[simiones]

Most Christians believe that that was not some biological process, but a true miracle where God himself bestowed this child on Mary. It would be technically correct that this was parthenogenesis, but it is a completely different... mechanism.

Most non-Christians, even if they believe Jesus was a true historical figure, do not believe that his mother was a virgin.

[hadlock]

> Most Christians believe that

Do you have any sort of statistics to back this up? A survey of some kind? From my own experience, most people who are Christian subscribe to the lifestyle and teachings, but do not accept 100% of the bible as truth.

[handrous]

It's... at least the official doctrine of most Christian churches, yeah, and that's usually held as a particularly important point. Catholics, certainly, and they're rather numerous. It is possible that many, or even most, Christians disagree with tenets of faith that their churches hold to be absolutely vital and indispensable, I suppose.

[EDIT] It's part of the Nicene Creed, even. I think it's fair to say that if most church-goers at most Christian churches told a priest or pastor that they didn't believe that God miracle'd a baby into the Virgin Mary, it would, at the very least, give the priest or pastor a frowny face and/or evoke a "wait... what exactly do you think we're up to, here?" reaction.

[blendergeek]

I don't have data for the whole world, but at least in the USA, most Christians (and the majority of Americans) believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ [0].

[0] https://www.pewforum.org/2017/12/12/americans-say-religious-...

[Falling3]

Anecdotal, but I've never met or even heard of a Christian who believed in the virgin birth but thought it was the result of a natural process. Are there any examples of that you're aware of?

[Apocryphon]

There was a Discovery channel documentary in the 2000s that tried to give "scientific" explanations for the miracles in Christ's life. Parthenogenesis was the theory they advanced instead of divine conception.

[Falling3]

Sure, that sounds interesting and unsurprising. But was any of it believed by Christians?

[freeflight]

How about the fact that over a billion people are members of the Catholic Church? The membership of which requires believing quite a bit of Biblical literalism.

Tbh that whole argument is always kinda weird: If those people don't believe in the whole thing, why are they members in a church about it? That's pretty much the only statistic you need.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-21443313

[hadlock]

A lot of people are religious/affiliated with a specific religion due to inertia. Church attendance was compulsory for a lot of history. There are not a whole lot of people converting to catholicism/protestantism/judaism from other religions. I only very recently found out the technical differences between lutheranism and methodism, largely details around how/why baptism and taking sacrament from what I can tell, but growing up, we always went to one church and not the other even though nobody could tell me why.

[RapidFire]

>If those people don't believe in the whole thing, why are they members in a church about it?

Usually they inherit the religion from their parents. They grow up with the church as family so even if they don't believe in the tenets/beliefs they still participate.

[the_af]

> Do you have any sort of statistics to back this up? A survey of some kind?

The virgin birth of Jesus is an article of faith and dogma for Catholicism, itself a major branch of Christianity.

[dragonwriter]

> Most Christians believe that that was not some biological process, but a true miracle where God himself bestowed this child on Mary.

Most Christians that have spent the time to consider what it means for God to manifest a miracle fairly explicitly accept that that necessarily involves some physical sequence of events, potentially leveraging underlying capacities which in time and space predate the event which God, being all-knowing and existing outside of time and space, may have created for the express purpose of that specific miracle.

And most of the rest of Christians would probably dismiss the mechanical question as irrelevant for miracles, preferring to ask “why” rather than “how”.

[the_af]

> Most Christians that have spent the time to consider what it means for God to manifest a miracle fairly explicitly accept that that necessarily involves some physical sequence of events

That hasn't been my experience. I don't know about "most" Christians -- I wouldn't dare presume to speak for anyone in the US, for example -- but every Catholic I've spoken with (I live in a majorly Catholic country) believes in the entirely miraculous virgin birth of Jesus.

I think the phrasing "most Christians that have spent the time to consider [...]" is unfortunate; it reads like "every Christian which believes [this thing] believes [this thing]". Or it makes Christians who do believe in the miraculous birth without a prior physical setup to be somehow less thinking Christians.

Do note I'm an atheist myself so I certainly don't believe in miracles, either direct or indirect; I've no dog in this race.

[dragonwriter]

> but every Catholic I've spoken with (I live in a majorly Catholic country) believes in the entirely miraculous virgin birth of Jesus.

Sure. I’m a Catholic and I believe that.

It’s also a non-explanation that doesn't actually rule out any particular physical process occurring as part of the manifestation of the miracle.

Other than things like the routine transubstantiation of the elements of the eucharist, where a defined part of the miracle is the absence of any physical manifestation of it occurring [0], that's pretty typical of miracles.

[0] Why doesn't the bread and wine that miraculously becomes the body and blood of Christ taste like flesh and blood? Well, because it miraculously also retains all the physical properties of bread and wine...

[danans]

> Why doesn't the bread and wine that miraculously becomes the body and blood of Christ taste like flesh and blood? Well, because it miraculously also retains all the physical properties of bread and wine...

I'm not a Catholic, but I figured that most people interpreted the bread and wine as symbolic.

[mistrial9]

this is complicated, nuanced and not literal; it is a typical thing for critics to latch on to, so let's be wise-cautious with the exposition here at YNews, please

[simiones]

Absolutely. I wasn't trying to criticize anyone's beliefs, and I hope I didn't come across as such, and sincerely apologize if it did.

My only point was exactly that it's not a great idea to take a religious experience and analyze it as an example of a basic biological phenomenon.

[yupper32]

Miracles are absolutely (supposed to be) literal. It's a requirement for Sainthood, for example.

[anunnymouse]

'this is complicated, nuanced and not literal' - arn't most things though? At least the person you are replying to started their comment with a weasel word - you're the one making the categorical statement about whether it is literal.

[xxpor]

Not Christian, but as my Rabbi used to say: "When God created the earth 5782 years ago (give or take a few billion years),"

[mistrial9]

Mel Brooks?

[xxpor]

It would not shock me in the slightest if that's where he got it.

[Razengan]

> be wise-cautious with the exposition here at YNews, please

One would think that YNews would be the most appropriate place for questioning blind faith in absurd claims.