• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Parthenogenesis

Earthling

David Henson
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
 

Woberts

The Perfumed Seneschal
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.
I would guess that that's because Jesus wasn't a shark, snake, bird, or lizard. Those are the only vertebrates that parthenogenesis has been observed in.
 

Earthling

David Henson
I would guess that that's because Jesus wasn't a shark, snake, bird, or lizard. Those are the only vertebrates that parthenogenesis has been observed in.

What's the difference? I thought we all came from the primordial ooozzze billyunes and billyunes of years ago? This, uh, parthenogenesis hadn't been observed in those for some time and then, BAM!
They were. No apes / humans, huh?

Oh, well. You win some you lose some.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I would guess that that's because Jesus wasn't a shark, snake, bird, or lizard. Those are the only vertebrates that parthenogenesis has been observed in.

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.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
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, considering that Christians have been worshipping a translation error for about two thousands years, I guess everything goes.

Ciao

- viole
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
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.
 
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.
 

Woberts

The Perfumed Seneschal
What's the difference? I thought we all came from the primordial ooozzze billyunes and billyunes of years ago?
Is there a difference between a beat up pickup truck and a Boeing 747, then? They both came from the same materials.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

Earthling

David Henson
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.

Which of the two do you think are more closely resembling history?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
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.
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. After all, Zeus was knocking up everyone in my religion's stories so I'm not going to judge Christians over that. I let myth be myth and don't bring empirism in where it doesn't belong. And no Christian believes that God had sex with Mary or that God is literally a male. That's ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

Earthling

David Henson
Well, considering that Christians have been worshipping a translation error for about two thousands years, I guess everything goes.

Ciao

- viole

They worship far worse than that. Roman phallic symbols for example, but, uh - just out of curiosity, which translation error are you referring to?
 
Top