Well, thank you for sticking with the conversation doggedly, because that means more for the sake of progress than the specifics do.

You don't seem to be able to fathom that I would think the way I do outside of being indoctrinated by atheists in college.

Let me first apologize if you thought my rhetorical flourish was too much. On the Conspiracies forum it's common to compress arguments into a suggestive close, rather than to spell the detail out, which would run like: Having closely heard all your arguments, I see a similarity of their origin in higher criticism that suggests you've gotten them mostly from the same source, and I politely point out that you're giving off the appearance of (e.g.) relying solely on a bit of college training and of not having that much more experience; and I bring that up to suggest that you might realize there are more arguments in the history of philosophy than the established group of talking points you repeatedly turn to. (If you prefer the longer and less presumptive version in general, I can seek that for you, but some people work well with the speedy rhetoric method.)

Parthenogenesis is not a reasonable or viable explanation for your belief in a virgin female giving birth to a male baby. It'd either have to be a logic defying miracle or some kind of artificial insemination in which a Y chromosome would have been introduced to the egg.

Yes! Rhetorical flourish version would be: Thank you for proving my view of Cain's wife is scientific and I'm so glad we can now move on to Joseph's wife!

The more detailed version would be to focus on the fact that (Cain's wife being an incidental) Christianity has held the virgin birth of Jesus since its foundation and that counts for something. Now, you're right about the science that recently observed parthenogenesis only yields females (or other incomplete genotypes like drones), so I don't use ordinary parthenogenesis alone to explain Mary's pregnancy. Most Christianity is content to leave it a mystery because it totally matches the incarnation doctrine that fits Jesus's character, but I wanted to investigate further, so I found certain details in Bible, history, and science.

First, God's immediate solution to sin in the Mosaic narrative is the "seed of the woman", which is odd because there was no word for egg cells even though it was natural to classify sperm cells as similar to other seed (and to classify the womb as similar to the ground). Women have no "seed". But this is given more detail a couple chapters later (Gen. 6) where it's explained that when "sons of God" take women they generate mighty men (later categorized as giants). While conservative scholars try to read this without supernaturalism, the language and context gives rise to a thriving school of Nephilim studies in which insemination of women by angelic beings is a real explanation. This is supported by many giants passages in the OT, by the book of Enoch, and by Egyptian and Greek mythoi in which there is hardly a more common theme than heroes being begotten of deified spirits and mortal women. The mysterious Jer. 31:22 about a new created order in which a woman "surrounds" a man has also been taken as a statement of the male parthenogenesis unobserved by science. Therefore when Jesus claims God as his Father and himself the one-of-a-kind Son of God, when all are agreed that he was conceived when Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, when Joseph claims Jesus solely as an adopted son, this type is perfectly compatible with all kinds of anticipation of the true hero of the universe having divine origin.

Further, since there's a very broad (and mainstream) study of theophanies in which God appears in an angelic form (and not always an adult human form), and this is not minority research like the Nephilim theology is, it was well-known in 1st-century Judea that God was free to appear at any time in any form he chose; later theology recognizes all these appearances as the preincarnate Word, the one to be called Jesus. That makes it a very simple process for the very last appearance of this "angel of the Lord" to manifest as a single sperm cell in the womb of Mary. By taking onto himself the egg cell of Mary, the uncreated literally takes part in created flesh (just as he did when he ate meat later), and retains that nature forever as the flesh grows; and that's exactly what Heb. 2:14 says of taking part of flesh. Therefore the doctrine of the virgin birth, time-honored in Christianity, does indeed have sound scientific backing for the physics and theological backing for the spiritual.

I totally respect if you may be unconvinced, but I'm not writing to convince you of my belief, I'm writing to demonstrate to you that I've thought through the problem and the objection you raise does not hit its mark. You are free to continue objecting to Christianity, but it would be irrational to do so on the idea that it's automatically to be dismissed out of hand. If you want to go on believing that Christians aren't scientific, I've done my part to disabuse you. Since all theories of science admit that they are incomplete and that there are areas outside known laws, it's not unscientific to speak of things outside known laws more broadly as Christianity does. I've noted that the Big Bang Planck instant is big enough for Hawking and Hartle to stuff a whole second universe into to make their math work, so it seems reasonable that God would be there too.

You haven't exhibited an understanding of points I've made and where I'm coming from with what I've said.

The core of what you said is "good or bad ... depends upon the context". I raised a couple concerns with how that foundational proposition defeats itself and all built upon it, and haven't heard an answer back. So from my perspective I understand your points far too well, because I see their inadequacies clearly.

There is no coming to a meeting of minds with you and reasoning together when you do not respect that I actually believe what I say I believe, and I believe it other than just because of some kind of indoctrination.

If that if your belief you're free to prove it anytime by ceasing to interact; your interacting indicates you don't believe there is no meeting of minds possible.

I do respect that you believe what you say; and that we all come to our beliefs not only by hearing some of them (which some might uncharitably call indoctrination) but also by building some of them from observation, logic, and analysis. I respect your ability to do that, and I merely warn of the risk of fallacious appeal to authority because I believe you capable of mitigating that risk based on my nudge.

You view me as inherently self-destructive.

I said your view destroys itself logically. You probably know the statement "This statement is false" is meaningless because it destroys itself if it is assigned a truth value. Epimenides the Cretan understood this by saying, sarcastically, "All Cretans are liars"; his statement is incapable of being taken literally and can only have meaning by indirection. Your position ultimately does the same with a bit more sophistication. Either you believe it's logically true, which makes it logically false (if good always depends on context, then there are contexts in which good does not depend on context); or you believe it indicates a paradox by speaking indirectly (in which case there really are things that don't depend on context but you don't state what they are). This of course has nothing to do with you being self-destructive.

You try to put limitations on what I'm allowed and not allowed to talk about, and take it upon yourself to try and teach me lessons.

Nah. If you purport to use logic you can be judged by the (external) rules of logic. If you purport to refuse all bilateral agreement you can be judged by your refusal. Whatever you choose to say, you are answerable for saying. The nature of the universe is such that everything comes down to either irresponsibility (nihilism) or responsibility (truth). I've demonstrated why that happens logically, and the same happens if you wish to use the language of paradox instead of the language of logic. It's just a law of nature, and if you think it isn't you either hear from me that it is or you hear from somewhere else in the universe that it is.

You try to construe it that by merely talking to you that I actually believe as you do.

No, I said that by talking to me you must believe you have a purpose in talking to me, which cuts against your stated idea that there's no purpose in talking to me.

You don't seem to respect me whatsoever.

I respect you so much I trust you want to be shown if I think you're wrong. That's what the wise want.

Your style of Christianity has seen its time to shine, and is naturally fading away as people have been allowed to think for themselves, and aren't limited to the framework people like you want to impose on us all.

Ooh, sounds like a rhetorical flourish to me. I am so libertarian that I totally affirm your freedom to believe whatever you want, including your freedom to be wrong. I simply appeal to whatever part of you wants to be told if you should happen to be wrong. The person who has closed himself off from correction is locked into a sealed fate unless he is able to open his mind again. The wise person speaks freely because if he is wrong he will learn how and where and improve himself. The fact that you close by categorizing me into a "style of Christianity" that you perceive as fading sounds like you're more interested in dismissing (ridiculing) me than in debating with agreed ground rules in the joint search for truth. But I'm always here and it's never too late in this life to apprehend more truth.