Skwim
Veteran Member
No. "Parthenogenesis" refers to the development of an embryo from an unfertilized egg.Technically, parthenogenesis is being able to reproduce without the need of outside interference.
.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No. "Parthenogenesis" refers to the development of an embryo from an unfertilized egg.Technically, parthenogenesis is being able to reproduce without the need of outside interference.
I have no idea why people keep bringing this up in terms of Christ. His conception was to be a miracle so trying to explain it scientifically is totally stupid and missing the point. It's myth. Myth and science don't have anything to do with each other. Christians themselves should know better since their god is more than capable of miracles such as simply willing a zygote into being in a uterus. He is said to have willed or spoken the entire universe into being, after all.
It is a myth. I know certain Abrahamics like to pretend their sacred stories are above the sacred stories of others and in some special category, but it just ain't so. Unlike how scoffing atheists use the term, "myth" does not mean untrue.Well, aside from making the mistake that the Jesus account is myth, you seem to miss the point. For a quarter of a century I have heard "science" minded atheists scoff at the virgin birth, and then there is the case of parthenogenesis being discussed in "scientific" circles.
Technically, parthenogenesis is being able to reproduce without the need of outside interference.
There are, and have always been numerous ways for a human female to become pregnant while still retaining an intact hymen. Sperm remains alive for 48 hours outside of the human body, any accidental contact with a vagina has the potential to cause a pregnancy, hymen or not. It's not an impenetrable defense dome, after all.
What does it matter? Gods having children with humans is pagan, get over it.
As a non-Christian (non-anything, actually) I'm amazed at how many believers still don't get that...
Wait... are we getting to this being able to happen to any of us or that every parthenogenic birth is a miracle and a son of god? It could go anywhere, depending on what we want it to mean.
So god impregnated Mary? He willed himself on her? Of course in this case I can see why god would have to be a male since if god was a female in this case we could have gender identity problems not to mention how that would happen.
It seems so much better to just realize that Mary had a sexual partner and the result was Jesus. Biologically correct. Avoids gender identity to god who actually may be a goddess. The myth is great for stories we should just leave it there as a good story.
Then too, saying the "immavulate conception" is
"historic" is a awgul big stretch.
Has far more to do with the twisted moral
standards of the day than it does
with biology.
Well science aka 1500 thought that virgin birth was valid based on observations of a particular rabbit which could produce liters without having sex. Thus the easter bunny.I don't know if this has been discussed here. Only one word for discussion, as it may be of an interest, for good or bad, in the historical case of Jesus Christ.
Ridiculous? Probably no relevance other than a side note. Parthenogenesis has relatively recently been reevaluated as the impossible it was formerly thought to be. I thought it was interesting that in a quarter of a century of discussion on the subject of Jesus Christ, I've never even heard it mentioned as a point of interest.
Wikipedia
Some article I found but didn't bother to read all of
It is a myth. I know certain Abrahamics like to pretend their sacred stories are above the sacred stories of others and in some special category, but it just ain't so. Unlike how scoffing atheists use the term, "myth" does not mean untrue.
Myth - Wikipedia
Well science aka 1500 thought that virgin birth was valid based on observations of a particular rabbit which could produce liters without having sex. Thus the easter bunny.
So i would say madona and th:e easter lizard is a less appealing image and really i think science has learned from that mistake mostly or specifically.
View attachment 26025
We're talking about religious stories, not science and objective history.
I don't see why people feel the need to denigrate people's religious stories.
"Oh, Mary was just a fornicator or **** or got raped. People just need to accept that." It's very rude and offensive. Let people have their stories and miracles.
"myth" does not mean untrue.
For a quarter of a century I have heard "science" minded atheists scoff at the virgin birth
16th century science held that viegin birth was a fact based on obsevations of rabbits.Thus the Easter bunny? Science aka 1500? The Easter Lizard and science learning from that mistake, uh, thus, Jim Morrison?
You crack me up.
