But you're making up something that's not in the Bible and putting it in the Bible to suit your point. There is no mention anywhere in the Bible of the kind of conception you're talking about. The whole point of the immaculate conception was that it didn't stick to the system.
The story goes that the whole world was flooded. It doesn't really matter either way. Did a series of deterministic events from the beginning of time lead up to the flood or did God on a whim CAUSE the flood, thereby violating the laws of nature. How is this at all related to anything? Are you actually that dense? How can you manipulate the laws of nature without doing the impossible. Humans can't manipulate nature. Everything in your body obeys the laws of nature, and so as a whole, your body and your surroundings obey the laws of nature. Do you seriously think the words you're putting down make sense? Or maybe Zeus blew up a taco bell and created Jesus to fix it so no one would notice. Are we arguing about the bible or making up our own stories? Please cite a biblical passage that supports anything you've said. The existence of the trinity was never a point of contention. The belief of Aryus was that the son was a SEPARATE being from God the Father, which is NOT Christian doctrine, nor was it mainstream doctrine in the early church. There was no compromise, and this is totally irrelavent. What do you allege the trinity is a compromise between, and please show evidence to support that such a compromise existed. Are we discussing Christianity or are we discussing a religion that you made up? What does? Spontaneous conception? Give me evidence that this could ever possibly happen in humans. This does not and CANNOT happen, biologically speaking. There aren't enough chromosomes to make a person in an egg cell. Totally biologically ridiculous. This could never form a fully grown child. Among other things, he calls himself the bridegroom, which doesn't sound very clear to us today, but at the time it certainly would have been clear that he was referring to himself as God. There are other instances as well, although I can't think of any off hand that Jesus said (as opposed to the authors of the gospels themselves) but since your knowledge of the bible so far has been demonstrated to be tenuous at best, I'm not really going to take what you said here too seriously. How could anything after this possibly be relevant?
Once again, I just want to point out, the immaculate conception DOES NOT referr to Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
Amigo, that's an unclear question. Wolfie discusses a thing he named "Christianity" that is different than the worldwide 2000-year-old religion called "Christianity." He does not talk about the worldwide religion Christianity. No. he only talks about his own creation by the same name. It's very confusing, yes indeed, very confusing, but I'll bet you lunch that if you go back now and read his posts you'll have a big "Ah-Hah!" moment and agree with me.
I think what he is referring to is called “Parthenogenesis”, but much like you said here, I don’t think this is possible regarding our species (outside of stem cells anyway). Or at least, that’s the gist of what little I’ve read about it would have me believe. .
You're right; I am misusing the term "immaculate conception". What I mean is how Jesus was conceived according to the Bible, not the specific Catholic interpretation thereof and the doctrines that go along with it.
I've heard of this in sharks and lizards. It's not just a matter of "activating" an ordinary egg cell, though, since ordinary egg cells don't have the propper number of chromosomes. A quick search on wikipedia reveals "There are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild. Parthenogenetic progeny of mammals would have two X chromosomes, and would therefore be female." Kind of rules out the "Jesus is a product of parthenogenesis" theory.
