Yeah, this idea is old. It was suggested in the otherwise good movie “Jesus of Montreal”.

I certainly don’t think it’s any more ridiculous an assertion than someone rising from the dead.
Rape statistics vs. resurrection statistics.
Billions to one.
I’m not sayin, I’m just sayin.

Or “Life of Brian’s” parody of the idea, supposing it for the title character. Otherwise a good movie.

like meh said, it’s really a simple comparison. Which is more likely, a woman was raped during a time women were considered property, or a woman conceived via parthenogenesis? Keep in mind that even if caught, his punishment would have been what, 15 shekels or something like that? Plus her hand in marriage, of course.

Oh, the “it’s not likely” canard is silly. History is shaped by extraordinary events. The chances of the US winning the battle of Midway were infinitesimal, but we won anyway. The likelihood of an Austrian paperhanger becoming chancellor or Germany were outrageous. The probability of Hannibal getting elephants over the Alps was essentially zero, but he managed it.
Besides, one’s assessment of likelihood depends on one’s worldview. If you’re a secular materialist, and deny the existence of any extra-natural sphere, then the “probability” automatically becomes “zero”. Accept the existence of that sphere, and the probability is irrelevant because there’s no way to calculate it.
You ain’t “sayin” much.

The chances of the US winning the battle of Midway were infinitesimal, but we won anyway. The likelihood of an Austrian paperhanger becoming chancellor or Germany were outrageous. The probability of Hannibal getting elephants over the Alps was essentially zero, but he managed it.
None of those things required impregnation by a supernatural entity. Those things are improbable. Spontaneous conception is impossible.
I know it doesn’t line up with your mythology, but meh – it doesn’t have to.

Read the whole comment meh. “If you’re a secular materialist, and deny the existence of any extra-natural sphere, then the “probability” automatically becomes “zero”"
You think you can define the argument by merely picking and choosing the starting assumptions. Sorry, that kind of lazy reasoning only works on teenagers.
But since I’m sure you know that, and have no possibility of convincing anyone, it just confirms that your purpose here is merely to disrupt, not to contribute. Digging into the sub-basement now.
Queue content-free, lamely sardonic quip in 3…2…1…

Your yawn is contagious.

We humans like and generally need to think that we know what is real because we can feel taste touch or see it. Science is often the exercise in getting more out of our senses through the invention of intellectual tools (like math) and physical tools and experimental processes. Still science is limited to what is observable through the senses.
What we “see” or sense through our experience of living is the stuff of myth and is extremely useful in creating social environments that are at least in the short term successful at sustaining human life. I would say for meh’s benefit that the Christian myth has been exploited to support the expansion of western European social systems around the world. There is justly, in my opinion, a repudiation of this false christianity of national pride that allows for christian nations to wage war on indigenous people for their “betterment” since even a quick look at Jesus’s teaching would render armed aggression impossible.
re the virgin birth/resurection – Science doesn’t suppose that any thing is impossible since to do so would limit our ability to discover new ways to see. Perhaps we just don’t think that our ability to see at this point is powerful enough to see back in time clearly and that it is therefore not worth theorizing from science whether or not jesus was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. What we do “know” is that it is completely possible to implant an embryo in a women although bring back to life a crucified person is currently way out of our league.

“the Christian myth has been exploited to support the expansion of western European social systems around the world.”
Bob,
Oh, yeah, Christianity is sooooo unique in having been abused for political purposes. What about the atheistic Communist and Nazi regimes using the “ubermenche” excuse to murder millions? What about Islam’s 7th century juggernaut that swallowed all of Africa, Spain, and Greece? What about the Shinto “bushido” code of feudal Japan being used as a reason for the Rape of Nanking? You are aping the opinions of your college anthropology professors rather than taking an honest look at history.

Oh, yeah, Christianity is sooooo unique in having been abused for political purposes.
It doesn’t have to be unique for his statement to be utterly 100% true.
If your argument is “My religion is as divorced from common decency as any other religion that has oppressed and killed millions,” you won’t get a counter argument from me.
(sardonic enough for ya, laughing boy?)

“Spontaneous conception is impossible.”
If I can prove that it is not, would you believe

Based on reprints of reprints of a story that no one can corroborate, I’m sadly going to have to say no.

I suppose I mean, sure – I’d believe, if it was possible to *prove* that the gospel account is accurate.
Short of a time machine and a camcorder, I’m not sure how that could happen.

Michele if you could get meh to convert that would be a miracle.

