"Nights in White Satinnnnnnn. Never reaching the enddddd."

To question the Virgin Birth is to question the effectiveness of Jesus' death to provide salvation. Jesus was sinless, that is without the inherited sin of Adam, and was therefore the only One able to stand in our place. If Jesus was not "born of a virgin" then there is no salvation. The prophet said that Messiah would be "born of a virgin", the gospel writer, inspired of God said it, so why (or how) could someone claiming to be a "Christian" minister deny it as reality? You either have the virgin birth or your have a denial of everything that is Christian, including your rights as a "Christian" minister.

If you think the Immaculate Conception is ludicrous , sir , it follows that you are a hypocrite of the finest order :selecting favourable , to YOUR taste , bits and pieces of the Divine Word at your leisure ,to suit your needs, sounds a really comfortable way to practise your faith , however , didn't find ANYWHERE in the teachings of Christ , where we are able to to make that choice .......
The term , "fanatical Christian " may make YOU feel better about yourself , sir , however it is insulting to those of us who do NOT have your imaginative twist on theology.....

I find this statement confusing: "The Roman Catholic diocese of Auckland is not amused. Spokeswoman Lyndsay Freer describes the image as disrespectful, offensive, and also inaccurate.
'Our Christian tradition of 2,000 years is that Mary remains a virgin,' she tells The Times."

My question, If Mary remains a virgin, either she had more children "immaculately", who would also have to be the result of god impregnating her, making more god/Human hybrids, or Joseph used the old turkey baster method to cause the half siblings of Jesus mentioned in the Buy-Bull, in which case I know of a "virgin" in Australia impregnated immaculately by a swimming pool, (so ruled a court).

In the very beginning of the New Testament, at the start of the book of Matthew, there is a long list of names that traces jesus's family tree 14 generations back to king David.
I guess nobody reads this anymore. You see, it traces him back through Joseph, not Mary.

St. Matthews-in-the-City needs to give their corporate head a shake. Beyond the worship of publicity for it's own sake (I hope that's not the motive here), this billboard simply manages to offend their supposed brothers and sisters in Christ, first and foremost. An honest reading of Luke's gospel will already indicate that it was not a literal sex-act that gave rise to the Christ-child. The Word incarnates with a word; God doesn't need to pro-create.

But, unlike my Roman Catholic friends, I must part company with those who defend the un-Biblical doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which Matthew 1:25 challenges head-on. To be sure, Joseph and Mary had a healthy sex life, as a married couple.

And David MacKenzie, you were there in a closet witnessing the Viagra free episodes of healthy sex? What gobbledygook. It never ceases--this is a marvelous billboard. What massive lies were made up to spread the Jesus myth--immaculate conception indeed. If and when Jesus returns, he should smite everyone of you down for your implicit faith in the lies concocted to brain wash you and enslave you --the churches of the world have been at this mind control for eons--they are consummate con artists and purveyors of the religion narcotic to the clamorers.
Ravensfan Anon

I can't help but think that the whole beginning of Christianity might revolve around a scenario like this:

"Joseph, I think I am with child, they will stone me to death. What am I to do?"

"Mary, don't worry, I'll think of some story to get us out of this."

Gotta love maggie's passionate defense of Christian orthodoxy and theological correctness. Particularly treating the "virgin birth" as synonymous with "immaculate conception." Maggie, dear, Google, Wikipedia, and the catechism are your friend. Before going into battle against the infidel, perhaps you should make sure you actually know what you're defending
- A Christian who thinks the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity are theologically indefensible, born of an ugly misanthropic and misogynistic tradition that some sects simply refuse to purge themselves of.

Annes - It's also fun to read nonbelievers who feel the need to somehow try and set themselves up as intellectually superior and make fools of them self in the process. My guess is you don’t know what misanthropic and misogynistic even mean. Next time you feel the need to use big words try looking up the meaning first.

Anonymous - With believers like you around, there is little effort that has to be expended to prove our intellectual superiority. If religion cared at all for humanity, they would be more concerned with the here and now, rather than a nebulous and invented after-life.

Misanthropic - hateful towards human beings; misogynistic - hateful towards women. I'm sure Webster's uses more words, but the twin absurdities I referenced are outgrowths of a philosophical tradition that thinks human beings and sexuality (especially female sexuality) are fundamentally dirty. Hence the belief that God could only bring himself to impregnate a woman who was somehow born without original sin that all bad, dirty humans are born with and then managed to keep her hymen intact for the rest of her life (the baby teleported down the birth canal, I suppose).

Disagree? Fine, but at least learn the right names for those absurd dogmas.

Congrats Annes--my sentiments exactly--but in your original post I think you meant to say to Maggie, "A Christian who thinks the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity are theologically (in)defensible, born of an ugly misanthropic and misogynistic tradition that some sects simply refuse to purge themselves of." Either you meant to say "defensible" or you meant to say, "indisputable" no? Anyway great post particularly the "teleporting " part--this whole concept comes from the definition of god--if god can neither be created nor be destroyed-- like all matter, but the religious hate to accept that all matter is this way, only god--then the men who wanted to make god a human/god hybrid (borrowed from Robert Littel)---had a problem. As a human, god had to be created and also be finite and destroyed--so how to get around the problem--keep dirty sex out--keep Mary kosher and give her an eternal headache so Joseph won't dare approach her----place the Jesus zygote in the uterus--who fertilized the ovum?--was there even an ovum?--was there even a sperm?--did god just manufacture a clone of himself on the threshold of wherever he wanders?--and how come god's clone looked human?--the only answer to this imbecility?--all things are possible for god--as for god being indestructible--the resurrection is the answer--invent more lies to justify the initial lies--this is religion and pattycakes wanders on another blog defending it.
Ravensfan Anon