice too that religion typically draws moral distinctions between its members and anyone outside the group, with those outside the group typically not being of any concern, unless they can be converted?

There is a scientific explanation for religion, but there is no religious explanation for anything.

[Greta]

Well done, everyone. The last posts have been much better than expected.

Congrats Nick. You did it. A post without smearing anyone. Most refreshing. An enjoyable quote, even if it started better than it finished.

There is no connection between the possibility that a larger conscious exists with Mary giving birth without doing the horizontal tango. Why would a larger consciousness be able to facilitate a virgin birth without performing IVF? Why would it want to? So that Mary the mother may be thought of as utterly pure and unbesmirched? Would this be the attitude of a higher consciousness or a bossy human one? You have to admit that it's most unlikely.

Needleman's problem is that he forgets that scientists are not necessarily scientists when they are off duty but enjoy subjective experiences - they are not theorising and experiment machines. Should I provide some Richard Feynman quotes to make the point? Tell me how he is fragmenting reality, as opposed to observing as much of it as possible?

I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree.

Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty.

I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimetre; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colours in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the colour. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.”

Some more wisdom from the thoroughly integrated and centred Mr Feynman that are well worth taking to heart:

I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.

We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.

Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”

[Nick_A]

Nick A: Science has given us the secrets of religion, since religion is something that exists, and can be readily explained by science. Religion started off as ancestor worship, and mainly exists today to promote tribalism. That's why religious fundies are typically racists and xenophobes. Religious dress codes are there to encourage inbreeding within the tribe, mainly a way of controlling the female members, like the use of a burka. How easy is it for non-Muslim men to pick up on Muslim women who wear burkas? Basically impossible, which is the idea. The same is true with dietary codes. These are ways of promoting the tribe, against those outside the tribe, so it makes sense that religion started off as ancestor worship. This is also why religious groups typically hate homosexuality, pre-marital sex, the use of birth control devices, masturbation, and porn. Any religious member who believes these things will be sexually driven to marry young and start pumping out kids.

Notice too that religion typically draws moral distinctions between its members and anyone outside the group, with those outside the group typically not being of any concern, unless they can be converted?

There is a scientific explanation for religion, but there is no religious explanation for anything.

I'm not a fan of secularized religion either. Secularism is the ultimate form of secularized religion The Great Beast is its God and its priests called politicians have fragmented people into tribes called collectives. All these tribes are indoctrinated into blind belief and have adopted their own identity. They have become hostile to each other as is normal for these secular tribes as they fight for superiority

There is a scientific explanation for religion, but there is no religious explanation for anything.

What is the scientific explanation for "meaning" and what tests have been concluded to verify its hypothesis

[Science Fan]

There is no such thing as a great beast. There is such a thing as delusional beliefs. That's the real danger.

[Science Fan]

Science does not address meaning, but it has addressed the claims that religion makes regarding meaning --- it comes down to tribalism. Religion is about promoting one's tribe. That's it. Why do you think religious people give more to their fellow members than outsiders? Why do you think religious people typically mate within their own religion? That's all religion is --- a mechanism to promote tribalism.

[Nick_A]

Science does not address meaning, but it has addressed the claims that religion makes regarding meaning --- it comes down to tribalism. Religion is about promoting one's tribe. That's it. Why do you think religious people give more to their fellow members than outsiders? Why do you think religious people typically mate within their own religion? That's all religion is --- a mechanism to promote tribalism.

I know. You are preaching to the choir. This is what the religion called secularism does. It promotes tribalism it called collectives and encourages the struggle between them. Why do we have a black entertainment network. it promotes tribalism. it is the nature of the Beast.

[Nick_A]

There is no such thing as a great beast. There is such a thing as delusional beliefs. That's the real danger.

You disagree with Plato and Simone. I'll stick with them.

Weil gets the term "Great Beast" from Plato. Specifically, this passage from Book VI of his Republic (here Plato critiques those who are "wise" through their study of society):

I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...

[Lacewing]

Religion is only objectively meaningful as an expression of the Spirit but it is only through the help of the Spirit as opposed to earth spirits that animal Man can evolve into conscious Man.

Okay. I don't know what you mean by "earth spirits" -- is that a designation you use to identify anything that isn't of the caliber of "the Spirit" you're talking about? How does the Spirit you're referring to differ from the spirit/essence I've described as flowing as ONE throughout ALL ("ALL" not being limited to earth)?

