Reason

[King Dan of Great the 1st]

How can someone say that life exists as a firm fact, where that life comes from and how it started is not yet a firm fact, then say it is completely ridiculous to believe in a virgin birth.

Is that not ignorance?

Did not life have to start from somewhere, if there is only theory as to the origin of life with no solid fact, denying the virgin birth as completely ridiculous is nothing but ignorance.

I thought top athiest proffesors were smart.

 

[Malachi]

I thought top athiest proffesors were smart.

According to God, they are fools.

 

[Sinthesis]

There are many documented examples of virgin births in the animal kingdom. As glorified members of the animal kingdom, why would a human virgin birth be inconceivable? Pun Intended

 

[Barbarian]

How can someone say that life exists as a firm fact, where that life comes from and how it started is not yet a firm fact, then say it is completely ridiculous to believe in a virgin birth.

Since parthenogenesis is a demonstrated fact, I'd say whoever said that was not very up to date on biology. If it happens at all in humans, it's very rare, but there's no reason it can't happen.

Is that not ignorance?

Indeed. If, on the other hand, one concludes that the immaculate conception was miraculous, then science has nothing whatever to say about it, to support or deny it.

Did not life have to start from somewhere, if there is only theory as to the origin of life with no solid fact

Lots of solid facts, but precisely how it happened is still not clear. All we know is that life came from the earth.

denying the virgin birth as completely ridiculous is nothing but ignorance.

Yep. Never heard a biologist of any consequence say that.



I thought top athiest proffesors were smart.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mike S]

How would we get parthenogenesis in humans when a male needs both X and Y chromosomes? Females only?

 

[Cygnus]

Indeed. If, on the other hand, one concludes that the immaculate conception was miraculous, then science has nothing whatever to say about it, to support or deny it.

The immaculate conception was about the birth of Mary in her mothers womb....not the birth Jesus.

 

[smaller]

How can someone say that life exists as a firm fact, where that life comes from and how it started is not yet a firm fact, then say it is completely ridiculous to believe in a virgin birth.

Is that not ignorance?

Did not life have to start from somewhere, if there is only theory as to the origin of life with no solid fact, denying the virgin birth as completely ridiculous is nothing but ignorance.

I thought top athiest proffesors were smart.

According to them we are all just a skin bag of chemicals reacting to small charges of electrical stimulus.

 

[Mike]

The immaculate conception was about the birth of Mary in her mothers womb....not the birth Jesus.

I'm afraid to ask what you mean by this, but I have to. Let's get this right out on the table. Are you saying what I think you're saying? You know what I think you're saying.

 

[smaller]

I'm afraid to ask what you mean by this, but I have to. Let's get this right out on the table. Are you saying what I think you're saying? You know what I think you're saying.

I have no idea what he is getting at there myself. Clueless.

 

[Barbarian]

How would we get parthenogenesis in humans when a male needs both X and Y chromosomes? Females only?

Yep. Miracles are outside of the purview of science, and science doesn't deny them. But parthenogenesis, if it happens in mammals (Barbarian checks)...

it has happened, but it involved a lot of artificial manipulation...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4909-virgin-birth-mammal-rewrites-rules-of-biology/

So as far as science is concerned, parthenogenesis in a mammal is still not possible without some extreme procedures. And a male arising by parthenogenesis is just not a possible outcome, barring miracles.

 

[Barbarian]

The immaculate conception was about the birth of Mary in her mothers womb....not the birth Jesus.

This is correct. God, as a special miracle, created Mary without original sin. This is not an exclusively Roman Catholic doctrine:

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" - Martin Luther's Sermon "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527.

 

[turnorburn]

That's not correct it is heresy to say Mary was born without original sin... Martin Luther or no Martin Luther..

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

[reba]

• What is it about

Discussion of Catholic doctrine is limited and will only be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. RCC content in the End Times forum should relate to End Times beliefs. Do not start new topics elsewhere or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is may be viewed as ‘Catholic’ in nature.

you dont understand?

 

[Mike]

And Barbarian you can't use a quote from Luther after his excommunication as evidence that this isn't predominantly associated with RCC doctrine. His core RCC beliefs continued after 1521. Just wanted to put that out there before it got legs.

I know you understand, brother.