Virgin Birth Myths

[Nick_A]

DAM's egotistical attempts to portray herself as a "better person" than me do not merit a response.

Are we all, aside from Nick, agreed that the virgin birth of the Messiah was just a myth or are there more literalists in the room?

Unfortunately, as far as I know I'm the only one I know here who can explain the logic of the virgin birth. If someone else appears, that would indeed be appreciated.

[Dubious]

In the realm of myth it gets more complicated but this is how Joseph Campbell summarizes the Virgin Birth metaphor...

We are all born as animals and live the life that animals live: we sleep, eat, reproduce, and fight. There is, however, another order of living, which the animals do not know, that of awe before the mystery of being ... that can be the root and branch of the spiritual sense of one’s days. That is the birth - the Virgin Birth - in the heart of a properly human, spiritual life.

[Greta]

In the realm of myth it gets more complicated but this is how Joseph Campbell summarizes the Virgin Birth metaphor...

We are all born as animals and live the life that animals live: we sleep, eat, reproduce, and fight. There is, however, another order of living, which the animals do not know, that of awe before the mystery of being ... that can be the root and branch of the spiritual sense of one’s days. That is the birth - the Virgin Birth - in the heart of a properly human, spiritual life.

An odd thing to express the idea of human divinity and specialness with an attribute normally found in much simpler asexual and sexually dimorphic animals.

It does appear to represent an ideal of sorts, though. Jews and Arabs weren't the only ones to embrace the idea of a divine virgin birth, and not the first either. Another oddity: that men would think of an idea like virgin births, as though the process was problematic rather than joyful. The concept to some extent seems to relate to a woman performing their physical "miracle" whilst maintaining her purity - a mother and maiden in one, the feminine ideal, an Uberfrau!

[Dubious]

In the realm of myth it gets more complicated but this is how Joseph Campbell summarizes the Virgin Birth metaphor...

We are all born as animals and live the life that animals live: we sleep, eat, reproduce, and fight. There is, however, another order of living, which the animals do not know, that of awe before the mystery of being ... that can be the root and branch of the spiritual sense of one’s days. That is the birth - the Virgin Birth - in the heart of a properly human, spiritual life.

An odd thing to express the idea of human divinity and specialness with an attribute normally found in much simpler asexual and sexually dimorphic animals.

It does appear to represent an ideal of sorts, though. Jews and Arabs weren't the only ones to embrace the idea of a divine virgin birth, and not the first either. Another oddity: that men would think of an idea like virgin births, as though the process was problematic rather than joyful. The concept to some extent seems to relate to a woman performing their physical "miracle" whilst maintaining her purity - a mother and maiden in one, the feminine ideal, an Uberfrau!

What I especially appreciate about J. Campbell, he was always rooted to reality and regarded any "literal" interpretation of myth and metaphor as abject nonsense. The power of these stories resides in its universal symbolism common to most cultures even if they never met; and because were all human regardless of when & where, its separate connotations exist as a very potent psychological power. It all amounts to "variations on a theme" the theme being universal.

In case you're interested, here's another more detailed talk with Bill Moyers.

BILL MOYERS: What about the virgin birth? Suddenly the goddess reappears in the form of the chaste and pure vessel chosen for God’s action.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Well, in the history of Western religions, this is an extremely interesting development. The virgin birth comes in by way of the Greek tradition. When you read your four gospels, the only one with the virgin birth in it is the gospel according to Luke, and Luke was a Greek.

BILL MOYERS: And there was in the Greek tradition images, legends, myths of virgin births?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: All of them. I mean, Leda and the swan, and Persephone and the serpent, and this one and that one and the other one. The virgin birth is represented throughout.

BILL MOYERS: This was not a new idea, then, in Bethlehem and…

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: No. What is the meaning of the virgin birth? In India, there is this system of the kundalini, as it’s called, the idea of the centers, psychological centers up the spine. And they represent the psychological planes of concern and consciousness and action. The first is at the rectum, and this is that of alimentation. The serpent represents this, you know, a traveling esophagus going along just eating, eating, eating, eating. And all of us are — we wouldn’t be here if we weren’t eating. And then the second, the second center is at the sex organ center, and that’s the urge to procreation. The third center’s called, is at the navel, and this is where you eat and want to consume. And it’s not the alimentary eating, it’s the mastering and smashing and trashing of others, do you see? This is the aggressive mood.

