Evidence for God from Science

Out of the clergy alone, only 93% of them believed literally in the virgin birth. 93%! Say there were 200 clergy polled; that's 14 clergy who run their church with the belief that the virgin birth is not a literal historical event. If you were to continue with the trend that the poll suggests, which is admittedly a matter of choice, then you see how liberal the church in the UK has become. Now, this is just one twig on the branch of a tree and I won't get bogged down with it all and bore us both to tears. But this, in my opinion, is what causes the dwindling congregations. Don't mess with the traditional, central tenets of Christianity. Christians don't care whether Christianity appeals to outsiders if it means adjusting the truth of Christ.

Proinsias wrote:Danny:

Out of the clergy alone, only 93% of them believed literally in the virgin birth. 93%! Say there were 200 clergy polled; that's 14 clergy who run their church with the belief that the virgin birth is not a literal historical event. If you were to continue with the trend that the poll suggests, which is admittedly a matter of choice, then you see how liberal the church in the UK has become. Now, this is just one twig on the branch of a tree and I won't get bogged down with it all and bore us both to tears. But this, in my opinion, is what causes the dwindling congregations. Don't mess with the traditional, central tenets of Christianity. Christians don't care whether Christianity appeals to outsiders if it means adjusting the truth of Christ.

Is the virgin birth a requirement for salvation? I kinda get the feeling that the idea of the literal non-virgin birth is more a reaction to dwindling numbers than it is the cause of it.

DannyM wrote:

Proinsias wrote:Danny:

Out of the clergy alone, only 93% of them believed literally in the virgin birth. 93%! Say there were 200 clergy polled; that's 14 clergy who run their church with the belief that the virgin birth is not a literal historical event. If you were to continue with the trend that the poll suggests, which is admittedly a matter of choice, then you see how liberal the church in the UK has become. Now, this is just one twig on the branch of a tree and I won't get bogged down with it all and bore us both to tears. But this, in my opinion, is what causes the dwindling congregations. Don't mess with the traditional, central tenets of Christianity. Christians don't care whether Christianity appeals to outsiders if it means adjusting the truth of Christ.

Is the virgin birth a requirement for salvation? I kinda get the feeling that the idea of the literal non-virgin birth is more a reaction to dwindling numbers than it is the cause of it.

No. But I have no doubt it is the cause and not a reaction to dwindling congregations. It all fits in to the downward trend. What strikes me with these kind of clergy is that, if they believe that God created the universe, all its glory and wonderment, all its complexities and knife-edge existence, then why *couldn't* he insert an eensy weensy bit of sperm into a virgin woman? What, somehow something had crept up on them that was a bit too "unbelievable"? Yeah right. It's pure dumbing down and reactionary. It's not a belief necessary for salvation, but it is nonetheless a central Christian event.

cslewislover wrote:Well, it is important, though. Many people might not realize it, however. Christ was without sin, right? So He could be an appropriate sacrifice for us, correct? But we are all sinners through Adam, so wouldn't Christ, being fully human, also be a sinner? So Christ had to be born from from the female - without the seed of Adam.

DannyM wrote:

cslewislover wrote:Well, it is important, though. Many people might not realize it, however. Christ was without sin, right? So He could be an appropriate sacrifice for us, correct? But we are all sinners through Adam, so wouldn't Christ, being fully human, also be a sinner? So Christ had to be born from from the female - without the seed of Adam.

And shouldn't EVERY Christian believe in the literal, historical event which is the virgin birth? Forget this being an issue of non-salvation- the virgin birth is an actual historical event, right?

Byblos wrote:

DannyM wrote:

cslewislover wrote:Well, it is important, though. Many people might not realize it, however. Christ was without sin, right? So He could be an appropriate sacrifice for us, correct? But we are all sinners through Adam, so wouldn't Christ, being fully human, also be a sinner? So Christ had to be born from from the female - without the seed of Adam.

And shouldn't EVERY Christian believe in the literal, historical event which is the virgin birth? Forget this being an issue of non-salvation- the virgin birth is an actual historical event, right?

I really hate to bring this up because I know all too well where it will lead but so be it. This is the precise reason for the catholic Marian doctrine, in particular the immaculate conception of Mary. At its heart is a response to the heretical attacks on Christ's divinity as well as sinlessness.

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:I really hate to bring this up because I know all too well where it will lead but so be it. This is the precise reason for the catholic Marian doctrine, in particular the immaculate conception of Mary. At its heart is a response to the heretical attacks on Christ's divinity as well as sinlessness.

So be it, but Catholic doctrine is a late-comer to biblical doctrine.

DannyM wrote:My point is, that the bible is clear on the virgin birth. All attempts to demote it to a play on words is, to me, liberalism gone mad.

DannyM wrote:

cslewislover wrote:Well, it is important, though. Many people might not realize it, however. Christ was without sin, right? So He could be an appropriate sacrifice for us, correct? But we are all sinners through Adam, so wouldn't Christ, being fully human, also be a sinner? So Christ had to be born from from the female - without the seed of Adam.

And shouldn't EVERY Christian believe in the literal, historical event which is the virgin birth? Forget this being an issue of non-salvation- the virgin birth is an actual historical event, right?

Byblos wrote:

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:I really hate to bring this up because I know all too well where it will lead but so be it. This is the precise reason for the catholic Marian doctrine, in particular the immaculate conception of Mary. At its heart is a response to the heretical attacks on Christ's divinity as well as sinlessness.

So be it, but Catholic doctrine is a late-comer to biblical doctrine.

Maybe. It's not the first late-comer though..

Byblos wrote:

DannyM wrote:My point is, that the bible is clear on the virgin birth. All attempts to demote it to a play on words is, to me, liberalism gone mad.

I fully agree.