Re: Son of immaculate conception

[Greg Goss]

Tim <not...@someisp.net> wrote:

>Binny's roasting for confusing the Catholic
>Church's latest version of the immaculate
>conception myth for the virginal birth myth got me
>to thinking. Is it biologically possible that the
>baby Jesus could have been produced that way?
>Wouldn't he have had to have been a she or is it
>thought that God somehow slipped her a Y
>chromosome somehow?

She was "passing" as a man. Women couldn't preach, so you had to be a
man to be a preacher. Officially, a preacher should have been
married, but that would have been much harder to pull off.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[S. Checker]

Tim <not...@someisp.net> wrote:
> Binny's roasting for confusing the Catholic
> Church's latest version of the immaculate
> conception myth for the virginal birth myth got me
> to thinking. Is it biologically possible that the
> baby Jesus could have been produced that way?
> Wouldn't he have had to have been a she or is it
> thought that God somehow slipped her a Y
> chromosome somehow?

So you want to know if an all-powerful deity who is simultaneously
three persons and one, created the entire universe and exists outside
of both time and space, would have trouble making a boy child without
any sperm? I mean, it's a legitimate question in general but within the
specific confines of the Christian mythos it seems a little trivial.
--
SHE TOOK ON A WHOLE GANG! A howling hellcat humping a hot steel hog on a
roaring rampage of revenge!
-- Bury Me an Angel (1972)

[art...@yahoo.com]

On May 21, 3:51 pm, spam...@gmail.com (S. Checker) wrote:

> Tim <notr...@someisp.net> wrote:
> > Binny's roasting for confusing the Catholic
> > Church's latest version of the immaculate
> > conception myth for the virginal birth myth got me
> > to thinking. Is it biologically possible that the
> > baby Jesus could have been produced that way?
> > Wouldn't he have had to have been a she or is it
> > thought that God somehow slipped her a Y
> > chromosome somehow?
>
> So you want to know if an all-powerful deity who is simultaneously
> three persons and one, created the entire universe and exists outside
> of both time and space, would have trouble making a boy child without
> any sperm? I mean, it's a legitimate question in general but within the
> specific confines of the Christian mythos it seems a little trivial.

The "H" in Jesus "H" Christ does stand for haploid.....

[art...@yahoo.com]

On May 21, 2:17 pm, Tim <notr...@someisp.net> wrote:
> Binny's roasting for confusing the Catholic
> Church's latest version of the immaculate
> conception myth for the virginal birth myth got me
> to thinking. Is it biologically possible that the
> baby Jesus could have been produced that way?
> Wouldn't he have had to have been a she or is it
> thought that God somehow slipped her a Y
> chromosome somehow?
>

While it is very, very rare, there have been some human males who did
not have a Y chromosome. In one family, there were several such
males. They turned out to be sterile, which is why they were studied
in the first place. They were married and were otherwise "normal"
males.

[Tim Wright]

Every one knows it stands for Howard.

--
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell
the color nine.
Tim W

[hymie!]

In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,

"Our Father, who art in heaven, Harold be thy name."

Somebody once convinced me that the H stands for Henry, which is the
Americanized version of INRI, which was the name posted on the crucifix.

A girl once had a real good laugh when I tried to tell her that in
sincerity.

--hymie! http://lactose.homelinux.net/~hymie hy...@lactose.homelinux.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 21, 11:17 am, Tim <notr...@someisp.net> wrote:

> Binny's roasting for confusing the Catholic
> Church's latest version of the immaculate
> conception myth for the virginal birth myth got me
> to thinking. Is it biologically possible that the
> baby Jesus could have been produced that way?

If God says so, yes... God is not bound by the rules God makes for us.

> Wouldn't he have had to have been a she or is it
> thought that God somehow slipped her a Y
> chromosome somehow?

Or, you know, maybe "parthenos" in attic greek didn't actually mean
virgin in the first place, and that it would be better translated as
'maiden' or 'unmarried woman'.

Think about who was writing this, and where they got their
information. Would the writers have even had this information?
Whence? Decades old gossip and scandal? Or did they piously
'enhance' Jesus' background to make him more mythical?