Now, the first is an animal instinct, the second is an animal instinct, the third is an animal instinct, and these three centers are located in the pelvic base, do you see. The next one is at the level of the heart, and this is the opening of compassion. And there you move out of the field of animal action into a field that is properly human and spiritual. Now, in each of these centers there is a symbolic form. At the base, the first one, there is the form of the lingam and yeni, the male and female organs in conjunction. At the heart chakra, there is again the male and female organs in conjunction, but in gold. This is the virgin birth. It’s the birth of spiritual man out of the animal man. Do you understand?

BILL MOYERS: And it happens?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: When you are awakened at the level of the heart to compassion and to suffering with the other person. That’s the beginning of humanity. And the meditations of religion properly are on that level, the heart level.

BILL MOYERS: You say it’s the beginning of humanity, but in these Stories, that’s the moment when gods are born, the virgin birth, it’s a god who emerges from that chemistry.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Yeah, and you know who that god is? It’s you. All of these symbols in mythology refer to you. You can get stuck out there and think it’s all out there, and so you’re thinking of Jesus and all the sentiments about how he suffered and all; what that suffering is, is what ought to be going on in you. Have you been reborn? Have you died to your animal nature and come to life as a human incarnation?

...or go here for the whole episode...
http://billmoyers.com/content/ep-5-jose ... ess-audio/

[Dalek Prime]

Heck, I never even touched her....

Apparently you don't even need to!

Damned if I do or don't.

[Greta]

Dubious, even on that metaphorical basis of that seemingly plausible interpretation, isn't it weird that a virgin birth would be chosen to represent the birth of spiritual humanity? Why was only the male element is "spiritified" while the woman still went through labour and childbirth?

Why couldn't Joseph have impregnated God, who would then painlessly given birth to Jesus? Why not? Because it would be ridiculous for an infant just to appear out of thin air, of course! Infants come out of women. Yet it's seemingly not ridiculous for esoteric impregnation to occur because microscopic processes like fertilisation (or disease) were not understood. What are these mysterious invisible forces that bring or take life?

Could they be spirits, bacteria, viruses or DNA packets?

[uwot]

Tell ya what, when two non-dualists disagree, you have to wonder about the basic premise.

The problem is you're not allowed to talk about it...it's meant to be really hush hush stuff...else we upset the status quo, else we upset the apple cart.

Do you not think that the most likely reason that people say you are talking nonsense, is that they think you are talking nonsense?

We're not allowed to tell the truth in this world, we've got to pretend to tell the truth, and live out the rest of eternity telling lies to each other.

Who is stopping you?

[Belinda]

Dubious, even on that metaphorical basis of that seemingly plausible interpretation, isn't it weird that a virgin birth would be chosen to represent the birth of spiritual humanity? Why was only the male element is "spiritified" while the woman still went through labour and childbirth?

Why couldn't Joseph have impregnated God, who would then painlessly given birth to Jesus? Why not? Because it would be ridiculous for an infant just to appear out of thin air, of course! Infants come out of women. Yet it's seemingly not ridiculous for esoteric impregnation to occur because microscopic processes like fertilisation (or disease) were not understood. What are these mysterious invisible forces that bring or take life?

Could they be spirits, bacteria, viruses or DNA packets?

If I may , besides Dubious's answer, I gather that the traditional view (?(globally?) of the eternal masculine is that it's active. And the ?global traditional view of the eternal feminine is that it's passive.

The Virgin Yin is constantly giving birth in the eternal now, after having been impregnated, constantly and in the eternal now, by the masculine Yang. I don't know whether or not Taoism includes virgin birth myth, however it seems to me that the Christian Virgin who affirmed "Behold the handmaid of the Lord" is passive so that impregnation by the masculine and active spirit was needed before the Son of Man could arise. There isn't any need for cross-cultural exchanges for mythological themes such as the eternal female to arise geographically far apart like Palestine , the rest of the Middle East, Europe, and China.

