BS: Immaculate mis-conception

Subject: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:37 PM

So some of us were sitting around the other day over some Mogen David and the subject turned to Christmas and the birth of Jesus and all of the myth and superstition tied to it.

We came to this conclusion. If the virgin Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and when she gave birth, then she is the first and only women to have lost her hymen from the inside out. Talk about knocking walls down.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:43 PM

The story of virgin birth was around over 300 years before Mary was born. I will see if I can find a link.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:47 PM

Peace, if it is, I doubt that it you can find it in the Old Testament. Or in any medical journals either for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:49 PM

Hey MG ... with YHWH anything is possible !

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:53 PM

Nah, it's in the mythology of Egypt and Assyria and elsewhere, I think.

Consider this: Joseph, the "father" of Jesus of Nazareth, was supposed to be "of the house and family of David." But if Jesus of Nazareth was conceived by a virgin, he wasn't the son of Joseph and hence couldn't be of the "house and family." But the Messiah was supposed to come from the "house and family".... Moreover, Joseph was with "Mary, his espoused wife, who was with child" -- i.e., Jesus's parents weren't married....

I'm not making any theological or scriptural or any other comments here; just pointing out some discrepancies I figured out while hanging around church recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:54 PM

"For example in the Greek myth, Perseus was born of the virgin Danae. Danae was conceived by the God Zeus who took the form of a shower of gold."

In the Greek, there was no mention of a virgin birth.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:55 PM

You are correct MG.

Most certainly won't be found in a medical journal ... but then, there are those bogus medical schools.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: michaelr
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:57 PM

A golden shower can get you pregnant??

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:57 PM

Is this about mythology or faith?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: John O'L
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:58 PM

Virgin birth = non-vaginal birth = Caesarian.

The three wise men were Celtic midwives from Galatia.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:15 PM

Mythology MG.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:34 PM

The story of the virgin birth is:

1. not literal (it's symbolic)
2. a story already found in some previous religions in that region long before Christianity, thus it was a rather familiar theme with which to market a religion in the Middle East at that time

If you can't figure out the symbolism intended, that's your problem.

Listening to literal minds debating about great religious texts which are filled with symbol and allegory is like listening to squids debating about the best method of farming aspargus in Utah.

Martin, your delusion is that your religion is the only right one. Feel good, my friend, because there are billions out there in all the various organized religions who think the same way you do, and you will have lots of fun arguing with them, but it won't change anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:37 PM

What's the meaning of it's theological symbolism LH ?

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:39 PM

I should add I think there is nothing wrong in questioning and even doubting a facit of one's religion.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:41 PM

No religion is "right"

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:42 PM

Geeeez Clinton ... there's always one in a crowd.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:54 PM

Spiritual texts are usually talking about spiritual matters, as opposed to physical matters. They don't NEED to talk about physical matters much. The language is symbolic. Her "virginity" was symbolic of the state of her consciousness. It was very pure. Purer than in most people. Is that really so hard to understand?

It is asinine to argue about whether someone had a "virgin" pregnancy in the physical sense, but it is not asinine to assert that the mother of a particularly enlightened soul might have herself had a purer than usual state of consciousness...in order to serve as a host for that soul.

If all you believe in is physicality, then spiritual writings will be opaque or foolish to you and will make no sense whatsoever.

Religions have always, historically, allowed the common people to have simple, literal faith (frequently in highly unlikely or impossible things), while the adepts in the spiritual disciplines (such as the mystery schools in Egypt during Christ's time) knew well enough to look beyond the literal and graps the symbols intended.

Let me tell you what a very wise man once told me. I asked him what he thought about the "immaculate conception". He smiled, and said,

"ALL conception is immaculate."

And he most certainly did NOT mean that it didn't involve sex! He meant that it is a pure movement of divine energy (moving through the physical human structures of man and woman, sperm, egg, etc) which enables conception to occur...and THAT is completely holy and immaculate...regardless of what idiotic negative ideas various people may have acquired about sex being dirty, sex outside of marriage being "illegitimate"...or their various other fearful notions of reality that they have gleaned from the prejudices of their culture.

People are incredible. They have the capability and potential of gods, but they would rather act like worms most of the time, it seems. They have completely forgotten what and who they truly are.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:58 PM

They might all be "part right" though, Clinton. Like you. Or me. You know, right some of the time....

They might all be describing the same elephant, but each from a different vantage point. You know that story?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:01 PM

American poet John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) based the following poem on a fable which was told in India many years ago.


It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind


The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"


The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"


The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"


The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
" 'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"


The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"


The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"


And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:


So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: bobad
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:03 PM

Or they might all be using the same story to sell the snake oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:07 PM

The more immaculate mis-conceptions of modern times are that Bush is a good President and that he didn't lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:08 PM

Very good LH ... but you don't have to be so 'abrupt' about it. But aren't all births pure. You didn't mention what I feel is the most important factor in regards to the 'virgin Mary' and that it brings forth the feminine side of 'man' into the big picture (i.e. God)

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:14 PM

There are medical records of pregnancies occurring in women whose hymens had not been broken, in fact were still present.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:14 PM

Thanks for posting that Peace ... my father used to recite that to me and my sisters when we were very, very young. I haven't heard that since.

