Charlie Self wrote:
wrote:

Parthnogenesis has nothing to do with either the Immaculate
Conception or Reception.


I'll accept that for Franco Harris's conotribution, but I do not KNOW
that for immaculate conception. Somebody's fingertips (speaking
metaphorically) were almost certainly on the ball, IMO.

Nope.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception presumes that Joachim and
Anne (or whoever they were) 'did it' just like anyone else.

You continue to confuse the virgin birth of Christ with the
Immaculate Conception. It is explained at the link above,
why not check it out?

BTW, have you figured out why the Indians you know speak English
so well?

Parthenogenesis is the closest thing I've seen to a rational
explanation, so, without that, we've got religious nonsense, something
I get sufficient of on a daily basis in this locale.

The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of _Mary_
not the conception of Christ.

You continue to confuse the virgin birth of Christ with the
Immaculate Conception. It is explained at the link above,
why not check it out?

Of course it is religions nonsense, that is why science is
silent on the issue of the Immaculate Conception, and of
original sin in general, though it is not on the issue of
the virgin birth of Christ. The virgin birth of Christ is
contrary to scientific models for human reproduction. The
dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary lies entirely
outside of any scientific theory because the dogmatic
elements are entirely metaphysical.

That virgin birth is contrary to scientific models for human
reproduction might at first seem to be a conflict between
religion and science. But religion has a simple concept
to avoid that--the miracle, or if you prefer, Intelligent
Design of the Saviour.


I have no idea why the few Indians I know locally speak English
reasonably well. Part of it is that they've now been in this area for 6
or 7 years, I guess, and, like most of us, pick up the local patois.
...

What language do you suppose they spoke in India?

--

FF