Re: Don't forget to send your favorites!

Jeff R. wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
> news: ...
>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>> Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry - ) one of
>>> the easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the necessary beliefs.
>> Surely. But in the time since it would likely have occurred numerous
>> times. Has it?
>
> I think so.
> I *cannot* believe that some of the mothers I see with kids in tow have
> *ever* had sex.

*shudder* I know what you mean.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009110108235680278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-11-01 07:13:14 -0800, Alan Browne
> <> said:
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2009-10-31 15:43:57 -0700, "Jeff R." <> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
>>>> news: ...
>>>>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry - ) one
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the necessary
>>>>>> beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely. But in the time since it would likely have occurred numerous
>>>>> times. Has it?
>>>>
>>>> I think so.
>>>> I *cannot* believe that some of the mothers I see with kids in tow have
>>>> *ever* had sex.
>>>
>>> Some of them didn't.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitro_fertilization
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't obviate sex.
>
> It does if you use the cruder definition of sex as actual coitus, as
> opposed to fertilization and cell division. Especially since the female in
> this case wouldn't even have to meet the sperm donor, let alone be
> intimate.
>
> I doubt many men would call invitro, without penetration, sex.
> Let's see you sit back and be gratified by that?
>
> --
No "after" cigarette either.

mikey4

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:43:57 +1100, "Jeff R." <> wrote:

>
>"Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
>news: m...
>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>>
>>> Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry - ) one of
>>> the easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the necessary beliefs.
>>
>> Surely. But in the time since it would likely have occurred numerous
>> times. Has it?
>
>I think so.
>I *cannot* believe that some of the mothers I see with kids in tow have
>*ever* had sex.
>
>

To put the kibosh on this puerile off-topic troll's nonsense.

One of my own truisms:

"Ugliness, as well as beauty, lies solely within the eye of the beholder.
Those that see ugliness in others are only revealing the ugliness within
themselves." by ~ caMel ~

Yes, you may quote me in the future. You'll have to. The next time someone
tells you how ugly you are you'll be able to explain to them why.

NameHere

Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-11-01 11:00:20 -0800, Alan Browne
> <> said:
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2009-11-01 07:13:14 -0800, Alan Browne
>>> <> said:
>>>
>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> On 2009-10-31 15:43:57 -0700, "Jeff R." <> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in
>>>>>> message news: ...
>>>>>>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry -
>>>>>>>> ) one of the easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the
>>>>>>>> necessary beliefs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Surely. But in the time since it would likely have occurred
>>>>>>> numerous times. Has it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think so.
>>>>>> I *cannot* believe that some of the mothers I see with kids in
>>>>>> tow have *ever* had sex.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of them didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitro_fertilization
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't obviate sex.
>>>
>>> It does if you use the cruder definition of sex as actual coitus, as
>>> opposed to fertilization and cell division. Especially since the
>>> female in this case wouldn't even have to meet the sperm donor, let
>>> alone be intimate.
>>>
>>> I doubt many men would call invitro, without penetration, sex.
>>> Let's see you sit back and be gratified by that?
>>
>> You misunderstand what I said. Because a woman has an in-vitro
>> fert., that does not mean she's a virgin. In fact it's extremely
>> unlikely that a virgin would be approved for IVF.
>>
>> Further, your reply cur around the definition of parthenogenesis
>> which is essentially "self reproduction". IVF is definitely not
>> parthenogenesis.
>
> OK! OK! I did think we were talking "human" mothers in this humorous
> sidetrack, not those life forms for which parthenogenesis is a valid
> form of reproduction.
>
> The bottom line is "virgin" birth as proposed in the New Testament
> remains fiction, and for humans is a myth.

Yep. Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was determined
that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew and Luke said so.
We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether they
personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a team of
whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or whether Joseph
complained to them incessantly about how she never put out and got pregnant
anyway or what.