Again, much thanks.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:38 PM

"They might all be "part right""

Part right is still wrong

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:43 PM

"Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
Some of the people can be all right part of the time.
But all the people can't be all right all the time
I think Abraham Lincoln said that.
"I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours,"
I said that."

.... Bob Dylan exerpt from "Talkin' WWIII Blues"

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:52 PM

My abruptness wasn't really toward you or anyone in particular, 6. I just get irritated when people subject allegorical spiritual writings (from an ancient time which used its own kind of symbolism) to the kind of modern technical literal investigation they might use to identify a fingerprint on a gun...

It's just downright silly. It's as silly as fundamentalists who believe every word in the Bible literally.

And, yes, I agree fully that Mary's role is very significant in that "it brings forth the feminine side of 'man' into the big picture (i.e. God)", as you said. Absolutely.

Religions that leave out the feminine side of divinity are missing on half the picture, in my opinion.

Yes, all births are pure. All conceptions are pure. I think, though, that the consciousness of the woman Mary was probably unusually heightened, and that's what the passages are symbolizing.

Ebbie - That's interesting, but I assume that a sperm was still presumed to be involved in those pregnancies, was it? Or was it not? A sperm can enter a womb despite the hymen being intact, can it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:55 PM

I'm with ya LH ... well said! :)

"It's as silly as fundamentalists who believe every word in the Bible literally." .... and that's the danger with fundamentalists (of all religions).

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:57 PM

Yup, sure is. Well, good night. Sweet dreams.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 12:34 AM

"Some claim that the Old Testament prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 that "the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son" is a Greek mistranslation -- that the original Hebrew reads "young woman"(alma), not "virgin"(bethulah)."

from here.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 01:08 AM

Anyone interested in the roots of Christianity should read the link provided by Peace.

Little Hawk - Thank-you for confirming what I believed as a young child - "Her "virginity" was symbolic of the state of her consciousness."

I had no idea that virginity had a physical aspect to it. I truly believed that it meant purity of the spirit. If their was a physical aspect, I took it to mean I should take care to keep my body clean, ie: cleanliness is next to Godliness. What else is a child (who knows nothing about sexual intercourse)to believe? Maybe thats what is meant when Jesus said that to enter the kingdom of heaven, you must be as innocent as a child.

I was also taught that I was not born a sinner because I was conceived in love. I think that fits with the idea of immaculate conception.

As you must now realize, I am not a baptised Christian but since I grew up in a Christian country, I had alot of questions. Thank goodness my parents were able to help me realize that everyone has their own interpretation of the bible and that I only had to listen to my own heart to know the difference between right and wrong.

I was 10 years old when I decided that when I grew up I was going to re-write the bible in plain language that everyone could understand. I think now it will have to wait until I retire. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 01:13 AM

The Bible rewritten: "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you."

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 01:56 AM

Many years ago I heard/read that the translators of the King James Bible used the word commonly used at that time for unmarried woman, because they were translating a word that meant "unmarried woman"

Dunno where or when I heard, or maybe read it, but it's one of the little snippets of knowledge that linger at the back of my mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 02:35 AM

Just for clarification: Immaculate Conception as used by the Roman Catholic Church does not refer to Jesus' birth at all but to the birth of his mother, the Virgin Mary. The church 'decided' that in order for her to be an object of veneration she too had to be found free of sin.

Just as the day of Mary's birth is 'assumed' to be on a particular day, chosen, in other words, to be 'Assumption Day'.

Oh, what webs we weave...

Yes, Little Hawk. Given the chance, sperm can get inside the vaginal canal and on into the womb- the hymen is NOT a solid wall, which explains why girls and women can menstruate while virginal.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 03:25 AM

Humm won't that upset a lot of historians who say 'he' had brothers?, and one called James was older???

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Pied Piper
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 07:43 AM

Season's greetings folks, lets not forget the council of Nicea in 325 AD, which Constantine organised to get the messy collection of ideas in the "Christian" Mystery religion into good Roman order.
By this time Christians made up most of the civil administration of the Roman Empire and persecution was no longer an option without paralyzing tax collection, so Constantine came up with the idea of fusing Christianity with Mithraism another mystery religion. Now Mithraism was the religion of the legions, so by combining the two he got the Army and the civil service batting for the same side.

Mithras

This of cause is not just true of the "New Testament" but the rest of the Bible was begged borrowed or stolen from other cultures; it's monotheism and concept of a Messiah from Akhenaton's Egypt, it's flood story from Babylon and lots of other ideas from the Canaanites.

Have a good New Year

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST,A
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:44 AM

Well, this stayed pretty serious and a good thread!

