Re: questionable conception

Here, Wayne Throop <throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> :: Mary's conception was immaculate, but not virginal. 
> 
> : Gene Ward Smith <gene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> : Why not, though? The Church theory is that the sacrifice of the cross
travels 
> : back in time and zaps Mary. Instead of time-travelling atonement
juice, just 
> : create a fertilized egg and implant it in St. Anne's womb. You might
complain 
> : that this violates Church teaching about the correct way of going
about 
> : conception, but you are already planning to do that with Jesus and
anyway, 
> : you are God. You make the rules.
> 
> It does seem a simpler mechanism, but surely inserting a closed
> timelike loop connecting Jesus' conception and crucifixion events
> would be better suited to make the baby Tipler smile.

"And three kings came from the West, bearing gifts of neutronium, dark
matter, and scrith. Tall pillars they built of these, ten cubits high
and one cubit wide and three cubits around. No, really -- *exactly*
three cubits around, due to the cir***ferential Lorentz-Fitzgerald
contraction once the pillars were set in motion..."

--Z

-- 
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
*
When Bush says "Stay the course," what he means is "I don't know what to
do next." He's been saying this for years now.