If we were created in God's image and all born sinners... what does that say about God?

[grego]

THIS. The Bible as I've heard some say before is nothing more than a fairy tale "bedtime story" for Adults.

thats a bit silly. 'nothing more'? there are some excellent historical references contained within the pages of the bible. try harder.

[Mickalino]

But I never asked you to reject the virgin birth, I simply implied it is a hard sell. The truth is throughout history, it's not hard to see people follow. I could easily see the revolution of christianity, and the belief in the story. Logically speaking, and sensibly speaking, it would be very easy for a man to be born and rise up and create a following in that region. History shows that can happen in religion and in war. Jesus obviously was a significant figure at the time. Joseph Smith and the golden plates is a similar example. Or Jim Jones and the kool aid. You simply need to know whether the following was based on cult or based on truth. Logically speaking, it would be easy to pick which one.

Comparing Jim "Kool Aid" Jones to Jesus, even in a historical way, is not a valid comparison

Jesus had quite a bit more effect on history than Mr Kool Aid

[skinsfan07]

thats a bit silly. 'nothing more'? there are some excellent historical references contained within the pages of the bible. try harder.

That's why I said I've heard some say. I didn't say it lol. There are some great historical references in The Bible, but there's a lot, and I mean way too many things that are really REALLy hard to believe about it (walk on water, parting of a sea, an old man Noah who was 600 years old to be exact managing to fit 2 of every animal in the world onto a boat for 40 days and 40 nights, and somehow having enough food to feed all of them for those 40 days and nights, and being able to keep them from killing each other, ya know since it would be survival of the fittest (lol srsly?) etc, etc) . Things even a child would find far fetched, and children will believe almost anything.

[Fred Jones]

In your first sentence you called it a "myth" that humans were created in God's image. Then in your 6th sentence you stated we are "thus created in the image of God". It's a pretty clear contradiction. Here is your actual quote :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -

Let me ask you a question in response to this statement - Does your father love you ?

I apologize if I gave the impression that I was preaching or implying that I was better than anyone.

And, yes, my father does love me, but if I understand what you are asking, my intent was not to say that I don't have just as many issues as the next person.

Some comments from various sources.

"There is only one creator, One Great Spirit whose life flows through every person, plant, animal, and rock of this planet. Consider planet Earth as a whole family of the Great Creator."

Mother Teresa said "the greatest disease of mankind is the absence of love." Only treatment is to let in the loving light and to heal your life.

"Karma is a law of God, a cosmic law which cannot by altered. But when the soul has passed through the experience of what you lie to call evil or bad karma, the soul has had its opportunity to pay a debt, remit its sin. The soul can only remit its sin by accepting its own guilt. Jesus did not die on the cross to redeem our sins. It is the fact that we ourselves in physical life are being crucified by our karma; and because the lower self is purified by the higher self or the Christ self, past sins are washed away."

"Karma is not punishment; it is a concept about the consequences of actions. It is defined as the cause and effect of an action, or the principle that what one actively chooses to do will define the experiences the soul must go through in the present life or future lives. Karma is also an educational tool to help us evolve spiritually and to balance out the results of all the actions we have generated that are out of harmony with the law of love."

Now, what I do know is that everything is a translation, and interpretation. All the books written are an interpretation by the author, except of course the orginial Ten Commandments. Even the stuff I quoted is an interpretation. If the answers were simply given how then could you learn. How could you fully experience life and the lessons life offers on your journey. I put in this paragraph because I consistently see people quote this scripture and that statement and such from the many sources as the bible. My point being that even all the books that I read are simply an interpretation just like the many sources quoted here.

Lastly, don't confuse the words I have written with my own journey. I have just as must trouble as the next soul living life on a tough physcial world that we call Earth. Just offerring another viewpoint than the many presented in the Tailgate.

[chipwhich]

Comparing Jim "Kool Aid" Jones to Jesus, even in a historical way, is not a valid comparison

Jesus had quite a bit more effect on history than Mr Kool Aid

I know. Point being there are followers who will believe anything without logic.

