I disagree with Christopher Hitchens!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2016, 07:20 PM
I disagree with Christopher Hitchens!
The title was designed to catch your attention obviously.

Ok so here goes,

In a debate I've seen on youtube, Hitch said when talking about Jesus that a virgin birth could technically happen, He exactly said "pathenogenesis is not completely unthinkable".

Well, Hitch was dead wrong on that one. It is indeed completely un-thinkable.

My reason?

Jesus was said to be a male, and that seems like a key in Christian Mythology. Well, pathenogenesis cannot produce male offspring only, female offspring. So even if it did happen one or a few times in the history of the world, the offspring was always female. Therefore, there is no way jesus could've been born of a virgin.

So Mary was a lying whore.

"It says you have to be saved in order to go to heaven. The way I see it, you only have to be yourself to go to hell!" - Marilyn Manson, Copps Collesium, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. (1997)

Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Twiggy's post
27-04-2016, 07:21 PM
RE: I disagree with Christopher Hitchens!
I'm not sure if this fits in this section, if there's a better fitting section a mod or admin can move it there."

My bad.

"It says you have to be saved in order to go to heaven. The way I see it, you only have to be yourself to go to hell!" - Marilyn Manson, Copps Collesium, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. (1997)

Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 07:26 PM
RE: I disagree with Christopher Hitchens!
(27-04-2016 07:20 PM)Twiggy Wrote:  The title was designed to catch your attention obviously.

Ok so here goes,

In a debate I've seen on youtube, Hitch said when talking about Jesus that a virgin birth could technically happen, He exactly said "pathenogenesis is not completely unthinkable".

Well, Hitch was dead wrong on that one. It is indeed completely un-thinkable.

My reason?

Jesus was said to be a male, and that seems like a key in Christian Mythology. Well, pathenogenesis cannot produce male offspring only, female offspring. So even if it did happen one or a few times in the history of the world, the offspring was always female. Therefore, there is no way jesus could've been born of a virgin.

So Mary was a lying whore.

My daughter claims to have given birth while still never having been penetrated by a pork sword. Her 17 year old boy friend had been in a car wreck and was a limp dick and could not get it up, but by serious rubbing against her with it down there he "came close" so to speak and she became a mommy and he became a daddy!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 07:32 PM
RE: I disagree with Christopher Hitchens!
(27-04-2016 07:26 PM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  
(27-04-2016 07:20 PM)Twiggy Wrote:  The title was designed to catch your attention obviously.

Ok so here goes,

In a debate I've seen on youtube, Hitch said when talking about Jesus that a virgin birth could technically happen, He exactly said "pathenogenesis is not completely unthinkable".

Well, Hitch was dead wrong on that one. It is indeed completely un-thinkable.

My reason?

Jesus was said to be a male, and that seems like a key in Christian Mythology. Well, pathenogenesis cannot produce male offspring only, female offspring. So even if it did happen one or a few times in the history of the world, the offspring was always female. Therefore, there is no way jesus could've been born of a virgin.

So Mary was a lying whore.

My daughter claims to have given birth while still never having been penetrated by a pork sword. Her 17 year old boy friend had been in a car wreck and was a limp dick and could not get it up, but by serious rubbing against her with it down there he "came close" so to speak and she became a mommy and he became a daddy!

Well, I seriously doubt that, as you most likely do as well.

But even then, I wouldn't exactly consider that a virgin. I just don't understand how any sperm cell could survive the journey from outside the vagina to the egg.

"It says you have to be saved in order to go to heaven. The way I see it, you only have to be yourself to go to hell!" - Marilyn Manson, Copps Collesium, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. (1997)

Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 07:32 PM
RE: I disagree with Christopher Hitchens!
Jesus can identify however zhe wants! Just because zhe had a penis, that doesn't mean you get to just assume zir gender! Angry Angry Angry

Also, Mary got knocked up by another man, clearly. You know that angel, Gabriel, she talked about? Yeah, turns out that was actually her gardener, Raúl, and he did more than just speak with her... way more Wink

If we came from dust, then why is there still dust?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cactus's post
27-04-2016, 07:37 PM
RE: I disagree with Christopher Hitchens!
It's not "pathenogenesis". It's "parthenogenesis".
The "virgin birth" was a mis-translation.
If there was a Jesus, then he had a normal birth and Mary was no liar.
They made up a story to fit the fad of the day, (virgin births were all the rage).
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...3#pid49743

Hitchens was neither a Biblical scholar or a biologist.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
27-04-2016, 07:45 PM
RE: I disagree with Christopher Hitchens!
(27-04-2016 07:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's not "pathenogenesis". It's "parthenogenesis".
The "virgin birth" was a mis-translation.
If there was a Jesus, then he had a normal birth and Mary was no liar.
They made up a story to fit the fad of the day, (virgin births were all the rage).
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...3#pid49743

Hitchens was neither a Biblical scholar or a biologist.

Al right,

so it seems there's multiple reasons why a true virgin birth (as understood today) of jesus is bull.

One parthenogenesis while highly unlikely in itself can only make females, and two it was a mistranslation and it wasn't meant to mean not sexed, just not wed or newly wed.

"It says you have to be saved in order to go to heaven. The way I see it, you only have to be yourself to go to hell!" - Marilyn Manson, Copps Collesium, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. (1997)

Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 07:48 PM
RE: I disagree with Christopher Hitchens!
(27-04-2016 07:45 PM)Twiggy Wrote:  
(27-04-2016 07:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's not "pathenogenesis". It's "parthenogenesis".
The "virgin birth" was a mis-translation.
If there was a Jesus, then he had a normal birth and Mary was no liar.
They made up a story to fit the fad of the day, (virgin births were all the rage).
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...3#pid49743

Hitchens was neither a Biblical scholar or a biologist.

Al right,

so it seems there's multiple reasons why a true virgin birth (as understood today) of jesus is bull.

One parthenogenesis while highly unlikely in itself can only make females, and two it was a mistranslation and it wasn't meant to mean not sexed, just not wed or newly wed.

So we are back to where would Jesus Pee? If he wasn't actually male not having a Y chromesome and all despite having a blond beard.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 07:52 PM
RE: I disagree with Christopher Hitchens!
(27-04-2016 07:48 PM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  
(27-04-2016 07:45 PM)Twiggy Wrote:  Al right,

so it seems there's multiple reasons why a true virgin birth (as understood today) of jesus is bull.

One parthenogenesis while highly unlikely in itself can only make females, and two it was a mistranslation and it wasn't meant to mean not sexed, just not wed or newly wed.

So we are back to where would Jesus Pee? If he wasn't actually male not having a Y chromesome and all despite having a blond beard.

well,

If jesus (the religious version) did exist at all, it would be a she, she must've been good at hiding her true gender! I nominate jesus for best undercover operator ever!

"It says you have to be saved in order to go to heaven. The way I see it, you only have to be yourself to go to hell!" - Marilyn Manson, Copps Collesium, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. (1997)

Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 08:16 PM
RE: I disagree with Christopher Hitchens!
(27-04-2016 07:52 PM)Twiggy Wrote:  
(27-04-2016 07:48 PM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  So we are back to where would Jesus Pee? If he wasn't actually male not having a Y chromesome and all despite having a blond beard.

well,

If jesus (the religious version) did exist at all, it would be a she, she must've been good at hiding her true gender! I nominate jesus for best undercover operator ever!

Wasn't there some British Monarch who ruled as the opposite sex and it wasn't known until after their death that they were of the other gender?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: