Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 126 posts

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#91

Post by baddox »

functional_test wrote: post #89
baddox wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because if you don't require evidence proportional to the claim, your world view can end up including any and all beliefs, which is neither interesting nor useful. One of the classical ideas in epistemology is the justified true belief theory of knowledge [1]. This has flaws (see: the Gettier problem [2]), but it's a reasonable approximation. Obviously what qualifies as justified is a debated topic, but it's generall…

You assume that requiring evidence proportional to the claim is the only conceivable filter for which beliefs to hold. Of course it's not.

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#92

Post by baddox »

apta wrote: post #48
nocman wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what God has revealed. I am convinced by the scriptures (the Bible) which includes eyewitness testimony of the things Jesus said and did. If anyone is genuinely interested, I would suggest you read the gospel of John, and decide for yourself if you believe what it says. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&ver...

Genuinely curious, how do you put so much acceptance into the Bible, when all four books (John, Matthew, Luke, and Mark) have anonymous authors?

Why does the anonymity of the authors matter?

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#93

Post by baldeagle »

Htsthbjig wrote: post #66

I have my own terrarium inside the home with everything enclosed from outside. It includes LED lighting. Somewhat Aphids appeared and created havoc inside. They reproduce in so many different ways, sexually, asexually or mixed that is really hard to eradicate them(in a natural way). In the end I decided to use ladybugs to control them. Now I need something that controls ladybugs too.

Be careful, that is a long road to go down...

http://www.amazon.com/If-You-Give-Mouse-Cookie/dp/0060245867

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#94

Post by nocman »

xerophyte12932 wrote: post #69
nocman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. My views are not based on any "leap of faith". A "leap of faith" implies that a person is believing in the absence of any evidence -- and that is by no means true of me. Eyewitness testimony is used every day in courts of law. It is one of the most common forms of evidence used to determine the truth about things that happened in the past. I am convinced that the New Testament contains multiple eyewitness account…

I apologize if what I said offended you in anyway, but in my opinion you still need that leap of faith to believe that not only all those eye witnesses were telling the truth, but also that the accounts recorded over 2000 years ago are still preserved the way they were. But frankly all this discussion is moot considering that if you believe in an omnipotent god, all other things should come naturally. I mean if a Bei…

"I apologize if what I said offended you in anyway"

No need to apologize (though I do appreciate the civility). I was not offended -- I just did not want anyone to think that my beliefs were based on no evidence, because that is not true.

Your point about believing in God as an omnipotent being is important. You said "...if someone chooses not to believe in such a god, then I don't see how you can make them believe virgin births or the integrity of 2000 year old eye witness accounts." I merely suggested that people read one of the accounts. I believe God is omnipotent. I believe those accounts are accurate, because God has protected them, because they are His testimony about Himself and how He has dealt with man's sin. And I believe these things because I read the accounts and was convinced that they were true, and that the accounts themselves were of divine origin.

I'm not trying to argue anyone into becoming a Christian. I'm merely stating my own beliefs, trying to explain the reasons behind them, and encouraging anyone who is interested to read the book that led me to those beliefs.

On the other point, the fact that "history is full of people who used religion to serve their own agenda (recent example: Al Qaeda) thus giving religion as a whole, a bad name" is really not an issue to me. It is cutting a pretty big swath to lump everyone who has some belief in a supreme being into one large group. There are vastly differing beliefs between people which lead them in vastly different directions. There are always people who will use anything they can for their own selfish gain. It think it is a huge mistake to ignore God altogether just because many people have done evil things in His name. My faith is not in other people. My faith is in Christ. I am convinced He is not just an ordinary man, but that He is God in the flesh. The things that He said and did, the way He talked to people, the way He answered people's questions. All of that convinced me of who He is.

Again, if anyone is interested I would encourage you to read the book of John (I linked to it in my other posts on this subject) and to draw your own conclusions.