[grego]

That's why I said I've heard some say. I didn't say it lol. There are some great historical references in The Bible, but there's a lot, and I mean way too many things that are really REALLy hard to believe about it (walk on water, parting of a sea, an old man Noah who was 600 years old to be exact managing to fit 2 of every animal in the world onto a boat for 40 days and 40 nights, and somehow having enough food to feed all of them for those 40 days and nights, and being able to keep them from killing each other, ya know since it would be survival of the fittest (lol srsly?) etc, etc) . Things even a child would find far fetched, and children will believe almost anything.

thats a little more to the point asbury and techboy have been talking about miracles, which is what youre talking about would probably fall under. and they can do so far better than I.

i, personally, believe that God does not want us to check our brains at the door. while i do believe there are belief systems that call for that, i dont know that 'miracles' are asking us to do that. they are, by definition, against what we know to be rational. i have a bigger problem with a religion asking me to believe that the earth is flat than i do, say , the virgin birth.

we are talking about the 'creator' of the universe, the earth, human beings, the human eye. the virgin birth, by comparison, seems like an easy trick for that guy.

[Hunter44]

"No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, from the unknown, and incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."

— Robert G. Ingersoll

[twa]

Did Columbus have a green card? lol

No, but he did have Spaniards with guns,blades and the desire to use them.

I hear God has a pretty gnarly temper as well when provoked,even his Son wasn't above whipping some asses.

Maybe aliens aren't as benevolent as ET?

[Hunter44]

No, but he did have Spaniards with guns,blades and the desire to use them.

I hear God has a pretty gnarly temper as well when provoked,even his Son wasn't above whipping some asses.

Maybe aliens aren't as benevolent as ET?

No doubt.

[techboy]

Believing in a Deity and a greater being doesn't contradict anything I have said.

Oh yes, it absolutely does.

You flat out stated that the story of the Virgin Birth should be rejected because it was, and I quote, "ludicrous".

I pointed out to you that the fact that it was ludicrous was the point, as it was a miracle, and if that kind of thing happened every day it wouldn't be anything noteworthy.

You replied that if you accept the supernatural as an explanation, you'd be forced to accept every other supernatural explanation ever proposed.

You then followed it, in the very next sentence no less, by stating that you believe in a deity. You accept the supernatural as an explanation.

You have demonstrated that your reasoning for rejecting the Virgin Birth is flawed, because clearly accepting (or considering) a supernatural explanation in one thing has not forced you to accept the supernatural explanation every time it's claimed. The primary proof of this, of course, is that you reject the Virgin Birth.

Your own statements have contradicted your reasoning, and shown it to be flawed.

Of course, now you're trying to change the subject by discussing human interpretation and so on, but it's not relevant to this point, which is based entirely upon your own statements.

Well no you really can't. Which is why you drop out on the tough stuff.

I'm not dropping out, I'm trying to keep you on one topic, rather than having you do precisely what you accuse me of, which is shifting the topic. To wit:

You asserted that the Virgin Birth is the "centerpoint" of Christianity. I demonstrated through Scripture that it was not. You changed subjects.

You asserted that the Virgin Birth is only believed by 1/3 of the world. I pointed out that Muslims believe that too. You changed subjects.

You asserted that if we accept the supernatural as a possible explanation in any facet of our lives, it means we have to gullibly accept it as an explanation every time. This is clearly false, as demonstrated by your own example, and now you're trying to shift the topic again.

So yes, I did choose, instead of giving a serious answer to your question, to bust your chops a bit. (It is silly to say you don't believe other people about religious topics, then ask other people about religious topics, you know),

This is ridiculous enough as it is without opening another line of discussion.

[chipwhich]

Oh yes, it absolutely does.

You flat out stated that the story of the Virgin Birth should be rejected because it was, and I quote, "ludicrous".

Because it is. And it's not ludicrous. And none of your "links" prove it is real. Your supernatural insistence is silly. The virgin birth concept is based on stories passed down verbally not based on coverage by anything credible. It's a story passed down, not a documented news item. You are accepting the story without any fact.

I pointed out to you that the fact that it was ludicrous was the point, as it was a miracle, and if that kind of thing happened every day it wouldn't be anything noteworthy.

It's a miracle based on your organized religion that tells you as such. Again, you have no proof of it. Matter of fact, your follow on stories rely on it being true. If the virgin birth isn't true it changes what your organized religion has told you to be true.

You replied that if you accept the supernatural as an explanation, you'd be forced to accept every other supernatural explanation ever proposed.

No, that was your implication.

