Cutting the crap: It's just an idea, and it's science fiction until we have 1st hand evidence/proof.

[originalpckelly]

Virgin Mary and Jesus.

The claim:
A female gave birth to a male child without having sex with a man.

The possible explanations, if we do believe it happened with the known circumstances, if we believe the claimant 100% and Joseph didn't have sex with Virgin Mary:
1. Some freak case of human parthenogenesis.
2. An act of God.

The problem with the first explanation given the statements, if believed 100%, is that Mary was a woman. A woman would only pass on XX to any offspring. This is almost like an act of God in itself.

The second is quite extraordinary, and it makes this all seem impossible.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
--Arthur C. Clarke, the third of Clarke's three laws of prediction.

Or maybe an act of God.

The first two laws are as follows:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Aka nothing is impossible and saying it is so, is just setting up a situation to be proved false.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. Aka imagination, things like science fiction.

Today, in our world, the circumstances described, if we believe them 100% are completely and totally reasonable/known to be possible with our understanding of technology, and its practical application. A woman could be a real virgin, in the sense of never having sex with anyone, and still be capable of giving birth to a male child. It's called artificial insemination.

Which is more reasonable, if we believe the statements 100%? An act of God or artificial insemination?

I'm predicting artificial insemination, but if they didn't have that technology, and didn't know how it worked down there, how could they have known?

Statements are not forms of evidence, no matter how many there are. People cannot be trusted for all kinds of reasons. We're greedy, we lie, we hate, we need attention, etc.

We're fallible, in other words. Only evidence, with first hand observation of that evidence, is really capable of proving a statement true or false beyond reasonable doubt. That or logic.

What do you think this qualifies as, why do you think it would have been done, and most importantly by whom?

If you know, then you'll know why they didn't just give all of us first hand evidence. Why they've been giving us the second hand evidence of statements.

You're going to think about the rest.

I would suggest that there are at least a three motivations for finding something out, and I think only one of them is a healthy one:
1. Curiosity
2. Ambition
3. Hatred

1. Curiosity

You can simply be curious about something, the only thing that's harmful about that is that old saying, "curiosity killed the cat." With science the only thing that can do that is to think ahead with things like rational science fiction. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Non-BS science fiction is a rational look ahead. I suggest curiosity is the pure pursuit of pure truth. Science fiction is the pure pursuit of the possible truth.

2. Ambition

You can be ambitious, and find something out, but if you think about it, you're doing it for the wrong reasons, you might not actually figure out things that way in a complete sense. If you want something for non-destructive power, which I suggest ambition can be defined as, then you are missing one important piece of knowledge: you shouldn't be using technology against other people who don't have it. The knowledge is that people should be free to make their own decisions, and you shouldn't trick them or force them with advanced technology. Doing so shows you lack that knowledge. It's the most important knowledge, because all other knowledge is totally pointless without it. That's inherently an unenlightened act. No nation that considers itself a democracy would allow itself to do that. If you know Star Trek, then you know why an advanced civilization that knows this wouldn't use their technology to gain power over us. It's called the Prime Directive. If you don't know about it, just Google it. You might also cause cultural shock. You could use it for deceptive purposes or to gain a foothold over someone else, for the purposes of enslavement. If you've ever heard of Stargate, that's a movie that contains this leap forward in understanding, a more advanced race used their more advanced technology to enslave humans.

3. Hatred

Ambition and hatred are different, I suggest. Ambition gained knowledge is the want for power, but not for destructive purposes, but rather for enslavement and soft control. If you want knowledge for destructive purposes, then that's knowledge/power for hatred. This again is not an enlightened search for power/knowledge. No democracy that's really enlightened would want this kind of power. Think of racism and religious bigotry, and the hateful differences between nations that cause wars. The last two, I suggest, we have to learn before we're going to pass a test. They're both irrational reasons for rational advancement. I suggest that any civilization must master these for it to survive on its own. If not, then these two things would destroy a civilization eventually, before it could go out to the stars, as that technology would probably be turned for use for these purposes, because both lack the understanding that we must all respect free will to truly understand the most important knowledge: basic morality.

You can probably guess now what it is, and you can understand why whoever did it, did it. Because we've arrived at this stage, we're now ready for the knowledge that might have frightened us and tempted them. Fear is the only rational reason you restrain yourself. It works for a reason, because you never really know without trying something. Marie Curie is thought to have accidentally killed herself finding out about radioactive substances. Doubt and knowledge of doubt is essential. However, fear can be motivated by the irrational reasons #2 and #3. Wouldn't you be tempted, if people feared you, to use it for your advantage? There may be other things that motivate a pursuit of knowledge and perhaps you will figure them out. If you do, please tell me, as I'm just curious. :-)

Even if it's BS, it's pretty interesting BS.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. "Even if it's BS, it's pretty interesting BS. "

I disagree. Just more timecube stuff.