Matthew and Luke each has a geneology of Jesus. The geneologies are
different... There are explanations- one is actually through Mary,
someone was adopted and has different adopted and biological
geneologies, whatever.

Also possible- people who did not have the slightest fucking idea
simply made shit up. Matthew and Luke also disagree about other
details of Jesus' early life. As if they didn't actually know...

So, the pious version is virgin birth. A more 'practical'
interpretation would be that Mary and Joseph jumped the gun. Cynical
possibility- Joseph was not the only man Mary 'knew'. She either had
an affair with or was raped by an unknown person (in re Panther/
Pantera/Pandera).

BUT, get this, Joseph's father had the surname 'Panther', which Jesus
could have referred to by. 'Son of...' does not have to be taken with
perfect literalness. It could also mean 'male descendent of...'. But
the guy who wrote this was writing centuries later. How would he
know? On the other hand, the documents that refer to Panther/Pantera/
Pandera may have been referring to someone else altogether, not Jesus.


There is a great deal or writing, speculation, gossip and slander on
the subject, almost all of it written centuries later by people with
specific axes to grind. This is without the problem of copiest's
errors and 'corrections' in the documents we do have. Is this one
person referred to twice, or two different people? Are these two
names two people or different spellings of one person's name?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

Covers the basics.

[Peter Boulding]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 10:17:10 -0800, Tim <not...@someisp.net> wrote in
<k5enp89e68i110r4i...@4ax.com>:

>Binny's roasting for confusing the Catholic
>Church's latest version of the immaculate
>conception myth for the virginal birth myth got me
>to thinking. Is it biologically possible that the
>baby Jesus could have been produced that way?

>Wouldn't he have had to have been a she or is it
>thought that God somehow slipped her a Y
>chromosome somehow?

God knows how to do this stuff. Hell, He does it with snails all the time.

--
Regards, Peter Boulding
pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music

[Gus]

"Tim" <not...@someisp.net> wrote in message
news:k5enp89e68i110r4i...@4ax.com...

> Binny's roasting for confusing the Catholic
> Church's latest version of the immaculate
> conception myth for the virginal birth myth got me
> to thinking. Is it biologically possible that the
> baby Jesus could have been produced that way?
> Wouldn't he have had to have been a she or is it
> thought that God somehow slipped her a Y
> chromosome somehow?

> --
> Tim


God works in mysterious ways. You can't use reason to explain miracles.

[Gus]

<art...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7bce9aa7-c9f1-4d1d...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

The "H" in Jesus "H" Christ does stand for haploid.....

---

I thought his middle name began with an "F"

I've always wondered, what curse words did people use BCE? And did Jesus
ever swear? If so, I wonder what he favorite curse word was. He was known
to get angry at times (moneychangers, etc.). Lord knows His father had a
temper; there was a strong family history of anger management problems. So
he probably did swear once in a while. Though he had to be careful not to
carelessly say "damn you" to someone.

[Greg Goss]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>So, the pious version is virgin birth. A more 'practical'
>interpretation would be that Mary and Joseph jumped the gun. Cynical
>possibility- Joseph was not the only man Mary 'knew'. She either had
>an affair with or was raped by an unknown person (in re Panther/
>Pantera/Pandera).

XKCD's mnemonic for the order of the planets

"Mary's "virgin" explanation made Joseph suspect upstairs neighbor."

[hymie!]

In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,

go...@gossg.org, who said:

>Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>XKCD's mnemonic for the order of the planets
>
>"Mary's "virgin" explanation made Joseph suspect upstairs neighbor."

Peter?

[D.F. Manno]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
> XKCD's mnemonic for the order of the planets
>
> "Mary's "virgin" explanation made Joseph suspect upstairs neighbor."

"... pronto."
--
D.F. Manno

[Greg Goss]

hy...@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!) wrote:

>In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
> go...@gossg.org, who said:
>>Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>XKCD's mnemonic for the order of the planets
>>
>>"Mary's "virgin" explanation made Joseph suspect upstairs neighbor."
>
>Peter?

