Parthenogenesis

[Skwim]

Technically, parthenogenesis is being able to reproduce without the need of outside interference.

No. "Parthenogenesis" refers to the development of an embryo from an unfertilized egg.

.

 

[Earthling]

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.

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.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

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

 

[Earthling]

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.

What significance is there in it's allegedly being pagan? So is baptism, the cross, the immortal soul, hell, the trinity, Christmas, Easter, tombstones, wind chimes, wedding rings . . .

 

[Earthling]

As a non-Christian (non-anything, actually) I'm amazed at how many believers still don't get that...

I myself have only recently been introduced to the notion, on this very forum by @Subduction Zone and @ChristineM of all people. I think because the immaculate conception is primarily Catholic but heard so often that someone unfamiliar with Catholic teachings make the mistake. That's the way it was with me, anyway.

 

[Earthling]

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.

The point was why would a virgin birth be considered so miraculous to people who you would think have at least heard of parthenogenesis?

 

[Earthling]

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.

Why?

 

[David T]

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.

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

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.

 

[Earthling]

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

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?

 

[Earthling]

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

Thus the Easter bunny? Science aka 1500? The Easter Lizard and science learning from that mistake, uh, thus, Jim Morrison?

You crack me up.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We're talking about religious stories, not science and objective history.

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.

I don't see why people feel the need to denigrate people's religious stories.

Denigrate? They present their myths as fact, and skeptics rebut them.

"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.

Sure, but if they come to unbelievers trying to promote them, then they are fair game for rebuttal.

"myth" does not mean untrue.

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.

For a quarter of a century I have heard "science" minded atheists scoff at the virgin birth

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.

 

[David T]

Thus the Easter bunny? Science aka 1500? The Easter Lizard and science learning from that mistake, uh, thus, Jim Morrison?

You crack me up.

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?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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?

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.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

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.

 

[Earthling]

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?

You're mode of speech is difficult to follow, Earthling man, Slartibartfast said to Dent Arthur Dent, as in the late Dent Arthur Dent.

First of all, though, let's get the proposition of the Easter Lizard out of the way. The answer is no. I'm not proposing such an amphibian / pagan symbol.

The Easter bunny comes from the fertility symbols associated with Astarte, on the alluvial plains of Babylon / Ur during Abraham's time (2018 - 1843 B.C.E.). The rabbit, the egg and the cross.

What struck me odd was your statement: "science aka 1500"... then "thus the easter bunny."

Good point on science as well as pagan nonsense, though.

 

[Earthling]

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.

Great, but I haven't heard them scoff at Thetans and the planet Kolob or flat earth people, which apparently is a recent phenomenon? and the ID movement should be scoffed at, from what I can see. Biblically and apparently scientifically obtuse.

 

[Earthling]

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.

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?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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?

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.

 

[gnostic]

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

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

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.

 

[Earthling]

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.

I should have left the "nonsense" comment out. Would you have agreed with the Dawkins example if I hadn't?

I believe you've made that distinction outside of this thread to me before, and I'm trying to understand your motivation for doing so, I suppose, in an academic sense, as you seem to suggest it is. I've read the link you gave, in fact, I've posted it in reference on my own website prior to your having given it.

So, I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm not trying to be a smart *** in a "debate." I don't consider what we all do here as "debate" as such, but rather, discussions. Some heated, some not.

Myth. I earlier pointed out to you as you seem to describe them, as a parable, illustration, etc. For example, Jesus told many. They weren't literal accounts. Lazarus, the prodigal son, etc.

It begs the question, how has Jesus virgin birth, walking on water, raising the dead, ascending to heaven not fit under your definition of mythology as having impacted the psyche of many people?

Are you sure it isn't, put simply, nonsense?

 

[Earthling]

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.

Well, this is a mess of info to go through, but I guess if I make it to post reply I must be in the mood to tackle it. The Hebrew word almah (Isaiah 7:14, "young woman" RSV) appears seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Proverbs 30:19, Psalms 68:25, Song Of Solomon 1:3, Song Of Solomon 6:8, and Isaiah 7:14.

The oldest written translation of the Hebrew scriptures, of course, is the Septuagint (LXX). It's translation begun in the third century B.C.E. by Greek speaking Jews. They translated almah into virgin at Genesis 24:43 and at Isaiah 7:14., using the Greek word parthenos.

Let's see if that will settle the matter without going into Ahaz and Pekah.