>Subject: Famous AdopteesFrom: lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)Date: 11/20/2003 9:34 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031120093442.01432.00000486@mb-m20.aol.com>http://www.bhg.com/bhg/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/ab/story/data/famousadoptees_04042003.xml&catref=S4Famous AdopteesBy Laura BroadwellFind out which famous people were raised by adoptive families.


Where are the serial killers?

Dad

> Where are the serial killers?Dad


Exactly! And, why do they always leave off Jesus?


P2P

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031120161225.20279.00000693@mb-m04.aol.com>... Where are the serial killers?Dad Exactly! And, why do they always leave off Jesus? P2P

Jesus was raised by his own mother and stepfather.

Di

in article c599139c.0311250604.3232a5a5@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 25/11/03 2:04 pm:
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031120161225.20279.00000693@mb-m04.aol.com>... Where are the serial killers? Dad Exactly! And, why do they always leave off Jesus? P2P Jesus was raised by his own mother and stepfather. Di

Do we know that she was his genetic mother, rather than a surrogate who got
to keep? The Bible doesn't seem too clear on that to me. Anyway it was a
step-parent adoption like most on the list.

Robin

>Subject: Re: Famous AdopteesFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/25/2003 9:04 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311250604.3232a5a5@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20031120161225.20279.00000693@mb-m04.aol.com>... Where are the serial killers?Dad Exactly! And, why do they always leave off Jesus? P2PJesus was raised by his own mother and stepfather.

Adoptee-lites qualify, if you're a serial killer.

Dad

in article 20031125110846.02083.00000890@mb-m16.aol.com, AdoptaDad at
adoptadad@aol.com wrote on 25/11/03 4:08 pm:
Subject: Re: Famous Adoptees From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) Date: 11/25/2003 9:04 AM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <c599139c.0311250604.3232a5a5@posting.google.com> palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031120161225.20279.00000693@mb-m04.aol.com>...>> Where are the serial killers?>> Dad> Exactly! And, why do they always leave off Jesus? P2P Jesus was raised by his own mother and stepfather. Adoptee-lites qualify, if you're a serial killer. Dad

In fact, If I remember rightly according the Carangelo Manual of Adoption
and Serial Killing, after your first half dozen killings you automatically
become adopted, even if you were bought up by both your own natural parents
throughout childhood.

Robin

>Jesus was raised by his own mother and stepfather.Di


Mary was a gestational surrogate.


P2P

>In fact, If I remember rightly according the Carangelo Manual of Adoptionand Serial Killing, after your first half dozen killings you automaticallybecome adopted, even if you were bought up by both your own natural parentsthroughout childhood.Robin

Thank you for refreshing my memory on this. I could not remember the
Carangerule.


P2P

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031125164404.12191.00000797@mb-m25.aol.com>...Jesus was raised by his own mother and stepfather.Di Mary was a gestational surrogate. P2P

She was not. She was the sole Mother of Jesus.

Di

Robin <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:<BBE92A42.2970F%nospam@harritt.net>... in article c599139c.0311250604.3232a5a5@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 25/11/03 2:04 pm: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031120161225.20279.00000693@mb-m04.aol.com>...>> Where are the serial killers?>> Dad> Exactly! And, why do they always leave off Jesus? P2P Jesus was raised by his own mother and stepfather. Di Do we know that she was his genetic mother, rather than a surrogate who got to keep?

They had IVF back then?

The Bible doesn't seem too clear on that to me. Anyway it was a step-parent adoption like most on the list.
There was no adoption. Joseph just raised him as his own to protect
Mary's good name.

Di
Robin

In article <c599139c.0312210843.39ed4db@posting.google.com>,
patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
There was no adoption. Joseph just raised him as his own to protect Mary's good name.

It was a common law adoption, at least.

Jesus Christ, son of Joseph Christ and Mary Christ.

BTW, did you know Jesus Christ lives in Santa Monica these days?

<http://www.switchboard.com/bin/cginbr.dll?ID=92621949&FUNC=MORE&TYPE=100
7&MEM=1&L=Christ&S=CA&QV=02FA36C06686DE3F70303203O01F37DE1BBCEED3F063032 0
3O03F42D3DF5CEED3F17303203>

- Don

"Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
news:vubnhiecon4v21@corp.supernews.com... In article <c599139c.0312210843.39ed4db@posting.google.com>, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: There was no adoption. Joseph just raised him as his own to protect Mary's good name. It was a common law adoption, at least. Jesus Christ, son of Joseph Christ and Mary Christ. BTW, did you know Jesus Christ lives in Santa Monica these days? <http://www.switchboard.com/bin/cginbr.dll?ID=92621949&FUNC=MORE&TYPE=100 7&MEM=1&L=Christ&S=CA&QV=02FA36C06686DE3F70303203O01F37DE1BBCEED3F063032 0 3O03F42D3DF5CEED3F17303203> - Don

And I thought you were talking about yourself, Donaldo?

