BS: Immaculate mis-conception

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)