Virgin Birth Myths

[Belinda]

Londoner, I am surprised at your literalist attitude. I had thought that you were aware of the power and function of myths as significant identifiers of cultures.

[Londoner]

Londoner, I am surprised at your literalist attitude. I had thought that you were aware of the power and function of myth as significant identifiers of cultures.

I do not think we should treat every pre-scientific idea of the way the world works as a 'myth'. Some of it is simply their best guess, going on what information was available at the time.

Assume you had no understanding of cells, or genes, or of processes like photosynthesis, or of life smaller than can be seen by the human eye. How would you explain how an acorn can grow into an oak tree, given that the inside of an acorn does not resemble a tree? Your explanation would not be correct, but neither would it be mythologising. It would be the best hypothesis that you could come up with, given your state of knowledge.

[Dontaskme]

Well said, Dam.

And what is even more “miraculous” about this whole situation is that it (the creation and order of the universe) is so complete and so remarkably well done that it deceives some of the most intelligent humans on earth into thinking that its workings and design are a product of serendipitous processes...

...which brings us back to that “somnambulism” issue that I brought up with Belinda.
_______

Yup, it's like...There is no such thing as an accident. An accident is when a conscious body mind mechanism says that should not have happened....but being that life cannot work in reverse...nothing / aka anything that happens cannot be an accident.

Intention is the rider of the will...which is free in every instant.

[Belinda]

Londoner, I am surprised at your literalist attitude. I had thought that you were aware of the power and function of myth as significant identifiers of cultures.

I do not think we should treat every pre-scientific idea of the way the world works as a 'myth'. Some of it is simply their best guess, going on what information was available at the time.

Assume you had no understanding of cells, or genes, or of processes like photosynthesis, or of life smaller than can be seen by the human eye. How would you explain how an acorn can grow into an oak tree, given that the inside of an acorn does not resemble a tree? Your explanation would not be correct, but neither would it be mythologising. It would be the best hypothesis that you could come up with, given your state of knowledge.

I completely agree. Virgin birth stories were at one time more 'scientifically' based than they are now that we understand biology. However the other, sociological, fact remains that virgin birth narratives besides being based upon literal understanding were themes of stories that aided understanding of values and existential puzzles such as 'How is it that existence is possible?' I guess that the winners in this case the males told stories about how a male force e.g. God, or Zeus, had acted upon the less active and quiescent female force.

Zeus's wife, Hera, has a more ancient ancestry than Zeus as she represented the old female power dating from times when it was more important for the tribe to produce young than to own stuff.

[seeds]

Again, Nick, you made the claim that no one here is able to provide even an “intellectual” explanation for the process beginning with the immaculate conception and concluding with the virgin birth.

I therefore provided you with a perfectly reasonable intellectual explanation (from a philosophical perspective) and you simply didn’t accept it due to your own biased take on reality.

So what is the purpose of our universe and the purpose of humanity within it?

Come on now Nick, if you had paid the slightest bit of attention to what I have written in our previous discussions, then you would know my speculative answer to that question:

The purpose of the universe is that it represents the physiological (nuts and bolts) means through-which each unique human mind and soul (each a “familial” replication of God’s mind and soul) is awakened into existence.

In other words, even God requires a logical “process” to facilitate the conception of her offspring from the living fabric of her own personal body and being...

...(as opposed to simply “willing our souls into existence” via some omnipotent utterance).

And this is where that old Hermetic axiom – “as above, so below” - truly comes into play, wherein the processes implicit in what we call “nature” here on earth also apply to the highest and most transcendent levels of life and reality.

Keep in mind the implications of the quote that you yourself often use:

...Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God.

And although he may have had something a little less radical in mind than what I am proposing, the point is that “like beings” beget “like beings,” which is precisely what I am suggesting about God and us.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

As Arising_uk has already requested of you, what exactly is the “already existing” understanding of God that doesn’t insult science?

Please layout the details of this “understanding” in a way that doesn’t come across as some vague and highly questionable personal theory.

I have already tried to do it on several threads including the Einstein and Panentheism threads. It bombed.

It bombed, not only because it was filled with allusions to some hazy and nondescript purpose for the universe that you failed to present in a logical and visualizable manner,...

...but also because it implied that all humans (aside from an extremely select few who reach some kind of “cosmic man” status) are destined for eternal oblivion.

In other words, Nick, it bombed not only because of its nihilistic implications and lack of clarity, but also because its extreme “elitism” makes it utterly devoid of universal appeal.

However, if you would like another (more clarifying) shot at describing how your understanding of God isn’t going to insult science, then let’s hear it.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

...I gave you a non-secular (i.e., a theistically based) scientific explanation.

The problem is that human science simply doesn’t accept the possibility of divine agency.

Tell that to Spinoza. Is he offering a contradiction?

“... Love towards a thing eternal and infinite feeds the mind wholly with joy, and is itself unmingled with any sadness, wherefore it is greatly to be desired and sought for with all our strength.” - Spinoza (TEI)

“The highest activity a human being can attain is learning for understanding, because to understand is to be free.”
― Baruch Spinoza

“I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of the peace.”
― Baruch Spinoza

Although I have a high level of admiration for Spinoza and his concept of “oneness,” I nevertheless feel that the quotes you provided above are such brazen non sequiturs with respect to what we were discussing that I am not sure how to respond.

I want someone else to disturb the peace with the virgin birth question by proposing a reasonable explanation. I will support them but since I’m alone with these ideas, why fight city hall?

