Immaculate conception is actually scientifically possible...except that since it's caused when two eggs fuse and the result fertilises, the result is always female. However, in turkeys, Y chromosomes are produced by the female reproductive organs.

 

So, the big question: Was Jesus a girl or a turkey? "

I have faith in myself. I don't need it to come from an imaginary being.

Immaculate conception is actually scientifically possible...except that since it's caused when two eggs fuse and the result fertilises, the result is always female.  However, in turkeys, Y chromosomes are produced by the female reproductive organs.

 

So, the big question: Was Jesus a girl or a turkey?    "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

How do these immaculately conceived turkeys taste, they sound delicious

 

EDIT: I put concepted instead of conceived and didn't want to appear as dumb or foreign

Edited December 10, 200520 yr by Laozi

I guess they taste like Jesus.

Jesus. The other white meat.

Jesus.  The other white meat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Still not as funny as the image I got of all these montypythonesque blokes checking to see if Mary was virgo intactus.

 

 

Damn it, Mary, its been a year now. God said it had to be a virgin birth, not a virgin life time.

 

Well, but once you have done God, everything else seems so small, Joseph.

Jesus.  The other white meat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Catholics and cannabilism. They do eat a representation of the flesh of christ do they not?

I just think that they went a little too literal when Jesus told those tax collectors "Eat me!" right before going on a rampage. Of course what they didn't tell you is that was just a distraction fow while he was doing that his disciples snuck in and took a bit for themselves to fund his sermons. Thusly the tradition of the Church being tax exempt begun.

but Mary was still a virgin, since there are two passages in in different books of the Bible that talk about it and all the context points to her being a virgin. (Luke 1:26-37, Matthew 1:18-19)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That won't work. If you're really interested in the truth, you have to start without pre-conceived notions. You can't find an answer if you're convinced you already know the answer.

 

The word "virgin" in our language is not the same as the original texts. You're still holding onto that mistaken notion, that words equal the same words linguistically across all language families, which is not true. There are several words for "love," for instance, in some languages, which all have different meanings.

 

The Bible has gone through a multitude of re-translations and mistranslations over the centuries. The one most people have is not the "word of God" anymore, but more like the "retold and remastered and told through several distorted tunnel-shaped holes word."

Edited December 10, 200520 yr by Vashanti

That won't work.  If you're really interested in the truth, you have to start without pre-conceived notions.  You can't find an answer if you're convinced you already know the answer. 

 

The word "virgin" in our language is not the same as the original texts.  You're still holding onto that mistaken notion, that words equal the same words linguistically across all language families, which is not true.  There are several words for "love," for instance, in some languages, which all have different meanings. 

 

The Bible has gone through a multitude of re-translations and mistranslations over the centuries.  The one most people have is not the "word of God" anymore, but more like the "retold and remastered and told through several distorted tunnel-shaped holes word."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so you are saying, that the whole passage is made up? or if it is twisted, that would've been the most boring story if it wasn't twisted.

did you even read the passages? did you see the context that the word "virgin" was used in? did you see that the matthew passage doesn't even use the word "virgin"? i mean, you might as well reject the whole Bible if we are going to not work with pre-conceived notions. we have to assume some of the answers here. it's a faith-assertion.

... you might as well reject the whole Bible if we are going to not work with pre-conceived notions. we have to assume some of the answers here. it's a faith-assertion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sometimes you have to start with a blank slate in order to reach the truth. If you're truly serious about wanting to know what the original texts say, then there is a long road ahead of you in terms of study, research, linguistics, etc. Filling in the blanks beforehand would be like skipping ahead in a crossword puzzle without studying the clues and analyzing them...

you might as well reject the whole Bible if we are going to not work with pre-conceived notions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Now you're starting to make some sense

The bible is a nice book of myth and stories to tell your kids.

and cannabilism. They do eat a representation of the flesh of christ do they not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The blooddrinking is the root of the vampire mythology. It also goes back to the Aztecs where the blood of kings was considered divine and they used to slice open their own scrotums and use the blood in rituals. Not so good to be king in those days

i mean, you might as well reject the whole Bible if we are going to not work with pre-conceived notions. we have to assume some of the answers here. it's a faith-assertion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly, and once you do that. There goes most of your "evidence". The bibles been translated and mistranslated so many times what ever original message was there is long gone.

 

Cant really blame the monks though, its not like they worked in the best of conditions.

 

That is the difference between looking for truth and looking for your truth.

Edited December 10, 200520 yr by ShadowPaladin V1.0

It also goes back to the Aztecs where the blood of kings was considered divine and they used to slice open their own scrotums and use the blood in rituals. Not so good to be king in those days 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It sounds sort of like those wierdo's who nail their knobs to planks

 

 

Catholics and cannabilism. They do eat a representation of the flesh of christ do they not?

 

Yeah,then they fight wars over whether it's a metaphor for the flesh of christ or it becomes his flesh through divine grace. Seems a bit silly to me but whatever...

It sounds sort of like those wierdo's who nail their knobs to planks

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Does a bit, but the whole Aztec mythos revolves around the concepts of blood and sacrifice.

It also goes back to the Aztecs where the blood of kings was considered divine and they used to slice open their own scrotums and use the blood in rituals. Not so good to be king in those days 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It sounds sort of like those wierdo's who nail their knobs to planks

 

 

Catholics and cannabilism. They do eat a representation of the flesh of christ do they not?

 

Yeah,then they fight wars over whether it's a metaphor for the flesh of christ or it becomes his flesh through divine grace. Seems a bit silly to me but whatever...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John 6:25-70, Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22

 

Judge for yourself what you think He is saying... figurative or not?

 

 

 

Blank thinks it is figurative

 

Edited December 10, 200520 yr by Blank

She...

You'n Kevin Smith Lucius.

You'n Kevin Smith Lucius.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think he raises some interesting points, imagine the Christian right wing if they found out that God was female and Christ black. I'd go get myself a truck load of popcorn ffs.

John 6:25-70, Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22

 

Judge for yourself what you think He is saying... figurative or not?

 

 

 

Blank thinks it is figurative

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I couldn't say.I don't own a bible.

WinterSun, we have this thing called the internet, pretty much anything can be found there, especially porn.

 

But also Bibles.

Did someone say porn?