Talk:Virgin birth

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Sorry about that...I'll leave it be for now. CЯacke® 18:49, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

perpetual virginity[edit]

As It's "under construction" I won't touch it, but you may want to include the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. This is held by the Roman catholic Church and states that, not only was Mary a virgin before giving birth, but she continued to be a virgin afterwards as well.--Bob_M (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
Hmmm... Not bad for this site I guess, but the whole enterprise cracks me up. OK, so we believe that the Divine Word Became Flesh and Dwellt Among Us, and you counter it with petty little argument that two people of the opposite sex living together "must have done it"? Not a bad zinger for the little film Dogma (which is actually very funny but, you know, "not to be taken seriously"), but not worth repeating as if it proves anything. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah. I'm not sure it's a dogma, but most of us in catholic Churches ( Eastern Orthodox as well as Latin Popists, Copts, Armenians etc.) believe more than just Virgin Mary (that's Most Holy Theotocos and Ever-Virgin, btw.) and St. Joseph the Bethrotted didn't "do it". We also believe Mary bave birth without pain OR damaging the hymen, and no, not by Jesus becoming temporarily incorporeal. It does not have to have a naturalistic explanation; finding one is a game for early-XX century paleoatheists and, inexplicably, some fundamental Protestants. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The only reason it does not have to have a naturalistic explanation is because t's bullshit. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 19:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The notion that EVERYTHING needs a naturalistic explanation itself doesn't (and can't) follow from science. Kind of like Sola Scriptura doesn't follow from Scripture. You can not try to argue away supernatural events by calling "lack of natural mechanism", that's assuming what you try to prove. You need to give actual philosophical argument. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
...and if you DO want to argue natural events, surely "they were seen together therefore they did it" is not any kind of argument. We're not in grade school. Even amongst Dogma's jokes, this one was not the greatest. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

immaculate conception[edit]

You'll may also want to include Mary's own immaculate conception as well. To clarify the two issues, Mary was the result of immaculate conception and Christ the result of virginal conception.--Bob_M (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, the Roman Catholic dogma of Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Virgin Birth, so... OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


If humans can create human life without sperm, why is the miraculous virgin birth treated so skeptically. HeartGold tx 07:52, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Perhaps because it's "miraculous"?--Bob_M (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Might also have something to do with the earliest gospels (there were more than the 4 we know today) not mentioning a virgin birth... MiddleMan 11:45, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Feminist plot...if they knew they didn't need us guys...--PalMD-yada yada 19:00, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
You have heard of Lesbian Separatists, haven't you? --Kels 19:19, 16 June 2007 (CDT)


To take Heart's comment a bit more seriously there are occasional instances of virgin birth. Here's a story about a shark who may have managed it. I wonder if the baby shark will go to found a new religion? (Blast - I said I'd be serious, oh well.)--Bob_M (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

This has long be known in religious circles and is the reason why Christians use the sign of the fish.  ;) God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 07:14, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
Suddenly it all becomes so clear.--Bob_M (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

I wonder if those nut-jobs actually use the shark case as an argument, cause that would be so funny! MiddleMan 13:32, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

That would be great, but I rather doubt it.--Bob_M (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Abstinence Education[edit]

A common argument for abstinence only sex education is that it is the only 100% effective form of birth control and STD prevention. Given that the people making this argument are usually bible believers, why doesn't the virgin birth cause them more trouble? They believe in miracles, and that an all-powerful God can do whatever it wants, so surely they should be warning girls about God impregnating them. Also, what about immaculately transferred diseases? Shouldn't we be worried about celestial herpes?

Granted, people who push for abstinence only sex ed probably do so because they think sex is icky and immoral. But they do make the effectiveness argument more often than the ethics argument. Perhaps this is a good counterpoint. Has someone come up with this already?-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 10:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Similarities to other religions[edit]

If it's alright, I'd like to expand this section. Moiph.

It certainly looks like it needs expanding, there's far more religions that incorporate it than just Christianity and Buddhism. Go for it. --PitchBlackMind 17:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Have taken a shot at it. There's probably a lot more I'm forgetting. Hope it serves as a nice launching pad.Moiph 20:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Moiph
I added the section with Finnish and Karelian mythology. I thought it would be relevant. MissBlue (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Virgin[edit]

Of course, depending on what definition of virgin one uses, the semen could have been collected elsewhere and introduced to Mary manually, pun intended.



Are you sure Isis was a virgin? I've heard it in zeitgeist and another movie making silly statements about Horus being crucified, betrayed and being born on December 25th. I have yet to find it in a credible source. She may have replicated the penis of Osiris herself in order to conceive Horus, but that still seems to disqualify her from being a virgin. If someone finds a credible link to this, I would be very interested in reading it. The birth of Horus does qualify as immaculate conception, but calling her a virgin is pushing it. --Danfly (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:Horus there are two stories about how Isis became preggers.
  • Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish, and used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a gold phallus to conceive her son.
  • Isis was impregnated by divine fire.
The second sounds like a virgin birth myth to me. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything to say she was actually a virgin though? --Danfly (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Careful of the wording there. "Actually" implies reality. I think you mean "is their anything to show that her cult claimed she was a virgin..." ħumanUser talk:Human 15:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been bothering so much that I actually e-mailed Christopher Hitchens about it, him being the most credible/only notable academic I have seen make the statement that Isis was a virgin (not that I expect a response) and even went and found a paper by Edmund Leach entitled 'Virgin Birth' on J-stor. Isis is not discussed in the paper, save in a footnote which speaks about the similarities between the cult of Isis and the cult of the virgin, which isn't anything new. I am so going to write an essay about this (and the rest of the claims made about religion in zeitgeist and that other youtube video that more or less repeats the same claims) when I get the time. At this rate I'll certainly have enough research done by the end of the week. --Danfly (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. So Isis was a real person then? Not just, you know, some myth?--BobSpring is sprung! 16:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Who said Isis was a real person? --Danfly (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh right. I see what happened now. Human's comment wasn't there when I started typing that. --Danfly (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is most of these myths, and I include the Christian ones, are amalgamations of other older myths. Isis impregnated by heavenly fire is not far off Mary impregnated by the holy ghost, whatever the supposed state of the mother's virginity. Both are down to a sort of God comes (excuse the pun) down and puts some bird in the pudding club and lo-and-behold we have a new god. Jack Hughes (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can leave it for now and I'll post my essay within the next 2 weeks (I hope) and you can judge for yourselves. I also can't find anything about three kings at the birth of Horus (or Jesus for that matter *cough* wise men *cough*), but there's no need to go any further into this discussion for now. --Danfly (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay.Typos aside, I'm satisfied my essay is done at this point (This is addresses in paragraphs two to four). I invite you to discuss any point on the talk page. While I'm still fairly unsure about the virgin part, I am virtually positive that the three kings story is completely false, though it is certainly popular. If I don't see a reliable source for it, I will remove that part shortly. --Danfly (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. How about linking "my essay" to your essay? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm. I have no idea how that box thing happened. Haven't wikied in a while. It also took a while to get the redirecting to my essay right. I neglected the space bar. D'oh! --Danfly (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it for you. You had a new line starting with a space.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Lily. --Danfly (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


  • I digress with the conclusions presented in this article. I think the myths are more anti-sex then anti-woman. I mean God's wang or sperm is not mentioned once (excluding Zeus potentially) in the myths, and heck maybe they are anti man too. I think that people tend to read into this sort of thing too much. (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2011 Uriel (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK... So how do you digress with a conclusion?--BobSpring is sprung! 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
So one can argue than the Gospel account is the first story of this kind NOT anti-woman. The Spotless One (an ordinary woman, lest anyone forgot) is portaid as accepting the task willingly. Which, giving the enormity of it all, is the ballsiest thing in the book, as well as all of human history. Apart from actually submitting to Crucifiction. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is you are trying to apply modern western view points to ancient myths. They are not really "anti sex", especially the greek or egypian ones which are very pro lots of sex, just sex with gods. It's more just that you want to tell a tale in a way that EVERYONE will know "your guy" is uber special. making him born of a virgin, or pop out of someone's head, or be born into the underworld so be dead before he's even alive all make your guy, THE guy. --Pink mowse.pngGodot On a perdu le contrôle 01:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Wonder how they'd react to the gunaikeion....--Wackyvorlon (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
which "they"; modern scholars looking at women's rooms? or the book I'd never heard of. (yes, i had to google.  :-) --Pink mowse.pngGodot On a perdu le contrôle 01:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The person who judged parthenogenesis as anti-woman. The Athenian practice of the gunaikeion is one that would probably be judged by said person as exceedingly misogynistic. The reality is a bit more complex in that case, and we don't know much about how things actually worked. --Wackyvorlon (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I'm pretty amazed we can even figure out what "happened" at all. I was going though some ruins in southern New Mexico, and they are like, "this is the residence of 7 families". and i'm all "how the heck do we know that, from some rocks and fire pits". I'm sure they are academic about it. It just blows my mind how much we deduce. anyhow, yeah, modern society has a hard time when looking back at history, and contextualizing them. (doesn't mean they weren't anti women, though. heh)Pink mowse.pngGodot On a perdu le contrôle 01:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm currently in university studying classics, so I've been learning all about how they determine different things. The lectures are always great fun. --Wackyvorlon (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Parallel theory[edit]

The claims by 'some widows' that they were pregnant by their husbands who had died up to 5 years before (thus avoiding claims of fornication etc). (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Special Births[edit]

Most of what we have here is part of the woo around "jesus is not an original", specifically the Mizithra myths. The need to make all these other gods "virgin births" or born on Dec 25, etc., is agenda driven. I took a bunch out, but some other stuff should probably be revised. --Pink mowse.pngGodot On a perdu le contrôle 01:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I was half expecting to see the stupid Donysus argument trotted out too. Proper parthenogenesis seems to be pretty uncommon in ancient myth. --Wackyvorlon (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


I think Mary was actually a World of Warcraft player. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 03:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Silver Spoon[edit]

Edit reverted because of lack of support. Furthermore, only ancient support I can find for contention re: Alexander etc. is from Plutarch in the second c CE. This does not give us evidence re: earlier gospel. It is possible that elements from Christianity have syncretized into plutarch's narrative, we do not know. Wackyvorlon (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really a virgin[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the "virgin" part is just changing "young maiden" (what in this age would be considered a teen in the best case) by mistranslation into "virgin" (not sex before). Is that right even if it does not make this more true?.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

The whole story is a myth from start to finish. So I am not sure that changing one part of the translation would change the facts. But I guess it would change the story for Christians as then logically Joseph could have been Jesus's father.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)