Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Question David Hume's Famous Quote

    "Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?" ~ David Hume (1711-1776)

    This Quote fascinates me, because i came to the very same conclusion when i was a bit younger, although did not phrase it so wonderfully within my mind.

    My question is this, why do Christian's belive in the virgin birth? And if these beliefs are not based upon evidence, why are Christians only susceptible to Christian stories, and not tales from other religions.

    In other words how do Christians Justify their beliefs to be true, and that of other religions false? When they could just as easily belive in another religions teachings?

    Would this not meen that religions are extremely closed minded?

    I was always taught to be open minded, but in the case of religion, i move towards the quote of "not being so open minded, as to allow your brain to fall out".

  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: David Hume's Famous Quote

    As far as I know, the virgin birth isn't even in the bible.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong (but support the correction with the appropriate passage).

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: David Hume's Famous Quote

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As far as I know, the virgin birth isn't even in the bible.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong (but support the correction with the appropriate passage).
    The two passages i believe christains use in the bible to support the virgin birth are Isaiah 7:14 and also Matthew 1:22-23.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: David Hume's Famous Quote

    Quote Originally Posted by DrewTully View Post
    In other words how do Christians Justify their beliefs to be true, and that of other religions false? When they could just as easily belive in another religions teachings?
    They can't, but evangelicals don't shut up about it. That's what makes religious exclusivity the most asinine, divisive, arrogant, and spiritually worthless theological concept ever spawned. It's asinine because it leads to precisely this problem. Exclusivists have no choice but to merely say "Even though neither of us has a shred of evidence, and your claim has just as much craziness as mine, you're wrong, and you'll burn in hell, and I'm right, and I won't stop vilifying your faith till you convert." Asserting that you and you alone hold the truth is silly and dangerous.

    It's arrogant because it involves assuming your own subjective experiences are somehow better than someone else's similarly vague, fuzzy emotional bursts. It's divisive because in families and communities where exclusivists live, they view members of other faiths as "in spiritual darkness" or some other similarly condescending condition, and seek to "save" them, showing utter disregard for any beauty in those faiths, something that the members of those other faiths protest to, thus causing needless conflict. And, it's spiritually worthless because all it builds is excessive pride in one's own faith, and hatred and ignorance of others, qualities that are detrimental to anyone, of any religious faith or lack thereof.
    Last edited by The Great Khan; April 15th, 2010 at 04:04 PM.

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    According to Christians, just south of heaven
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: David Hume's Famous Quote

    Quote Originally Posted by DrewTully View Post
    The two passages i believe christains use in the bible to support the virgin birth are Isaiah 7:14 and also Matthew 1:22-23.
    I'd just like to point out that there are only 2 accounts of the birth of Jesus in the NT. They are found in Matthew and Luke. Mark and John are silent on the birth stuff including the concept of a virgin one. Thus anything people think they know about the birth of Jesus literally comes exclusively form Matthew and Luke. The story that is told every December is nothing more than a conflation of the accounts of those two Gospels. What we end up with is details form one and details from antoher to make one nice big happy story that is really just a new mythology and nothing more. The accounts themselves are NOT harmonious. Careful examination reveals that not only are these stories NOT compatible but they are not historically plausible either.

    What makes Matthew so interesting is that all the events are done to fulfill prophesy (tie into your Isaiah 7:14). The whole point of Matthew's account is to make Jesus legit because Jesus fulfills prophecy. Luke is silent on the idea of prophecy.

    Interestingly enough though Luke and matthew agree on two main things:
    1. Mary was a virgin.
    2. Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

    What I think is fascinating is how differently Luke goes about showing how these things came to pass....which is very different than Matthew's account.

    Historically speaking there is NO account of King Herod slaughtering kids in or around Bethlehem or anyplace else. Did Matthew just make that part up to make some odd ball theological point? Hell I don't know. But historically, Matthew's account is butkis.

    the historical problems with Luke run even deeper. We have relatively good records of the reign of Caesar Augustus. There is no mention anywhere of an empire-wide census in which everyone had to register by returning to their ancestral home. The notion is utterly ridiculous. Why would Joseph return to Bethlehem because his ancestor David was born there? David lived 1,000 years before Joseph! Do you really think the Roman Empire would make such a request? If so what wold be the point?

    So why does Luke say there was a census? he wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, even though he knew he came from Nazareth. Matthew knew this too, but he got Jesus there a totally different way. In Matthew it's all about prophesy and nothing more.

    Virtually everything said in MAtthew is not found in Luke, and all the stories we find in Luke are absent in Matthew. In Matthew Joseph has dreams but not in Luke. Luke has angelic visitations to Elizabeth and Mary that are not found in Matthew. Matthew has the wise men, the slaughter of children by King Herod, the flight to Eygpt, the Holy Family by passing Judea to return to nazareth.....none of which is found in Luke. Luke has the story about the birth of John the Baptist, the census of Caesar, trip to Bethlehem, the manger and the inn, the shepherds, the circumcision, presentation at tthe Temple, a return home immediately afterward....none of which are found in Matthew.

    Christians will tell you stories of car crash witnesses and say that MAtthew focuses on one aspect while Luke focuses on another. My issue is that when you start looking at the accounts closely, there are descrepancies that are hard to deal with if not just impossible to reconcile. If Jesus is born during Herod's reign the Luke has to be wrong about it happening during the time when Quirinius is governmor of Syria. We know from tons of historical sources, including Tactus, Josephus, and several ancient inscriptions that Quirinius did not become governor until 6 CE, ten years after Herod had been dead!

    Matthew has Joseph and Mary as from Bethlehem. Luke says they are from Nazareth. Remember in Matthew the wise men are goign to the HOUSE of JEsus in Bethlehem. There is nothing about an inn or a manger in MAtthew.

    Herod slaughters children from the age of 2 down. But this child was supposed to have just been born. SO that order only makes sense if Mary and Joseph had been living there for some time. But then how can Luke be right when he says they are from Nazareth and returned there just a month after Jesus is born? But then Matthew says that the family flees to Egypt and doesn't come back till Herod dies. The cannot go back to Bethlehem because Archelaus is the ruler and so they relocate to Nazareth.

    So why all this hub bub? Two simple reasons. The writers want Jesus to be born of a virgin and be from Bethlehem....even if it isn't so. The only reason that JEsus needs to be from Bethlehem is to fulfill prophesy as Matthew points out. Every one knew that Jesus was from NAzareth so the writers had to put a lot fo stock in this Bethlehem story or Jesus would not be legit. Matthew and Luke both came to the same conclusion but went about it different ways.

    Read those bibles horizontally and all becomes revealed!

    In Heaven there is no beer. That's why we drink it here.

    Rogue Cardinal, Member of the God-Awful Atheist Syndicate


 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Larry David insults Catholics.... this time
    By Dr Gonzo in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: November 5th, 2009, 08:05 PM
  2. NTpeaceful, OT violent ?
    By RabbiDak in forum Religion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: November 21st, 2008, 11:16 PM
  3. Why I am no longer a Christian
    By Trendem in forum Religion
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2007, 03:11 PM
  4. David Blaine - sane or insane?
    By Snoop in forum Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: May 19th, 2006, 03:43 PM
  5. Star of David aka: Hexagram
    By Snoop in forum Religion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2005, 01:33 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •