Re: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New Atheism

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Sat Jun 27 2009 - 09:21:10 EDT

Heya Merv,

But Krauss isn't making anything close to that argument given what was
covered here. He's drawing the line in the sand on biological grounds,
explicitly demanding a scientific defense or even explanation of the virgin
birth (and presumably the resurrection and any other act of God.) He's not
complaining that the related prophecies are a grey area.

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Merv Bitikofer <> wrote:

> Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
> The virgin birth is peanuts compared with the notion of a Creator God. I never quite understood why that issue is ever brought up. The virgin birth must be something to be doubted only by atheists.
> Moorad
> ___
> Playing atheist's advocate here...
> Yes, but it's also peanuts for hyperbole, hagiography, and general "story
> growth" to work its way into cultural "memory" even over a single human life
> span. Atheists don't doubt that an existing God could do what he wants.
> What they doubt (other than His existence obviously) is that the event
> actually happened as recorded in some of the gospels. To atheists, it's a
> matter of choosing the simpler explanation.
> ....and yes, some Christians do doubt the literal virgin birth, though I
> can't recall any big names to back this up (other than 'Jesus Seminar' folks
> like Marcus Borg --but then they doubt a lot of things that are pretty
> essential to Christianity). But it seems I have read somewhere how some
> wonder why the Apostle Paul who makes the earliest written contributions to
> the N.T. and who gives us otherwise expansive and comprehensive theology
> never once mentions this little detail about the virgin birth. As you can
> tell, I wrestle with doubts of my own, but they aren't doubts about God's
> capabilities. They are doubts about human cultural ability to resist the
> temptation of embellishment, in their zeal of reporting on a cherished
> cause. Since Luke, a physician, records it, and since it is O.T. prophecy
> anticipating it, these are marks in favor, even to one who doesn't
> automatically accept all Scripture literally. O.T.O.H the prophecies of
> Isaiah refer to the Hebrew word 'almah' literally referring to 'young woman'
> when they could have used 'bethulah' which more literally is associated with
> virginity. So doubters can reference this dispute as evidence that later
> gospel writers are imputing something back into prophecy to make it match.
> At least this is the case according to an ex-Christian blogger at this
> site:
> Does he have his Hebrew straight?
> --Merv (quester after Truth wherever that may lead; Lord, help me in this!)

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 27 09:21:58 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 27 2009 - 09:21:58 EDT