You then followed it, in the very next sentence no less, by stating that you believe in a deity. You accept the supernatural as an explanation.

Accepting a Deity and supernatural is a hell of a lot difference than accepting a story that was later written by someone documenting something they heard verbally. Really is that all you have? Do you not know your facts????

You have demonstrated that your reasoning for rejecting the Virgin Birth is flawed, because clearly accepting (or considering) a supernatural explanation in one thing has not forced you to accept the supernatural explanation every time it's claimed. The primary proof of this, of course, is that you reject the Virgin Birth.

HUH??????

Your own statements have contradicted your reasoning, and shown it to be flawed.

Again HUH??? Please show me where a human story passed down verbally then written at a later point is flawed.

Of course, now you're trying to change the subject by discussing human interpretation and so on, but it's not relevant to this point, which is based entirely upon your own statements.

No, you are creating noise to avoid answering a question. I answer yours, you respond by, I wont answer I need to keep you on topic. Can I explain infant mortality to you and how it differs by country? Or will your church not allow that?

I'm not dropping out, I'm trying to keep you on one topic, rather than having you do precisely what you accuse me of, which is shifting the topic. To wit:

No you are dropping out and putting up a smoke screen to avoid answering a tough question.

You asserted that the Virgin Birth is the "centerpoint" of Christianity. I demonstrated through Scripture that it was not. You changed subjects.

Taking away the virgin birth dismisses all of christianity. I didn't change that. I state it in every post. It changes Jesus role in all of history.

You asserted that the Virgin Birth is only believed by 1/3 of the world. I pointed out that Muslims believe that too. You changed subjects.

I didn't change that, i was called out on that. You are correct, Muslims believe it too, so it's at 50%. Please tell me where I changed subjects.

You asserted that if we accept the supernatural as a possible explanation in any facet of our lives, it means we have to gullibly accept it as an explanation every time. This is clearly false, as demonstrated by your own example, and now you're trying to shift the topic again.

HUH??? Stop putting up a smoke screen and explain genetic disorders and why children die in infancy. Stay on topic.

So yes, I did choose, instead of giving a serious answer to your question, to bust your chops a bit. (It is silly to say you don't believe other people about religious topics, then ask other people about religious topics, you know),

This is ridiculous enough as it is without opening another line of discussion.

You have no answer but what your church told you to say. Please answer with honest debate instead of smokescreens.

[techboy]

Because it is. And it's not ludicrous.

You are honestly making less and less sense as you proceed. You just stated that something is and is not ludicrous in back to back sentences.

And none of your "links" prove it is real.

When did I even try to prove the virgin birth by providing links? What the heck are you even talking about?

I'm pretty sure I flat out stated that historically speaking, the only thing that we can say for sure about the Virgin Birth is that Jesus' followers told that story about him.

You are accepting the story without any fact.

Well, if you want to be technical about it, here's the story I'm accepting:

Jesus was born of a virgin, began a ministry after about 30 or so years of life, had a ministry of teaching and healing (with a reputation as a miracle worker) for about 3 years, claimed he was God, was executed by the Romans, and rose again from the dead validating his claims.

I can provide solid historical evidence for everything except the very first item, and since I have good reason to believe the rest of the story, I accept the first as part of the package.

Unless you can provide actual evidence that it didn't happen, I feel comfortable taking this position, and in being wholly rational to do so.

No, that was your implication.

What are you talking about? That wasn't an implication. It was a direct quote:

By that logic, I would not be allowed to reject any of mans claim of any event being supernatural. I would have to accept all things earmarked as supernatural.

Again, you're not making any sense.

HUH??????

Yeah. My thoughts exactly.

Again HUH??? Please show me where a human story passed down verbally then written at a later point is flawed.

Okay, the story's not flawed at all. You win.

Again, this makes no sense. I wasn't talking about the Bible. I was talking about direct quotes. From you. What does the oral transmission of Scripture have to do with anything?

HUH indeed.

No, you are creating noise to avoid answering a question.

I think I've been around here long enough that people can recognize that I am not afraid to engage a tough question, and I don't mind engaging in a debate from time to time.

Taking away the virgin birth dismisses all of christianity. I didn't change that. I state it in every post.

Simply stating it over and over doesn't make it true, and you've never addressed the fact that the earliest Christians barely talked about the supposed center of their faith when they were trying to spread it, but let's assume for the sake of argument you're right.

Go ahead. Take away the virgin birth. Prove it didn't happen.

Remember, the burden of proof isn't on me anymore. I already told you that there was no way to prove it happened.

I didn't change that, i was called out on that. You are correct, Muslims believe it too, so it's at 50%. Please tell me where I changed subjects.

You changed subjects when you went on to other issues without even acknowledging your error.

HUH???

Yeah, I know.

Stop putting up a smoke screen and explain genetic disorders and why children die in infancy. Stay on topic.

I don't think it's the topic, actually, and I'm probably going to regret this, but okay.

Genetic disorders are caused by errors in DNA.

Children die in infancy for a variety of reasons, usually disease, often compounded by poor nutrition and lack of medical care, especially in poorer nations.

[Mickalino]

I apologize if I gave the impression that I was preaching or implying that I was better than anyone.

And, yes, my father does love me, but if I understand what you are asking, my intent was not to say that I don't have just as many issues as the next person.

I'm not totally sure I understand your interpretation, but I get the impression you didn't follow where i was going, so I will elaborate :

As for your belief that a "loving God" could not possibly allow or send anyone to hell, I offer these analogies and descriptions :

If your father was like most fathers, then much like God, he loves you with a love that is beyond words. Yet as great as that love was, that incredible love does not mean that as a child, you could do anything you wanted without consequences.

A person in authority such as an earthly father, or God himself, both of whom possess incredible love, still must show discipline to those children he created, lest they wander off into self-imposed destruction. So, when you were a child, was it your father's fault if he told you not to go a certain path which would bring you torment, but you did it anyway, and suffered greatly ? Was the fact that you suffered those terrible circumstances an indication that your father didn't love you ? HA. Obviously not. It was his love that warned you about not going that path.

And apparently much of humanity was indeed headed for destruction and hell, despite having this loving God, or else God would not have needed to send his Son to die for their sins, in order to keep much of humanity from going to hell.

************One final note for the rest of the posters here who discount Christianity for its "supposed" outlandish stories in the Bible.

The truth is, God does not expect an unbeliever to believe in all of these stories. Jesus made it clear in the Gospels that unless a man become literally born again, spiritually on the inside, he will never be capable of grasping the things of the Kingdom of God. So there is really no point in attempting to understand all the miracles and what you guys call "fairy tales".

That's because God asks you to do one thing, and one thing ONLY - to accept Christs forgiveness, his Savior-ship, Lord-ship, basically everything that HE is, including His new life. And THEN he will give you the spiritual understanding on the inside to see how and why all of these other hard-to-believe aspects of the Bible are true. You must go the correct route in understanding those miracles - and that route MUST go through Jesus (which is why they call him The Way among other things) and not some other route people typically take, which is looking directly at the miracles/stories in your own logic and understanding. God will provide us the spiritual understanding to see things rightly, but as the book of Proverbs tells us time and time and time and time again, we must look in the right places, and look diligently and with a pure and honest heart. And He will show us and enlighten us.

The Bible makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR, that on Judgment Day, the Great Judge will be interested in ONE thing, and ONE thing ONLY - did you follow the truth through The Way, The Truth, and The Life, not whether you correctly analyzed all the "stories" in the Bible. So before you attempt to believe in the Virgin Birth, Feeding the 5000 with a few loaves and fish, etc, the only real question is, do you believe whether Jesus is the Son of God, and Saviour and Lord of the universe ? If you do, then every other issue you have wondered about will fall into place. ******

[drtdrums]

Chip,

Do you accept the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent God?

If yes, then you have to allow for the possibility of the virgin birth. You can disagree with the idea and state you don't believe in it, but you can't say that it isn't a possibility. You gave up that option when you said, "Yes" to the first question. To accuse techboy of flawed logic on this point is wrong in the way that getting a math problem incorrect is wrong.

Your conclusion that the virgin birth didn't happen isn't necessarily wrong, just the way you're saying that you get there. Your argument is wrong because it fails traditional logic. The answer may be 5, but the problem isn't 2+2 if that's the case. Or put another way:

If A is capable of action £, and A has not been excluded, then action £ has not been excluded.

Which premise do you reject? That God, if He exists, has enough power to cause conception in a virgin?