Why does it need to be from the beginning of time? And yes there were a series of events leading to the flood. There was at least a massive downpour of rain which lasted for something on the order of seven months. God doesn't just snap his fingers and the world is covered in a deluge. He makes it rain for a protracted period of time. If the story is to be taken literally. God is manipulating nature. It's the answer to the question I was asked with an example of how suddenly climatic conditions can change. For the purpose of illustration. Humans can't manipulate nature? Really? Russia routinely makes it rain by seeding the clouds before state events and Dolly the sheep wasn't conceived by natural means. And for that matter neither were any of the children conceived with the help of IVF treatment. Most of the chemical compounds we put into our bodies to boost our immune systems are synthetically made. And that's just the recent stuff. For aeons now man kind has been "farming". We stopped being hunter gatherers and started farming crops and live stock. To gain greater yields from our farming we then began a selective breeding program which continues to this day. We manipulate our crops to produce stronger crops that are more disease resistant and give us more food. We've bread larger cattle for more meet. More docile pigs because wild boar are frankly dangerous to handle. And sheep that give us way more wool from their fleeces than any natural breed would produce. Humans have been manipulating nature for a very long time. Why does that not make sense? Please elaborate more and insult less. Have you run out of argument? Really? There were apparently many disagreements about the nature of Christianity it's self and not just the holy trinity in the 4th century. The exact nature of Jesus and his relationship with God and the holy spirit. I thought that was obvious. I do apologise if I wasn't clear. Having trouble following the thread? If I am wrong in my interpretations please feel free to correct me. I really don't mind. Please read what I posted. I said. "The result isn't normally viable and usually dies pretty early on. ". However you contend that a person can be made from "nothingness"? If God could do that then why put Mary through a nine month pregnancy? I think your version sounds more nutty. Okay then keep a secrete if you want to. A refusal to discuss anything never got anybody anywhere. I don't know. You won't talk about it. It's a secrete.
That's more than being a good listener in Sunday school. This subject been part of a degree or something?
You mean the King James version of Christianity? The accompanying Bible for which has many mistranslations. There is no "World wide" version of Christianity. The Roman Catholic church takes a different view from the Anglican church which takes a different view from the Greek Orthodox church etc. My knowledge of the Bible might not be as complete as your own Mac. But I at least don't live in a pretend bubble where everybody all thinks the same. So frankly you can take you piety and stick it!
On the subject of the Virgin Birth (as opposed to the Annunciation or the Immaculate Conception ), there are several biblical references to this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b0.htm http://bible.org/seriespage/birth-jesus-matthew-118-25 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/367422/Mary/4661/Biblical-references Just a few examples of quotes and analyses there for you to play with. The general consensus appears to be that Mary became pregnant and gave birth while still a virgin. The Hebrew meaning of 'virgin' is a woman old enough to marry and bear children, but many biblical scholars believe this is not the meaning intended in Scripture. If you take 'virgin' to mean that Mary had not had sex with anyone (as the Catholic Church does), then there must have been Divine intervention to make her pregnant, mustn't there? (Since nature cannot be manipulated, obviously.) Two words: TURKEY BASTER :evil:
On the topic of how Mary came to have Jesus in her tummy you were distinguishing "the [Roman?] Catholic position" from "the Bible's position." You used the phrase "according to ...", but the effect was to assert that the [Roman?] Catholic position is incompatible with, or at least different than, "the Bible." That's like saying geometry is not mathematics. Any flavor Catholic position is the Bible's position, if an inanimate object can even have a position. What's the name of that denomination? On the false issues you raise there is agreement across all forms of Christianity of which I am aware, and I am aware of a quite a lot. If you can point to a particular denomination that both agrees with your spin and is recognized by other Christian denominations as being "Christian," then I'll stand corrected. Failing that, it's really not cool to make up false positions when you make fun of people. You're supposed to get the story right when you make fun of people.
I didn't raise a false issue Mac you did. You claim there's a single world wide view on Christianity. Which there isn't and there never really was. All of which is just a distraction because from my argument that God never does the impossible in the Bible. Because you can't show that he does.
Take your pick. There's quite a few. And even though they read from the same version of the same book they still can't agree on everything.
That's not my complaint. My complaint is that you habitually present ABC as the Christian position, when it's not. You habitually misstate Christian doctrine. I'm cool with people making fun of a religion when they state it correctly. I think it's totally uncool to make fun of a strawman. For example, you're doing it right now. The only way to say that the Bible doesn't have God doing the impossible, is to (a) not read the Bible, or (b) misstate basically 2000 years of continuous Christian doctrine.
Roman Catholic doctrine asserts many things that are not in the Bible. The link you posted, for instance, it notes the immaculate conception of Mary and papal infallibility, both essential elements of Catholic doctrine that cannnot be found anywhere in the Bible.