Peter didn't live upstairs yet. The mnemonic was put forward after
Pluto's demotion. In contrast, he gave a "traditional" mnemonic also
without Pluto, which I protested couldn't be very traditional.

[D.F. Manno]

The one I learned was "Mary Veronica eats many apricot jelly sandwiches
Uncle Ned prepares."
--
D.F. Manno

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 21, 7:47 pm, D.F. Manno <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:

> >>> "Mary's "virgin" explanation made Joseph suspect upstairs neighbor."
>
> >> Peter?
>
> > Peter didn't live upstairs yet.  The mnemonic was put forward after
> > Pluto's demotion.  In contrast, he gave a "traditional" mnemonic also
> > without Pluto, which I protested couldn't be very traditional.
>
> The one I learned was "Mary Veronica eats many apricot jelly sandwiches
> Uncle Ned prepares."

The one *I* learned was Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus, Neptune, Pluto...

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 05/21/2013 11:17 AM, Tim wrote:
> Binny's roasting for confusing the Catholic
> Church's latest version of the immaculate
> conception myth for the virginal birth myth got me
> to thinking. Is it biologically possible that the
> baby Jesus could have been produced that way?
> Wouldn't he have had to have been a she or is it
> thought that God somehow slipped her a Y
> chromosome somehow?
>

I believe that the thinking is that God is Fucking God, and is not bound
by the laws of the nature.

Xho

[Greg Goss]

I "always knew" the first six -- I don't remember learning them. I
remember the last three according to the radioactive elements named
after them.

[art...@yahoo.com]

The more I think about this, the more likely something like this must
have been in the case of Jesus. Just think of the theological
nightmare if he had any kids. There are people who claim to be god,
and some who claim to be Jesus, but who claims to be the great
grandnephew of Jesus? And what special powers would they have? Turning
water into Coors? Yeah, that's a God-Damn Miracle.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 22, 6:13 am, "art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The more I think about this, the more likely something like this must
> have been in the case of Jesus. Just think of the theological
> nightmare if he had any kids.  There are people who claim to be god,
> and some who claim to be Jesus, but who claims to be the great
> grandnephew of Jesus? And what special powers would they have? Turning
> water into Coors? Yeah,  that's a God-Damn Miracle.

Welcome to the wonders of Islam and the Sunni-Shiite divide.

[Tim Wright]

On 5/22/2013 1:09 PM, Tim wrote:

> They're the ones responsible for Coors?
>
Tastes like shiite to me.

[Gus]

"Tim" <not...@someisp.net> wrote in message

news:ebrpp85bmqad6qevu...@4ax.com...

> I can't see much difference between water and
> Coors.
> --
> Tim


It's is similar to have sex in a boat on a lake... Though Miller is even
lower in the boat and closer to the lake

[Snidely]

Tim wrote on 5/22/2013 :

> That sounds a lot like bullshit.

What is bullshit? Xho's characterization of a religious view point?

I'm not sure how Deists like Franklin dealt with the pregnancy that
delivered Jesus; one would think that it represented a conflict between
the watchmaker and his hands-off approach. But if you can build a
watch the scale of the universe, are you bound by anything besides your
own choices?

And the viewpoint Xho was attempting to describe buys into the
omnipotence and not the hands-off approach. You may disagree with that
explanation of the world, but Mary's pregnancy is entirely consistent
with that view.

/dps


--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean

[S. Checker]

Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure how Deists like Franklin dealt with the pregnancy that
> delivered Jesus; one would think that it represented a conflict between
> the watchmaker and his hands-off approach. But if you can build a
> watch the scale of the universe, are you bound by anything besides your
> own choices?

I don't know a ton about the Deists of that era but I don't think many
of them were big on Jesus as presented in the Gospels. Jefferson's
extreme edit of the Bible, IIRC, sought to present him as a wise man
and nothing more.
--
Ignorance has no expiration date. Wisdom goes bad faster than a wilted
spinach salad at a fast food drive through.
-- Bill on afca

[Snidely]

Tim presented the following explanation :

> It's not that I disagree with that explanation of
> the world, I just don't see any need to spend time
> imagining that the laws of nature can be suspended
> at will by an invisible man.

