5 ms·

Many would argue this already occurred with Jesus, born from the virgin Mary.

simiones 5y ago
Most Christians believe that that was not some biological process, but a true miracle where God himself bestowed this child on Mary. It would be technically correct that this was parthenogenesis, but it is a completely different... mechanism. Most non-Christians, even if they believe Jesus was a true historical figure, do not believe that his mother was a virgin.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  this is complicated, nuanced and not literal; it is a typical thing for critics to latch on to, so let's be wise-cautious with the exposition here at YNews, please
  - simiones 5y ago
    Absolutely. I wasn't trying to criticize anyone's beliefs, and I hope I didn't come across as such, and sincerely apologize if it did. My only point was exactly that it's not a great idea to take a religious experience and analyze it as an example of a basic biological phenomenon.
  - anunnymouse 5y ago
    'this is complicated, nuanced and not literal' - arn't most things though? At least the person you are replying to started their comment with a weasel word - you're the one making the categorical statement about whether it is literal.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    Miracles are absolutely (supposed to be) literal. It's a requirement for Sainthood, for example.
  - Razengan 5y ago
    > be wise-cautious with the exposition here at YNews, please One would think that YNews would be the most appropriate place for questioning blind faith in absurd claims.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    Not Christian, but as my Rabbi used to say: "When God created the earth 5782 years ago (give or take a few billion years),"
    - mistrial9 5y ago
      Mel Brooks?
      - xxpor 5y ago
        It would not shock me in the slightest if that's where he got it.
- hadlock 5y ago
  > Most Christians believe that Do you have any sort of statistics to back this up? A survey of some kind? From my own experience, most people who are Christian subscribe to the lifestyle and teachings, but do not accept 100% of the bible as truth.
  - blendergeek 5y ago
    I don't have data for the whole world, but at least in the USA, most Christians (and the majority of Americans) believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ [0]. [0] https://www.pewforum.org/2017/12/12/americans-say-religious-aspects-of-christmas-are-declining-in-public-life/ https://www.pewforum.org/2017/12/12/americans-say-religious-...
  - the_af 5y ago
    > Do you have any sort of statistics to back this up? A survey of some kind? The virgin birth of Jesus is an article of faith and dogma for Catholicism, itself a major branch of Christianity.
  - handrous 5y ago
    It's... at least the official doctrine of most Christian churches, yeah, and that's usually held as a particularly important point. Catholics, certainly, and they're rather numerous. It is possible that many, or even most, Christians disagree with tenets of faith that their churches hold to be absolutely vital and indispensable, I suppose. [EDIT] It's part of the Nicene Creed, even. I think it's fair to say that if most church-goers at most Christian churches told a priest or pastor that they didn't believe that God miracle'd a baby into the Virgin Mary, it would, at the very least, give the priest or pastor a frowny face and/or evoke a "wait... what exactly do you think we're up to, here?" reaction.
  - Falling3 5y ago
    Anecdotal, but I've never met or even heard of a Christian who believed in the virgin birth but thought it was the result of a natural process. Are there any examples of that you're aware of?
    - 5y ago
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Most Christians believe that that was not some biological process, but a true miracle where God himself bestowed this child on Mary. Most Christians that have spent the time to consider what it means for God to manifest a miracle fairly explicitly accept that that necessarily involves some physical sequence of events, potentially leveraging underlying capacities which in time and space predate the event which God, being all-knowing and existing outside of time and space, may have created for the express purpose of that specific miracle. And most of the rest of Christians would probably dismiss the mechanical question as irrelevant for miracles, preferring to ask “why” rather than “how”.
  - the_af 5y ago
    > Most Christians that have spent the time to consider what it means for God to manifest a miracle fairly explicitly accept that that necessarily involves some physical sequence of events That hasn't been my experience. I don't know about "most" Christians -- I wouldn't dare presume to speak for anyone in the US, for example -- but every Catholic I've spoken with (I live in a majorly Catholic country) believes in the entirely miraculous virgin birth of Jesus. I think the phrasing "most Christians that have spent the time to consider [...]" is unfortunate; it reads like "every Christian which believes [this thing] believes [this thing]". Or it makes Christians who do believe in the miraculous birth without a prior physical setup to be somehow less thinking Christians. Do note I'm an atheist myself so I certainly don't believe in miracles, either direct or indirect; I've no dog in this race.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > but every Catholic I've spoken with (I live in a majorly Catholic country) believes in the entirely miraculous virgin birth of Jesus. Sure. I’m a Catholic and I believe that. It’s also a non-explanation that doesn't actually rule out any particular physical process occurring as part of the manifestation of the miracle. Other than things like the routine transubstantiation of the elements of the eucharist, where a defined part of the miracle is the absence of any physical manifestation of it occurring [0], that's pretty typical of miracles. [0] Why doesn't the bread and wine that miraculously becomes the body and blood of Christ taste like flesh and blood? Well, because it miraculously also retains all the physical properties of bread and wine...
mistrial9 5y ago
lots of stories in religion are not literal -- they are presented as undeniable Truth to quash low-level arguements
brudgers 5y ago
Many would argue Paul's Letter to the Internetans: Chapter 1, Verse 1.
- the_af 5y ago
  Paul's Letter contains this warning: "[And Thou Shalt Add a Citation, Lest Your Claim Be Purged From Internetan Records]"
rsynnott 5y ago
I mean, I'm not sure that _many_ would argue that. Most people would either take the view that Jesus had a human father, or that a miracle was involved. If nothing else, if he'd come about by this pathway, he'd be XX, which you'd think would have merited a mention in the Bible. (It isn't totally unknown for XX people to be phenotypically male, and it'd fit with him having no kids, but really this seems like a needlessly complicated backstory for Jesus.)
dang 5y ago
Please don't take HN threads on religious tangents. It's off topic and just leads to religious flamewars. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29068477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29068477.
Maursault 5y ago
No one argues that the Immaculate Conception is parthenogenesis. It could not possibly have been, because if it had, either Jesus would have been Jesusa, or Mary was hermaphroditic and Jesus her genetic clone. Since we know neither of these explanations is credible, it had to be miracle birth. When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Now with Horace and Isis it's quite different. Isis was a virgin and Horace was a falcon, so I'm really not sure how that worked.