Little Hawks' 10:54PM amd 11:52PM posts deserve a second reading. Good on Dianavan too. (and even Peace)

As I get older I find a few questions popping up. My initial preschool was probably "Sunday School" and it went on from there.
I am somewhat bothered by the strong Evangelicals who maintain a non-wavering stance and this includes their position on "Gay marriage". While in most religions there can be no such thing, they are still trying to get laws passed (done in some states) to prevent it. GWB and I are so far apart on that. The'Defense of Marriage act' being passed in states is an oxymoron. Three percent of the population who cannot procreate while ignoring a divorce rate approaching 50 percent which has a terrible effect on us all.

Sorry, sorta' got off subject here but the actions of many Evangelicals has steered me towards the concept of one God for all. If he 'created' all this stuff, why not allow for multiple religions as who better than God to know that we wouldn't agree on much of anything to start with.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:48 AM

Just as the day of Mary's birth is 'assumed' to be on a particular day, chosen, in other words, to be 'Assumption Day'.

Nope, sorry Ebbie. The Feast of the Assumption celebrates the assumption of Mary bodily into Heaven -- ie., she didn't die and was buried, but was taken up bodily ("assumed") when her life was o'er.

The statement about the Immaculate Conception is correct and, in my original post, wasn't thinking clearly (I was just back from DC, a place that fogs minds). The idea that Jesus of Nazareth was conceived without the a man's help comes from the statements made at the Annunciation (the angel comes and gives Mary a Great Big Surprise) and the idea that she was virgo intacta before and after giving birth is called (obviously) the "Virgin Birth."

(Just because I was raised Catholic and had 18 years or so of Catholic education doesn't mean that I can swallow everything that church teaches. As my wife, similarily raised and educated says, "They made a big mistake -- they taught us to think.")

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: PeteBoom
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:51 AM

Half marks, Ebbie. The Immaculate Conception does indeed refer to Mary having been conceived and born without original sin (take *THAT* Augustine!) However, the Assumption of Mary has naught to do with her birth. It marks her being assumed into heaven, rather than have her body "suffer corruption" in the grave.

PP - I wondered when Mithras would enter the fray (so to speak).

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:25 AM

Right on, Pied Piper, and others. Good contributions all the way around here.

You know, I have never doubted that Jesus brought forth great spiritual truths, and had great inner spiritual power and wisdom...but...

I have tremendously doubted that the historical Christian Bible is a wholly accurate or entirely trustworthy source of information ABOUT Jesus. It's a politically tampered-with bunch of documents written by a whole bunch of different people who all had their own particular ax to grind at their own particular time...and edited by other politically motivated people after that! It's helpful in learning about Jesus, but it is far from totally reliable.

When people take the Bible (or the Q'ran or any other ancient religious text) literally they are doing so for no other reason than that somebody they trusted when they were young and impressionable taught them to. Thus are the misconceptions of the fathers passed on the the sons, yea, even unto the 700th generation! ;-) And thus are the religious wars and pogroms inflicted on humanity.

The only way to know something spiritual for certain is to experience it yourself. Directly. (Even then, it may only apply to you.) All else is merely opinion...and human culture is largely arbitrary opinions based upon unthinking imitation of what went before. Monkey see, monkey do. That's why human society is so bizarre, and why it frequently imbues stark insanity with honor, respect, and major financial and political backing.

A wholly sane being does not build a hydrogen bomb nor does he devote vast amounts of national resources yearly to planning how to best slaughter his fellow human beings by waging war upon them. Nor does he destroy precious arable land to build more housing subdivisions and shopping centres. Spiritual wisdom would not countenance such nonsense.

Spirituality is very kind and very simple in its needs and its practices. The human ego/mind is fantastically complex, terrifically competitive, and utterly ruthless when it experiences fear (which is almost all the time). Our organized religions on this planet have spent 98% of their time servicing the imagined needs and insatiable ambitions of the human ego/mind, and the remaining 2% giving scant recognition to genuine spiritual truth.

As for science, without an awareness of the spiritual purpose behind this life it is lost. It's an eye that sees and measures and describes, but does not comprehend. It can only tell you what is happening and how...it describes the mechanisms of things, but it can't tell you why. If you don't know "why" you exist, why everything is as it is, then you have no real sense of meaning at the center of your existence. That leads to psychological emptiness. That can lead further to nihilism, hedonism, criminality, and despair.

If you wish to rise no further than to be a cleverly intelligent and glib talking animal...with appetites...who can "win" arguments and impress people...then science may seem like enough...until you get old and your body begins to fall apart on you. The pleasures of life then diminish radically. What then happens to your sense of meaning?

Both the traditional churches and the hallowed halls of science have to a great extent failed in giving people what they truly need...a sense of the sacred meaning at the heart of life which does not in any way deny the observable physical realities of our brief existence here.

They have each done so in their arrogance and exclusivity, imagining that their very fragmentary and selective chosen view of reality was..."all there is to know about the matter"...and..."the only valid approach to discerning reality".

