Clay to Jxr

[ClayRandall]

Jxr,

You made a comment on the Truth and Catholicism board the other day that I would like you to explain further. I look forward to your reply.

Clay

[ClayRandall]

For those who are interested, here is the quote in question from Jxr:

"Since Jesus' conception is purportedly asexual, it is likely that Mary didn't come at all."

[mrleo unplugged]

It seems perfectly straightforward to me.

[ClayRandall]

I'm not real smart, though, so explain it to me...

[mrleo unplugged]

Don't underestimate yourself, Clay. I consider you to be at least as smart as me, and that's saying something.

[ClayRandall]

mrleo said:

Don't underestimate yourself, Clay. I consider you to be at least as smart as me, and that's saying something.

Words cannot adequately express what that means to me, coming from you, mrleo. However, my question still stands.

Humor me, since Jxr hasn't responded yet.

[hmmmm]

methinks 'asexual', meaning without sex....i.e.= hmmmm

[ClayRandall]

hmmmm said:

methinks 'asexual', meaning without sex....i.e.= hmmmm

Right. The word "asexual" was not the one I was wanting clarification for by Jxr.

[spanky]

The whole sentence does not make sense (besides the asexual part). But if I may, I believe Jxr meant to spell come as cum. Either way, that sentence does not make sense Clay??? Conception is not dependant on a womans orgasm. Maybe I have to read it in the whole context.

[ClayRandall]

spanky said:

The whole sentence does not make sense (besides the asexual part). But if I may, I believe Jxr meant to spell come as cum. Either way, that sentence does not make sense Clay??? Conception is not dependant on a womans orgasm. Maybe I have to read it in the whole context.

That is exactly the way I read it, Spanky. I'm asking Jxr to confirm that he/she was speculating about the Virgin Mary having an orgasm, which is not only incredibly vulgar but also irrelevant with regard to human conception (even less so for the miraculous Incarnation of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit)

[mrleo]

How could an orgasm be incredibly vulgar? They're a normal function of the human body, which, I feel pretty safe in assuming, you believe God created.

And if Jxr was "speculating" at all, he was speculating that she didn't have one, by the very reasoning you just used...which means he agrees with you. Feel better?

[ClayRandall]

mrleo said:

How could an orgasm be incredibly vulgar? They're a normal function of the human body, which, I feel pretty safe in assuming, you believe God created.

With your self-proclaimed superior intellect, I would think you could refrain from putting words in my mouth. An orgam is not incredibly vulgar - it is a natural physiologic response to sexual intercourse. Speculating about the Virgin Mary having an orgasm by referencing it with crude slang, especially when human intercourse is irrelevant to the Incarnation, is what is incredibly vulgar. Even you should be able to see the difference. Or would you like for me to start speculating here on the TMB about your own ability to bring a woman (or man, I suppose) to orgasm?

mrleo said:

And if Jxr was "speculating" at all, he was speculating that she didn't have one, by the very reasoning you just used...which means he agrees with you. Feel better?

Your ostensible concern for my feelings is touching. If he already recognized that Christian theology teaches that the Incarnation occurred through supernatural means, not natural, then the orgasm comment was nothing more than superfluous and salacious idiocy.

[mrleo]

With your self-proclaimed superior intellect, I would think you could refrain from putting words in my mouth. An orgam is not incredibly vulgar - it is a natural physiologic response to sexual intercourse. Speculating about the Virgin Mary having an orgasm by referencing it with crude slang, especially when human intercourse is irrelevant to the Incarnation, is what is incredibly vulgar. Even you should be able to see the difference. Or would you like for me to start speculating here on the TMB about your own ability to bring a woman (or man, I suppose) to orgasm?

You didn't have a problem asking people to put words in Jxr's mouth. With just my native intuition, I can tell when someone's panties are in a twist to the point that they would drag a topic from the board on which it would more properly belong to one on which it doesn't, all because of a clearly pretended misunderstanding, in an effort to shame or have a public argument with the person who caused you to be offended. I can also tell you that an orgasm isn't always (in fact, is probably less often than not) the result of sexual intercourse. It is entirely possible that the Virgin Mary had many an orgasm long before she was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. I can also tell you that the word "come" is not crude slang; it is common usage.

Your ostensible concern for my feelings is touching. If he already recognized that Christian theology teaches that the Incarnation occurred through supernatural means, not natural, then the orgasm comment was nothing more than superfluous and salacious idiocy.

Of course it was, and you knew that when you ostensibly didn't understand what Jxr meant.

[Mrs Tindrucvionging]

I think both of you are being very naughty and should stop this bickering. Please apologize to each other and make up. Prove yourselves to be both men and fellow Christians by forgiving each other and extending the love of God to one another.

[ClayRandall]

mrleo said:

You didn't have a problem asking people to put words in Jxr's mouth.

If you believe this fiction, you really do not know what you're talking about.

mrleo said:

With just my native intuition, I can tell when someone's panties are in a twist to the point that they would drag a topic from the board on which it would more properly belong to one on which it doesn't....

Posting it here was simply an expedient way of bringing my question to Jxr's attention, since I don't know how often he visits the other board. I say this because that particular thread had been inactive for six months before he commented on it.

mrleo said:

...all because of a clearly pretended misunderstanding, in an effort to shame or have a public argument with the person who caused you to be offended.

This is a statement based upon an absence of fact. I quite clearly stated my understanding of what Jxr wrote in my post at 14:28 this afternoon.

mrleo said:

I can also tell you that an orgasm isn't always (in fact, is probably less often than not) the result of sexual intercourse.

Once again I am humbled and astounded by your wondrous grasp of the obvious; nonetheless, your supreme masturbatory knowledge is completely useless in the context of the Virgin Birth.

mrleo said:

I can also tell you that the word "come" is not crude slang; it is common usage.