Does the difference have to do with the "story" of it? Do you think a certain story determines some sort of authenticity? If so, why would spirit be limited to a story?

Also, do you seriously think that I and others here are not as conscious as you?

without an appreciation for levels of reality connecting qualities of being the idea of the conscious evolution of human being seems absurd.

The first half of this statement seems to reflect what I've been saying -- do you recognize that? -- and the second half of the statement seems reasonable to me.

Honestly, Nick... when you stop to write thoughtful posts (like this) that aren't automatically accusing and projecting... there is so much more clarity between us. Can you see it?

Without the foundation of a conscious universe this transformation of Man’s being from animal Man into conscious Man seems impossible.

And I have been saying that I have experienced broader states of awareness that are beyond earthly confines. You may use the word "conscious", while I use the word "awareness". You may think of the universe/god as "thinking and planning(?)", while I think of the universe as "being without human judgment, agenda, need... while still having awareness".

Isn't it interesting to note the intersections of our ideas... rather than you casting me into some weird cave with a beast? And isn't it understandable that when you continually accuse me of what I'm not, I'm going to tell you that you're being an idiot? I much prefer this kind of balanced and honest discussion/communication.

I understand the purpose of such imagery, but I think your use of it has been so excessive that you weren't even listening to people... many of whom ARE conscious/aware, and who recognize broader potential than the human realm. I think it would be a terrible mistake for you to continue thinking that anyone has to become aware in a certain way that makes sense to you. Surely truth and divine nature are not so limited! Do you agree?

[Dontaskme]

Does what I'm saying make sense to you? Can you hear me and see value without superimposing your particular model/language in such a way as to suffocate all else? Can't "essence" be talked about in many different languages without arguing over the language?

No, ''essence'' can't be talked about in many different languages without arguing...are you blind, take a look back at the constant arguing.

We're all superimposing our own unique brand models of what we consider to constitute the essence of reality aka truths on others..most people do this, and most people are only ever interested in winning the other person over to their side of the argument,to their view point, nearly all of us do that, including you...but not everyone does that. U.G. Krishnarmurti mentioned we play this game with each other many times in his talks.

We can only resonate with what feels true for ourselves,this is never about people, it's about peoples ideas, people are generally harmless with good intentions and caring loving natures. They want to see a better world for everyone, and have compassionate hearts for their own species.

If your ever feeling suffocated by other peoples opinions, you've always got the option to flight, not fight, if something is not resonating with you, then just walk away, it's that simple, you have nothing to lose by walking away... it's almost like you feel insecure sometimes, you feel like someone else knows more than you, or something you don't,and you feel the constant need to defend yourself... it seems you have clearly stated this many times that you too know all this stuff, and I'm saying yes you do, we know that...and just so you know, you are just as conscious and enlightened as everyone else here, you don't need to keep proving that to yourself and others . we already know you are.

.

[Dontaskme]

Further, to posit that the virgin birth is real from this inherently weak position that is simply superstitious, nothing more.

Greta, do you even know what the heck you are talking about?

Of course not, but I have much more of an idea than you do.

To imply that a birth is real - one must have first account witnessing that such an event took place, namely, their own birth.

Yes, I can see how a zygote, embryo or foetus might have a little difficulty with abstract concepts.

To imply that a death is real - one must have first account witnessing that such an event took place, namely, their own death.

This deserves a test.

I suggest that you go stand in the middle of a busy highway and test the concept of death. Since you've not experienced it, it might not happen.

Conclusion..birth and death are illusions.

You'd best let Nick know about this - I agree with you that virgin births are illusory.

No one, has ever been born or has ever died. There is only life living itself, all alone, all one without a second.

Sure. 13.8b years ago we were all some strange state of compressed plasma, probably a superfluid of sorts. Four billion years ago we were microbes. Now we are a range of critters, ranging from microbe to spacefaring hominid. Tomorrow we will probably be machines.

However, DAM, we will all snuff it and no perspective shifting will change that that as we gasp and choke on our last breath.

You really have no idea what I am talking about when I made this post have you?

You fail to see the empty principle in my post, your response is always of a conditioned reactive one ..one that has been handed down to you from those who came before you, and you have bought into that ideology hook line and sinker.

You never seem to want to look at the bigger picture do you.

No human being was ever born...life is neither alive nor dead...are you unwilling to grasp that simple realisation?

The idea that there are human beings, aka people is an illusory story told by no one. Although it does appear to be a real illusion.