The eternal and passive Virgin and her fertilisation was politicised by the Church in history so that women could become possessions of men. I am concerned to restore the feminine as the mythic element of passive power. Without passive power i.e. uncertainty, tolerance, quiescence, acceptance, endurance, and possibility the masculine pushiness is destructive both psychologically and politically. Without the mythologically masculine urge to invent,implement, make leaps of faith, and make manifest nothing would happen.
nothing would happen.

[Dontaskme]

Tell ya what, when two non-dualists disagree, you have to wonder about the basic premise.

The problem is you're not allowed to talk about it...it's meant to be really hush hush stuff...else we upset the status quo, else we upset the apple cart.

Do you not think that the most likely reason that people say you are talking nonsense, is that they think you are talking nonsense?

We're not allowed to tell the truth in this world, we've got to pretend to tell the truth, and live out the rest of eternity telling lies to each other.

Who is stopping you?

Nothing can stop talking, because Nothing is talking.

Reality is basically simplicity at it's finest, it's only the desperate ''intellectual mind'' aka ''no thing appearing to know-no thing'' that complicates reality.

That which is simple is very complicated and that which is complicated is very simple.



.

[Dontaskme]

DAM's egotistical attempts to portray herself as a "better person" than me do not merit a response.

The ego will always respond to itself...it's the only way it can exist.

Are we all, aside from Nick, agreed that the virgin birth of the Messiah was just a myth or are there more literalists in the room?

All conceptual language aka knowledge is a myth...in other words all known things are illusion born out of not-knowing. And that which is not-knowing is unknowable.

So yes, it's myth, myth, myth... all the way down to more myth and beyond, and beyond the beyond, and even beyond the beyonded beyond...

[Belinda]

DAM's egotistical attempts to portray herself as a "better person" than me do not merit a response.

The ego will always respond to itself...it's the only way it can exist.

Are we all, aside from Nick, agreed that the virgin birth of the Messiah was just a myth or are there more literalists in the room?

All conceptual language aka knowledge is a myth...in other words all known things are illusion born out of not-knowing. And that which is not-knowing is unknowable.

So yes, it's myth, myth, myth... all the way down to more myth and beyond, and beyond the beyond, and even beyond the beyonded beyond...

Dam, when we are talking about the nature of myth, and mythical thinking, that is what we are talking about. Your comment is therefore irrelevant. You have shoe-horned in your accustomed theme. You show that you don't understand what myth is.

Greta, I don't agree that the virgin birth of the Messiah was "just" a myth. It was mythological. Myths matter. Even some ancient myths may still provide insights into our psyches . If you were to reword with the more interesting definition of 'myth' I'd agree with you.

[Dontaskme]

Dam, when we are talking about the nature of myth, and mythical thinking, that is what we are talking about. Your comment is therefore irrelevant. You have shoe-horned in your accustomed theme. You show that you don't understand what myth is.

No one knows what myth is.

It's a known concept known by consciousness that cannot be known...consciousness is the knowing that cannot be known.

Nothing knows and everything knows....same no one knowing.

.

[uwot]

Nothing can stop talking, because Nothing is talking.

As far as I can tell, you are using "Nothing" to mean very different things. In the first instance, I take it you mean 'nothing' in the general sense of, well, nothing. The second, capitalised "Nothing" comes across as the name you give to your metaphysical description of whatever it is you think perceives and, presumably, is responsible for phenomena.

Reality is basically simplicity at it's finest, it's only the desperate ''intellectual mind'' aka ''no thing appearing to know-no thing'' that complicates reality.

Depends what you mean by "Reality". Just about every possible cause for phenomena has been considered. It is understood, in western philosophy at least, that it is impossible to tell from the phenomena what is causing those phenomena. The theme was introduced by Plato (responding to Parmenides) who created the analogy of the cave that Nick_A refers to. Later empiricists, John Locke for instance, talked about the 'veil of perception', pointing out that we do not directly perceive objects, rather we only have the mental impressions of them. George Berkeley argued that since the mental impressions are the only things that definitely exists, any assumption that there is something 'physical' responsible for the impressions is superfluous. In his words, to be is to be perceived, which some interpretations of quantum mechanics appear to verify.
As for "desperate "intellectual mind"", one of the arguments in western philosophy boils down to whether we can say anything definite about the cause of phenomena. On the one hand there are empiricists that say no we can't; technically any interpretation of data is underdetermined i.e. no amount of data can rule out any theory regarding the cause of the data. On the other hand, there are rationalists who believe we can. However, even they have conceded that the best we can achieve is 'Inference to the best explanation'. Fundamentally, this is the source of all sorts of post-modern fruitloopery, in particular naïve interpretations of social constructionism. From what I gather, you are the member of a limited, possibly to one, group of people who has nailed their colours to an individual mast. That is your prerogative and you can assert it all you wish, but given that you cannot prove it, it would be nice to think that you could accept it as one patch in life's rich tapestry.