...because based on your words, you've already accepted that it is possible that a God exists. You're going to have to start arguing limitations of God to win the current form of your argument. There's no other course.

[Seabee1973]

A somewhat sincere, but mostly troublemaking thought for a Sunday morning. If we were all created in God's image, if God created us and yet we are all born wicked... well, does that mean God is good or a bit well...

Certainly, when we are speaking of being created in his image that speaks to the soul and not our physical appearance.... beauty is only skin deep, after all. I'm not sure what I'm looking with thought, but it intrigued me and so I put it out there. I don't truly mean to offend and I apologize if I do, but it's one of the beliefs that always has baffled me a bit.

(For what it's worth, I personally don't believe we are all born sinners. I think sin is a result of nurture versus nature in most cases)

Actually God didnt make us sinners it was result of Adam and Eve sinning that we are all born sinners/ Wether Adam had sinned then or waited it was going top happen one way or another

---------- Post added May-31st-2011 at 12:00 AM ----------

Because it is. And it's not ludicrous. And none of your "links" prove it is real. Your supernatural insistence is silly. The virgin birth concept is based on stories passed down verbally not based on coverage by anything credible. It's a story passed down, not a documented news item. You are accepting the story without any fact.

It's a miracle based on your organized religion that tells you as such. Again, you have no proof of it. Matter of fact, your follow on stories rely on it being true. If the virgin birth isn't true it changes what your organized religion has told you to be true.

.

.

It was prophesied hundreds of years in advance

[AsburySkinsFan]

The whole concept of Hell shows he is neither love nor Justice

That only shows that you don't know what justice really is when it comes to sin.

---------- Post added May-31st-2011 at 07:16 AM ----------

My God? I don't understand. I mean If God created everything and everyone wouldn't that mean that there is not only just the one God, but that God would be everyone's God.

I think you read my statement wrong, I was referring to your thinking about "God is love" and nothing else. As for Yahweh being everyone's God, I affirm that, but I don't believe everyone responds to God in the way God calls for.

[Mickalino]

Actually God didnt make us sinners it was result of Adam and Eve sinning that we are all born sinners/ Wether Adam had sinned then or waited it was going top happen one way or another

The fact that we were born sinners, and didn't have a choice in that, does not bother me at all, like it bothers many people, considering that by the time I was born, there was ALSO made a way OUT of being a sinner for me So, there's really no need to complain.

[AsburySkinsFan]

"No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, from the unknown, and incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."

— Robert G. Ingersoll

What an awful false dichotomy.

[mardi gras skin]

What an awful false dichotomy.

There is so much bad thinking in this thread its almost unreadable. This is the most erratic religious thread I can remember reading.

[Burgold]

There is so much bad thinking in this thread its almost unreadable. This is the most erratic religious thread I can remember reading.

Which probably means it was a perfect thread

If there's this much confusion, then there needs to be enlightenment and teaching. I had another troublemaking thought this morning when I read Crabr's comment about Hell, but I should probably hold off. It had to do with Hell being such a late invention/discovery...

[Kosher Ham]

I will respond to your response in a few minutes techboy, I apologize for the delay, I am multi-tasking at the moment.

I wanted to get this in before I forget: Why does one have to believe in the Virgin birth to believe in God ?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Because it is. And it's not ludicrous. And none of your "links" prove it is real. Your supernatural insistence is silly. The virgin birth concept is based on stories passed down verbally not based on coverage by anything credible. It's a story passed down, not a documented news item. You are accepting the story without any fact.

Now this is funny, because I bet if we dig hard enough we'll find some things that you accept without any facts. This is the problem with the supposed modern scientific mind that supposes to only believe that which is proven to it, only to find in reality that it believes a lot more than what is actually proven scientifically.

It's a miracle based on your organized religion that tells you as such. Again, you have no proof of it. Matter of fact, your follow on stories rely on it being true. If the virgin birth isn't true it changes what your organized religion has told you to be true.

It's a miracle based on what the scriptures teach. I have no proof that Cortez burned his ships when he came to the new world, but I believe it. Do you?

Accepting a Deity and supernatural is a hell of a lot difference than accepting a story that was later written by someone documenting something they heard verbally. Really is that all you have? Do you not know your facts????

How is accepting an omnipotent God different than accepting a story that talks about how that omnipotent God works mysteriously in our reality? I'm sorry but if you think that the belief in the almighty God is somehow different than a belief that the same almighty God can do something in a way that you cannot understand then I guess you just can't believe in an almighty God.

Again HUH??? Please show me where a human story passed down verbally then written at a later point is flawed.

Are you questioning the accuracy of oral tradition? What are you after?

No, you are creating noise to avoid answering a question. I answer yours, you respond by, I wont answer I need to keep you on topic. Can I explain infant mortality to you and how it differs by country? Or will your church not allow that?

And infant mortality has what to do with proof of the existence of God or the reality of miracles?

Taking away the virgin birth dismisses all of christianity. I didn't change that. I state it in every post. It changes Jesus role in all of history.

I guess I find this kind of funny, you keep going back to the Virgin Birth, and if you can disprove the Virgin Birth then you've disproved Christianity. Fine....disprove that the miracle happened 2,000 years ago.

What I find even more humorous is the fact that you find the Virgin Birth to be a bigger stumbling block than the idea that the Second Person of the Triune Godhead became flesh and lived on Earth, died for the sins of all, was buried and then resurrected three days later, and then dwelt with his followers for 40 days before ascending back to God the Father, who then sent the 3rd person of the Triune Godhead to invisibly live on Earth with people to draw their attention to God, and that one day in the future God will return to judge the faithful and the unfaithful, and that God will remake Heaven and Earth and once again dwell with humanity as He originally created humanity. But, you go ahead and find the Virgin Birth silly. I'll just sit back and laugh.

You have no answer but what your church told you to say. Please answer with honest debate instead of smokescreens.

So let's see, you want to argue with a person of faith about their faith and you won't allow that person to argue from their faith. See once again you're trying to stack the deck in your favor; i.e. Rules for this debate; 1) We must prove the existence of a miracle, 2) we cannot refer to the teachings of the church nor the Bible which are how we know about this miracle to begin with, 3) any inference that a miracle happened will be counted as an invalid argument.

Gee how could you lose.

[Burgold]

I will respond to your response in a few minutes techboy, I apologize for the delay, I am multi-tasking at the moment.

I wanted to get this in before I forget: Why does one have to believe in the Virgin birth to believe in God ?

One doesn't, but if you don't buy into the Virgin birth and believe in God... you are more likely to be Jewish than Christian (or the follower of some other monotheisitic religion).

[chipwhich]

You are honestly making less and less sense as you proceed. You just stated that something is and is not ludicrous in back to back sentences.

I think your confusion is you infer that because I think their is a Deity that I also believe there is a god who would step into 1 individuals life and inseminate them, or do anything to them for that matter. That's why you are confused. I don't think there is a Deity that will step in to your life or mine and perform a personal gesture of any sort. So hopefully you can stop inferring what I said.

I don't think it's the topic, actually, and I'm probably going to regret this, but okay.

Genetic disorders are caused by errors in DNA.

Children die in infancy for a variety of reasons, usually disease, often compounded by poor nutrition and lack of medical care, especially in poorer nations.

Well yeah it is the topic. You and ASF avoid it.

So gods children are born as sinners, and if they are unfortunate enough to be in a poorer nation, they have a higher chance of not surviving. In some countries as high as a 25% infant mortality rate. The topic is being born in God's image. How do you and ASF support the affect of genetic disorders as a result of DNA, physical disorders, mental disorders, or simply being unfortunate enough to be born yet die due to being in a high risk country for births.

I tried to ask that in an earlier post and you and ASF spewed nonsense.

Point being, your concepts are based on being born "normal" and with the assumption that those born are of right mind to make a decision. It doesn't have an answer for those destined for death, retardation, or mental incapacity. Being born in gods image assumes being born whole so to speak.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I will respond to your response in a few minutes techboy, I apologize for the delay, I am multi-tasking at the moment.

I wanted to get this in before I forget: Why does one have to believe in the Virgin birth to believe in God ?

One doesn't. However, if one believes that Jesus was not corrupted by the sinful nature passed from "Adam" then the virgin birth is necessary because Jesus cannot redeem the world if he himself is in need of the redemption. Think of it like this, how can a duck covered in an oil slick clean off another duck in the oil slick? It can't, so the one who is clean must come in, thus the necessity of the virgin birth.