J. Clarke

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:02:34 -0500, "J. Clarke" <>
wrote:

>Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-11-01 11:00:20 -0800, Alan Browne
>> <> said:
>>
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2009-11-01 07:13:14 -0800, Alan Browne
>>>> <> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-10-31 15:43:57 -0700, "Jeff R." <> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news: ...
>>>>>>>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry -
>>>>>>>>> ) one of the easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the
>>>>>>>>> necessary beliefs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Surely. But in the time since it would likely have occurred
>>>>>>>> numerous times. Has it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think so.
>>>>>>> I *cannot* believe that some of the mothers I see with kids in
>>>>>>> tow have *ever* had sex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of them didn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitro_fertilization
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't obviate sex.
>>>>
>>>> It does if you use the cruder definition of sex as actual coitus, as
>>>> opposed to fertilization and cell division. Especially since the
>>>> female in this case wouldn't even have to meet the sperm donor, let
>>>> alone be intimate.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt many men would call invitro, without penetration, sex.
>>>> Let's see you sit back and be gratified by that?
>>>
>>> You misunderstand what I said. Because a woman has an in-vitro
>>> fert., that does not mean she's a virgin. In fact it's extremely
>>> unlikely that a virgin would be approved for IVF.
>>>
>>> Further, your reply cur around the definition of parthenogenesis
>>> which is essentially "self reproduction". IVF is definitely not
>>> parthenogenesis.
>>
>> OK! OK! I did think we were talking "human" mothers in this humorous
>> sidetrack, not those life forms for which parthenogenesis is a valid
>> form of reproduction.
>>
>> The bottom line is "virgin" birth as proposed in the New Testament
>> remains fiction, and for humans is a myth.
>
>Yep. Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was determined
>that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew and Luke said so.
>We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether they
>personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a team of
>whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or whether Joseph
>complained to them incessantly about how she never put out and got pregnant
>anyway or what.
>

Their virgin mary was just a name they carved over the name of Isis on her
statues when people demanded that there must be a female counterpart to
their invent-as-you-go christian beliefs. The virgin birth was stolen from
a more ancient Pagan Roman legend. The "easter resurrection" is a
bastardization of the holiday of Eostre, a Pagan Goddess of spring, to
celebrate the yearly resurrection of life in a northern climate, a holiday
that began over 3500 years ago under various names and cultures.

No mother + no birth + no resurrection = no christ.

The OT-Troll's Omega

"NameHere" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:43:57 +1100, "Jeff R." <> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
>>news: om...
>>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry - ) one
>>>> of
>>>> the easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the necessary beliefs.
>>>
>>> Surely. But in the time since it would likely have occurred numerous
>>> times. Has it?
>>
>>I think so.
>>I *cannot* believe that some of the mothers I see with kids in tow have
>>*ever* had sex.
>>
>>
>
> To put the kibosh on this puerile off-topic troll's nonsense.
>
> One of my own truisms:
>
> "Ugliness, as well as beauty, lies solely within the eye of the beholder.
> Those that see ugliness in others are only revealing the ugliness within
> themselves." by ~ caMel ~
>
> Yes, you may quote me in the future. You'll have to. The next time someone
> tells you how ugly you are you'll be able to explain to them why.


Here's one my favourites, by way of reply:

" ...The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
by ~ Shakespeare, Ham A.III Sc.II ~



Act III Scene II

Jeff R.

J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was determined
> that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew and Luke said
> so.
> We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether they
> personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a team of
> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or whether
> Joseph
> complained to them incessantly about how she never put out and got
> pregnant
> anyway or what.

It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has mutated
through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation would be
"lass" - simply a young woman.