I think I understand at least part of what you mean, but I can't think
of the term from debates/rhetorics/logic for this type of argument.
Opus would know, and probably be first to ring in.

"I don't disagree with an omniscient and active invisible man, but I
don't spend any time imagining that he is active."

/dps "I like scientists who can speak clearly"



--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013

[BillTurlock]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:45:00 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Tim presented the following explanation :
>
>> It's not that I disagree with that explanation of
>> the world, I just don't see any need to spend time
>> imagining that the laws of nature can be suspended
>> at will by an invisible man.
>
>I think I understand at least part of what you mean, but I can't think
>of the term from debates/rhetorics/logic for this type of argument.
>Opus would know, and probably be first to ring in.
>
>"I don't disagree with an omniscient and active invisible man, but I
>don't spend any time imagining that he is active."
>
>/dps "I like scientists who can speak clearly"

"There may be a god, there may not be a god擁t makes not a whit of
difference to me. The existance or non-existance of a god has no
relevance to my life. (Except as its adherents battle for the hearts
and minds of the world, and those battles impinge upon me). You can
postulate any preposterous fantasy you like. The FSM (and the interior
of a Black Hole) have the same likelihood of exisisting as anything
else you can imagine."
唯ill Turlock

[Gus]

"Tim" <not...@someisp.net> wrote in message

news:0d3up8du714nlupm9...@4ax.com...
> I don't believe that any supernatural being can
> suspend the laws of nature.

What holds the laws of Nature in place? I had a philosophy of science class
in college that basically came to the conclusion: nothing. And that was a
Catholic college. (You would have thought they would have crow barred God
in there somewhere.) The rules of physics could change at anytime. And
there is nothing we could do about it. But maybe this is the only Universe
that is tenable and possible? Are there others with other rules of physics?
Were there others, will there be others? I suppose we should focus on this
one and assume it is going to last for a while and figure out the recycling
grocery bags problem.

[Snidely]

on 5/24/2013, BillTurlock supposed :
>
"There may be a god, there may not be a godï¿œit makes not a whit of

> difference to me. The existance or non-existance of a god has no
> relevance to my life."

But the point of those that believe in an omnipotent and active god is
that [he] is continually making a difference in your life, and that is
very relevant.

The non-existance of an active and omnipotent god is also relevant, in
that then [he] is not continually making a difference in your life.

/dps

--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl

[Snidely]

On Thursday or thereabouts, Tim declared ...

> On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:45:00 -0700, Snidely
> <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> Tim presented the following explanation :
>>
>>> It's not that I disagree with that explanation of
>>> the world, I just don't see any need to spend time
>>> imagining that the laws of nature can be suspended
>>> at will by an invisible man.
>>
>> I think I understand at least part of what you mean,
>

> Your restatement of my sentence below does not
> demonstrate any understanding.

Well, then perhaps the fault is in your statement not being clear.
See below.

>
>> but I can't think
>> of the term from debates/rhetorics/logic for this type of argument.
>> Opus would know, and probably be first to ring in.
>

> I think they call it a strawman.

>>
>> "I don't disagree with an omniscient and active invisible man, but I
>> don't spend any time imagining that he is active."
>

> I don't believe that any supernatural being can

> suspend the laws of nature. Is that difficult to
> understand?

Yes, it is difficult to understand, because how do you specify the
limits of a supernatural being?

Now if you said, "I don't believe in a supernatural being, and thus the
laws of nature have no way to be suspended", that would be easy to
understand.

[Snidely]

Snidely noted that:

> On Thursday or thereabouts, Tim declared ...
>
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:45:00 -0700, Snidely
>> <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tim presented the following explanation :
>>>
>>>> It's not that I disagree with that explanation of
>>>> the world, I just don't see any need to spend time
>>>> imagining that the laws of nature can be suspended
>>>> at will by an invisible man.
>>>
>>> I think I understand at least part of what you mean,
>>
>> Your restatement of my sentence below does not
>> demonstrate any understanding.
>
> Well, then perhaps the fault is in your statement not being clear. See
> below.
>
>>
>>> but I can't think of the term from debates/rhetorics/logic for this type
>>> of argument. Opus would know, and probably be first to ring in.
>>
>> I think they call it a strawman.

