• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sex created Jesus

You know what I think happened?

Sh was sleeping to close to hubby and he got to excited sleeping next to her, and some of the semen went in her. That is the only way I can think of someone not have sex but still getting pregnant.

Or a turkey basting type thing.
(Not my idea, it was my DH, but if a guy can think of it why not a girl?
 
Lonewulf said:
Uhhhhh...!

I'm not sure if you actually meant to do this, but it's "Immaculate Conception", not "Emasculate Conception". I.E., "Spotlessly clean conception".

Emasculation involves castration... which, within the context, sounds funny but doesn't seem to make much sense.

If it was intentional, though, I still chuckled. If it was unintentional, I'll LOL. :D
Click to expand...

actually, I started to smell immaculate wrong and then realized what it looked like and changed it because it also seemed to work....
 
DRBUZZ0 said:
4. The emasculate conception is actually the celebration of the virgin birth of Mary. Yes, Mary was also born of a virgin, who would be Jesus's grandmother. Apparently it was so important to maintain purity that at least two degrees of separation were necessary.
Click to expand...

Not according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Immaculate Conception

The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.
Click to expand...
 
The christian claim that jesus had a mortal mother and a divine father was not new.

Pagan Gods Did That First

The ancients faith was greater than ours. They didn't believe in sissy spiritual Gods. Their Gods were real -- real physical beings who lived in the physical universe we live in. Where did the Gods live? Up there.
In the ancient world divinity was up-there, literally up there in the heavens. If you found divinity on Earth, you figured it had to have physically moved from there to here -- God coming down on a cloud, say, or Zeus having sex with a mortal woman (the point not the rowdiness of the God but the transmission of His divinity), or a divine lightning bolt, with Apis in it, zapping a cow and making it, when you read Herodotus [3.28], Fully God and Fully Cow. Silly myth, till you see it's also our myth.
Click to expand...
 
ReligionStudent said:
Yea, mary was not born from a virgin mother, just without sin
Click to expand...

Okay... I guess I was confused on that point. But my point still stands. They made a huge deal about "SHE NEVER EVER EVER WAS TOUCHED BY AN IMPURE WEINER! And she's wonderful because of that."
 
What's harder to believe. A one celled organism came to life from non-living chemicals and then after a period of time (in which there was no food available) it reproduced itself and then "all" plant and animal life that has ever existed came from this one cell or Mary became pregnant without sex.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
What's harder to believe. A one celled organism came to life from non-living chemicals and then after a period of time (in which there was no food available) it reproduced itself and then "all" plant and animal life that has ever existed came from this one cell or Mary became pregnant without sex.
Click to expand...

You're right, that is hard to believe. But it is also not even a remotely accurate description of abiogenesis or evolution by natural selection.
 
DOC said:
What's harder to believe. A one celled organism came to life from non-living chemicals and then after a period of time (in which there was no food available) it reproduced itself and then "all" plant and animal life that has ever existed came from this one cell or Mary became pregnant without sex.
Click to expand...

And that there is a soul (no evidence), an afterlife (no evidence), an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator (no evidence), etc.

Sorry, but Occam's Razor still favors the former even though you don't understand abiogenesis obviously.
 
Foster Zygote said:
You're right, that is hard to believe. But it is also not even a remotely accurate description of abiogenesis or evolution by natural selection.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that all plant and animal life that has ever existed did not originate from the same one cell organism according to the present theory of life, accepted by the majority of evolutionary scientists including Hawkins?
 
Last edited:
Lonewulf said:
And that there is a soul (no evidence), an afterlife (no evidence), an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator (no evidence), etc.

Sorry, but Occam's Razor still favors the former even though you don't understand abiogenesis obviously.
Click to expand...


Do living organisms "without souls" write responses to posts in the Religion and Philosophy section of the James Randi Forum?
 
Originally Posted by DOC

Do living organisms "without souls" write responses to posts in the Religion and Philosophy section of the James Randi Forum?


Lonewulf said:
Yes.

And?
Click to expand...


Thanks for answering my question. I then assume you believe that all people who post in Randi, including yourself, do not have souls.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Thanks for answering my question.
Click to expand...

And the point of it was...?

Are you saying that a soul is necessary for cognition? If so, I will require evidence to accept that claim as true.
 
Lonewulf said:
And the point of it was...?

Are you saying that a soul is necessary for cognition? If so, I will require evidence to accept that claim as true.
Click to expand...

By the way I added one sentence to my post just before yours when I edited it. You probably didn't read it. I'll get back to your question as time permits.
 
Hey I have a soul! I have two... actually, one time I was wearing these new shoes when I walked for a long distance and let me tell you the pain cut to my soul like you would not imagine....

Oh wait... I got the spelling wrong.

Do I have a soul? Erm... don't think so. I have a brain, which is made out neurons and such... it seems to do the job of thinking and memory and cognition just fine.

Oh yeah.. I know... it kinda looks like weird grayish/tanish goo if you look at it straight out. But, I assure you... it can process things.

I also type this from a computer which has a rather uninteresting chip inside it that can also process data (though in a totally different way than the human brain and without the same level of abstract thought or reasoning...of course).

I assure you that the chip can do all the work. I guess yours has a magic monkey inside it?

Do I think all life arose from a single cell? Erm... may not have been one. Infact, it may be hard to draw the line where the first "Cell" can be distinguished from a chemical bubble with some proteins in it.



I guess you have tried to mix a few quintillion tons of organics, add electricity, agitation, cosmic influences and let set for a billion years?

No dice, eh? Well, keep trying. Might just be another 500,000 years.
 
DOC said:
Are you saying that all plant and animal life that has ever existed did not originate from the same one cell organism according to the present theory of life, accepted by the majority of evolutionary scientists including Hawkins?
Click to expand...
When does the theory of evolution or abiogenesis state that there was some great ONE cell?
 
DOC said:
What's harder to believe. A one celled organism came to life from non-living chemicals and then after a period of time (in which there was no food available) it reproduced itself and then "all" plant and animal life that has ever existed came from this one cell or Mary became pregnant without sex.
Click to expand...
To put this in legal terms, your statement is incompetant, irrelevant and immaterial (per world's greatest attorney-at-law, Perry Mason). It is, of course, wild mis-statement of the process.
 
DOC said:
Are you saying that all plant and animal life that has ever existed did not originate from the same one cell organism according to the present theory of life, accepted by the majority of evolutionary scientists including Hawkins?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I don't know who Hawkins is, but Dawkins and the vast majority of evolutionary biologists make no such claim. Eukaryotes came long after abiogenesis had occurred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom