₦airaland Forum

It is a false argument to pretend that the question is whether 'alma' means 'young woman'. Of course in very literal terms it means young woman; even before the debate kicked off, I gave this in post no 67 on page 3 http://www.secondexodus.com/html/jewishcatholicdialogue/virginbirth.htm

When you visit the link you see this:

The Scripture says, Is 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Before Christian theologians who came centuries later translated alma as virgin, the Septuagint, the rabbis’ own translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, two centuries before Jesus’ arrival on earth, translated Is 7:14 alma into Greek as parthenos, virgin. Why would the rabbis have done that?

The Hebrew word alma, from the root alm, does indeed mean a young woman. During the Old Testament days it meant a very young woman, often too young to bear children. An alma would not likely have been of sexual interest to an elem, a boy at that age, and so was always regarded as a virgin. The same root alm also gives us the Hebrew word alum, hidden, secret, unknown. Moreover, the Torah required that a young woman of marriageable age be a virgin. Deut 22:20 “But if … the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then … the men of her city shall stone her to death.” An alma was apt to be a virgin at the time of her marriage!

So, yes alma means young woman literally but the norm was that the alma was a virgin. Apart from that, some specific contexts confirm even when 'alma' (young woman) is used that the young woman being spoken of is a virgin. This was nuclearboy's point and this much is evident from his post no 70 that 'alma' was used in situations that could only refer to virgins.

The key issue is whether alma as used in Isaiah 7:14 was intended to mean a virgin. Even the context of the verse shows that the 'alma' referred to was to be a virgin otherwise what was the 'sign' and what was to be miraculous about it to be a sign? Even ancient Jewish documents which predate Christianity agree on this point as with the Aramaic Tanakh that I referred to. As I have said before also, the Septuagint which also well predates Christianity translates 'alma' into a word that certainly means virgin i.e. 'parthenos'. Despite attempts by some to disparage both, serious scholars agree that neither of this was a case of Christians 'fixing' things ---- considering they both predate Christianity; rather both were the renderings that the compilers of both documents believed to be accurate in respect of the prophecy of the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14.

Now the claim is made that the Hebrew word for 'virgin' is 'Bethulah'. That may be true but this is where the importance of context comes in because even 'Bethulah' is used in the Bible to refer to women who are not virgins. Similarly the Greek word for virgin, 'parthenos', is used to refer to women who are not virgins.  

Also we raised the point about Mary asking 'how can I get pregnant when I am a virgin'?

So that 'alma' means young woman is not questioned; even some Christian English language Bible versions use the rendering 'young woman' such as RSV etc as in the quote above from the article I referred to. The point then is, that it means young woman is a wholly insufficient argument to hold that it does not also mean 'virgin' or cannot refer to 'virgin'.

Let us take these words: 'young woman', 'maid', 'maiden', 'girl', 'young girl': which one of those means that the entity is not a virgin?

Let us also consider the Yoruba word 'wundia' ---- does that mean the person is not a virgin?

I also asked before elsewhere: which single word means 'virgin' in
(a) Yoruba
(b) Igbo
(c) Hausa?

Ah by the way on Proverbs 30:20, as I explained before, even if we say it is a continuation of verse 19 what is being compared is not an 'alma' (young woman) and 'an adulterous woman'. Rather, what is being compared are "the ways" of X or of Y or of Z.

One of the important things in an aspiration to be 'intellectual' is objectivity and an honest appraisal of the facts; I think this should be brought into bear in an assessment of the concerned verses and, in particular, in the assessment of Isaiah 7:14 which is the critical passage and not this Proverbs digression.

The piece in the following link is relatively long but he who perseveres with it to the end will learn a useful thing or two. Also, compare the level of scholarship with the risible nonsense from the Rabbi.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FR92203.TXT



Addendum: A somewhat easier read but still pretty decent too http://www.truthnet.org/TheMessiah/7_Messiah_Objections_Isaiah/

Look, only a person with an agenda like the Rabbi can make that kind of interpretation. In addition to InesQor's two posts, even if you were to link the two sections the words "adulterous woman" do not qualify or refer to "young woman" specifically but refer to and qualify the way of something i.e. an activity. This thing is really simple and only people with an agenda do this kind of thing.

One of the world's all time leading authorities on these Semitic languages, himself a Jew and not a particular friend of Christianity, agrees that the rendering in Isaiah 7:14 as 'virgin' is correct.

The Peshitta Aramaic (Aramaic Tanakh), a Jewish document which even predates translated independently of and from documents predating the Septuagint renders alma as "B'tulta" (see similarity to Bethulah?) i.e. as virgin. See here http://www.peshitta.org/

The Septuagint also a Jewish document which predates Christianity translates it as virgin.

And all that is before we consider the evidence for Mary's virginity elsewhere ---- including her own very words as to her virginity i.e. to effect of "How can I get pregnant when I am still a virgin"?


Edited corrected dating info and added further info on Septuagint.

@Pasiiitor Joagbaje

Why do you contradict yourself so much (and thereby open yourself to the charge of lying)?