Did you go to school with Jesus Christ. Bwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Marley

In article
<wXlFb.224153$Ec1.7980703@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message news:vubnhiecon4v21@corp.supernews.com... In article <c599139c.0312210843.39ed4db@posting.google.com>, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: There was no adoption. Joseph just raised him as his own to protect Mary's good name. It was a common law adoption, at least. Jesus Christ, son of Joseph Christ and Mary Christ. BTW, did you know Jesus Christ lives in Santa Monica these days? <http://www.switchboard.com/bin/cginbr.dll?ID=92621949&FUNC=MORE&TYPE=100 7&MEM=1&L=Christ&S=CA&QV=02FA36C06686DE3F70303203O01F37DE1BBCEED3F063032 0 3O03F42D3DF5CEED3F17303203> - Don And I thought you were talking about yourself, Donaldo? Did you go to school with Jesus Christ. Bwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, but I can imagine what his girlfriends say in bed:

"Jesus Christ. Oh, God! God, you feel so good. Jesus Christ, I'm going
to cum!"

- Don

>> Mary was a gestational surrogate. P2PShe was not. She was the sole Mother of Jesus.Di

I was only half kidding, Di. We don't really know if Mary's egg was fertilized
by God or if Jesus was the product of a fertilized egg God implanted in Mary's
womb. If a fertilized egg from another source was implanted, Mary was, by
definition, a gestational surrogate.




P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20031222005830.12363.00001464@mb-m05.aol.com... Mary was a gestational surrogate. P2PShe was not. She was the sole Mother of Jesus.Di I was only half kidding, Di. We don't really know if Mary's egg was
fertilized by God or if Jesus was the product of a fertilized egg God implanted in
Mary's womb. If a fertilized egg from another source was implanted, Mary was, by definition, a gestational surrogate.

And Leda was knocked up by Zeus disguised as a swan. Try to pull that one
off today.
Marley P2P

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031222005830.12363.00001464@mb-m05.aol.com>... Mary was a gestational surrogate. P2PShe was not. She was the sole Mother of Jesus.Di I was only half kidding, Di. We don't really know if Mary's egg was fertilized by God or if Jesus was the product of a fertilized egg God implanted in Mary's womb. If a fertilized egg from another source was implanted, Mary was, by definition, a gestational surrogate.
By that definition we don't know if the movie Rosemary's Baby was an
accurate account of Biblical proportions either. It has all the same
hallmarks of Mary
(Mia Farrow) being impregnated by a 'celestial visitor', the three
wise neighbours giving her gifts of powerful herbs, her hubby
representing Joseph. Nor do we know if Jesus' name isn't really
Damien. We can only assume that the Bible is accurate.

Di
P2P

In article <c599139c.0312220806.20a0475c@posting.google.com>, Dian says...palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031222005830.12363.00001464@mb-m05.aol.com>...> Mary was a gestational surrogate.>>> P2PShe was not. She was the sole Mother of Jesus.Di I was only half kidding, Di. We don't really know if Mary's egg was fertilized by God or if Jesus was the product of a fertilized egg God implanted in Mary's womb. If a fertilized egg from another source was implanted, Mary was, by definition, a gestational surrogate.By that definition we don't know if the movie Rosemary's Baby was anaccurate account of Biblical proportions either. It has all the samehallmarks of Mary(Mia Farrow) being impregnated by a 'celestial visitor', the threewise neighbours giving her gifts of powerful herbs, her hubbyrepresenting Joseph. Nor do we know if Jesus' name isn't reallyDamien. We can only assume that the Bible is accurate.

And a lot of people don't <cough>

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>And Leda was knocked up by Zeus disguised as a swan. Try to pull that oneoff today.Marley


Wow. Try to imagine what that DNA might look like under a microscope. Can we
say "scrambled eggs"??


P2P

Di writes
By that definition we don't know if the movie Rosemary's Baby was anaccurate account of Biblical proportions either.>>

Confusing segue, Di. What does the fictional account of Rosemary's Baby have to
do with the story of the conception of Jesus?

<< It has all the samehallmarks of Mary(Mia Farrow) being impregnated by a 'celestial visitor', the threewise neighbours giving her gifts of powerful herbs, her hubbyrepresenting Joseph. Nor do we know if Jesus' name isn't reallyDamien. We can only assume that the Bible is accurate.Di


Wasn't there some reference in Rosemary's Baby to her ovulating? IIRC,
Rosemary was timing her cycles so she could get pregnant. If this is the case,
I think we can safely assume her very own egg was fertilized by the devil and,
thus, she did contribute at least 50% of the son of satan's DNA.

I don't think Mary was timing her cycles and trying to become pregnant.
Perhaps she was a gestational surrogate. I am not saying I think the Bible was
accurate or inaccurate. I am saying we don't have all the facts.




P2P

>We can only assume that the Bible is accurate.And a lot of people don't <cough>Robyn


Gasp!

<cough>


P2P

In article <20031222005830.12363.00001464@mb-m05.aol.com>,
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote:
We don't really know if Mary's egg was fertilized by God or ifJesus was the product of a fertilized egg God implanted in Mary'swomb. If a fertilized egg from another source was implanted, Marywas, by definition, a gestational surrogate.

At the time the Christmas story was invented, people didn't know about eggs.
They believed in seed, or homunculi. So the Holy Spirit implanted Mary with the
Sacred Seed, or the Holy Homunculus, and she contributed nothing more than a
safe haven for the growing preborn, making her a surrogate in our terms -- but
in those days, all mothers were believed to be surrogates in our terms.

Of course, the Christmas story is also a rewritten version of earlier myths
from the days when people thought women produced babies all by themselves and
the man's role was a mystery. In those earlier myths, the virgin mother was a
goddess, the son was a god, and there was no father.

Nowadays in adoption we have a myth involving a mother, a child, and a mother
(we've returned to the fatherless model). According to the beliefs of the
particular cult one espouses, the mother who gives birth may be a martyr, a
magdalen, or a bogeyman, the child may be a godlet, a demon, or a time bomb
waiting to go off, and the mother who rears the child may be a martyr, an
angel, a scavenger, a ghoul, a consumer in a world of limitless choice, or Joan
Crawford. When he comes of age, the child is expected to choose between
mothers; that's why the myth is named the "Triad" (after the psychological
concept of "triangulation"). If the child refuses to choose, he becomes
Abraxas, and we all clean our weed on his cover.

whoever
-----------------------------
the caffeine bough

In article <c599139c.0312210843.39ed4db@posting.google.com>,
patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
There was no adoption. Joseph just raised him as his own to protectMary's good name.

Sounds a lot like adoption to me.

whoever
----------------------------------
re-virginizing some used grounds
and making coffee
for those unable to make their own

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031222005830.12363.00001464@mb-m05.aol.com>... Mary was a gestational surrogate. P2PShe was not. She was the sole Mother of Jesus.Di I was only half kidding, Di. We don't really know if Mary's egg was fertilized by God or if Jesus was the product of a fertilized egg God implanted in Mary's womb. If a fertilized egg from another source was implanted, Mary was, by definition, a gestational surrogate.



Who says there was an egg?



Rh. P2P

>Who says there was an egg?Rh.


Well, there was a sprout. One could safely assume a prior egg, no?


P2P

reveohw writes:

<snip>
Nowadays in adoption we have a myth involving a mother, a child, and a mother(we've returned to the fatherless model). According to the beliefs of theparticular cult one espouses, the mother who gives birth may be a martyr, amagdalen, or a bogeyman, the child may be a godlet, a demon, or a time bombwaiting to go off, and the mother who rears the child may be a martyr, anangel, a scavenger, a ghoul, a consumer in a world of limitless choice, orJoanCrawford. When he comes of age, the child is expected to choose betweenmothers; that's why the myth is named the "Triad" (after the psychologicalconcept of "triangulation"). If the child refuses to choose, he becomesAbraxas, and we all clean our weed on his cover.whoever

It's twue! It's twue! (Largely, anyway)


P2P

In article <dafc70.0312221647.5da6113@posting.google.com>,
sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) writes:
Who says there was an egg?Rh.

The chicken that hatched from it.

J.



"There is no horse so dead it can not be beaten."

Orson Welles

In article <20031222163406.04179.00001641@mb-m29.aol.com>,
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) writes:
Wasn't there some reference in Rosemary's Baby to her ovulating? IIRC,Rosemary was timing her cycles so she could get pregnant. If this is thecase,I think we can safely assume her very own egg was fertilized by the deviland,thus, she did contribute at least 50% of the son of satan's DNA.I don't think Mary was timing her cycles and trying to become pregnant.Perhaps she was a gestational surrogate. I am not saying I think the Biblewasaccurate or inaccurate. I am saying we don't have all the facts.P2P

No offense or nothing....but what does it say that you know all this info off
the top of your head??? ;-)

KL

"J." <jmdjmh@aol.compostible> wrote in message
news:20031222210936.08626.00002308@mb-m27.aol.com... In article <dafc70.0312221647.5da6113@posting.google.com>, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) writes:Who says there was an egg?Rh. The chicken that hatched from it. J.

Say, are you suggesting that JC was a chicken? I don't *think* so.

>No offense or nothing....but what does it say that you know all this info offthe top of your head??? ;-)KL


What part? I remember the movie "Rosemary's Baby" vaguely. I probably know as
much about the story of Jesus' conception and birth as the average person. I am
responding to Di's comparison of the two stories. What would this say about
me?


P2P

In article <GPhGb.647120$Fm2.575916@attbi_s04>, "Henry W. Moritz"
<moc.ishcm@ztiromwh> writes:
"J." <jmdjmh@aol.compostible> wrote in messagenews:20031222210936.08626.00002308@mb-m27.aol.com... In article <dafc70.0312221647.5da6113@posting.google.com>, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) writes:Who says there was an egg?Rh. The chicken that hatched from it. J.Say, are you suggesting that JC was a chicken? I don't *think* so.

Not at all, my good man. Just suggesting that the existence of the man proves
the existence of the egg, in my usual roundabout fashion.

Feliz Navidad a la familia Moritz.

J.






Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

In article <20031224141913.11003.00000960@mb-m24.aol.com>,
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) writes:
No offense or nothing....but what does it say that you know all this infooffthe top of your head??? ;-)KLWhat part? I remember the movie "Rosemary's Baby" vaguely. I probably knowasmuch about the story of Jesus' conception and birth as the average person. Iamresponding to Di's comparison of the two stories. What would this say aboutme?P2P

You just seemed to remember Rosemary's Baby so much better than I ever could at
the drop of a hat.... lol

KL

jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote in message news:<20031222210936.08626.00002308@mb-m27.aol.com>... In article <dafc70.0312221647.5da6113@posting.google.com>, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) writes:Who says there was an egg?Rh. The chicken that hatched from it.


Cheep, cheep, cheap.
It would say that, wouldn't it?
The egg has no voice in the matter.



Rh. J. "There is no horse so dead it can not be beaten." Orson Welles

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031222195832.14309.00001424@mb-m14.aol.com>...Who says there was an egg?Rh. Well, there was a sprout. One could safely assume a prior egg, no?



Not necessarily.
Whether one would assume such a thing would depend on one's religious beliefs.







Rh.

P2P

>You just seemed to remember Rosemary's Baby so much better than I ever couldatthe drop of a hat.... lolKL


It's creepy and it does stand out in my mind because I secretly went to see it
with a girlfriend when we were only about eleven years old. I don't know why
the person selling tickets allowed us in. However, I found the movie quite
disturbing. It also ran on TV a couple years ago and I watched most of it and
relived my initial horror.


P2P

>> >Who says there was an egg?Rh.> Well, there was a sprout. One could safely assume a prior egg, no?Not necessarily.Whether one would assume such a thing would depend on one's religiousbeliefs.Rh. P2P


You nitpick for the sake of nitpicking at times, Rh.


P2P

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031226120954.15352.00001890@mb-m03.aol.com>... >Who says there was an egg? > > > >Rh. >> Well, there was a sprout. One could safely assume a prior egg, no? > > Not necessarily. Whether one would assume such a thing would depend on one's religious beliefs.

You nitpick for the sake of nitpicking at times, Rh.



I do.
At times.
But this isn't one of them.
To me it's an important point.

Anyway, why else would one nit-pick, if not for nit-picking's sake?
Isn' that the whole point of nit-picking?


R ' Where the nit pricks, there pick I ' H.

>Anyway, why else would one nit-pick, if not for nit-picking's sake?Isn' that the whole point of nit-picking?


You got me there, Rh.


P2P