More on the virgin birth

[atheist buddy]

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.�

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23�The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel�-- which means, “God with us.�

24When Joseph awoke, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

That is what it says in the Book of Matthew about Jesus's virgin birth.

In short: Mary gets pregnant, Joseph knows that he had no part in that. So then Joseph has a dream that it was the Holy Spirit that got Mary pregnant.... and he believes it.

You believe that Mary was a virgin, because some guy you never met wrote down that Joseph - who he never met - had a dream that Mary's got pregnant without having sex.

Question for debate: ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

I mean, could there be a less justifiable belief than that?

Would you believe in pink flying elephants wearing top hats, if I told you that my cousin once dreamed of one?

When you had a nightmare as a child, what did mommy tell you? Did she ever explain to you that DREAMS ARE NOT REAL?

If, as an adult, you're capable of understanding that just because you dreamed that an ogre was going to hit you with a stone club, it doesn't mean that ogres are real, then why is it that you're not capable of understanding that just because some guy dreams that his wife got pregnant without having sex, it doesn't mean that virgin births are real?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Do we have any idea of how many of those who believe that the virgin birth is a joke, that a woman with all her parts primed to give life does so spontaneously, a type of reproduction all ready in existence called parthenogenesis,

yet cling tenaciously to the idea that non-life can give rise to life?

Peace, Ted

There are no examples of parthenogenesis ever occurring in mammals however. None. Declaring that it COULD happen is to deny all observation and experience which overwhelmingly indicates that mammals, an entire distinct class of animals which humans are a part of, NEVER reproduce through parthenogenesis. And non-life ALWAYS gives rise to life unconditionally. The fundamental building blocks of all matter, whether animate or inanimate are exactly the same. They are called atoms, and they are not living.

[Zzyzx]

.

Do we have any idea of how many of those who believe that the virgin birth is a joke, that a woman with all her parts primed to give life does so spontaneously, a type of reproduction all ready in existence called parthenogenesis,

Yes, parthenogenesis occurs in arthropods ("a group of invertebrates that includes insects, spiders, crustaceans, scorpions, centipedes, and many others") and rotifers (microscopic and near-microscopic pseudocoelomate animals). Do you wish to equate humans with those animals?

parthenogenesis is a type of asexual reproduction in which the offspring develops from unfertilized eggs. It is particularly common amongst arthropods and rotifers, can also be found in some species of fish, amphibians, birds, and reptiles, but not in mammals. Parthenogenetic development also occurs in some plants species, such as roses and orange trees.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/parthenogenesis.aspx

Is a claim of "virgin birth" in humans an indication of divinity? If so something like one percent of US births annually are claimed to be to virgins. Thus, "Mary" and Jesus are nothing out of the ordinary – IF we accept human parthenogenesis.

If you wish to extend the concept, various microorganisms reproduce by cellular division (mitosis or binary fission) that does not involve fertilization. An example is paramecium, a single-celled organism.

yet cling tenaciously to the idea that non-life can give rise to life?

Parthenogenesis is not proof or disproof of the origin of life.

"Cling to" sounds characteristic of those who maintain belief in unverifiable claims and stories presented by unidentified bible writers in the ignorance of thousands of years ago – in spite of conflicting modern verifiable information.

[no1special]

[Replying to post 69 by atheist buddy]

But I do have a question for you: Have you read the entirety of literature on Thor and the other Viking gods? Are you therefore not justified in disbelieving in them? Have you read every Spiderman comic? Are you therefore not justified in believing Spiderman isn't real? Have you read all the writings of Marshall Applewhite? Are you therefore unjustified in disbelieving that as per Heaven's Gate creed, you'll be teleported to an alien space ship hiding behind a comet if you commit suicide?

The day any of the writings or writers you mentioned ask of their readers what the Bible asks of Its readers or make the claims the writers of the Bible make is the day I will debate whether I believe or disbelieve them .
No , you do not have to read a book in its entirety to classify as fiction , but you do have to read it its entirety to debate it or to ,as it is now the case , attempt to discredit it .

[no1special]

[Replying to post 81 by Zzyzx]

[no1special]

[Replying to post 81 by Zzyzx]

Is a claim of "virgin birth" in humans an indication of divinity? If so something like one percent of US births annually are claimed to be to virgins. Thus, "Mary" and Jesus are nothing out of the ordinary

If the claim of virgin birth was the only claim made by the writers of the Bible in reference to Jesus's divinity , and if you believe the claim that one percent of US births annually are virgin births , then Mary and Jesus would be nothing out of the ordinary , BUT ...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 82:

No , you do not have to read a book in its entirety to classify as fiction , but you do have to read it its entirety to debate it or to ,as it is now the case , attempt to discredit it.

It's settled then.

We'll stop moving the bibles to the fiction aisle, and y'all on the religious side, y'all tell the religious fundamentalists to quit attempting to discredit science based on tales of yore.

