RE: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New Atheism

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Sat Jun 27 2009 - 11:19:58 EDT

Let us face it, when analyzing historical events; one must make some presuppositions about events considered. Surely, an atheist and a Christian will arrive at different conclusions when reading Scripture. I suppose that is why Paul emphasizes faith over works---I am 100% on the faith side of the equation. God gave freely in the person of Jesus the Christ. One can take it or leave it. However, there are consequences. That is the hitch. Perhaps here is where Pascalís wager comes into play.
Moorad
________________________________
From: Merv Bitikofer [mrb22667@kansas.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 8:55 AM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; asa
Subject: Re: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New Atheism

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 'alm!
 ah' 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: http://mexc.blogspot.com/2007/05/bible-study-virgin-birth-prophecy.html
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 majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 27 11:21:00 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 27 2009 - 11:21:00 EDT