That is why we live in such an alienated time. Our culture's innate sense of inner meaning and value has collapsed, destroyed by giving people the barren and useless choice between either:

1. irrational religions (belief without reason)

or:

2. a scientific/commercial mindset that espouses a form of fragmented, purely pragmatic rationality that is devoid of spiritual wisdom (a mind without a heart).

When your life is only about making more money, having more things, gaining more approval and recognition from others, having better sex....or....engaging in fanatical ritualized behaviours and beliefs, as specified by some bunch of religious rules laid down in an ancient book by a God you don't know personally but have only heard of...then your sense of meaning has devolved into a tale told by either an ethical barbarian or a madman.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:28 AM

Unfortunately the word 'maiden' can be translated correctly as a young woman, an unmarried woman or, indeed, a virgin. You pays your money......

Incidently, trying to get a camel through the eye of a needle was a similar linguistic disaster - it should have been a rope in fact - a difficult if nigh impossible task but at least a better metaphor

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:39 AM

A virgin birth story was the only excuse they could come up with to side step the born out of wedlock scandal.
Illegitimacy was taboo.
It is still a death sentence for some women in the region today.
Later the "miracle" played into the hands of religious leaders as "proof" of god's special power.

If you think about it...
As a result of the immaculate conception doctrine teachings like "In heaven as it is on Earth" and "In god's image" applies to everything about god except for fucking.
how sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:33 AM

So, Donuel, you figure they weren't legally married in that society? Hmmm. I kind of doubt that. Old men often married quite young women in those times...since it was considered that what one must do with a daughter, at all cost, was get her married to someone substantially placed as soon as was reasonably expedient. Joseph seemed to be making a reasonable living as a carpenter, so he was suitable.

But...I can't say for sure they were legally married. I'll tell you what I think marriage really is: It's not a question of legality. It's a spiritual bond. It has nothing to do with a license, the sanction of church and government, or anyone else's opinion about the couple whatsoever. If the bond of love is genuine, the committment real, it's a marriage.

So in my terms at least, and in a what could be termed a godly sense...they were married. ;-)

And sex definitely is included as part of "God's image".

Emma - I think the camel was probably chosen to emphasize the extremity of the example! Yes, a rope would have done too, but not quite as dramatic. Kind of like comparing Errol Flynn's ego (or his libido) to the size of the state of Texas, for example. Not logical, but highly evocative.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:58 AM

I stand corrected. A dingerous thang is a little knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:09 AM

Emma B 'the camel through the eye of the needle' literally 'The eye of the needle'is the gate at the South end of Jerusalem through which only pedestrians could pass...Now blocked off anyway....No Camels could pass through it because it was not big enough! Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Pied Piper
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:47 AM

Eye of a needle

I agree with your assessment of organised religion and it's total failure of modern people but yet again I don't recognise your description of science and scientists. Individual Scientist are generally motivated by a fascination with how a very small part of the Universe works, but the activity is a social one involving a great deal of cooperation and sharing of ideas between people that derive a lot of joy from their pursuit of truth (however fleeting). This to me is basically not ego led but what you might call a "spiritual" purpose. That doesn't mean that Scientists aren't as flawed as the rest of us just that Science works best that way.
I don't see Science as modern invention of the western world but an extension of the innate natural ability and drive of human beings to understand the world around us in all it's complexity and beauty.

This for me is enough.

And so far I have not surrendered to Nihilism, despair, or Criminality, all though I do like a touch of hedonism every now and again.

All the best for 2006

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:52 AM

OK, so if you goys believe all of this stuff, why are so many campaigning so hard against Intelligent Design?

Please realize, Jews could care less if you think we are going to hell for not believing Jesus is the wherewithall. I will never say that he wasn't a good man, for he was. But his old man might have really been the milkman or the mailman.

People do not have babies without being impregnated the normal way in unless test tubes were used 2000 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Pied Piper
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 12:09 PM

Go and play with your train set Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST,G
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 12:10 PM

I don't remember exactly how long ago this happened, a dozen years or so ago, when a AstroPhysicist friend of mine attend a major, major conference intended to explain the final analysis of the "Big Bang Theory."

He was wandering around after the final day of this multi-day conference and got within earshot of several reporters and the primary moderator of the conference. He listened to several comments from one of the reporters who, he said, it was evident that the reporter was overwhelmed with the scope of the theory. The final comment he heard fom the moderator to the reporter was "Well, you gotta' have faith".

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST,Knowall.
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 12:48 PM

Martin Gibson. The Messiah was promised in Isiah and Jesus fulfilled the criteria, so please tell me why Jews fail to recognise Him as what he undoubtably is, was, and ever shall be!

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 12:52 PM

MG ... your not implying that Mary was a shikseh are you ?!?!


sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 02:15 PM

Mary was a shikseh!

Guest, Knowall, the Jews still believe the messiah is coming and Jesus did not fulfill it. He was rejected from the start. In fact, he failed miserably. Take a look at the strife in the world and that should make sense to you why.