Jesus walking on water, being born from a virgin, raising the dead, coming back to life from being dead for 3 days and ascending to Heaven are all examples of mythology. Jesus being a Jewish religious teacher who lived in 1st century Palestine and was crucified by the Romans would be an example of a report.Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that I'm one of those Abrahamics - how might I "pretend" that "my" "sacred" "stories" are above the "sacred stories" of "others"?
For example, That of Jehovah and Ame-no-mi-naka-nushi-no-kami?
And also, could you please give us an example of a myth and a report in modern day English?
That's nice. You've missed my point, though. Your use of the word "myth" isn't the academic use, either, and is not helpful.So then the faithful believe that their religious stories aren't true? Not the ones I see here. Many believe that their myths are historical accounts. They think a great flood carved out the Grand Canyon, and that there was a Hebrew captivity in Egypt followed by an exodus and a battle to take Canaan. If the Garden story isn't literally true, there goes original sin.
Denigrate? They present their myths as fact, and skeptics rebut them.
Sure, but if they come to unbelievers trying to promote them, then they are fair game for rebuttal.
It does to me. If a story is accurate, it is a historical account. If it's based in part on fact and part is fiction, it's a legend. If it has no basis in fact, it is a myth.
Yeah, and they also scoff at Thetans and the planet Kolob. And the flat earth people. And the ID movement. There is no reason to believe any of that, and plenty of reason not to.
16th century science held that viegin birth was a fact based on obsevations of rabbits.
People live with the delusion science is inerrant sorry, history is full of nonsense science facts.
The easter bunny became the symbol of the virgin birth in religion all based on science. Thus the easter bunny. Not that difficult.
Are you proposing the easter lizard?
Yeah, and they also scoff at Thetans and the planet Kolob. And the flat earth people. And the ID movement. There is no reason to believe any of that, and plenty of reason not to.
Jesus walking on water, being born from a virgin, raising the dead, coming back to life from being dead for 3 days and ascending to Heaven are all examples of mythology. Jesus being a Jewish religious teacher who lived in 1st century Palestine and was crucified by the Romans would be an example of a report.
Wrong. I have said multiple times that I do not use "myth" to mean "nonsense". In fact, I hate it when people misuse the term in such a way. The closest to modern mythology we have in the West is the universes that have been created around superheroes, Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, etc. Although classed as "fiction", they meet the definition of mythology have impacted the psyche of many people in the same way that a myth would.Clever. But I asked for a modern day example of both. You would say, I presume, the flying spaghetti monster and Richard Dawkins as a scientist?
The difference is, obviously, one is nonsense and one is not, correct?
Well, considering that Christians have been worshipping a translation error for about two thousands years, I guess everything goes.
When Matthew 1:23 mistakenly used the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, when it should have used the one written Hebrew. But the Christian disciples were offshoot of Hellenistic Judaism, so naturally they relied on Greek translation instead of Hebrew source.They worship far worse than that. Roman phallic symbols for example, but, uh - just out of curiosity, which translation error are you referring to?
Wrong. I have said multiple times that I do not use "myth" to mean "nonsense". In fact, I hate it when people misuse the term in such a way. The closest to modern mythology we have in the West is the universes that have been created around superheroes, Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, etc. Although classed as "fiction", they meet the definition of mythology have impacted the psyche of many people in the same way that a myth would.
When Matthew 1:23 mistakenly used the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, when it should have used the one written Hebrew. But the Christian disciples were offshoot of Hellenistic Judaism, so naturally they relied on Greek translation instead of Hebrew source.
The Hebrew almah “young woman” was turned into the Greek panthenos “virgin”.
Beside that, the author of the gospel never disclosed the full sign of Immanuel, which had to do with Ahaz’s war against Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram, and Assyria’s intervention (Isaiah 7:14-17 and 8:1-4, and compare them with 2 Kings 15:29 and 16:5-9).
Isaiah’s sign regarding to Immanuel relate to how the war will end, during Ahaz’s and Isaiah’s lives.
Immanuel and the sign had nothing to do with the messiah and Virgin birth, and nothing to do with Mary and Jesus. Matthew or whoever was the real author to this gospel, cherrypicked Isaiah’s verse in propaganda for Jesus...a propaganda that lasted for 2000 years.