That which is simple is very complicated and that which is complicated is very simple.

Well maybe. The source of phenomena could be very simply, at least in terms of components, but making sense of it, and the range of interpretations is a lot more diverse.

[Dontaskme]

Nothing can stop talking, because Nothing is talking.

As far as I can tell, you are using "Nothing" to mean very different things. In the first instance, I take it you mean 'nothing' in the general sense of, well, nothing. The second, capitalised "Nothing" comes across as the name you give to your metaphysical description of whatever it is you think perceives and, presumably, is responsible for phenomena.

Reality is basically simplicity at it's finest, it's only the desperate ''intellectual mind'' aka ''no thing appearing to know-no thing'' that complicates reality.

Depends what you mean by "Reality". Just about every possible cause for phenomena has been considered. It is understood, in western philosophy at least, that it is impossible to tell from the phenomena what is causing those phenomena. The theme was introduced by Plato (responding to Parmenides) who created the analogy of the cave that Nick_A refers to. Later empiricists, John Locke for instance, talked about the 'veil of perception', pointing out that we do not directly perceive objects, rather we only have the mental impressions of them. George Berkeley argued that since the mental impressions are the only things that definitely exists, any assumption that there is something 'physical' responsible for the impressions is superfluous. In his words, to be is to be perceived, which some interpretations of quantum mechanics appear to verify.
As for "desperate "intellectual mind"", one of the arguments in western philosophy boils down to whether we can say anything definite about the cause of phenomena. On the one hand there are empiricists that say no we can't; technically any interpretation of data is underdetermined i.e. no amount of data can rule out any theory regarding the cause of the data. On the other hand, there are rationalists who believe we can. However, even they have conceded that the best we can achieve is 'Inference to the best explanation'. Fundamentally, this is the source of all sorts of post-modern fruitloopery, in particular naïve interpretations of social constructionism. From what I gather, you are the member of a limited, possibly to one, group of people who has nailed their colours to an individual mast. That is your prerogative and you can assert it all you wish, but given that you cannot prove it, it would be nice to think that you could accept it as one patch in life's rich tapestry.

That which is simple is very complicated and that which is complicated is very simple.

Well maybe. The source of phenomena could be very simply, at least in terms of components, but making sense of it, and the range of interpretations is a lot more diverse.

Sorry, but do actually have anything new to say to us?


.

From what I gather, you are the member of a limited, possibly to one, group of people who has nailed their colours to an individual mast.

Oh really, is that so...

Well you'd know all about that wouldn't you..it takes one to know one.

''For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them''

All knowledge is the colour of the light.. colour is sourced from one place only...aka the light. Everything is that light.

Why do you insist on making this simplicity that is self-evident right now seem so complicated?

.

[uwot]

Sorry, but do actually have anything new to say to us?

Well, I think my hypothesis that gravity can be understood as refraction is original.

From what I gather, you are the member of a limited, possibly to one, group of people who has nailed their colours to an individual mast.

Oh really, is that so...

You do give the impression that you have a very defined interpretation of reality.

Well you'd know all about that wouldn't you..it takes one to know one.

I'm not sure how you square that with my conceding that

any interpretation of data is underdetermined

''For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them''

Ok then: 3.

All knowledge is the colour of the light.. colour is sourced from one place only...aka the light. Everything is that light.

Why do you insist on making this simplicity that is self-evident right now seem so complicated?

Because it isn't self-evident. The difference between you and I is that I can accept that your interpretation could be true, you appear to insist that any interpretation other than your own is self-evidently not true.