Most Christians believe that that was not some biological process, but a true miracle where God himself bestowed this child on Mary. It would be technically correct that this was parthenogenesis, but it is a completely different... mechanism. Most non-Christians, even if they believe Jesus was a true historical figure, do not believe that his mother was a virgin.

mistrial9 5y ago
this is complicated, nuanced and not literal; it is a typical thing for critics to latch on to, so let's be wise-cautious with the exposition here at YNews, please
- simiones 5y ago
  Absolutely. I wasn't trying to criticize anyone's beliefs, and I hope I didn't come across as such, and sincerely apologize if it did. My only point was exactly that it's not a great idea to take a religious experience and analyze it as an example of a basic biological phenomenon.
- anunnymouse 5y ago
  'this is complicated, nuanced and not literal' - arn't most things though? At least the person you are replying to started their comment with a weasel word - you're the one making the categorical statement about whether it is literal.
- yupper32 5y ago
  Miracles are absolutely (supposed to be) literal. It's a requirement for Sainthood, for example.
- Razengan 5y ago
  > be wise-cautious with the exposition here at YNews, please One would think that YNews would be the most appropriate place for questioning blind faith in absurd claims.
- xxpor 5y ago
  Not Christian, but as my Rabbi used to say: "When God created the earth 5782 years ago (give or take a few billion years),"
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    Mel Brooks?
    - xxpor 5y ago
      It would not shock me in the slightest if that's where he got it.
hadlock 5y ago
> Most Christians believe that Do you have any sort of statistics to back this up? A survey of some kind? From my own experience, most people who are Christian subscribe to the lifestyle and teachings, but do not accept 100% of the bible as truth.
- blendergeek 5y ago
  I don't have data for the whole world, but at least in the USA, most Christians (and the majority of Americans) believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ [0]. [0] https://www.pewforum.org/2017/12/12/americans-say-religious-aspects-of-christmas-are-declining-in-public-life/ https://www.pewforum.org/2017/12/12/americans-say-religious-...
- the_af 5y ago
  > Do you have any sort of statistics to back this up? A survey of some kind? The virgin birth of Jesus is an article of faith and dogma for Catholicism, itself a major branch of Christianity.
- handrous 5y ago
  It's... at least the official doctrine of most Christian churches, yeah, and that's usually held as a particularly important point. Catholics, certainly, and they're rather numerous. It is possible that many, or even most, Christians disagree with tenets of faith that their churches hold to be absolutely vital and indispensable, I suppose. [EDIT] It's part of the Nicene Creed, even. I think it's fair to say that if most church-goers at most Christian churches told a priest or pastor that they didn't believe that God miracle'd a baby into the Virgin Mary, it would, at the very least, give the priest or pastor a frowny face and/or evoke a "wait... what exactly do you think we're up to, here?" reaction.
- Falling3 5y ago
  Anecdotal, but I've never met or even heard of a Christian who believed in the virgin birth but thought it was the result of a natural process. Are there any examples of that you're aware of?
  - 5y ago
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Most Christians believe that that was not some biological process, but a true miracle where God himself bestowed this child on Mary. Most Christians that have spent the time to consider what it means for God to manifest a miracle fairly explicitly accept that that necessarily involves some physical sequence of events, potentially leveraging underlying capacities which in time and space predate the event which God, being all-knowing and existing outside of time and space, may have created for the express purpose of that specific miracle. And most of the rest of Christians would probably dismiss the mechanical question as irrelevant for miracles, preferring to ask “why” rather than “how”.
- the_af 5y ago
  > Most Christians that have spent the time to consider what it means for God to manifest a miracle fairly explicitly accept that that necessarily involves some physical sequence of events That hasn't been my experience. I don't know about "most" Christians -- I wouldn't dare presume to speak for anyone in the US, for example -- but every Catholic I've spoken with (I live in a majorly Catholic country) believes in the entirely miraculous virgin birth of Jesus. I think the phrasing "most Christians that have spent the time to consider [...]" is unfortunate; it reads like "every Christian which believes [this thing] believes [this thing]". Or it makes Christians who do believe in the miraculous birth without a prior physical setup to be somehow less thinking Christians. Do note I'm an atheist myself so I certainly don't believe in miracles, either direct or indirect; I've no dog in this race.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > but every Catholic I've spoken with (I live in a majorly Catholic country) believes in the entirely miraculous virgin birth of Jesus. Sure. I’m a Catholic and I believe that. It’s also a non-explanation that doesn't actually rule out any particular physical process occurring as part of the manifestation of the miracle. Other than things like the routine transubstantiation of the elements of the eucharist, where a defined part of the miracle is the absence of any physical manifestation of it occurring [0], that's pretty typical of miracles. [0] Why doesn't the bread and wine that miraculously becomes the body and blood of Christ taste like flesh and blood? Well, because it miraculously also retains all the physical properties of bread and wine...

mistrial9 5y ago

lots of stories in religion are not literal -- they are presented as undeniable Truth to quash low-level arguements

brudgers 5y ago

Many would argue Paul's Letter to the Internetans: Chapter 1, Verse 1.

the_af 5y ago
Paul's Letter contains this warning: "[And Thou Shalt Add a Citation, Lest Your Claim Be Purged From Internetan Records]"

rsynnott 5y ago

I mean, I'm not sure that _many_ would argue that. Most people would either take the view that Jesus had a human father, or that a miracle was involved. If nothing else, if he'd come about by this pathway, he'd be XX, which you'd think would have merited a mention in the Bible. (It isn't totally unknown for XX people to be phenotypically male, and it'd fit with him having no kids, but really this seems like a needlessly complicated backstory for Jesus.)

dang 5y ago

Please don't take HN threads on religious tangents. It's off topic and just leads to religious flamewars. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29068477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29068477.

Maursault 5y ago

No one argues that the Immaculate Conception is parthenogenesis. It could not possibly have been, because if it had, either Jesus would have been Jesusa, or Mary was hermaphroditic and Jesus her genetic clone. Since we know neither of these explanations is credible, it had to be miracle birth. When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Now with Horace and Isis it's quite different. Isis was a virgin and Horace was a falcon, so I'm really not sure how that worked.