Pied Pier, I will gladly play with my trains just as much as you gladly play with your skin flute while your rats cheer you on.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 02:20 PM

Mary couldn't have been a shikseh. She was Jewish.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 02:32 PM

Who cares if JC was born out of wedlock and that Joseph did the right thing albeit a little late by protecting Mary against the harsh punishments of adultry through a legal marriage ceremony.
It all worked out in the end...or did it.

Even Leonardo D'Vinci was a bastard but was supported/raised by his biological father.

I can hear John Cleese saying
Are there any bastards here?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 02:33 PM

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 03:10 PM

That's very interesting about Mithraism. If it's true that Mithraism had all of those traditions for a couple of thousand years before the birth of Jesus, one can imagine the possibility that during the years of Jesus' life that the New Testament does not discuss, he could very well have been studying Mithraism. If that's the case, it wouldn't be too unreasonable to suppose that Jesus' teachings were an attempt to bring the tenets of Mithraism to the Jews. Interesting possibilities to consider.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST,Godsmessenger
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 03:30 PM

Martin Gibson. You can take what you have learned and make it what it is! Jesus was and is you saviour............the Messiah...what more do you want?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST,Where living waters flow
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 03:34 PM

Martin Gibson...God loves you as he does Christians. God loves you whatever. why do you question what stares you in the face? Martin Gibson, you are one of Gods chosen so stop denying Him.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST,Angel Gabriel
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 03:36 PM

Please, please do not play games with Gods children. God is! was! and ever shall be! doubt not.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:07 PM

Ebbie .... good one ... I like that.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:12 PM

Carol C ... a shikseh can also mean a Jewish female of somewhat wild and loose morals.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:30 PM

Carol C.- If you want to know more about Mithraism, check out this link: http://www.crystalinks.com/mithra.html

Yes, it is possible that Jesus learned about Mithraism from his wandering in the wilderness but it is just as likely that he learned it from Zoraostrians. Seems to me that Mithraism was a cult version of Zoroastrianism.

The earliest state to declare Christianity as its religion was Armenia which was also rooted in Zoroastrianism. I have come to believe that many of out monthesistic religions have their roots in Zoroastrianism. Practices change over time but the Jews of Babylon (who built Jerusalem after being freed by Cyrus) were already indebted to the believers of the Zoroastrian faith.

In this way, you can see that Jesus actually tried to return to the original teachings and save his people from the corruption of the priests in the temples.

Do I believe this? Maybe. It seems like a logical explanation of the evolution of Christianity and an even better explanation regarding the stories that have been passed down to us.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Wesley S
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:38 PM

Give me that old time Zoroastrianism,
Give me that old time Zoroastrianism,
Give me that old time Zoroastrianism,
It's good enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Immacula
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:39 PM

Are you Jewish, number 6?

My next question is, do you know the literal translation of "shikseh (shiksa)"?


Thanks, dianavan.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:40 PM

might as well give up...folks are beginning to recite homilies and chant classic platitudes.."God loves you.." "ever shall be"......*sigh*....those things mean **nothing** if you don't already believe them! Reciting formulas does nothing to discuss the issue.

Religion is personal....simplistic expressions of it do not belong in this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:48 PM

Oddly enough, GUESTS of various flavors, anyone is free to believe whatever they wish. That it might disagree with your beliefs is not their problem -- and neither is it yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: John O'L
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:52 PM

It seems likely, to me at least, that the Abrahamic religions, Hinduism and the Chinese disciplines all descended from Zoroastrianism.

BTW Cyrus The Great liberated the Hebrews from Babylon and caused the temple to be rebuilt. Shouldn't he be the Messiah?
(Coincidentally, he was known, in his lifetime, as 'King of Kings'.)

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST,God himself
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:00 PM

I love you all whatever you say do or think.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST,God Herself`
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:12 PM

And I love you too, "himself", even though you are an imposter.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:18 PM

Hey 6, Mary really wasn't a shikseh/shicksa I guess.

The word you are looking for was bumke. Right, CarolC? Or do you want to give us the Koran version?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:18 PM

God Himself?

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:19 PM

Oops. Crosposted with Herself.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:21 PM

Pied Piper, why respond so petulantly to a bit of common sense, in what until your "train set" contribution was a fairly reasonable discussion?

LH's mindboggling contortions around the spirituality of the virgin-birth story are best answered by this: "I have tremendously doubted that the historical Christian Bible is a wholly accurate or entirely trustworthy source of information ABOUT Jesus. It's a politically tampered-with bunch of documents written by a whole bunch of different people who all had their own particular ax to grind at their own particular time...and edited by other politically motivated people after that!". LH will hardly disagree with this rebuttal, since he wrote it himself.

If not a virgin birth, LH really needs to address the question raised by Martin Gibson: who then fathered Jesus? Matthew sets out Jesus's forbears in detail, to show that he was from a royal bloodline with either a claim, or a pretension, to be king of the Jews. But the bloodline reaches Jesus through Joseph, not Mary.