For you, obviously it is. I'll leave others to contemplate the implications of your vernacular...

mrleo said:

Of course it was, and you knew that when you ostensibly didn't understand what Jxr meant.

Once again, I stated my understanding of what Jxr meant. I did not pretend to not know; I was asking him to confirm what I already thought he meant, for the purpose of telling him that I think such a statement is superfluous and salacious and wholly inappropriate.

[timber]

I don't know Clay.. it seems to me its just another attempt to annoy/tease/anger a faithful Catholic. It hurts me too, to see someone dishonor Mary like that.

[mrleo]

I was asking him to confirm what I already thought he meant, for the purpose of telling him that I think such a statement is superfluous and salacious and wholly inappropriate.

Well, thanks to me, you got to say it twice. And, interestingly, without actually getting the confirmation you so wanted from Jxr and him alone.

[ClayRandall]

mrleo said:

I was asking him to confirm what I already thought he meant, for the purpose of telling him that I think such a statement is superfluous and salacious and wholly inappropriate.

Well, thanks to me, you got to say it twice. And, interestingly, without actually getting the confirmation you so wanted from Jxr and him alone.

Right. I'm still not sure who appointed you his spokesperson, but thanks. Maybe Jxr will eventually be moved to comment all by himself.

[mrleo]

I'm still not sure why you didn't just say what you wanted to say to him in the first place.

[ClayRandall]

mrleo said:

I'm still not sure why you didn't just say what you wanted to say to him in the first place.

It's not so hard to understand. In case there was the slight chance that I misunderstood what he meant in the first place, I wanted to give him a chance to clarify.

[ClayRandall]

Since Jxr has made an appearance, *bump*

[jxr]

clayrandall said:

...
Posting it here was simply an expedient way of bringing my question to Jxr's attention, since I don't know how often he visits the other board. I say this because that particular thread had been inactive for six months before he commented on it.
...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives, but I must say your maths is atrocious. The comment prior to mine was posted in late January 2006, and I added mine in early April. Now since April is the fourth month of the year, the period of inactivity is somwhat shy of six months.

Actually I will speculate on your motives, since you could have PM'd me, and I would have gotten your note much earlier.

As to your pompous and disparaging comment to the original poster:

clayrandall said:

...
Proving once again that there are such things as stupid questions....

Perhaps stupid questions sometimes demand stupid answers.

I'm quite amused, but not surprised that your poor attempt to contact me has resulted in two pages of flamewar. It really shows what you're made of.

[jxr]

And yes, I was flippantly speculating on Mary's experience in conception of Jesus. But then your response to the origninal poster suggested that Mary contributed genetic material to His human form. Well I know that female orgasm does not imply conception and vice versa, but hello: Who needs to take a reality check on their biology?

Suggesting Mary contributed genetic material is similarly speculative, but somehow this is more pure and holy, since it avoids reference to the physical and emotional feelings of sexual intercourse? Give me a break. Do us all a favor and go rid yourself of at least some of your prudish hang ups.

[Pete]

"Render not thine iniquity unto thine enemy; rather bestow him with the boundless joy of a newly freed bowel, and he will soon seek to entreat you as a brother !"

Gene Nelson - 1994 - to an Icelandic Imam of the Jaegarra Hanna i kurktui unadulterated brand of Islam faith.

[jxr]

Pete said:

"Render not thine iniquity unto thine enemy; rather bestow him with the boundless joy of a newly freed bowel, and he will soon seek to entreat you as a brother !"

Gene Nelson - 1994 - to an Icelandic Imam of the Jaegarra Hanna i kurktui unadulterated brand of Islam faith.

Wot? Should I fart in his general direction? My goodness! How to win friends and influence people!

[ClayRandall]

jxr said:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives, but I must say your maths is atrocious. The comment prior to mine was posted in late January 2006, and I added mine in early April. Now since April is the fourth month of the year, the period of inactivity is somwhat shy of six months.

My math is just fine, thank you. You responded to a quote from Howard made on September 27, 2005 at 9:17. There had been only one comment made since then which was about three months later. You decided to add your brilliant observation four months after that. This could reasonably be called an inactive thread. Figure it out for yourself.

jxr said:

Actually I will speculate on your motives, since you could have PM'd me, and I would have gotten your note much earlier.

It's pretty easy for most people to understand. You made a public (and insulting) comment. I wanted a public explanation from you.

jxr said:

As to your pompous and disparaging comment to the original poster:

clayrandall said:

...
Proving once again that there are such things as stupid questions....

Perhaps stupid questions sometimes demand stupid answers.

This reminds me another quote: "There are no such things as stupid questions, just stupid people who ask questions"

jxr said:

I'm quite amused, but not surprised that your poor attempt to contact me has resulted in two pages of flamewar. It really shows what you're made of.

Judging from your input on this board, I am unimpressed by your powers of perception as to "what I'm made of".

[ClayRandall]

jxr said:

Suggesting Mary contributed genetic material is similarly speculative, but somehow this is more pure and holy, since it avoids reference to the physical and emotional feelings of sexual intercourse? Give me a break. Do us all a favor and go rid yourself of at least some of your prudish hang ups.

This coming from someone who thinks making jokes about "farting" and "coming" passes for intellectual discourse. It doesn't make me a prude to be offended by such asinine observations.

Clay

P.S. quoting Monty Python doesn't make you any more clever.

[Pete]

My dear jxr, please do not confuse "substance" with "emotion !" The former by your interpretation could be regarded as "rendering iniquity unto thine enemy !" The latter conveys the uplifting joy outpoured by the liberation of that iniquity !