How do we place science first when agnosticism claims that science does not prove God?

Personally I am indifferent on the subject of the virgin birth.

Since conception only requires fertilization not sexual intercourse I see no problem with a miraculous virgin birth. We would expect that level of the miraculous in something so important to God’s providence.

But I don’t buy into the rational of RichardG that it must be a virgin birth because I don’t believe blood sacrifice has any power regardless of the nature of the lamb/person’s birth. I reject such a literal treatment of that metaphor for the atonement. This is not about some kind blood sacrifice magic spell or God’s inability to forgive without magical help. That is just total nonsense as far as I am concerned. (link to previous discussion)

But the belief that Jesus is God is central to the Christian religion. Or as the Nicean creed puts it: “of the essence of the Father, God of God, light of light, very God of very God.” But for me the point was God, in every way, physically, spiritually, and experientially, coming down to where we are, in order to achieve reconciliation with His children. It is the ultimate meaning of God’s grace that He comes to us in order to lift us up.

For this, I see no great importance in the virgin birth. But neither am I opposed to the possibility. It seems reasonable to me. I don’t see any need or reason to be skeptical or cynical about this.

Christianity is a religion of Jesus being God become man, Jesus is a prophet, and certainly not one of Jesus being a man become God.

But then I don’t think beliefs are any kind of lynch pin for salvation. It is just what I judge to be correct. I don’t think it even affords me any kind of advantage even if what I believe is right.

1 Like