[originalpckelly]

3. What is that?

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

If a scientist can be wrong, what about you? I'm only saying it's possible, not that it it's true. It's like 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Science fiction teaches us about the possibilities. This is just science fiction.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. ...

""When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.""

It's impossible to make 1 + 1 = 3. It's impossible to dig a tunnel to the moon. It's impossible to make a spaceship go faster than the speed of light.

[originalpckelly]

8. Oh really? Just use some imagination.

1 + 1 = 3
1 + 1 = 3

3/3 reduces to 1/1.
The moon stuff is based upon first hand evidence. We know the moon and earth are two separate bodies, and that is not possible.

Have you ever been in a spaceship that didn't go faster than the speed of light? How do you know what happens if you haven't experienced it first hand?

How do you know it's even necessary, have you been somewhere faster than the speed of light? Have we even built spaceships that even get close?

All we've done is observe directly the effects of particles near c, and observed that their decay time is increased, consistent with the predictions of GR as I get it.

Curiosity is our most valuable natural resource. Imagination the second most value one.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Your math is incorrect.

1 + 1 does not equal three.

"The moon stuff is based upon first hand evidence. We know the moon and earth are two separate bodies, and that is not possible."

Have you ever tried to dig a tunnel to the moon? Well then you don't know, do you?

"Have you ever been in a spaceship that didn't go faster than the speed of light? How do you know what happens if you haven't experienced it first hand?"

Because of Relativity.

"Curiosity is our most valuable natural resource. Imagination the second most value one."

As I've said before, it's a shame you can't extract energy from scientific illiteracy.

[TheMadMonk]

40. Define plus.

If we use the loose definition of "and" it is very easy to make "1" and "1" = 3.

Simply use binary notation. 11(base 2) = 3(base 10) 2^0 + 2^1 = 1 + 2 = 3.

Tunnelling to the moon.

Again definintions are critical.

In quantum mechanincs, "tunnelling" is a process whereby an object moves from one place to another without ocuppying the intervening space. Admittedly getting an object to "tunnel" over a distance of 1/4 million miles is highly improbable, however the mathematics do not absolutely forbid it.

faster than light travel.

Again not forbidden by theory. The only thing currently accepted theory absolutely forbids is causing a material object to travel at exactly the speed of light.

[Evoman]

44. Stupid HiFructosePronSyrup.

What about if there was a wormhole somewhere in the Earth's crust, and the other end was on the moon, and then you dug a tunnel to the wormhole?

Sheesh, have some fucking imagination.

:P

[Towlie]

2. All that, just to explain a myth made up to compete with the legend of Romulus and Remus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus

[originalpckelly]

5. No, you claim to know what you have no clue about.

Were you there? How do you know something was true or false beyond a reasonable doubt to make such a claim, if you weren't there?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Oh it predates Roman mythology by a few thousand years.

Virgin Mary and Jesus is just a retelling of Isis and Horus from Egyptian mythology.

[originalpckelly]

9. How do you know it?

You weren't there. You have no evidence that's first hand, all you have is statements from other people. One statement is only as good as another, the truth of a statement is not based upon the person who made it, but the evidence to back it up.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. How do you know Jack chopped down the beanstalk and killed the giant?

There's a thing called Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is usually the right explanation.

If a pregnant woman claims to be a virgin. The most likely explanation is that she's a liar.

[dbt]

37. You'd stick your dick in a blender for the attention, wouldn't you?

:evilgrin:

[Why Syzygy]

45. Isis wasn't a virgin. She had a husband and "conceived". nt

[Dragonfli]

10. A Gift

[Beetwasher]

7. Are You Saying Mary Was Artificially Inseminated By Aliens?

Well alrighty then!

[originalpckelly]

12. Are you saying you can prove it's false beyond a reasonable doubt?

Do you know? Have you any evidence whatsoever to the contrary?

You appear to know everything, which is quite arrogant. I'm only stating a possibility, and I even said it is science fiction until there is more evidence for it.

[Beetwasher]

17. LOL! That's True For Anything You Can Possibly Think Of

So what's the point? It renders your whole little exercise completely meaningless. Instead of Jesus why not insert Underwear Gnomes or invisible dragons?

The arrogance is posting thread after threat claiming you have some mindblowing revolutionary secret knowledge that only you've been able to discern that turns out to be meaningless, babbling wordsalad.

So, alrighty then! Jesus was an alien hybrid! Groovy! Now what? :shrug:

[originalpckelly]

19. No, it's the fact that the only explainations of it through rationality...

either include that Mary was not a Virgin, meaning that the Christian faith is based on a lie, or that Jesus was the product of artificial insemination by aliens, which still means Christianity is a lie.

You think the latter is less possible, but from the statement, it is equally possible.

[Beetwasher]

26. So?

Maybe underwear gnomes Did it? Or god. Maybe Jesus was really adopted. Maybe the whole thing is made up. Maybe none of this is real and we're all in the matrix. Maybe I'm dreaming you. Maybe you're dreaming me. Maybe the whole Jesus story is just an illuminati plot to steal our life energy.
So? What is the point?

[Telly Savalas]

29. Karl Rove traveled in his time machine and artificially inseminated her

to facilitate the rise of the Religious Right nearly 2,000 years later.

Connect the dots.

[Vidar]

39. Of course. That's what that saucer in "Life of Brian" was up to

[mudesi]

11. It's OBVIOUS She Had Premarital Sex Or Was Raped

Back in those days such a thing was taboo. Making up a story about it being an act of God would be the easiest excuse. And as has been pointed out in a reply above, as well as in Bill Maher's "Religilous", the Jesus/Mary virgin birth story is NOT unique. At all.

[originalpckelly]

14. Which is one of the rules of statements.

People can make shit up to cover their asses.

No matter how many statements you have, none of them matter until you have seen the first hand evidence the makers of the statements are claiming. You don't know intentions.

[Towlie]

36. No, it's obvious that little was known about the birth of Jesus. It was all made up after he died.

It's doubtful that anything was known to the Gospel writers about Jesus' life prior to his brief and ill-fated career as a street preacher. There's little reason to believe his conception, birth, and childhood were anything other than ordinary and normal.

[Revolution9]

41. i would go one further and say...

that jesus is made up peroid.
he is a composite character.
and the writings of josephus were forgeries after the fact to try to "prove" he existed.
one.big.oppressive. load-o-crap.

let go of santa clause.let go of the tooth fairy. and finally.......let go of jesus.

PS i was not there but Occam's razor applies once again. He is a story.

[librechik]

13. Jesus was a Mushroom

It's all just a mistranslation (discovered when they translated the Dead Sea Scrolls back in the 80s.

See: anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls by John Allegro, principle translator, such as

http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity-Fertility/dp/0340128755/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240612895&sr=8-1




Seriously. Word to the Wise, for those who would be free.

[Uncle Joe]

15. The birth of Earth was virginal.

Continually reshaping and subdividing in to the multitude of various life forms, only to be reabsorbed back in to the body of Earth for something else.

I believe the very fist life form in the universe whatever it was, must have come from a virginal birth, there wouldn't have been two to begin with at least from my understanding of physics.

So then the question becomes, if Jesus existed and the myth holds true, could he have been a form of corrective DNA inserted in the developing fetus of humankind?

[ZombieHorde]

23. You seem to be using a different definition for the word "birth" than the OP. nt

[Uncle Joe]

25. Yes and no. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

28. Perhaps and definitely. nt

[Uncle Joe]

30. I'm looking at reality as more than one level of birth, consider the possibilities of the universe

as a uterus, every living thing on the planet as an individual cell of a developing fetus, you, I and everyone here are part of the same body.

Regarding form and function, the rocky planets such as Earth during the early phase of the Universe were barren of life, only after being struck by countless sperm like meteors and comets bringing water and the chemical compounds making life possible, did the Earth become fertile and start subdividing.

We can't see Dark Matter but it seems to serve the same purpose as Placenta, virtually everywhere and holding everything together while it develops.

Mary would be the equivalent of a cell or something smaller receiving a corrective form of DNA from a or the creator. The difference between the O.P.'s possibility and mine regarding Mary is, what did the inseminating? He/she's thinking aliens, while my hypothesis such as it is, supports the idea of insemination coming from a or the creator, if there is one.

[ZombieHorde]

31. That is just a simile, the Universe is not a uterus, the Universe is a Universe.

Meteors may be like sperm in your mind, but meteors are not sperm, they are meteors. I like your simile, but it is just a simile.

[Uncle Joe]

33. Comets have the same general shape as sperm cells, combined with meteors

they serve the same purpose fertilizing a barren matrix or frame, so yes they are similar on a macro and micro scale.

Maybe that's what Jesus meant when he was supposed to have said "Eat this bread in remembrance of me for it is my body, drink this wine for it is my blood."

Now, I don't too much about String Theory except that space curves upon it self and there are supposed to be multiple dimensions of reality all occupying the same space. No doubt a fetus is experiencing a different reality of sorts from it's mother, although not in total, they're very much connected to the same space.

I have to cut out for the evening, but I've enjoyed chatting.

Peace,

Joe

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. They do?

Here's what comets look like:



Here's what sperm cells look like:

[Uncle Joe]

48. When in motion comets resemble sperm cells,

they have a tail as well, and they both serve to similar functions, fertilizing barren matrix-es with the compounds necessary to initiate the beginnings of life.

[Why Syzygy]

50. I wouldn't refer to an ovum as "barren". nt

[Uncle Joe]

51. As a matter of definition or sensitivity?

From my understanding there is no life if the ovum or egg isn't fertilized.

On the other hand if you're meaning sensitivity to a broader meaning, then thanks for the tip.

[kestrel91316]

16. Parthenogenesis ain't the answer. Females can ONLY produce more

females that way. The Y chromosome had to come from somewhere else.

[originalpckelly]

18. Yes, that's the point of what I said.

She would have had to had sex with a man, which means the whole entire Christian faith is based on a lie, or she was artificially inseminated by aliens, which still means the Christian faith is based on a lie.

Either one is actually equally possible, and capable of causing shock.

This lesson about first hand experience/ 2nd evidence like statements is the most important knowledge for everything. Our problems of late would have been completely prevented if were aware of this, and we didn't simply believe.

I'm sorry to anyone who this might hurt. But think about kids feel when they find out about Santa. :-(

[tkmorris]

21. "Either one is equally possible"...

In the limited sense that you mean the term, perhaps this is true but it does NOT mean they are equally likely.

[Uncle Joe]

24. How about being artificially inseminated by a creator or the creator? n/t

[Duer 157099]

38. ...or... or... this is just another mashing up of the "Adam took a rib and made woman"

Maybe it *was* parthenogenesis, but modified where the 2nd X were truncated, y'know, it was actually EVE who "broke off one of her ribs" (so to speak) and created man!

(OK, I don't actually remember if there's any homology between the X and Y chromosomes... shame on me)

But frankly I do believe that all ancient myths have some sort of real event upon which they were based. Usually very different from what was initially interpreted.

[ima_sinnic]

27. far more intriguing: was Leda raped by a swan, & Hera by a cuckoo?

how did Zeus become these animals when he raped women?

even more intriguing, is Atlas bearing the weight of the heavens on his shoulders, still, for all eternity? how do you know?

[mmonk]

32. A study of the writing style of both Jerusalem and rome

will reveal people that others wanted to exalt had miraculous birth stories.

[Scout]

34. read "When God Was A Woman" by Merlin Stone. I like her theory best. n/t

[TheMadMonk]

42. Before "reaching" for the outre, perhaps we should look to simpler explanations.

1. "daddy" had a micro penis and simply did not have the wherewithall to rupture Mary's hymen.
   
2. Mary and "daddy" got carried away, but did not QUITE go all the way.
   
3. Mary being on the young and/or small side was physically incapable of accomodating "daddy" so they did the best they could.
   
4. Mary's hymen stretched rather than ruptured.
   
5. The turkey baster predates the pilgrims.
   
6. Mary was actually a functional hermaphrodite. (If I was and I could, I certainly would.)
   
7. Mary was XXY and parthenogis actually did occur.
   

[Forkboy]

43. All I know is that I'd like to get high with just about everyone in this thread.

:rofl:

[Why Syzygy]

46. If you believe in God,

there's no problem believing he can create a sperm.

[rrneck]

47. It doesn't matter.

Any effort to frame the practice of religion in the language of deductive reasoning is an exercise in futility.

Faith is arational. The existence of Jesus in the minds of people has nothing to do with whether or not he actually existed. Any assertions that he did are the result avarice and the need to exert power over the faithful.

Faith just is. That's all it is. The way it manifests itself doesn't matter. What people do in response to their faith is what matters. How we measure those responses are how we measure their faith.

[heidler1]

52. I suspect that lots of people have trouble with the tried and true method of believing in the

simplest and therefore most likely explanation for anything. If you can keep one fact in mind make it "People Lie" for all sorts of reasons. That one fact can save you from bad investments, religious manipulation, putting your life on the line for any cause and believing that suffering is good for people. Especially other people's suffering which only causes hate and more war.

[saltpoint]

49. We come across the virgin birth construct in many instances associated

with one or another religion.

I take these accounts with a grain of salt. An entire warehouse of salt, actually.

Make that several quite large regional warehouses.

I think the metaphoric / literary import of these accounts is not to be sneezed at, though. That woman is the bearer of the divine is an astonishingly beautiful construct. I ain't got no problem with it, boss.

Gestation across many days and weeks and months toward culmination in the revelatory is also astonishing. In humans, in flowers, and so forth. One must think of honeybees as traveler-saints.