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#95

Post by nocman »

gohrt wrote: post #60
nocman wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Yes, but Isaiah 7:14 wasn't originally written in English, and the Hebrew word "almah" didn't mean "virgin" in the Old Testament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah

Well, in fairness (strictly going by that article) it didn't have to mean "virgin" -- but it sometimes did:

"Almah (עלמה, plural: alamot עלמות) is a Hebrew word meaning a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child, and who may be an unmarried virgin or a married young woman."

I'm not saying that Wikipedia gets the final say here, just pointing out what the quoted article says.

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#96

Post by functional_test »

baddox wrote: post #91
functional_test wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you don't require evidence proportional to the claim, your world view can end up including any and all beliefs, which is neither interesting nor useful. One of the classical ideas in epistemology is the justified true belief theory of knowledge [1]. This has flaws (see: the Gettier problem [2]), but it's a reasonable approximation. Obviously what qualifies as justified is a debated topic, but it's generall…

You assume that requiring evidence proportional to the claim is the only conceivable filter for which beliefs to hold. Of course it's not.

I did not say that it was the only way, please don't put words in my mouth. I said it was the standard way (which it is).

What other methods would you suggest?

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#97

Post by baddox »

functional_test wrote: post #96
baddox wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume that requiring evidence proportional to the claim is the only conceivable filter for which beliefs to hold. Of course it's not.

I did not say that it was the only way, please don't put words in my mouth. I said it was the standard way (which it is). What other methods would you suggest?

I was referring to your first sentence.

> Because if you don't require evidence proportional to the claim, your world view can end up including any and all beliefs, which is neither interesting nor useful.

That is only true if you assume that no other belief filter is being used.

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#98

Post by functional_test »

baddox wrote: post #92
apta wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious, how do you put so much acceptance into the Bible, when all four books (John, Matthew, Luke, and Mark) have anonymous authors?

Why does the anonymity of the authors matter?

Anonymous sources of information are generally recognized as less credible (for example, they have less reason to be truthful since they have no credibility on the line).

Of course, the larger problem isn't the anonymity of the authors. It's why the bible should be accepted over any other text. Perhaps it should, but that would have to be argued separately.

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#99

Post by lotharbot »

olavk wrote: post #85
eurleif wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I and the Father are one." --Jesus in John 10:30

Yeah, John is the latest gospel where he is presented as much more "divine". Compare to Mark, which is the earliest gospel.

John is the "in your face" gospel -- it leads with the conclusions. The other three are more like "come along for the journey" -- they walk you through the process of the disciples coming to understand Jesus. There are divinity claims all over those gospels, but they're more subtle.

For example, early in the gospel of Matthew, Jesus quotes the Old Testament saying "You are to worship the Lord your God and serve only him." At the very end of Matthew, Jesus meets the disciples, who worship him, and he does not criticize them or stop them (contrast with Peter in Acts 10.) Once that connection is made, it's an obvious divinity claim -- but it's one that might take time to realize is there.

A few other examples: Psalm 103 says the Lord "is the one who forgives all your sins"; Jesus does it in Mark 2. Both Isaiah 43 and Hosea 13 specify that God alone is Savior, and Luke 1:47 repeats it just prior to calling Jesus the Savior in Luke 2:11. Deuteronomy 10 establishes heaven as entirely God's property, but Jesus claims to be the one controlling entry to heaven in Matthew 7.

Given Jesus' obviously strong knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures, it's hard to get away from the conclusion that he was making intentional claims of being God.

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#100

Post by JoeAltmaier »

lotharbot wrote: post #99
olavk wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, John is the latest gospel where he is presented as much more "divine". Compare to Mark, which is the earliest gospel.

John is the "in your face" gospel -- it leads with the conclusions. The other three are more like "come along for the journey" -- they walk you through the process of the disciples coming to understand Jesus. There are divinity claims all over those gospels, but they're more subtle. For example, early in the gospel of Matthew, Jesus quotes the Old Testament saying "You are to worship the Lord your God and serve only…

But he wasn't writing the gospels. So we don't know what he intended, only what the reporter wrote down. And they were in the storey. So the possibility of slant is clear.
Post reply on HN