Separation is the illusion...life is not an illusion, separated things is an illusion.

This is what I aka no one chooses to talk about....do you just blindly believe the information that has been imposed upon you by other people...and you cannot deny that information has come from others, because your reality was a blank slate at your imagined birth, you seem to have faith in that imagined birth ...it's just another form of faith, to believe you were born...do you hear that, you hold onto a faith in your own birth, and then deny others their faith in the God idea...that's what I am constantly pointing out in my message.

Do you honestly believe that the seed that is the human sock puppet could ever be destroyed?

There's no such thing as a virgin birth, that's what virgin birth means...it's a metaphor for life living itself, all one all alone, it's not alive or dead, these are just illusory concepts.

Stop pointing out the obvious parrot, the stuff you've read over and over that is found in any old text book, archived away in some library...and think for yourself.

.

[Dontaskme]

If religious people really believe virgins can get pregnant, then why are they spending their time promoting abstinence as a method for birth control?

Aside from your comment appearing as a funny joke, are you seriously joking?

What do you think the virgin birth actually means? lets hear your version of what is meant by the virgin birth?

And try and explain without using 'pronouns' which are just illusory conceptual fictions.

[Belinda]

Science does not address meaning, but it has addressed the claims that religion makes regarding meaning --- it comes down to tribalism. Religion is about promoting one's tribe. That's it. Why do you think religious people give more to their fellow members than outsiders? Why do you think religious people typically mate within their own religion? That's all religion is --- a mechanism to promote tribalism.

I agree; with the proviso that religion's main use is for promoting and policing the accepted moral code of the society. A society's code of values defines the society. A society's code of values manifests not only in what the people do regarding their technology i.e. the things they use but also the web of meaning that attaches to the things they use. Thus a mug of tea may be described as an infusion in boiling water of leaves from a species of camellia , and it may be more accurately described as that and also as a drink which brings people together in mutual affection or consoles the sad and lonely.

Similarly a burka may be described as a black tentlike garment which envelopes the entire body in textile cloth, or it may be described as that and also as a legitimate means to control possession of a woman which brings power to the owner. For instance an owned woman provides children of one's own blood and she provides useful work for her close male relative, so the burka's meaning is a lot more than its scientific description.

My claim about virgin birth myth is that it is potentially more than magical miracle for making a deity seem more powerful. Virgin birth can be seen to be analogous to transformation of undifferentiated being into manifest forms and values.Virgin birth is thus about the passive feminine as baseline or ground of existence. The masculine principle is the active algorithm or deity which causes existence to happen.

[Dontaskme]

You disagree with Plato and Simone. I'll stick with them.

They both understood the metaphysical nature of themselves to be the true representation of reality being a much better framework for studying ourselves and God than both religion and science because it reaches beyond the limitations of both. Einstein was able to share a better understanding about our universe by thinking outside the box of Newtonian physics, there is a philosophy that might be more appropriate at explaining ultimate reality beyond both science and religion. And perhaps this philosophy is the answer to the feud between the two. It's called metaphysics that science likes to debunk as pseudo science, quite ironic really, I mean who is it then that science believes is carrying out the investigations of the nature of reality in the first place, is that a pseudo thing as well? ..it's so funny.

All matter is virgin potential, that's what the virgin birth means. Matter is eternal. Einstein opened scientist's eyes to a much deeper understanding of our universe by teaching us that we exist in a universe of energy-matter. Through the equation E=MC2 he was able to demonstrate that matter and energy are interchangeable. They are two sides of the same coin.

Humans appear to reject one side of the coin in favour of the other, and then there are those who know to know one side is to know the other for they cannot and do not exist without each other, they are the same no thing being everything.

.

[Dontaskme]

My claim about virgin birth myth is that it is potentially more than magical miracle for making a deity seem more powerful. Virgin birth can be seen to be analogous to transformation of undifferentiated being into manifest forms and values.Virgin birth is thus about the passive feminine as baseline or ground of existence. The masculine principle is the active algorithm or deity which causes existence to happen.

The transformation of undifferentiated being into manifest forms and values is the dream of separation...the dream that I exist, the one you are clinging onto right now for dear life. The belief that you exist.

So are you agreeing here that your own existence is potentially more than magical miracle for making a deity seem more powerful? because it is you that is talking about this is it not..so where is this you coming from..and can that you be a myth according to your claim?

.