As I have pointed out before, the son-of-God label was attached to Jesus only after his death. Likewise the royal ancestry was played down, probably because it would have antagonised the occupying power by offering a focal point for insurgency.

That Jesus was seen during his lifetime as a potential king of the Jews is supported by the fact that he was crucified - a Roman punishment - and not stoned, as was preferred by the Jewish house of corrections. In other words he was killed for political expediency rather than for blasphemy. But the chances of propagating a religion around him were greatly enhanced with a little bit of revisionism, whereby Jesus was later deemed to have offended the Jews rather than the Romans. Thus started a Christian slandering of Judaism that the catholic church in particular pursued with vigour until only a few years ago.

An example of revisionism at work is seen in the account of the critically significant last supper. In all their teaching after the crucifixion, those who had been present never once thought to mention the bread-and-wine business. Paul, who spent much time with them - Peter in particular - had to be told about it by God, in a dream. And thus he was able to give the first written account of it. (The NT gospels also record the ceremony, but the first of these was not written until several years after Paul's letters, although all four are placed earlier than Paul's writings in the Bible.)

A likely explanation for this curiosity is that the last-supper ritual never happened and was invented by Paul - the real founder of Christianity - to help rebadge a potential king of the Jews as the long-awaited Messiah.

God so loved the world that he (he?) conceived and gave birth to his only begotten son, specifically to sacrifice him. There is no evidence for the existence of a son before the Angel Gabriel (or whoever) did his stuff with Mary. And God seems never to have mentioned any family in his various chats with OT characters.

So what was he thinking about, creating a son and then sacrificing him? Well, it seems he did it to the end that all those who truly believed should not perish but have everlasting life.

Spiritual symbolism this may be, in which case LH will no doubt tell us. But at any other level it is poorlly thought-through storytelling at best.

If God wanted to save us, why didn't he do just that? How does one individual crucifixion out of the many thousands that took place under Roman occupancy contribute one iota to our salvation? And surely it would have been more meaningful to sacrifice something that meant something to him, rather than someone created just for the purpose?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:27 PM

The word you are looking for was bumke. Right, CarolC? Or do you want to give us the Koran version?

Do you mean, Bohmerkeh?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:45 PM

What Korean version?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:48 PM

The Koran version as told to her by Mohammad Atta.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:53 PM

The Korean's don't use the Koran--well, not in droves, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: John O'L
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:00 PM

The Korean's don't use the Koran--well, not in droves, anyway.

In mosques then?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:02 PM

No, the Qureans use the Quran.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:14 PM

(BTW, Bohmerkeh is the Yiddish version, not the Korean version... )

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:30 PM

I have no problem at all with a virgin birth. If god decides that he or she wants to perform a little miracle every now and again why shouldn't she. Or he. If all god wants to do is perform these feats of mysticism every now and then what harm are they doing. Why shouldn't god do hheris (wayhay - there's a new word for you!) own thing. The moslems have their prayer mats. The jews have their big hats. The christians have their ashes. Why should we deny god this little concession?

After all we need to give minorities their rights and surely god is the biggest (smallest?) minority of all!

There can be only one!

or was that from something else..?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:59 PM

Is this about mythology or faith?

Same Dif, nu?

The Bible rewritten: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The NeoCon Bible : "Do unto others lest they do unto you."

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:30 PM

Am I jewish .... My mother was, so in some ways I am, though I was never really raised as one.My mother was a devout athiest. After my father died when I was 12 I did live my high school years in a Jewish community in Toronto. Yes the definition of a shikseh is a non-Jewish female, but it is also used in a derogatory manner for a Jewish female of lose morals. Times and expressions/views have changed since those days.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:16 PM

Thanks, number 6.

"Shikseh (shiksa)" according to some people, literally translates to mean "female abomination".

This site has a sensative discussion of the word. Many people seem to be unaware of these definitions...

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/11-Miscellaneous/section-7.html

"Shiksa and Shaygetz are the Yiddish derivative of the respective feminine and masculine Hebrew words for something unclean, dirty. The appellations are customarily applied to gentiles who do things inimical to Jewish interests, such as vandalizing Jewish buildings, robbing Jewish kids of their lunch money, or becoming romantically involved with Jews :-). The root is "sheketz", which refers to house rodents and lizards. They impart ritual impurity, and therefore the term lends itself to the same kind of idea. Some have taken to using the term to refer to Christian women in general. If Christians were using the term against Jews in English, they would be saying "Filthy Jews" or "Dirty Jews", and we Jews would rightly be offended.

Hence, use of these terms should really be avoided; it is insulting and inappropriate, even if no bad intent was behind the usage. It is always better to use neutral, less pejorative (judgemental) terms, such as non-Jew or Christian."

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:16 PM

Thank you Carol C.

So back to my question to MG ..

"MG ... your not implying that Mary was a shikseh are you ?!?!"

If Jesus was born out of wedlock ... it certainly would have been extremely scandalous and repulsive in Jewish Society.

Thus the extreme whitewashing of the situation was created to make his birth more pure, closer to YHWH/yahwew/God in creating the 'myth' of a Virgin Birth. Don't forget, the first audience to conversion to the new Christian following were Jews. As Bobad mentioned "Or they might all be using the same story to sell the snake oil."

It is after it has all been done and said and in Christianity's evolution do we rationalize the purity in it's spirituality. I prefer to think of the Virgin Birth to it's feminine side, a mother, a woman is all Mary was. Someone in spite of the mores/morals of the society of her time, someone to be repected regardless. Like all humans should be.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:22 PM

"Children born out of wedlock are not mamzerim in Jewish law and bear no stigma, unless the marriage would have been prohibited for the reasons above. Children of a married man and a woman who is not his wife are not mamzerim (because the marriage between the parents would not have been prohibited), although children of a married woman and a man who is not her husband are mamzerim (because she could not have married him)."

That is from a great site: Judaism 101.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:29 PM

I think bobad is right.

"...they might all be using the same story to sell the snake oil."

I'm glad, sIx, that you believe that Mary was someone to be respected regardless of the morality of her time but...

I'm also sure that the figure of Mary means many things to many people. I'm surprised that she has survived at all.

I think that says more about the strength of the Goddess despite the efforts of the church to diminish her significance among the people.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:33 PM

I just ain't too hung up on Gods and Godesses. Much ado about nothing, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:38 PM

Also, she would have been virgin and ever-virgin (given the holy spirit scenarion) if she'd given birth to a girl, but Jesus was a guy and that means she had a pecker in her. Kinda gets messy in terms of argument. Don't mean to be sacreligious, but this kinda stuff throws me off because people believe what they believe--much of it comes from their churches and its leaders, and lots comes from dogmas handed down from other people who got it from their churches, ad infinitum.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:26 AM

If Mary was a schikseh .... in our lingo meaning a slut or whore ... crude description, I myself don't like it but I'm trying to get a point across .... Jesus (albeit born out of wedlock or not) and his marketing group of guys would have quite a negative black mark on the campaign in selling his dogma ... so, create a myth, a magical illusion to keep the skeletons well hidden away in the closet.

All in all it worked out pretty good, and the afterthoughts provided some goodness to mankind ... but then again humans being humans take things, twist and spin it all around for their own agendas and miss the big point overall.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 10:50 AM

Religion... what a load of bollocks

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:14 PM

In some ways it is Clinton .... in some ways it is.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 01:04 PM

Jesus was the first to break the door down from the inside? Now that's bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 01:38 PM

"Now that's bullshit."

Find religion that isn't

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 04:53 PM

Clinton, there's religion and there is faith. Can you see any difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:56 PM

If you have faith in religion, you're a bigger idiot than I ever gave you credit for

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 08:50 PM

Well...you've been quite busy immaculately misconceiving for the last couple of days, haven't you?

Subtlety, lads, subtlety! It's badly needed if you wish to talk about such matters as the Virgin Mary and create anything except a bunch of pointless noise.

"Mary" is an archetype. A great symbol. You either know that or you don't. If you don't, you will grasp nothing useful about her whatsoever. The archetype existed eons before the historical woman did, and it will always exist, even if this planet burns up and vanishes into dust.

The historical organized religions on this planet are man's faltering (but often noble) attempts to grasp great truths that predated this world, and will last long after it and those religions have vanished utterly.

You think you're human. Well, you are, but you're more than that. Human is just the most obvious part of you that you see on the surface. It's skin deep and temporary. You are life itself, manifesting as human for a very short dramatic episode which you call your "life" as you presently know it. Life itself is not limited to form. It's intelligent energy. It brings forth form when and where it chooses to.

It chose to make Clinton and Martin just as they are. "Fascinating," as Spock would say...

You guys (Clinton and Martin) think very small, that's your problem. But I love it when you argue with one another...it's funny.

I mean, isn't it great to be someone who knows everything? It provides such self-assurance. We all ought to form a club or write a book or something, and straighten out everybody else, right? We could call it, "My Religion is ME". I bet it would sell like crazy.

Clinton, I think that's what your religion truly is: it's you. You have tremendous faith in YOU. Your God lives in the mirror. Can you understand why this makes a lot of sense to you, but maybe not so much sense to most other people? Still, I'm sure it helps you get things done...

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 09:13 PM

Peter K - I don't care who fathered Jesus. I care about the teachings and example that Jesus provided to humanity. (Same deal with Buddha, Krishna, Lao-Tse, Abraham, and many, many others.)

It probably was the Biblical man Joseph who fathered Jesus, in the physical sense, I would think. Most likely. So? Was it in legal wedlock? Probably. Do I care? No, not really.

I think God fathers/mothers EVERYBODY, because life springs from the unmanifest as pure energy, and that pure energy IS God as far as I'm concerned. So God fathered and mothered you, me, Jesus, the dog, the cat, and everyone else...through their biological parents. God also fathered/mothered plants, plankton, single-celled organisms, planets, stars, and galaxies. Everything that exists is the progeny of God...because everything came out of the pure energy that pre-existed form. Everything also returns into that pure energy, and generally re-emerges into other forms later.