I am having a difficult time understanding why you seem so personally concerned about “virgin births”?

I mean, the idea of a virgin birth is such a minor little tree in the vast forest of metaphysical issues that it barely warrants more than a curious glance.

And finally, I suggest that the ultimate take-away from this discussion is that it simply doesn’t matter (in the case of Christianity, for example) whether a virgin birth actually occurred or not, because either way it became a successfully integrated aspect of a thoroughly successful religion...

...(a religion of which I have often portrayed as simply being one of the many “pacifying teats” for us worldlings to suckle on until we are each “delivered” into the light and truth of our ultimate form and destiny after crossing the threshold of death).
_______

[Nick_A]

Seeds

I am having a difficult time understanding why you seem so personally concerned about “virgin births”?

I mean, the idea of a virgin birth is such a minor little tree in the vast forest of metaphysical issues that it barely warrants more than a curious glance.

If you are open to contemplating the virgin birth and the resurrection as a completed cycle, then you will understand Christianity and what separates it from modern Christendom.

1 Corinthians 15:

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Once a person becomes open to the conscious descent from above into human form and the fallen human condition and the return to the above via the Resurrection, then Christianity and the importance of the virgin birth will become clear

[Belinda]

Nick, Spinoza's way to his truth was by way of reason not mysticism.

As Seeds said, you have taken Spinoza's lovely sayings out of their context. The context of Spinoza's saying is reason. Reason is how Spinoza arrived at his conclusions.

[Belinda]

Nick wrote :

If you are open to contemplating the virgin birth and the resurrection as a completed cycle, then you will understand Christianity and what separates it from modern Christendom.

True, the complete Christian Trinitarian myth is such that the Virgin Birth connects with the next component which is Incarnation of the Deity.

However Trinitarian Christianity may be understood allegorically, which as a confirmed naive literalist Nick seems unable to do .

[Nick_A]

Nick wrote :

If you are open to contemplating the virgin birth and the resurrection as a completed cycle, then you will understand Christianity and what separates it from modern Christendom.

True, the complete Christian Trinitarian myth is such that the Virgin Birth connects with the next component which is Incarnation of the Deity.

However Trinitarian Christianity may be understood allegorically, which as a confirmed naive literalist Nick seems unable to do .

Yes, it is our easy to corrupt eternal truths and values into all sorts of opinions and justify it by claiming allegories.

Spinoza wrote:

“... Love towards a thing eternal and infinite feeds the mind wholly with joy, and is itself unmingled with any sadness, wherefore it is greatly to be desired and sought for with all our strength.” - Spinoza (TEI)

What is this eternal thing he refers to and what is this quality of love which feeds the mind with joy? Is this analysis?

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

Spinoza wrote:
“... Love towards a thing eternal and infinite feeds the mind wholly with joy, and is itself unmingled with any sadness, wherefore it is greatly to be desired and sought for with all our strength.” - Spinoza (TEI)
What is this eternal thing he refers to and what is this quality of love which feeds the mind with joy? Is this analysis?

God or Nature (Deus sive Natura). According to Spinoza love towards infinite and eternal nature (Deus sive Natura) is pure joy because it is based upon reason and therefore one cannot be deceived about it.

[Nick_A]

Nick wrote:

Spinoza wrote:
“... Love towards a thing eternal and infinite feeds the mind wholly with joy, and is itself unmingled with any sadness, wherefore it is greatly to be desired and sought for with all our strength.” - Spinoza (TEI)
What is this eternal thing he refers to and what is this quality of love which feeds the mind with joy? Is this analysis?

God or Nature (Deus sive Natura). According to Spinoza love towards infinite and eternal nature (Deus sive Natura) is pure joy because it is based upon reason and therefore one cannot be deceived about it.

What is nature? Are you referring to life on earth and the earth as a living being or the Gaia hypothesis? If you are it cannot be eternal. An asteroid could come along and destroy nature. Have you ever thought about the quality of love Spinoza is referring to and how one gives it?

You are not a chess player so do not appreciate that we are always being deceived by reason. That is how Caissa, the goddess of chess keeps the player in her power. She enables us to experience both the power and the futility of our reasom. She does this with an innocent face. In short, Caissa is a very attractive ball buster and could be damaging to the ego celebrating its ability to reason.

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

What is nature? Are you referring to life on earth and the earth as a living being or the Gaia hypothesis? I

Nature is that substance which includes all that causally connects so that it forms one whole. This substance, nature, includes us.
Life on Earth is not the whole of nature which also includes the universe, and other universes if there be such. Nature includes the stars in the sky and the deepest oceans as well as the water that lies in puddles on the road after rain and runs through sewerage water carriage systems. Nature is also the works of mankind. Nature is also the thoughts, feelings, and minds of men.There is nothing that is not nature.

[Nick_A]

Nick wrote:

What is nature? Are you referring to life on earth and the earth as a living being or the Gaia hypothesis? I

Nature is that substance which includes all that causally connects so that it forms one whole. This substance, nature, includes us.
Life on Earth is not the whole of nature which also includes the universe, and other universes if there be such. Nature includes the stars in the sky and the deepest oceans as well as the water that lies in puddles on the road after rain and runs through sewerage water carriage systems. Nature is also the works of mankind. Nature is also the thoughts, feelings, and minds of men.There is nothing that is not nature.

Yes, but is nature eternal? Spinoza wrote of giving love to that which is eternal. What does eternity mean to you? Are the beautiful reactions to universal laws really eternal or does eternal refer to the ineffable quality of consciousness that creates universal laws?