ZZ- I wasn’t putting down “true to living as Jesus taught christians” the humble lovers of the weak and the feeders of the hungry etc. nor am I unaware and fogetting of the attrocities wrongly committed under the guise of other religions or ideologies. But as meh says it won’t get us any further toward the truth if we obscure our society’s misdeeds by comparing them to others – that in reality won’t help us become better.
MM- Probably you could at least prove some sort of hermaphroditic conception, but isn’t that beside the point. “The Spirit of God came to Mary and she conceived and bore a son – the son of God.” Not a freak of our everyday world. The premise of the Bible is that there is a race of beings out there (heaven, outer space, some other dimension, whatever) who care about the development of our race and have revealed themselves to us so as to raise us up to understand and practice the way of Godly love.

The concept is actually a part of a Jewish tradition from a work called, in translation, “The Hostile Gospel,” presumed to be of medieval origin but may be much older. It gained broad currence in the 18th century among the French aristocracy who funded the Enlightenment and figures prominently in one of the dialogues in the work of de Sade. That being said, it is possible that it is actually the truth.
Donahue, being the bigoted idiot that he is, can of course be ignored as he would not know nonsense if it sat on his face. He is just a two-bit thug that gets media attention. This is a version of history that may actually have some merit behind it, as annoying as that may be to the Christian orthodox.

You guys are full of it. There were newspapers at the time, and they reported the rape of Mary. It’s there in black and white. You doubt me? Check out Mark 2. “And when they could not come nigh unto him for the Press …” (Mark 2:4). See? The Press was there. Hey, where do you think those pictures of a Caucasian Jesus came from?
Please. If it’s not allowed for Christians to assert on the basis of the biblical account that it was God at work, why is it allowable that someone who doesn’t believe it to assert something else without any basis whatsoever? How is that more believable? I know, I’ll make a movie about how aliens came down and impregnated Mary …
This is probably one of those Prov. 26:4 moments: “Answer not a fool according to his folly …”

Actually meh, I meant prove that this state was untrue: “Spontaneous conception is impossible.” Maybe I should have been more specific. If I could prove that “spontaneous conception” is not impossible

Heh – I get you now, Michele. Proof of the existence of spontaneous conception would not be proof of impregnation via deity, but thank you for correcting my misconception.
Please. If it’s not allowed for Christians to assert on the basis of the biblical account that it was God at work, why is it allowable that someone who doesn’t believe it to assert something else without any basis whatsoever? How is that more believable?
No one said it’s “not allowed for Christians to assert on the basis of the biblical account.” Some of us are just saying that an assertion from an ancient manuscript written with a serious bias toward myth is not what one could seriously call “proof.”
But assert away, big guy

the shocking claim that Christ probably was the son of Mary and a Roman soldier
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
This is probably one of those Prov. 26:4 moments: “Answer not a fool according to his folly …”
Take the high road, Stan, but I’ll be Christ’s fool, if it’s all the same (1 Cor. 4:10).

“Sorry, that kind of lazy reasoning only works on teenagers.”
Sorry right back atcha, but spontaneous (& virgin, no lesss) pregnancy has nothing to do with “reasoning”, lazy or otherwise. No do talking snakes & donkeys, nor living in the belly of a great fish for 3 days.
Etc., etc., etc.

Everybody here seems to think that Christians are trying to give “proof”. Of course we’re not. God is invisible, duh, it says that in the Bible. Nor can we prove that Julius Caesar existed, or that Hannibal actually took elephants across the Alps, or that Persia ever invaded Greece. Those things are based on “an assertion from an ancient manuscript”, after all. Nor can I scientifically “prove” that I love my wife. If we refused to take ANYTHING on faith, our lives would be parayzed.
All we’re saying is that, the observable universe does not contradict the concept of an omnipotent creator, and in many cases, points to it. From that viewpoint, miraculous events of many kinds (including virgin birth) can no longer be ruled out. And OF COURSE it takes a measure of faith, like many things in life.
But of course if one is gripped by the narrow materialist mindset of “If I can’t pick it up it has no value”, none of this makes sense. But by at least bringing it to the table, we’ve done out duty.

miraculous events of many kinds (including virgin birth) can no longer be ruled out.
What I don’t get, and maybe you can explain, is why miracles stopped after, as the reasoning goes, the promulgation of the Christian Scriptures … whenever that exactly happened in the popular imagination. Thank you, I appreciate it.

I don’t know that they HAVE stopped. They are certainly rare, just as they were in the Bible. The few dozen miracles described there are distributed over a period of 4000 years. I’ve never personally witnessed one, but we are all familiar with popular accounts of them. I tend to be pretty skeptical, but a few of the claims, especially those vetted by the catholic church (they reject most claims), are very compelling.

They are certainly rare
Rare. I can accept rare. Thanks for your answer.

umm, the gospel rewrite looks pretty racy, no?
http://www.236.com/news/2008/05/04/paul_verhoeven_writes_biograph_6097.php