Virgin births in animals are no longer rare • Hacker News Board

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#31

Post by functional_test » Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 4:54 AM UTC

nocman wrote: post #30

mgkimsal wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 4th alliterative option is 'Legend'. Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Legend Lunatic and Legend are far far far more likely options, which require no appeal to supernatural claims.

"Lunatic and Legend are far far far more likely options, which require no appeal to supernatural claims." I respectfully disagree. I believe that Jesus is exactly who He said he was -- the Great I Am -- God in the flesh. I have staked my life and all of eternity on Him, and I am fully confident of who He is, and of His faithfulness to His promise to me, that all who believe in Him freely receive eternal life.

Based on what?

This is a genuine question, not snark. Serious claims like this require equally serious evidence (and if you have some, I'm quite interested).

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#32

Post by duaneb » Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 5:27 AM UTC

everydaypanos wrote: post #9

happyscrappy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Hebrew word for young girl was very close to the word virgin, there was only a subtle difference in the spelling.

The new testament was written in Greek, not in Hebrew. And yes, back then, the word virgin could actually have allegoric meaning(young/innocent/beautiful/... girl). Imagine if she was actually the first ever mammal to asexually reproduce..

It would be pretty fantastic to generate an Y chromosome. It think it's more likely she was cheating on Joseph.

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#33

Post by duaneb » Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 5:30 AM UTC

happyscrappy wrote: post #5

georgespencer wrote: post #3

I recall Josh McDowell citing the virgin birth as one of the defining reasons for believing Christ was the son of God. I quite enjoyed Christopher Hitchens' take on Parthenogenesis: "Even if I grant you that, you still have all your work ahead of you to prove that he was divine." Things like this add to that workload. Fascinating and festive and very HN.

The Hebrew word for young girl was very close to the word virgin, there was only a subtle difference in the spelling.

While the chronology of the books still leave literary misinterpretation in the bag, Matthew 1:20 explicitly states that the holy spirit impregnated Mary, so under most christian belief system's it's pretty damn clear she was a virgin. Historians, not so much.

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#34

Post by eli_gottlieb » Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 5:32 AM UTC

nocman wrote: post #30

mgkimsal wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 4th alliterative option is 'Legend'. Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Legend Lunatic and Legend are far far far more likely options, which require no appeal to supernatural claims.

"Lunatic and Legend are far far far more likely options, which require no appeal to supernatural claims." I respectfully disagree. I believe that Jesus is exactly who He said he was -- the Great I Am -- God in the flesh. I have staked my life and all of eternity on Him, and I am fully confident of who He is, and of His faithfulness to His promise to me, that all who believe in Him freely receive eternal life.

Disagree all you like. You are still, most likely, wrong.

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#35

Post by duaneb » Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 5:35 AM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #20

happyscrappy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Hebrew word for young girl was very close to the word virgin, there was only a subtle difference in the spelling.

Not surprising. The German word for virgin is ... youngwoman (Jungfrau).

There's quite a bit of evidence that virginity only became a "thing" after lines traced paternally—i.e. a mother is pretty damn sure a kid is hers, but the father wants stronger guarantees because even in appearance there's a lot of room for cuckolding. So, given that some early germanic culture was matrilineal (e.g. the Suebi, attested by IIRC Suetonius), it's ALSO not surprising that the word for "virgin" is actually the closest approximation.

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#36

Post by xerophyte12932 » Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 5:50 AM UTC

functional_test wrote: post #31

nocman wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Lunatic and Legend are far far far more likely options, which require no appeal to supernatural claims." I respectfully disagree. I believe that Jesus is exactly who He said he was -- the Great I Am -- God in the flesh. I have staked my life and all of eternity on Him, and I am fully confident of who He is, and of His faithfulness to His promise to me, that all who believe in Him freely receive eternal life.

Based on what? This is a genuine question, not snark. Serious claims like this require equally serious evidence (and if you have some, I'm quite interested).

I do not share his Faith, but I understand his views to be a Leap of Faith. While science is nice and all but as humans taking such leaps and trusting other people despite evidence to the contrary, is every day business, is it not? Of course it is rather hard to believe that such a vast majority of people take such Leaps on not just ONE person, but a whole chain of people spanning over 2000 years!! But he must have his personal reasons, and i respect those.

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#37

Post by _nedR » Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 5:56 AM UTC

As a non-bio person, I wonder what's the evolutionary reason for this not happening in more species. Sure, sexual reproduction is the way to go if you have the option, but wouldn't a wouldn't a mother capable of both asexual and sexual reproduction have higher chances of propagating her genes than a mother who is only capable of sexual reproduction. (I know I shouldn't be playing these mind games with zero knowledge of the subject, but I am curious)

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#38

Post by baddox » Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 6:07 AM UTC

mgkimsal wrote: post #27

fnayr wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His main argument was actually the Lord Liar Lunatic one, where you need to prescribe one of those descriptions to him (He argues).

The 4th alliterative option is 'Legend'. Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Legend Lunatic and Legend are far far far more likely options, which require no appeal to supernatural claims.

The three L argument is aimed only at people who believe in the historicity of Jesus, as well as that he was a great spiritual leader, but who belief that there are also other paths to spiritual enlightenment or salvation. It obviously carries no weight to people who don't believe Jesus was a historical figure, or who believe he was a liar or a lunatic.

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#39

Post by baddox » Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 6:09 AM UTC

functional_test wrote: post #31

nocman wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Lunatic and Legend are far far far more likely options, which require no appeal to supernatural claims." I respectfully disagree. I believe that Jesus is exactly who He said he was -- the Great I Am -- God in the flesh. I have staked my life and all of eternity on Him, and I am fully confident of who He is, and of His faithfulness to His promise to me, that all who believe in Him freely receive eternal life.

Based on what? This is a genuine question, not snark. Serious claims like this require equally serious evidence (and if you have some, I'm quite interested).

I think that almost anyone's foundational world view is interesting, and worth asking questions about. Why, for instance, do you believe that serious claims require serious evidence?

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#40

Post by baddox » Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 6:11 AM UTC

nocman wrote: post #29

everydaypanos wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new testament was written in Greek, not in Hebrew. And yes, back then, the word virgin could actually have allegoric meaning(young/innocent/beautiful/... girl). Imagine if she was actually the first ever mammal to asexually reproduce..

Yes, but the prophecy that Jesus fulfilled by being born of a virgin was from the Old Testament (Isaiah 7:14), not the New Testament . (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+7%3A14&v...

Sure, but the New Testament is pretty clear about its claims that Mary hadn't had sex before conceiving. It seems clear that at least some people thought that the Old Testament prophecies involved a virgin birth.