How's that?

It's utter bollocks, my friend, for anyone to think they can prove or disprove something about the details of Jesus' familial lineage at this point in history. They can have an opinion, but that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 09:50 PM

Out to sea as usual Little Hawk....

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 06:48 AM

If you have faith in religion

Impossibility in this context of faith I'm afraid, Clinton. Religion is known to exist therefore the concept of faith cannot be applied to it. I think you are mixing up the terms faith and trust. Faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven in the context of Martins comment.

Unless of course you knew that and were just winding Martin up. Surely not...

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:33 PM

Isn't MG wound up enough?

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:56 PM

Not at all, Clinton, and you certainly don't do it. Last I checked you usually respond to me, not the other way around. So as usual, your buttons sit in fully depressed mode.

Scenerio: Clinton in pain on his deathbed pleading, "Oh God, help me."

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:27 PM

You just enjoy feeling superior and self-sufficient, Clinton. I can understand that. Every human ego enjoys feeling superior. ;-) I know I do.

But at the end of the day it avails us nothing. Your life is an act, like in that play you've been performing in. It's temporary.

You think it's all you've got? Fine with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:29 PM

"Clinton in pain on his deathbed pleading, "Oh God, help me."

... good point MG!

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:29 PM

It's all he will ever have.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:31 PM

BTW ,, guest at 1:29 is me

Well said LH.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 02:23 PM

"your buttons sit in fully depressed mode"
Then you just show one more area where you are woefully uninformed.... You don't know shit about my buttons...

"You just enjoy feeling superior"
Self-sufficient I'll grant you, but I don't feel superior.... I know we're ALL a load of wankers... You, me, MG and the rest of the world....

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 02:32 PM

Oh ya... BTW... I've been -ON- my 'death-bed'... Didn't turn to any mouldy old mythology then.... I doubt I'll do it when I'm back there....

If it gets you through the day, bully for ya... just don't try to pretend it's in any way real o.k....

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 02:45 PM

Okay, Clinton...self-sufficient, then. You're quite correct that we are all fools in our own particular manner (you said wankers...same deal).

But as to what is real or not, that's for each to decide as best he can.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 02:48 PM

One may as well cling to the belief that the world is flat... or that The Sun orbits around Earth...

There's as much evidence to support those as there is for 'religion' as anything more than a tool for domination, hatred and thought control

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 03:52 PM

But I'm not into religion. I'm into spirituality.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 03:54 PM

So, you make your OWN mind control

LOL

I think the idea of 'spirit' is kinda neat, but I have yet to see any evidence to support it's existance...

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 03:57 PM

Clinton, did you get coal in your stocking?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 04:35 PM

Nope... Santa, that old pagan bugger, loves me!

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 06:06 PM

If he existed, yeah, he would. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 06:07 PM

Spirit is consciousness itself. It's the source of all thought.

You can't prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 06:13 PM

"You can't prove it."

Yes, I can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 06:13 PM

Ain't that always the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 06:13 PM

Then you got a stone or 2 in yer stocking ... maybe then some evergreen.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 06:46 PM

Clinton got fecal matter in his stocking and then it fell out because he had a hole in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 07:32 PM

All stockings have a hole in them... otherwise it'd be damn hard to put your foot in it, just like you've done over and over MG...   You just keep proving what a moron you really are....

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 07:58 PM

Well, it just means that ya have to roll the sock up yer foot. Turn the sock inside out. Put yuer toes where you want 'em to end up and unravel the sock up yer leg. Nothin' to it. Takes a mere three minutes and you have the left sock on. The right sock takes about as long. So, what hole are ya talkin' about, Clinton?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 08:09 PM

The HOLE at the TOP of the sock, d'uh.... If it didn't have that hole you couldn't turn it inside out!

Heh

Like if MG didn't have his holes, he daddy wouldn't have any fun at all...

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 08:23 PM

I WANT Martin to see your next show, Clinton. If there was an anthropomorphic God out there who cared a hoot about that sort of thing, I think he would arrange it.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 08:28 PM

Wow... you must really hate MG to wish ME on him

heh

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 08:32 PM

That is a hole? Hell, I thought my socks were Mobius strips. I am gonna save five minutes a day from now on. Clinton, you ARE da man!

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 08:53 PM

I would not want to see his show.

the acting is terrible, the plot is thin, and they do not serve any refreshments.

I'd rather watch something with Mickey Rooney in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 06:04 AM

LH,

"If he existed, yeah, he would. ;-) "

You mean there ISN'T a Santa Claus??????

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Pied Piper
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 07:44 AM

"fecal matter"; good god Martin have made a New Years resolution, or is it an attempt to convince us that you can read without moving your lips.

Happy New Year

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 11:27 AM

A priest in Italy is being taken to court charged to provide proof of the existance of Jesus. Should be an interesting case.

http://www.christianism.com/html/notes/8note57.html