[atheist buddy]

Do we have any idea of how many of those who believe that the virgin birth is a joke, that a woman with all her parts primed to give life does so spontaneously, a type of reproduction all ready in existence called parthenogenesis,

yet cling tenaciously to the idea that non-life can give rise to life?

Peace, Ted

Well Ted, either life can emerge from non-life, or it cannot.

If life cannot emerge from non-life, then life on earth must have been caused by something that is alive.

Let's call that thing which is alive "God".

Now, if God is alive, and if life cannot emerge from non-life, then something alive must have caused God.

So, who created God?

[RaiderGonzo]

Well Ted, either life can emerge from non-life, or it cannot.

If life cannot emerge from non-life, then life on earth must have been caused by something that is alive.

Let's call that thing which is alive "God".

Now, if God is alive, and if life cannot emerge from non-life, then something alive must have caused God.

So, who created God?

Buddy Atheist, you yourself don't know the answer to that question you posed., you can only assume that life comes out of nowhere, and cannot phantom Life ever being ~> self sustained

Since you yourself cannot phantom the answer to Life, how then can you deny the answer to the Life you have?

It remains a question mark., and you must by default believe in an accident that gave you reason and breath, or, you have to acknowledge the unknown., but if you acknowledge the unknown, then you have to place into the equation a greater mystery of Life that you cannot explain, and by acknowledging such mystery, you by default have to think about Life everlasting; henceforth ~> GOD

[atheist buddy]

Well Ted, either life can emerge from non-life, or it cannot.

If life cannot emerge from non-life, then life on earth must have been caused by something that is alive.

Let's call that thing which is alive "God".

Now, if God is alive, and if life cannot emerge from non-life, then something alive must have caused God.

So, who created God?

Buddy Atheist, you yourself don't know the answer to that question you posed.

Correct.

you can only assume that life comes out of nowhere

What are you talking about? Why would I assume something as absurd as that?

and cannot phantom Life ever being ~> self sustained

I can try to fathom it. Kinda. I don't really know what you mean. Self sustained? Life emerging out of itself? Can't really fathom it to any greater degree than I can phathom a bachelor's wife or a two dimentional sphere.

Since you yourself cannot phantom the answer to Life, how then can you deny the answer to the Life you have?

What??? What in the world are you saying? What answer?

Are you saying "Since I don't know everything about the origin of life, then I should believe in the Christian God"? That's an argument from ignorance, and a misguided notion that somehow belief in your God and disbelief in the thousands of other Gods is a justified default position.

It remains a question mark.

Right. Well, we know quite a bit, and we've been able to recreate in the lab a lot of what created the complex molecules that are the precursers to current DNA and RNA, but yes, we still don't know EVERYTHING about exactly how life began.

and you must by default believe in an accident that gave you reason and breath

What in the world are you talking about? Why would I believe in that? There is no evidence of that! Please, I take great offense to being accused of believing things I don't believe. Feel free to tell me what you believe, or ask me about what I believe, but don't TELL ME what I believe, ok?

or, you have to acknowledge the unknown

Well, I have to acknowledge that there are some things that are unknown to me, like for example the origin of life.

but if you acknowledge the unknown, then you have to place into the equation a greater mystery of Life that you cannot explain,

No I don't. If I acknowledge that I don't know how life began exactly, then I am placing into the equation THAT mystery. Not a GREATER mystery. THAT mystery.

and by acknowledging such mystery, you by default have to think about Life everlasting; henceforth ~> GOD

Nope. That is fundamentally unjustified and misguided.

Here is something I don't know: The exact details of how life began to exist. I know a lot about it. Some of it I can recreate in a lab, but I don't know exactly everything about it.

Here is something else I don't know: If Allah is the merciful the creator of the universe.

The fact that I don't know the first thing does not in any way mean that I have to think about the second thing.

And I certainly cannot ASSERT the second thing on the basis of my lack of complete knowledge of the 1st thing. Because that would be an argument from ignorance.

And no, I'm not calling you ignorant. Or rather, only insofar as you don't know what an argument from ignorance is.

[ttruscott]

Do we have any idea of how many of those who believe that the virgin birth is a joke, that a woman with all her parts primed to give life does so spontaneously, a type of reproduction all ready in existence called parthenogenesis,

yet cling tenaciously to the idea that non-life can give rise to life?

Peace, Ted

Well Ted, either life can emerge from non-life, or it cannot.

If life cannot emerge from non-life, then life on earth must have been caused by something that is alive.

Let's call that thing which is alive "God".

Now, if God is alive, and if life cannot emerge from non-life, then something alive must have caused God.

So, who created God?

Your argument rests upon GOD being created and not eternal in the past, which has not been proven.

Something must be eternal or something came from nothing, that is, an absolute nothing...so which is harder to believe...that the eternal something is alive and conscious and intelligent or just non-living material with the attenuating problems of entropy?

Peace, Ted