Also, are you claiming to have introduced a strawman? Because my
paragraph is talking about your post.

>>> "I don't disagree with an omniscient and active invisible man, but I don't
>>> spend any time imagining that he is active."
>>
>> I don't believe that any supernatural being can
>> suspend the laws of nature. Is that difficult to
>> understand?
>
> Yes, it is difficult to understand, because how do you specify the limits of
> a supernatural being?
>
> Now if you said, "I don't believe in a supernatural being, and thus the laws
> of nature have no way to be suspended", that would be easy to understand.

/dps

--

Ieri, oggi, domani

[Les Albert]

>On Fri, 24 May 2013 03:11:24 -0400, "Gus"
><gus.o...@geemail.com> wrote:

>>What holds the laws of Nature in place? I had a philosophy of science class
>>in college that basically came to the conclusion: nothing. And that was a
>>Catholic college. (You would have thought they would have crow barred God

>>in there somewhere.) ...



I was trying to form a mental picture of what you wrote in the last
sentence above, something with Heckle or Jeckle.

Les

[Alan J Rosenthal]

"Gus" <gus.o...@geemail.com> writes:
>><art...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>The "H" in Jesus "H" Christ does stand for haploid.....
>
>I thought his middle name began with an "F"
>
>I've always wondered, what curse words did people use BCE?

Not all swear words are religious-oriented, such as the F-word to which you
allude. (Although this word postdates 1 CE, as does all of English.)

Anyway, before Jesus there were plenty of other deities to offend,
in addition to the ever-useful swear words about feces and fucking, in
whatever language. There may be some languages in which sexual words
aren't used as offensive words, but I think that feces always works.
(Either linguistically or projectively.)

[Alan J Rosenthal]

Tim <not...@someisp.net> writes:
>I don't believe that any supernatural being can
>suspend the laws of nature. Is that difficult to
>understand?

It is indeed quite difficult for me to understand, because being above
nature is what I understand the word "supernatural" to mean. What do
you mean by "supernatural" if not that?

[Snidely]

Tim speculated:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 00:30:45 -0700, Snidely
> <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday or thereabouts, Tim declared ...
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:45:00 -0700, Snidely
>>> <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim presented the following explanation :
>>>>
>>>>> It's not that I disagree with that explanation of
>>>>> the world, I just don't see any need to spend time
>>>>> imagining that the laws of nature can be suspended
>>>>> at will by an invisible man.
>>>>
>>>> I think I understand at least part of what you mean,
>>>
>>> Your restatement of my sentence below does not
>>> demonstrate any understanding.
>>
>> Well, then perhaps the fault is in your statement not being clear.
>> See below.
>

> Actually it was your misrepresentation of my
> statements as a way of "winning". I think there is
> a name for that cheesy debating tactic.

>>>
>>>> but I can't think
>>>> of the term from debates/rhetorics/logic for this type of argument.
>>>> Opus would know, and probably be first to ring in.
>>>
>>> I think they call it a strawman.
>>>>
>>>> "I don't disagree with an omniscient and active invisible man, but I
>>>> don't spend any time imagining that he is active."
>>>
>>> I don't believe that any supernatural being can
>>> suspend the laws of nature. Is that difficult to
>>> understand?
>>
>> Yes, it is difficult to understand, because how do you specify the
>> limits of a supernatural being?
>

> I don't. It would be a waste of time.
>
> I watched televised debate about miracles in which
> Paul Davies said in his aristocratic English
> accent that his God only suspends the laws of
> nature rarely and so we can still rely on them
> most of the time. I guess that is one possible
> explanation of the world.

