Selek the Terrible -- and major freak show on MAD

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:46 am

Someone did mention artificial insemination. That could work. ;)

Sure.

Except that would involve masturbation, which we all know is a sin.

Why would masturbation be required? Such an idea is a form of presentism on an eternal scale.

Post by **_Bryan Inks** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:55 am

bcspace wrote:
Someone did mention artificial insemination. That could work. ;)

Sure.

Except that would involve masturbation, which we all know is a sin.

Why would masturbation be required? Such an idea is a form of presentism on an eternal scale.

AHAHAHAHA!

I'm sorry, I just spit Gatorade out my nose.

Are you, in all seriousness, throwing out "Presentism" as an argument about God boning Mary?

bcspace, can you think of another way to make a man orgasm? If he didn't insert his phallus into her to have sex, he must have gotten the Divine Sperm out of his testicles in some other manner. Masturbation, or possibly oral sex, is about the only way to justify that. . . unless God just happened to have a couple of angels standing around his bed in case he had a "nocturnal emission".

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:02 am

Why would masturbation be required? Such an idea is a form of presentism on an eternal scale.

AHAHAHAHA!

I'm sorry, I just spit Gatorade out my nose.

Are you, in all seriousness, throwing out "Presentism" as an argument about God boning Mary?

It's a perfectly cromulent argument and you continue to prove my point about presentism.....

bcspace, can you think of another way to make a man orgasm?

You're missing the point. If science can find a way to extract sperm without inducing orgasm, so can God by definition. Also by definition, God can come up with other ways we can't even imagine (though I'm sure your imagination is only one track).

Post by **_moksha** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:07 am

I agree with BC, why would masturbation be required when God has perfect control. No matter how the specimen is collected, the turkey baster is the next step.

Turkey is kosher, isn't it?

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:13 am

I agree with BC, why would masturbation be required when God has perfect control. No matter how the specimen is collected, the turkey baster is the next step.

I don't think you yet agree. Why couldn't a sample be extracted without it having to be moved from one part of the body to another? And why would a turkey baster be required to get anything into the uterus?

Post by **_Mephitus** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:21 am

Wait a sec...im lost, are we debating the literal sex of god with mary or the figurative "impregnation"?

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:27 am

Both I think.

Wait a sec...im lost, are we debating the literal sex of god with mary

I think even the most hardened antiMormon is forced to admit (at least privately) that LDS doctrine does not say God had sex with Mary. I also think that even the most hardened of the "watered-down" Mormons must also admit (at least privately) that such is not precluded.

or the figurative "impregnation"?

Some are erroneously arguing that one must go through some sort of sexual act or another in order to get sperm and egg to combine. Considering the possibilities with God, it might even be erroneous to argue that sperm and egg even have to be involved to make a fetus though I argue such for clarity's sake.

Post by **_Sethbag** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:30 am

I'm still waiting for a TBM to answer the question of, if God did in fact have intercourse (if - not saying that's the doctrine, but the doctrine leaves this possible), then would Mary have enjoyed it?

I am not just saying that to get a rise out of anyone, either. I honestly think that a huge part of the self-righteous indignation expressed by some TBMs about this has its root in the fact that they are squeamish about sex generally. I think that a twisted and "dirty" attitude toward sex would naturally cause one to revile the notion that God had it with Mary. If God had sex with Mary, is it possible that she had an orgasm? Again, if you're outraged at the very question, you have something unnatural and twisted with your attitude toward sex.

Did Joseph Smith enjoy the sex he had with his plural "wives"? Did the wives enjoy it? Is it squeamish to some to read that very question? Why, if you think that the sex would have been justified?

Post by **_Mephitus** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:31 am

honestly, i never heard anything either way in my church days. I had heard it once from someone i had considered "anti" at the time but remember thinking, "so what?". This is one of those things which doesn't matter to me either way as with my religion the gods are regularly credited with comming down and bedding a woman now and then anyhow.

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:41 am

I honestly think that a huge part of the self-righteous indignation expressed by some TBMs about this has its root in the fact that they are squeamish about sex generally.

Considering the fact that Proverbs 5:18-19 is LDS doctrine and scripture, I don't think it's possible to be TBM and be squeamish about sex at the same time.

However, I don't think it's unreasonable to also consider such questions about Mary's enjoyment to be abhorent seeing the sacred nature placed upon sexual relations in the first place.

honestly, i never heard anything either way in my church days. I had heard it once from someone i had considered "anti" at the time but remember thinking, "so what?". This is one of those things which doesn't matter to me either way as with my religion the gods are regularly credited with comming down and bedding a woman now and then anyhow.

I think it possible that the Greek concept of Zeus (possibly Adam according to a work I recommend to you all called the 'Parthenon Code'), a god who did indeed come down and mate with many women, is a perversion of the true story of plural marriage practiced by the righteous sons of God in antedelluvian times.