In response to this statement

Don't listen to other people's messages". ". "Don't touch non-CE books"
All kinds of such-and-such brainwashing.

you replied today

Joagbaje:
I challenge you to produce evidence of such teaching. I'm hearing it for the first time.

Whereas, not too long ago when the very same accusation was made against Chri[b]S[/b] Embassy you defended it by saying essentially that you people did not want to be contaminated. See the exchange below:

martinosi:
If you are a member of Christ Embassy and
the only thing you know about the Bible is
Pastor Chris Teaching you have issues.

Their is an issue with Christ Embassy
that they only have Pastor Chris Books
in their Bookstore and no other Ministry . . .

To which you replied

Joagbaje:
@Martinosi

If you have brought people in sound teachings, to know who they are in Christ and understanding their authority against the devil , will you allow a book that will teach them that sickness in the willl of God to keep us humble. Different ministers functions at different levels of understanding of truth. Some ministers are still feeding on milk like Peter and james, While some are cracking bones like Paul. Every man should face his congregation. . . ,

O ga, jare!

Someone who takes an intellectual approach would reasonably be expected to make honest acknowledgments on patently obvious points including among several others (a) whether Christianity teaches against use of conventional medicine, (b) whether Christianity supports slave trade etc etc etc

thehomer:
You're yet to demonstrate this. Ok here's a direct question. What does the passage on the mustard seed teach? I'm not asking for what it does not teach.

Nope, I am not answering your "direct question". This started with your example of 'praying for a diabetic child' to which I replied that Christianity does not teach that people should not use conventional medicine. You don't believe my response --- that is fine by me. That is all on the point as far as I'm concerned. I do not intend to say anything further on this issue. I am tired of going round in circles.

Again I'm not asking about what method presents the best knowledge but what facts led you to your conclusion.

Circuitous. I have nothing more to say beyond all I've already said.

You don't know whether or not I'll be satisfied with them besides, my satisfaction is irrelevant to the requirement here. The thing is if you wish to claim some form of intellectualism, you would need to show how you arrived at your conclusions.

Again, circuitous. If you don't accept the extant Christian workings, that is fine. I do not intend to give my personal workings. I have nothing more to say on this issue beyond all I've already said.

Again this is besides the point. The fact is that the people who propounded the theories present their treatises for criticism if they wished to be considered as some sort of intellectuals.

Christian philosophy and theology is also out there. You don't have to accept it --- that you don't accept it does not make it anti-intellectual. Once again, this is circuitous and I have nothing more to say on the point.

Is it? Does this imply that it is beyond reason?

Again, circuitous; question already answered now presented in a slightly different form. I have nothing more to say beyond all I've said.

You have? I must have missed it. Could you please place a link to this post of yours?

Indeed I have. I have just read it again to double-check and it is on this very thread. 'Seek and you shall find'.

It seems you would like to send me on a wild goose chase rather than defend your position. I think it would be better if you presented passages where he said something like "these punishments are no longer needed or valid.

Again, circuitous. I have nothing more to say beyond all I've already said.

I never said anything about bestiality. Besides, it's not my belief it's right there in the Bible about the ways slaves should be treated by their masters. Or, can you present passages condemning slave owners?

Again, circuitous. I said before that if you believe that Christianity supports slave trade, that is fine by me. I have nothing more to say beyond that.

Of course the God arrived at matters. Would you like to find out in the end that you've been wasting resources worshiping the wrong God?
For the theory to be considered as such, it needs to be fully presented, criticized and at the end, still be valid.

Don't worry about me wasting resources, I'm doing quite fine. Christian philosophy, theology and theories are out there. Like with other philosophical theories, you can choose to accept or reject them.

vescucci:
I have a few words but I'll restrain myself cuz I don't wanna 'dribble backwards'. Sometimes it's really too much to ask for people to argue like adults. I love the perpetual hard on analogy Nuke gave. Hi, InesQor! You're like fire extinguisher up here. Frankly I think it's pointless to continue on this thread. All I have to say is anti-intellectual is not necessarily a bad thing when intellectualism cannot fathom a thing. It's like taking the wrong tool  to something. Finito. Spirituality cannot be approached with pure intellect

Actually, I'd like to take up this post further, particularly the two bits that I've highlighted.

On "anti-intellectualism" generally: it should be realised that there are two sides to this in relation to Christianity. The one side is the "dumb"/"daft" view of Christianity i.e. the charge that it is not intellectual and/or that it cannot be sustained intellectually. I hope the exchanges so far will make people rethink that.

The second side is that Christianity looks down on "intellectualism". Well, non-acceptance of a particular scientific or intellectual position is not necessarily anti-intellectual. Better yet, acceptance of a particular scientific/intellectual position as (probably) correct in its own right but inapplicable in a specific instance (e.g. the virgin birth) based on what we have good reason to believe as of faith is not anti-intellectual.

This last is what I was conveying in my opening post and this is one of the reasons Christianity is called "anti-intellectual" in the 'looking down' sense. It is also in part why someone like Tertullian (himself a great scholar and intellectual) is sometimes referred to as "anti-intellectual" --- a charge that has been refuted in the literature. Incidentally, Tertullian seems to be a particular victim of misattribution/mistreatment as with the "Credo Quia Absurdum" quote -- see here for starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum.


On the bit in green, Christians are taken to task for placing limits on "intellectual" or "worldly" wisdom in matters of doctrine --- as though the "intellectual" or "worldly" wisdom has all the answers. Here is an interesting quote from the Bible from Colossians 2:

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

thehomer:
I ask for your take on the issue, you avoid giving it.

I have given you my take, only you do not want to take it. Do you now accept that Christianity does not teach people not to use conventional medicine? In your answer to that lies my take.

I already asked you why it should be beyond science when it's a physical act, you avoid presenting your reasons other than simply claiming that you arrived at it by reasoning.

As I said earlier, this is getting circuitous now: you think science is all, I do not think science is all.

Just your workings. I don't think it would be fair ask you to speak for all Christians.

Nah, go with the extant workings of the entire faith first; if you are not satisfied with that, you won't be satisfied with my workings! (Aren't we getting circuitous again?)

I may reject personal experience but how can I reject sound reason? Sure if it could be evaluated scientifically, things would be so much easier. But, if you want to go some other route, you would still need to add some points such as logic and some basic truths.

Which philosophical theories do you accept and which do you reject? Does the fact that you reject a particular philosophical theory make the theory "anti-intellectual"?

Also, what you know by personal experience does not quite meet the requirements of being intellectual in as we're using the word because we know that our perceptions can be altered.

And that is why I say that personal experience (of God) is beyond purely "intellectual".

Apology accepted.

What aspects do wish to apply reason to? Is it the faith requirement which by its very nature requires a short circuiting of reason?

You are wrong that faith necessarily short-circuits reason. I have already explained on this thread how even faith can be based on either material or non-material evidence. If that is not "reason" for you, then fine.

He did not criticize or change the law he simply stopped the would be executors of the law. The law still stood.

I would suggest you read the Bible again; again, I suggest his "you have heard x but i tell you" statements, also his various challenges of Pharisees etc and synthesise everything. If after that you still believe that Christianity advocates those punishments you refer to - then that is fine.

For one thing, slave owners were not criticized but were even given terrible advice on how to treat their slaves. Plus, encouraged the slaves to be subservient.

If you believe that with what is known of its doctrine and history (including its role in the abolition of slave trade) that Christianity supports the slave trade, along with apartheid and bestiality, then that is fine.

Well since you wish to use the label, you have to take it with its baggage. Your comparison with philosophy is interesting. Philosophy uses reasoning and logic with very little recourse to faith.

And Christianity uses reasoning and logic with the value added of experience and faith.

But you've not done that.
Which God do those philosophical theories refer to? I doubt that it's to the same one you're referring to.
The God experience had by other religious groups and demonstrated in labs are they all the same? Why should your personal experience be taken by others as the best explanation?

Does it matter which God philosophy arrives at? The point is that there are such philosophical theories: the question is are such theories "intellectual" or not?

vescucci:
I have a few words but I'll restrain myself cuz I don't wanna 'dribble backwards'. Sometimes it's really too much to ask for people to argue like adults. I love the perpetual hard on analogy Nuke gave. Hi, InesQor! You're like fire extinguisher up here. Frankly I think it's pointless to continue on this thread. All I have to say is anti-intellectual is not necessarily a bad thing when intellectualism cannot fathom a thing. It's like taking the wrong tool  to something. Finito. Spirituality cannot be approached with pure intellect

Somehow I missed this yesterday! Let me too for once use the expression Gbam.

Spirituality is to be approached with both intellectual and spiritual faculties! The trouble is some "intellectuals" not only deny a spiritual faculty but also see belief in a spiritual faculty to be "anti-intellectual". I call that small-mindedness, I'm afraid.

thehomer:
It might look that way to you but you need to realize that you chose the field to which you wished to apply some for of intellectualism. This is also why I ask questions to find out where you stand on some issues.

If you don't see what you are doing as a critique of Christianity, no problem; not such a big issue to sweat.

Threatening someone with punishment is not appealing to their intellect it is appealing to their emotions.

I have explained this point a couple of times now; it is fine if you disagree that (a) appeal to intellect can go together with promise/threat or (b) that that is what the concerned passage does.

Then can you explain your understanding of the passage since I've presented mine. It also seems curious to me that if one has such a large faith (say the size of a mustard seed), why would they decide to rely on conventional medicine?

If you are satisfied with your own explanation that is fine; I will not go beyond saying that the passage does not teach that a Christian should not take conventional medicine.

What does it depend on? And how does this dependence demonstrate intellectualism?

I have said before you think science is all, I do not think science is all; you think the virgin birth is acceptable only if it conforms to science (especially as you currently know it), I do not think so; I believe there are other bases for reaching an intellectual acceptance of the virgin birth including reasoning combined with personal experience of God. You may not be satisfied by it ---- but your dissatisfaction does not make such acceptance non-intellectual.

But, if you wish to label whatever you've done as some form of intellectualism, you need to show your workings.

My individual workings or the workings of the Christian faith? The genuine workings of the Christian faith are very much extant, just like the workings of philosophy, but I guess you reject them --- or you have not studied them adequately. If you reject the genuine workings of the entire faith, why would you accept my personal workings; why would I even want to give them?

Such as?

Firstly, note what I said not what I didn't say: I said we (i.e. Christians) accept the virgin birth --- based on what we (i.e. Christians) know. Very well then, my answer is very similar to the last above; I will give examples but you will not accept them; then, you will say your non-acceptance invalidates them --- how is that for logic. Let me give you just one example: we know of the power and might of God.

Now here is where it gets interesting - your next move: first, you don't accept the power and might of God but more crucially you will ask me how I/we know of the power and might of God, not so? And you would want that based on science --- you will not accept reason and personal experience, no? But I repeat that even that which we know by reason and personal experience is intellectual --- whether it is acceptable to you or not.

If my presumption of your next move on this point is wrong, I apologise in advance ---- but I am beginning to tire of circuitous debate.

Of course reasoning is valid. But, if you wish to label what you're doing as some form of intellectualism, you would need to avoid the pitfalls that have already been previously identified.

If reasoning is valid i.e. an intellectual exercise --- then is it not "intellectual" to accept Christianity in part based on reasoning?

But he also said he did not come to abolish the previous laws so those laws were still in effect.

Read e.g. the account of the woman caught in adultery.

Ok. Is there a reason why you do not seek a theocracy?

I have reasoned and learned from Scripture that it is not necessary.

How do you differentiate? Again you need to show how you arrived at this conclusion. How can a non-Christian or even a Christian of a different sect decide which is the true form of Christianity?

You need proof that Christianity does not support apartheid, slavery or bestiality? OK: try reading the Bible and let me know if you have a different conclusion on the issue.

Don't get me wrong I've not said or implied that you're not an intellectual. It's simply that when it comes to your religious belief, you may wish to skip such a label when describing it.

Thanks for your advice, I do not so wish. As I have said before, if one can accept philosophy as an intellectual discipline and various philosophical theories/positions as intellectual exercises, it is then at the least a surprise that one would deny Christianity a similar status. One may disagree with it --- no question about that but that is not the same thing as denying the same status as other disciplines of similar propositional status.

But they alone do not merit the use of the term "intellectual". You could have simply left it as your "religious faith" rather than trying to add the word "intellectual", which already has some meanings ascribed to it, to your reasons for believing what you believe.

Nah, we will have to agree to disagree. The use of reasoning in arriving at the conclusion of belief in God is an intellectual exercise. I keep making comparisons to philosophy ---- I wonder if you will say that the philosophical theories that end in a conclusion of the existence of God are not "intellectual"? Added to the pure reasoning element in the acceptance of Christianity is the experience of God --- which underpins belief even in what one does not understand or cannot explain ---- that is supra-intellectual. It is not baseless, it is not unreasoned; rather it is value-added to the "purely" intellectual.

^^^ Hmmm, you have spoken well and I will make the same plea to toba too.

However forgiving does not necessarily mean agreeing to get into any discussion in future.

Deep Sight:
@ Nuke -

Recall we had once extensively discussed the word 'alma' - which is translated "virgin" - but in reality simply means "young woman."

Does that affect your view of the concept of the virgin birth?

Actually, I was going to ignore this but for the records here is a post I made not too long ago when a Moslem poster tried the same trick in debate with another poster.

@ italo

Don't let him mislead you; it is more complicated than that and even 'alma' does/can mean virgin. Do some more study on the subject. An example: the Septuagint which was compiled way way before the Christian era translates it to a Greek word that is widely reckoned to mean virgin ---- even though some will argue that even that word can be used e.g. to mean maiden.

EDITED I have found a link with a useful simplified discussion (though the discussion can be 'heavier or more 'scholarly')

http://www.secondexodus.com/html/jewishcatholicdialogue/virginbirth.htm

From here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-445327.192.html#msg6529296

thehomer:
I'm not interested in critiquing Christianity but simply pointing out your inconsistencies if you wish to subject your particular views of it to some sort of intellectualism.

Well, it seems to me you are indeed making a critique of Christianity and I believe that it is fair to say that the modus operandi is as I mentioned.

Did you not read the following verses about God describing himself and the threats that may follow if they rebel?

1. Most of the entire chapter is about promises and rewards; a very small part of it is about threats.
2. As I said before, appeal to the intellect and a threat of punishment (and even a promise of reward) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Example: father says to seven year old son, do not play with the iron; it is dangerous, it can injure you; plus, if you do it I will smack you and if you don't do it I will give you chocolates.

I already presented the example of the faith of the mustard seed or is that not in your Bible? Though I understand that some choose to ignore such statements.

As I keep saying, the point at issue is whether Christianity teaches that a person should not take conventional medicine; it does not thus you need to reappraise your understanding of the 'mustard seed' passage.

Why do you claim it is outside of science considering the other possibilities that we know of?

It is outside of science because it does not account to science for its truth, reliability or believability.

It is not the job of scientists to try to justify all claims that may be present in old texts. If you believe so strongly that your hypothesis is correct, then you should put in the required work if you want others to accept it as correct.

Then let scientists continue with their own jobs/tasks. I have put in enough work to satisfy me and I do not ask you or any scientist to accept what I believe. I am very happy for you to doubt it.

You're making another mistake here. What they say is that it is possible that there could be extraterrestrial organisms out there. This conclusion is arrived at based on the fact that we know that there are organisms on one planet, and that there are billions of galaxies out there.
But they do not go about living their lives as though they may just run into one of them tomorrow.

So, based on various things that we do know, we accept the virgin birth.

How have I implied this? Using circular arguments to demonstrate your point is simply an anti-intellectual method of proceeding.

Again, using circular arguments is anti-intellectual.

My point is that reasoning is a valid intellectual exercise in its own right and it is one of the things that inform my acceptance of Christianity.

I'm simply wondering what your views are. Since it seems that after reading the Bible, my understanding is different from yours. So I simply want to find out your understanding.

This was about the punishments in the Bible (presumably the Old Testament); as I said before, if you have a proper understanding of Christianity and Christian doctrine, the question will not arise. Read for example what Christ said about a lot of these things 'you have heard x but I tell you. . .'

I know Christians have opinions so I'm asking for your opinion.

Christians, like others, are entitled to have political opinions. Sorry, if I do not proffer my opinion here beyond saying I do not seek a theocracy.

It would not be a straw-man because we have seen such requests made using passages from the Bible. Unless you wish to label such Christians as caricatures".

I do not think it can be reasonably denied that there are misrepresentations and caricatures of Christianity. The fact, for example, that some fools seek to use Christianity to justify apartheid, slavery or bestiality etc does not mean that Christianity or true Christian doctrine supports any of these things.

Again it's not what I want but what comes with the use of such a label.

Again, it does not matter much to me whether people consider me an "intellectual"; I know what I know; I realise how much I do not know and indeed I am humbled by how much I do not know. Paradoxically, this even encourages my Christian faith.

I wonder how it is that you know your faith is intellectual while it seems to demonstrate the very opposite.

My faith is supported by both reason and a personal experience of God; both of these are sufficiently "intellectual" in my view.

nuclearboy:
I wonder how I could ever have thought you were worth the effort.

I have always felt Deep Sight is not worth the effort. His pretensions to being an "intellectual" can be very easily deconstructed by any informed person who has the time, inclination and interest.

Deep Sight:
. . .

You say I cannot take insult: but believe me the lack of a thick skin is not my problem in the least: I simply have no taste for it - and I believe that it belittles the  person offering it. Now this is to be distinguished from stating your views strongly.

This is sheer nonsense and an untruth to boot. Read this thread (which I have given before and there are others) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-454157.0.html
and count how many of your posts were gratuitous insults. If after that you still say throwing insults belittles the person offering it, then your own words contradict you. If after reading it you still say you do not throw insults then your own words will show you not merely to be a dissembler but in fact a liar.

@ all

The thread had been proceeding with reasonable (granted not absolute) politeness before Deep Sight showed up . . . says something, doesn't it?

thehomer:
They are in this case since it is "obey my commands or I will punish you".

For a start you are misrepresenting the passage and I'm afraid this is a very poor modus operandi which, sadly, is evident throughout your critique of Christianity. OK let me indulge with what you asked on this point in the first place i.e. what does the rest of the verse actually say?

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Do you see how the verse itself readily gives the lie to your interpretation? And the rest of the chapter is in the same tenor - which is why I asked you to read the chapter!

The activities of the Christian lobby stem from similar reasoning as Christians display but since you wish to keep that aside, that's fine.

Glad not to have to spend any further time on this digression!

And you bring up another question with such a statement. Who then is practicing the real form of Christianity? Is it the person with the mustard seed type of faith that can move mountains or the one with selective faith?

The issue here is whether the Christian faith teaches that people should not use conventional medicine. That is the issue. Now, don't take my word for an answer on the issue ---- go and study the Bible on the point and reach your own conclusion on what the Bible teaches on the point.

I'm not asking for a classification of the fallacy but I'm wondering how it is fallacious to request for a mechanism by which your claimed virgin birth may occur.

Because you are trying to take back into science something which I claim to be outside science, simples. You think science is all, I do not think science is all.

But it is a challenge. You are claiming that female humans have given birth to male offspring without fertilization from a man. Attempting to put such a clearly physical occurrence beyond the realm of science is not a solution to the problem.

Nah, I claim that I believe that one woman (Mary) gave birth to one offspring (Jesus) without fertilization. Yes, it is a physical occurrence from a scientific point of view and I leave it to science to keep working on how it could have happened; maybe in a thousand years' time they will come up with a plausible theory; in the meantime, I believe it anyway.

Funny some scientists can assume the truth of something when it suits them even though they have no proof yet; many will tell you there must be aliens out there ---- they will still claim that to be an intellectual proposition. But how is such a proposition different from faith based on reason?

I don't find it provocative I'm simply pointing out that by making such a statement with such a poor backup, you are simply demonstrating the anti-intellectualism that you're trying to avoid.

So reasoning is now not "intellectual"? Only science is "intellectual"? Tell that to Plato, Socrates, Kant etc.

You're getting things mixed up. I'm not forcing anyone to choose. I'm simply pointing out that, if you wish to present your views as not being anti-intellectual, then you have to first have to understand what being an intellectual is about.

Again, if intelligent reasoning is not "intellectual" for you, good luck!

Is it? Can you be considered a good Christian if you do not carry out or support the punishments for crimes listed in it?

I find this unfortunate. Again, it demonstrates what I have been talking about ----- you need to go and read and understand the Bible first! That way, you really would not ask this type of question!

Here I'm asking for your opinion on what would be the best way to run the government not what to do with the current system so the rendering reference is not relevant.

Christians can legitimately express a view on how to run the government: we can say we prefer a democracy; we can say we do not want corruption; we can say we want the rule of law etc etc etc In fact, a lot of these fundamental principles were introduced by Christians and informed by Christianity. However, Christians are not advocating a theocracy! To suggest otherwise would be another caricature/straw man!

You see you're still claiming the label "intellectual" for your faith. If you actually wish to be considered intellectual, you need to realize that while personal experience is important, it is not as important as the proper use of logic, critical inquiry and similar processes.

It should rank highly if you wish to be considered intellectual.

I don't think I care to be considered an "intellectual" in the way that you want. However, I do know that my faith is indeed intellectual. I also know that Christianity is intellectual and even beyond that; it is supra-intellectual.

nuclearboy:
"Truth" is that there are 2 sides to this divide.

One side [AA] says here is why, when, what.

The other [ZZ] says NO, it cannot be, BASED on what we can observe, study, see

Then [AA] says - "look, this is easy. One thousand years ago, you guys couldn't see Parthenogenesis and thus said it was impossible. And you expected ALL to believe. That position is TODAY false. Today you say this issue is impossible. How do you know that it will not be resolved into your understanding in another 1000 years"

But [ZZ] insists - "We are right because we don't see it"

[AA] - "no wahala. You truly haven't seen it. YET!"

Truth then for me is that, your position is not planted on solid ground. It shifts based on "advancements", which are in turn based on "findings", which are in turn, based on time! Christians cannot shift goalposts and thus, you appear informed because of "doubt" rather than knowledge.

This is very good.

thehomer:
I think it's about one person giving commands and instructions to be obeyed by another.

1. Please read the whole chapter again and particularly verses 1-17 and you will see a constant appeal to the thinking faculty , to the intellect.

2. In any event, the giving of commands/instructions and reasoning together are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Are you about to claim that the Christian lobby does not try to influence public policy?

I'm sorry this is now off-point. If you have issues with the Christian lobby, please take it up with them.

Please explain why you think it's a straw man. I already mentioned how some may simply choose not to critically review their previously held religious beliefs.

It is a straw man because the Christian faith does not teach that a person should not take conventional medicine --- hence my reference to Christian doctors. This is such an obvious matter that I actually resent having to answer this point in the first place.

What sort of fallacy is it?

I repeat that it is a fallacy to assume that Christianity must conform with science. Now, no matter the "classification" which one gives the fallacy, the critical matter is that the assumption is a fallacy. See e.g. the quote of Lord Rees in my immediately preceding post.

How is it a fallacy of assumption?

This relates to a specific question about the virgin birth: we do not challenge science's claim about normal conception/birth by a woman; if we were challenging that, maybe you'd have a case; we say we believe that Jesus' virgin birth is outside that; yet, you keep demanding a comparison to science!

This is circular reasoning. Do you wish to consider this an intellectual response?

Oh yes, I do! It was a deliberately provocative statement: provocative in two senses i.e. provoking the interlocutor to further thought as well as a minor irritation. I believe because I have faith; I have faith because I have reason (i.e. intellectual basis) to have faith. Again, I will keep it this cryptic to still remain mildly provocative.

I'm not the one choosing. It's whoever wishes to consider their religious belief on an intellectual level that has to decide.

So are you going to force a choice or force a person to choose? Is that intellectual? A person says irrespective of whether you take all of the Bible literally or allegorically, he has enough reason to subscribe to Christianity ---- yet you say he must choose? He must operate on your own terms? Maybe you do not understand let alone appreciate his reasons for his faith? 

But I say it is not authoritative on living as a Christian.

As a Christian, I know that the Bible is authoritative on Christian living.

How is it a caricature or straw man?

I'm sorry this is another of those pretty obvious things; please read the "render unto Caesar" refrerence from the Bible.

If your faith is as I understand faith to be, nothing would make a difference to it. So why would you wish to consider such a stance as being an intellectual one?

For a start, as long as you expect my faith to prove itself to science, then you do not truly understand my faith. My faith is indeed intellectual because it is grounded in part but not only on reason i.e. the intellect ---- however, this reason is informed and conditioned by something far greater than scientific proof or the "scientific method" ---- personal experience of God.

Are you actually trying to understand them or are you trying to force current knowledge to fit your preconceived notions of what it's supposed to be based on old texts?

Ah, there you go! Current knowledge --- is that the be-all and end-all?

I am going back to this post by vescucci to point out one or two things.

vescucci:
Belief and faith are not straight forward things.

I can agree to this.

Any miraculous event that can be easily explained by science ceases to be a miracle.

Actually, not necessarily --- particularly if the chances of the occurrence of the event are microscopic. EDIT (I make allowance for the word "easily" which I didn't notice initially)

There is no need to feel it is wrong to accept that faith is anti-intellectual. It simply is.

1. The statement uses the broadbrush "faith" as that is the only way it has a chance to be true rather than if it were specific to Christianity.

2. The argument is not necessarily accurate in any event as faith can be based on physical/material evidence or even non-material evidence.

Example A - the material: three times in the past James has told me he will show up at my place on Monday at 9AM, Yesterday, James told me he will show up at 9AM today. It would be indeed thoroughly "intellectual" for me to believe and have faith that James will be here at 9AM today.

Example B - the non material: John has dreams and premonitions which are subsequently borne out by events; John has just had a dream that x will happen; it would be indeed thoroughly "intellectual" for John to believe and have faith that x would happen ----------- as a matter of fact whether x does indeed happen or not.

3. Philosophy is not necessarily given to scientific methods yet is considered intellectual. Christianity is at the very least equivalent in propositional terms to philosophy ----- so why then is it not (or can it not be) "intellectual"?

Even laws that govern our known universe can not really be universal in the truest sense of the word.

Or "absolute"? ---- which is one of the things nuclearboy has been trying to point out to thehomer.

. . . . Religion should keep its nose out of science and Science should keep its nose out of religion. QED.

This line refers to the broadbrush "religion" not the specific 'Christianity' ---- nevertheless, I said in my opening post that Christianity is not about proving or disproving science. Indeed, what we find is that it is some scientists/intellectuals (usually atheist and some militantly atheist) who keep making the demand that Christianity (maybe, religion generally) need to be subject to, proven or perhaps even established(?) by science. Of course many fair and objective scientists do not do this e.g. I referred recently to Britain's 'top scientist' saying inter alia:

"I would support peaceful co-existence between religion and science because they concern different domains," Lord Rees said. "Anyone who takes theology seriously knows that it's not a matter of using it to explain things that scientists are mystified by."

From http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/martin-rees-we-shouldnt-attach-any-weight-to-what-hawking-says-about-god-2090421.html

Notice the line anyone who takes theology seriously? How does one understand that? I would venture it means a deep study, understanding and appreciation of theology not a superficial assumption that it must conform with science or take a particular form of intellectual enquiry; rather, it needs to be recognised in its own unique manner of intellectual (and I even maintain my claim, supra-intellectual) enquiry.

nuclearboy:
^^^ I know you understand the above posers I put before you.

[1] I am using parthenogenesis as a poster child for "impossibility" or whatever you wish to say is not possible. Based on that,
[2] 1000 years ago, parthenogenesis was a lie. Yet there was science
[3] Today it is true because science has advanced
[4] Tomorrow, we assume science will keep advancing
[5] 1000 years from now, prove that "science" would not have advanced to the point where it "understands" the virgin birth.

I ask [5] of you on the premise that the same science that discounts the "virgin" birth today as a lie also refused to accept planes could fly or ships would sail or parthenogenesis 1000 years ago based on the information science had then. We have thus shown/seen that science "then" has become a "lie" today. How then do you know that science "today" won't be a lie in 1000 years time?

Remember, science is based on "current" findings and current "1000 years from today" will obviously not be what is current "today".

Yep, I agree with this. I think there is a quote from Augustine referring to what scientists/intellectuals (can't remember which) know or think they know --- i.e. expecting us to base our faith on that; yeah right.

BTW nuclearboy trust you are recovered and glad to see you on form.

thehomer:
What does the rest of the verse say? I don't think it's actually about reasoning together.

If you have an inerpretation of the verse, let's have it.

That's all well and good. But the clashes and denigrations tend to occur when the religious overstep their boundaries into public policy decisions.

The thread is concerned with the Christian faith; it is not concerned with political activists even though it is actually normal for different interest groups (e.g. environment lobby, gay lobby etc etc) to seek to influence public policy.

But it does.

I think faith does preclude the use of the intellect how else can one explain an act like only praying for a diabetic child to get well who ends up dying yet the perpetrator of such an act actually thinks this was a good approach?

Typical caricature come straw man ---- otherwise how does one then explain the millions of Christian doctors world wide including our very own aletheia? How come several Christians on this forum constantly challenge faith healers and so-called "healing ministers"? In fact there are still a number of threads on this --- one of them near the top.

How do you wish to find a balance between faith and science? The way I've seen it done is by the person simply suspending the scientific method from their religious inquiries.

In the first place "the scientific method" (if we mean the same thing) is not a necessary part of my Christian faith. I believe it is a fallacy to assume Christianity must conform with science or perhaps even vice versa.

What you've mentioned above is a very good example. How is your solution better than science? Your method of going around it which is by inventing a new field/term is simply not an intellectual solution and it is not better either.

It's just a work around you've invented for your special exception.

The same fallacy of assumption! You forget that I first acknowledged the scientifically recognised method of conception --- yet I believe in the virgin birth.

One question is why do you believe the concept of the virgin birth? Is it because it's in a book? Or because you were told? Or that you have some other unmentioned reason to think it is possible?

Because I believe; because I have faith. If that is not enough for anyone, tough!

How much of the Bible do you believe literally? Or do you think it is allegorical? Is it the entire old and New Testament that you believe?

It does not matter; whichever option you choose does not make a difference to my Christian faith.

How authoritative do you think the Bible is?

The Bible is authoritative on matters of the Christian faith and life/living as a Christian.

Should we run our government on the rules and punishment in it? How about those not in it?

Another caricature come straw man; 'render unto Caesar' and all that.

For example, do you believe in speaking animals? How about plants? How about zombies? How about flying people? How about global floods? How about the origin of the rainbow?

The worst you can say is that these things are not true based on your knowledge of science? Well, it still makes no difference to my Christian faith.

There are simply too many questions raised by believing the Bible in any particular way you wish to choose.

And we Christians are continually grappling with them and trying to improve our understanding of these matters. We recognise that we look through "a glass darkly" but we are convinced and happy that one day we will know all these things.

OTR, will reply later 2nite.

^^ Ah, thanks for that InesQor.

On the main topic ----- even our Lord Jesus Christ did not encourage us to be necessarily "anti-intellectual"; He taught in Mark 12:30

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength

cross referencing Deuteronomy 6:5.

Niyi53:
It has been discovered that birth can occur without the spermatozoa. Try find out abt "parthenogenesis"

I am aware of parthenogenesis but, from the little I know of it, Jesus' should have been born a female if it was simply parthenogenesis in Mary's case.

vescucci:
Lol. Don't take my words apart na. I have read Kant's famous book but Kant wasn't always right anyway. The statement was generalist in nature.

I intentionally substituted religion for Christianity because I want you to appreciate what Christianity seems to a non-believer. It's the same way Islam or Hinduism seems to you perhaps. How do you not assume someone who says the world is resting on a cow which is in turn resting on a turtle anti-intellectual? There are/were many great Christian, Muslim and Hindu scientists but they were great scientists in spite of their religions not because of it.

Perforce, lol. I ineluctably deny any eminent association with the highfalutin club. Christianity is not evil or anything but let's call a spade a spade. People sit at home praying when they ought to be at the hospital or think ANYTHING bad that happens is the work of the devil.

Ah, I honestly didn't mean to take your words apart and I agree Kant wasn't always right --- no one is anyway. I appreciate how Christianity may seem to a non-believer but the point remains that criticism should be grounded in facts; often, criticisms are based on the straw man approach and on caricatures of Christianity. While we can say that there were/are great scientists who are such in spite of their Christianity we should at the same time note that there were/are great scientists who are Christians in spite (some even because) of their science.

A thought: some of the world's greatest educational institutions were founded by Christians and indeed even Moslems have their own claim to support of scholarship indeed in our very Africa i.e. the historical learning centres at Timbuktu.

PS

vescucci:
My head does not believe there's anything beyond that which I can see and that is what is intellectual. What we can see and prove.

If you read a bit of Kant you might rethink this line.

Amen InesQor, you are very blessed and may the faithful departed rest in peace and rise in glory.

^^^ How much did you sell your four? In any event the boy didn't just sell one; he has been selling paintings consistently! You have his name from my earlier post - google it.

And what about the dead chimpazee ---- did your four paintings sell for more than his sold for?

Remember neither of these two artists are/were involved in this "tithing" of a thing!

I do not mind the skeptics and atheists as such really. However, if one must be a mocker, it is important that one has at least a decent understanding of that which one mocks!

Joagbaje:
I didn't intend to comment on rhem before. I have said in several thread . The tithes and offering are Gods financial security for his people. It is by faith , even though its not by force , it is a necessity for any wise person. I am a tither and I know the grace I work in through my tithing . Above all things , it is my honour and worship, recognising God as source of my prosperity. I participated in an art exhibition recently with some great painters. In one day I sold 4 paintings . While some " great painters" haven't sold. Why will I not tithe?. . . .

Compare:

Seven year old boy sells his painting for £150,000 --- and nothing to do with tithing!

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295393


Dead Chimpanzee's painting sells for $25,000 while painting by Renoir and Warhol didn't sell at the same exhibition --- and nothing to do with tithing!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/20/entertainment/main703057.shtml

Nice 

Your conclusion is this:

Religion IS anti-intellectual.

However, the only thing I can see in the above post that can be taken as support for the conclusion is this line:

Religion by its very nature is of course anti-intellectual since they do not dovetail to form one coherent entity.

From that it seems that your one reason for saying religion is anti-intellectual is that "they do not dovetail to form one coherent entity".

From what I understand of the phrase I do not think that is a sufficient premise for holding that "religion" of necessity* is anti-intellectual.

In any event, my primary concern in the opening post is not religion as such but Christianity in particular.


* I guess I could have used the word "perforce" which seems to be the currently fashionable 'intellectual' word around here. 

And also this from James 2

2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.

Happy Independence Day, bro.