>
>> Now if you said, "I don't believe in a supernatural being, and thus the
>> laws of nature have no way to be suspended", that would be easy to
>> understand.
>

> But it wouldn't be what I meant to say. You know,
> you are free to make your own statements. You
> don't have to "fix" mine.

Well, I don't understand you, I guess. Perhaps the fault is mine ... I
thought I understood Professor David, but he kept saying, "no, that's
not it."

/dps

[Snidely]

On Friday or thereabouts, Tim declared ...

> On 25 May 2013 01:47:01 GMT, fl...@dgp.toronto.edu

> Supernatural to me means existence only in
> imagination.

Ah, a specialist's use of terminology.

[Paul Madarasz]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 10:02:55 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
wrote:

Or Moran and Mack.

[Snidely]

Tim explained :

> <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Well, I don't understand you, I guess. Perhaps the fault is mine ... I
>> thought I understood Professor David, but he kept saying, "no, that's
>> not it."
>

> You use a very annoying arguing style in which you
> aggressively try to force your victim to agree to
> accept as their's, a position that you created.
> Oddly, the positions you create for us always seem
> to be flawed.

All I can say, then, is that I misunderstand you. So maybe the next
time you post something that makes no sense to me, or that doesn't seem
even self-consistent, I should just pretend I didn't even see it.
Maybe someone else will come along and explain it to me.

[bill van]

In article <mn.cd407dd5c8346f8e.127094@snitoo>,

Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tim explained :
> > <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Well, I don't understand you, I guess. Perhaps the fault is mine ... I
> >> thought I understood Professor David, but he kept saying, "no, that's
> >> not it."
> >
> > You use a very annoying arguing style in which you
> > aggressively try to force your victim to agree to
> > accept as their's, a position that you created.
> > Oddly, the positions you create for us always seem
> > to be flawed.
>
> All I can say, then, is that I misunderstand you. So maybe the next
> time you post something that makes no sense to me, or that doesn't seem
> even self-consistent, I should just pretend I didn't even see it.
> Maybe someone else will come along and explain it to me.
>

No need to pretend. There are ways of really not seeing it.

bill

[Alan J Rosenthal]

Tim <not...@someisp.net> writes:
>On 25 May 2013 01:47:01 GMT, fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) wrote:
>>

>>It is indeed quite difficult for me to understand, because being above
>>nature is what I understand the word "supernatural" to mean. What do
>>you mean by "supernatural" if not that?
>

>Supernatural to me means existence only in
>imagination.

Having private definitions of words is a great hindrance to communication.

You don't have to believe that supernatural things exist to be able to agree
on the meaning of the word. Q.v. unicorns.

Indeed, your private definition is a hindrance to your cause because it
prevents you from asserting that the supernatural does not exist.

[art...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:21:26 PM UTC-4, Tim Wright wrote:

> Every one knows it stands for Howard.

Perhaps "Jesus" is the middle name, and the first name is just "B".
Bu other than leaving someone because of fright, what else does B. Jesus do?

[Alan J Rosenthal]

Tim <not...@someisp.net> writes:

>On 26 May 2013 13:01:33 GMT, fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) wrote:
>
>>Having private definitions of words is a great hindrance to communication.
>

>Where can I find the agreed upon definition of supernatural?

You could try a dictionary. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/supernatural
, for example, says nothing about imagination.

But I think you know about dictionaries, so I can't help but find your
question disingenuous.

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 05/22/2013 09:15 AM, Tim wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:34:58 -0700, Xho
> Jingleheimerschmidt <xho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/21/2013 11:17 AM, Tim wrote:
>>> Binny's roasting for confusing the Catholic
>>> Church's latest version of the immaculate
>>> conception myth for the virginal birth myth got me
>>> to thinking. Is it biologically possible that the
>>> baby Jesus could have been produced that way?
>>> Wouldn't he have had to have been a she or is it
>>> thought that God somehow slipped her a Y
>>> chromosome somehow?
>>>
>>
>> I believe that the thinking is that God is Fucking God, and is not bound
>> by the laws of the nature.
>
> That sounds a lot like bullshit.
>

You were expecting feathers?

Xho