Birth of Jesus!!!
-
Salaam!
Can anyone tell me if there is apparent error in the following reasoning? The point is related to, how normally, a girl reacts, if someone, let?s say an angel, informs her about the good news about birth of a son.
-
If married she will assume that she is going to have a son in the wedlock. In Mary?s case, from the reaction from her, "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste" (1920), it is therefore clear that she is not married.
-
If unmarried, the initial natural reaction would be to consider the news to mean having a son in a future wedlock.
-
Only if an unmarried girl understood the good news to mean that she is already pregnant there is a ?possibility? to react ?how can I have a son when no man has touched me and I am not unchaste?. It is logic that an unmarried girl, who is not sure she is already pregnant, would not react in this way, because there is every possibility that she can get married in future and have a child in the wedlock. However, according to me, logically, if Mary had understood the news to mean she was already pregnant, the most probable reaction would have been, ?how come I am pregnant when no man has touched me?? (because her initial shock and concern should be how she got pregnant, not the birth of the son in future).
-
If an unmarried girl who is leading a life as a nun (whether she believes she is pregnant of not) and who believes that she is not supposed to marry in future can very well react ?how can I have a son when no man has touched me and I am not unchaste? (note that she is not thinking about a marriage prospect as such)
Can anyone improve the above reasoning? or point out logical error?
-
-
The causaility for birth according to "natural law"--observation for a long period of time
- A woman can give birth to a child if her husband has availed the matrimonial relation.
- A woman can give birth to a child if she developed ilicit relationship with a man.
Conclusion Touching is common requirement in both cases.
She has rebutted both were not the case with her.
She insists to be told the logic and methodology-science of a happening without there being an apparent cause-- of she bearing a child at that point in time in such state.
She is told it will happen in the same circumstances of untouched position.
-
This is a strange interpretation. There is no proof from Quran to show that she was not making an innocent comment, any girl in the said circumstances would have made.
An information is given to a woman about having a son. She is telling the ground realities that show she cannot have a son because of her perception that a son is born only when a woman is touched by a man either husband or any other man by way of debauchery. Both are negated. Strange is to consider it an innocent comment.
-
How is it that if Maryam was a virgin, her son's birth is supposed to be due to God saying "kun" fa yakun and that if she is not a virgin God says nothing? Everything that exists is because God says "kun" fa yakun, by whatever ways or means it comes to being. I mean, God saying "be" and it is it happens with whatever and whoever, whther by "miracle" or by "natural" means. It does not say anything about being something special, the only thing it throws light on is that if God wills anything can be, whatever may be the prospects at the moment. You are well and alive and suddenly you die, that is the same thing. I see no suport in that for the virgin birth, I see support for any kind of birth.
Salaam