Wilba

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:42:11 +1100, "Jeff R." <> wrote:

>
>"NameHere" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:43:57 +1100, "Jeff R." <> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
>>>news:W96dnbriqekp9nHXnZ2dnUVZ_o5i4p2d@giganews. com...
>>>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry - ) one
>>>>> of
>>>>> the easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the necessary beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> Surely. But in the time since it would likely have occurred numerous
>>>> times. Has it?
>>>
>>>I think so.
>>>I *cannot* believe that some of the mothers I see with kids in tow have
>>>*ever* had sex.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> To put the kibosh on this puerile off-topic troll's nonsense.
>>
>> One of my own truisms:
>>
>> "Ugliness, as well as beauty, lies solely within the eye of the beholder.
>> Those that see ugliness in others are only revealing the ugliness within
>> themselves." by ~ caMel ~
>>
>> Yes, you may quote me in the future. You'll have to. The next time someone
>> tells you how ugly you are you'll be able to explain to them why.
>
>
>Here's one my favourites, by way of reply:
>
>" ...The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Yes, I figured you'd read it wrong, as all trolls read everything wrong.

Etymology of that truism: I came up with that saying when someone was
telling me how unattractive they thought someone was. I, on the other hand,
found the person they were calling "ugly" to be very attractive. I started
to question the discrepancies between our viewpoints. How could two
different people perceive a third so differently. No different than how one
person that might find a spider's appearance and coloring patterns a
marvelous and beautiful thing, others being disgusted at the sight, now
revealing the ugliness of that person's fears and insecurities, whether
learned or innate. The above quotable about ugliness is the answer. That
saying holds true no matter what way that you try to warp it to justify
your own inadequacies.

NameHere

"NameHere" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:42:11 +1100, "Jeff R." <> wrote:
>
>>
>>"NameHere" <> wrote in message
>>news:. ..
>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:43:57 +1100, "Jeff R." <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
>>>>news:W96dnbriqekp9nHXnZ2dnUVZ_o5i4p2d@giganews .com...
>>>>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry - ) one
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the necessary
>>>>>> beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely. But in the time since it would likely have occurred numerous
>>>>> times. Has it?
>>>>
>>>>I think so.
>>>>I *cannot* believe that some of the mothers I see with kids in tow have
>>>>*ever* had sex.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> To put the kibosh on this puerile off-topic troll's nonsense.
>>>
>>> One of my own truisms:
>>>
>>> "Ugliness, as well as beauty, lies solely within the eye of the
>>> beholder.
>>> Those that see ugliness in others are only revealing the ugliness within
>>> themselves." by ~ caMel ~
>>>
>>> Yes, you may quote me in the future. You'll have to. The next time
>>> someone
>>> tells you how ugly you are you'll be able to explain to them why.
>>
>>
>>Here's one my favourites, by way of reply:
>>
>>" ...The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
>
> Yes, I figured you'd read it wrong, as all trolls read everything wrong.
>
> Etymology of that truism: I came up with that saying when someone was
> telling me how unattractive they thought someone was. I, on the other
> hand,
> found the person they were calling "ugly" to be very attractive. I started
> to question the discrepancies between our viewpoints. How could two
> different people perceive a third so differently. No different than how
> one
> person that might find a spider's appearance and coloring patterns a
> marvelous and beautiful thing, others being disgusted at the sight, now
> revealing the ugliness of that person's fears and insecurities, whether
> learned or innate. The above quotable about ugliness is the answer. That
> saying holds true no matter what way that you try to warp it to justify
> your own inadequacies.
>

Kindly point out where I mentioned "ugliness".

(I'll save you some time)
I didn't.

That was your own guilty conscience chiming in.

My reference was to the subject's *behaviour*, but you read it as
"appearance".

" ...The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Jeff R.

Wilba wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was
>> determined that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew
>> and Luke said so.
>> We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether
>> they personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a
>> team of whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time
>> or whether Joseph
>> complained to them incessantly about how she never put out and got
>> pregnant
>> anyway or what.
>
> It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
> mutated through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct
> translation would be "lass" - simply a young woman.

Interesting that a major article of Catholic dogma could stem from a
translation error. If that is the case then somebody screwed the pooch
royally.

J. Clarke