Don't forget to send your favorites!

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
...
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.

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


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
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.

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
...
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.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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 ...
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.

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 ...
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
*******ization 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.

Yep. Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was determined
that Mary was a virgin.

The Bible is silent on a lot of facts that are inconvenient to its myths.

"NameHere" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:43:57 +1100, "Jeff R." wrote:


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
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

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.

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


"NameHere" wrote in message
.. .
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" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:42:11 +1100, "Jeff R." wrote:


"NameHere" wrote in message
. ..
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."