quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
So the idea in New Jerusalem Churches is that the virgin birth happened for certain specific reasons and according to the normal laws of order, yet in a miraculous way. Every aspect of it is both literally true, and at the same time symbolic of the entire process of bringing the world from darkness into light and from unrest into peace.

---

This I like as well. I'm not so sure about the rest of it though (possibly because it's very new to me, and the English are notoriously resistant to change). More things to think about...

As I said, I don't expect that too many will share this belief. But I think that it is an interesting explanation.

The stuff about the father's contribution being interior and the mother's exterior is not.

Your idea of inherited tendencies is okay as far as it goes. To this the Orthodox would add that the entire world is subject to corruption, decay, and death because of the fall, and not as-created (i.e. the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a result of the fall).

(I think it's the 2nd: that all systems tend toward maximum entropy.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The idea of something being historically true, yet redolent of deeper meanings is very Orthodox (capital "O").

---

It's orthodox with a small 'o' too.

[tangent]I like the idea of the 2nd Law of dynamics being a result of the Fall. That's cool. But it raises a number of interesting questions: if that is the case, then the idea that God only acts within the rules of His creation is immediately discredited, because they're not the rules that He originally intended.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
To this the Orthodox would add that the entire world is subject to corruption, decay, and death because of the fall, and not as-created.

---

I am in agreement with that, up to a point.

The world's spiritual corruption, spiritual decay, and spiritual death is caused by the fall. This also affects the natural world causing disease, and other disruptive natural effects.

However, the natural processes of the 2nd law, that all systems tend toward maximum entropy, are not, I believe a part of that effect. The cycles of birth, growth, deterioration and death, and of the entropic tendency towards disorganization, are a part of the natural order of God's universe.

The catch, and I think the cause for mistaking one for the other, is that natural laws and spiritual ones are inherently, from creation, in tension with one another. So if you translate the competitive character of natural processes into spiritual terms, most of them are simply wickedness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
I like the idea of the 2nd Law of dynamics being a result of the Fall. That's cool. But it raises a number of interesting questions: if that is the case, then the idea that God only acts within the rules of His creation is immediately discredited, because they're not the rules that He originally intended.

---

But of course the idea that God only acts within the rules of His creation is a fairly new one, and not Orthodox with either kind of "O".

quote:

---

Would that mean that in a perfect world (ie preFall/postRevelation)the miraculous would be normal and the impossible possible?

---

Works for me! Which is why, when God does act in human history, it is miraculous: He's acting in accordance with the earlier, original laws, not the laws-in-re. They are miraculous to US, because we are accustomed to the world as it is: namely, in a state of decay and increasing entropy. Had the world not fallen, they wouldn't seem so miraculous or impossible.; they'd just be the way things worked.

Wood, you've stumbled upon a really intersting (and cool) bit of exegesis!

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Had the world not fallen, they wouldn't seem so miraculous or impossible.; they'd just be the way things worked.

---

Yes! Well said.

To continue this tangent, I believe that someday the world will return to this state. The key to it is the reuniting of the natural and spiritual worlds.

The spiritual world is invisible to us, but only because of our fallen state. Most miracles are simply the result of things being perceived on earth the way that they actually are in heaven. If the spiritual state of the world were to improve, the worlds would draw closer together, as it were, and this kind of perception would be more common.

The virgin birth is an example of this kind of interaction. Not that there would be other virgin births if the human race were to be more comprehending and accepting of God, but that if people were more innocently receptive of Him He would enter their world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
To continue this tangent, I believe that someday the world will return to this state. The key to it is the reuniting of the natural and spiritual worlds.

---

Reminds me of a snippet of a song:

Day by day the integration
Of the concrete and the spiritual
--Bob Bennett (from "Matters of the Heart")

Everything in your last post (the one I just quoted), Freddy, I agree with.

The "God impregnated Mary physically," i.e., the belief that God the Father exists (and always has) in physical form, is a Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) doctrine, if I understand them correctly. I don't agree with this doctrine, and am not trying to be rude to any Mormons reading this.

There are several attitudes people have here and it seems to me that people aren't responding to the underlying beliefs which are assumed in their writings -- just to the main thread -- but I think the real disagreements we have here are with the underlying differences in belief.

(1) Is "(post-)modern Biblical interpretation" valid? Some posters here believe that it must be, and that everyone would accept it if it weren't for one's theology or bias -- that we apply rules to this book that we don't to others. For my part, I don't believe in the sort of literary criticism which is in vogue, or historical criticism either, at the present time, whether it is applied to the Bible or not.

(2) Are we all basing our theology solely or mainly on the Bible and how we interpret it? I do not; in fact, I base how I interpret the Bible on my understanding of Christian Tradition -- which allows for multiple levels and is not limited to literal interpretation. (However, read on re literalness of the Virgin Birth.)

(3) The Bible has many different literary genres. I would argue that the literary style of the book of Genesis, or much of it, is myth -- not in the sense of "a false story," but in the sense of the Greek or other myths, symbolic, archetypal, etc. "And God made the world, and it was very good. And the evening and the morning, etc." Whereas in the Gospels we have events pinned down to specific times and places, boring (but useful) details, Joseph planning to marry and then divorce Mary quietly, etc. It doesn't read like a mystical vision in any way, for instance, or a fairy tale. (Note that if Genesis is not literal, it can still be true, and perhaps in ways which are far beyond symbolic. I find it interesting that the sequence of creation matches well with theories/findings concerning the sequence of evolution -- such as birds (stemming from dinosaurs) and fishes being created on the same "day" -- but science changes constantly so I do not base my faith on Genesis matching up to Jack Horner's latest book.) I personally suspect that there are truths in Genesis (Adam, Eve, etc.) which even with (perhaps especially with?) our more detailed knowledge of the physical universe, we cannot grasp except in the form of a myth. That perhaps it's not a poetic way of expressing something we can put into "better" words now -- but that, in our fallen world, it's the best we can get at to use as a base for grasping what sin and fallenness is and how it came to be. Perhaps in the same way that a poem can be the best way to express some realities...

So, to me, saying that we don't accept Genesis as entirely literal is NOT the same as not accepting the Gospels that way.

(4) Some people have posted with the implied assumption that we need to adapt Christianity to "the modern world." I strongly disagree -- and believe we should do the reverse. But I don't agree with many, many modern notions.

(5) Many people are sincerely trying to believe what they can in the Christian faith, and while on the one hand I agree that "how much do I need to believe to get in?" is a dreadful attitude, on the other I can imagine that someone who is struggling with doubt (or with approaching the Christian faith for the first time) may worry, "What if I can't believe this -- if I cannot make myself believe it no matter how hard I look at it -- and I die, and find out that I was mistaken, and it was something required, and God pitches me into Hell for not believing it? He-- he won't, will He?" Or perhaps someone worrying about a loved one in that situation. The emphasis that some traditions place on theological accuracy, and on "being saved," as contrasted by the notion of salvation being a growing process which may even continue after death, may be a factor which some of us in different traditions may not understand. (I'm more in the "growing process" camp myself.)

(6) Last, some here talk about the notion, "why did Jesus HAVE to be born of a virgin"? As if it were all a matter solely or mainly of practicality. Why couldn't God do it that way for artistic reasons? That it "fits" in non-"practical" ways with His notion of what this is all about -- not just "rescuing us from sin" but with His original vision of what Creation is supposed to be? (Some believe He would have become incarnate even without human sin -- that the Divine humility would have been without the humiliation in our history -- that humanity would have been raised to perfection or glory, or greater maturity of glory, without His redemptive sacrifice -- though also many say that we will be raised higher than we would have if we had not sinned also...)

(7) Okay, LASTLY lastly, if my understanding of our faith is correct, then the division between "myth" and "practical reality" is itself a mark of the Fall -- and that Jesus is at the centre of the healing of that division -- so it seems to me that being born of a virgin is part of the whole thing. Of course it seems magical and mystical. It is. And yet quite real. That's part of the point.

Just my way-too-many-more-than-two cents',

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
I think Mousethief's view that the universe is in a state of entropy because of sin is spot on. I think the reversal of entropy or when God creates a new heaven and a new earth will come about when enough people have turned to God and entered His Kingdom.

---

Ah, the heaven-on-earth school. Very post-enlightenment.

quote:

---

I agree with Freddy that we are spiritually blind because of our fallen state and when we acquire spritual vision we will understad that the changes which come about through death are illusory. I believe that is the mystery of the resurrection.

---

This almost sounds like Mary Baker Eddy. I take it, then, that when Jesus wept at Lazarus's tomb, you think it was because of the people misunderstanding his death, rather than the fact that he was dead?

The changes brought about by death are neither illusory nor intended by God. The greatest is the separation of the body from the soul. This is so unnatural a state that we are promised a new body to rectify the situation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
Believe me I have no Mary Baker Eddie sympathies!

---

Thank goodness!

quote:

---

I agree with you about separation of soul and body and a new body etc. The illusion is our inability to see what lies beyond due to ur sinful natures.

---

Okay, that sounds better. In fact it sounds very Orthodox. We believe that the "nous" is the eye of the soul, and was made to comprehend God and divine reality directly. But it is darkened by sin and death, and it is the work of a lifetime (mostly God's work, but it requires our assent and cooperation) to attain the clarity of "nous" that would allow us to perceive God.

I was thrown off by "illusion" which I was taking to mean "seeing something that isn't there" whereas you were meaning "not seeing something that is there."

You may not realise this, but without the 2LoT there is no guarantee, for instance, that the sun would warm the earth. The earth could equally give its heat to the sun instead. Kettles needn't boil if the 2LoT doesn't decree that the heat will tend to pass from the element to the water.

All together now:

1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even, except at Absolute Zero
3. You can't reach Absolute Zero.

quote:

---

If we
can understand this idea from science fiction (something in the present affects the past and therefore
changes the present, via time travel), then why could not this be an aspect of the world's fallenness
stretching all the way back to before man physically existed?

---

quote:

---

Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
John Cleese: No it isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
But that's only possible if the Fall predates the existence of the universe we know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
well i know you ment it, chastmastr, but so did i. it can't, cause there wasn't.

sorry.

---

[Host hat on. It's red with a fluffy white trim and a bobble, in case you were wondering]

Nicole, while I accept that you don't believe in the Fall, and that's fine, please remember that there's an awful lot of people here who do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
we still might have seen Jesus born (virginally) in an unfallen world, perhaps to bring it to glory and perfection from an immature state, rather than from a Fallen state -- the Divine humility without the Divine humiliation He had in our world.

---

This is taught by many of the Greek Fathers. It is a very common theologoumenon (devout opinion but not a dogma) of many, many Orthodox. Myself included.