<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ridding the Nobel Prizes of Anti-Muslim Bias</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 17:27:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: De Doc</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5476826</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[De Doc]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2014 03:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5476826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Islam is incompatible with science and I stand by that assertion. The cherry, picked Islam of Western Muslims isn&#039;t exactly the most popular or best funded version of Islam today. To make Islam compatible with science, it would need to be gutted beyond recognition. By the way Abdus Salam was Ahmadi Muslim, considered heretical by mainstream Islam because its theology modified extensively the original version.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Islam is incompatible with science and I stand by that assertion. The cherry, picked Islam of Western Muslims isn&#8217;t exactly the most popular or best funded version of Islam today. To make Islam compatible with science, it would need to be gutted beyond recognition. By the way Abdus Salam was Ahmadi Muslim, considered heretical by mainstream Islam because its theology modified extensively the original version.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5298471</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5298471</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;So Christians believe - but that belief is not the same as their belief that Mary was a virgin. &quot;Immaculate&quot; refers to the condition of being free from sin, which is a separate issue from Mary&#039;s virginity.&quot;



The only &quot;immaculate conception&quot; recorded in the Bible is that of Jesus. Can you refute that or not?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;So Christians believe &#8211; but that belief is not the same as their belief that Mary was a virgin. &#8220;Immaculate&#8221; refers to the condition of being free from sin, which is a separate issue from Mary&#8217;s virginity.&#8221;</p>
<p>The only &#8220;immaculate conception&#8221; recorded in the Bible is that of Jesus. Can you refute that or not?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5298462</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5298462</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Your comments over the past few posts sound like a fellow who mistakenly refers to the electricity driving his plasma TV as &quot;direct current.&quot;&quot;


Facts matter. Nothing I said was inaccurate or misleading except for people programmed by dogma.

And while most people in the USA drive their &quot;Plasma TV systems&quot; with MAINS power, which of course is alternating current, many sections of the circuit are rectified to direct current. So what really matters is whether one is correct about the facts.

But for you it&#039;s about dogma and I violated your rules. I don&#039;t care.

&quot;Bottom line: you took a term that has a particular meaning in this context, you botched that meaning, and you are too proud, angry, or both to simply acknowledge the fact and move on.&quot;



So you claim that I am wrong about the Bible&#039;s position on Jesus&#039;s conception, that to characterize it as an immaculate conception is not accurate?


I notice you ignored that most salient question, was Jesus&#039;s birth (according to the Biblical text) immaculate or not?


Yes or no?


You and your BS phony grievances. No wonder you have so much empathy for jihadis.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Your comments over the past few posts sound like a fellow who mistakenly refers to the electricity driving his plasma TV as &#8220;direct current.&#8221;&#8221;</p>
<p>Facts matter. Nothing I said was inaccurate or misleading except for people programmed by dogma.</p>
<p>And while most people in the USA drive their &#8220;Plasma TV systems&#8221; with MAINS power, which of course is alternating current, many sections of the circuit are rectified to direct current. So what really matters is whether one is correct about the facts.</p>
<p>But for you it&#8217;s about dogma and I violated your rules. I don&#8217;t care.</p>
<p>&#8220;Bottom line: you took a term that has a particular meaning in this context, you botched that meaning, and you are too proud, angry, or both to simply acknowledge the fact and move on.&#8221;</p>
<p>So you claim that I am wrong about the Bible&#8217;s position on Jesus&#8217;s conception, that to characterize it as an immaculate conception is not accurate?</p>
<p>I notice you ignored that most salient question, was Jesus&#8217;s birth (according to the Biblical text) immaculate or not?</p>
<p>Yes or no?</p>
<p>You and your BS phony grievances. No wonder you have so much empathy for jihadis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5298399</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 02:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5298399</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nobody&#039;s preaching, nor is anyone taking you to task for any &quot;impropriety&quot; in &quot;going against Catholic dogma.&quot;  You simply employed a phrase that has a specific meaning in this context - specifically, &quot;immaculate conception&quot; - and made a common mistake in using it.  You&#039;ve since been trying to redefine the term - not to mention engaging in increasingly hysterical personal comments (No, I&#039;m not any kind of Catholic, though I am fairly familiar with Catholic doctrine) - rather than simply acknowledge a poor choice of words.  
 
&quot;Jesus&#039;s birth was the result on an immaculate conception.&quot;
 
So Christians believe - but that belief is not the same as their belief that Mary was a virgin.  &quot;Immaculate&quot; refers to the condition of being free from sin, which is a separate issue from Mary&#039;s virginity. 
 
Your comments over the past few posts sound like a fellow who mistakenly refers to the electricity driving his plasma TV as &quot;direct current.&quot;  When the error is pointed out, rather than simply acknowledge the mistake, he posts a link to Merriam-Webster for &quot;direct&quot; and &quot;current,&quot; then argue &quot;hey, it follows a straight path from the substation to your house, so it&#039;s &#039;direct,&#039; and it&#039;s clearly an electrical current, so it&#039;s &#039;current.&#039;  It&#039;s not my fault if you can&#039;t follow my plain English...&quot;
 
Bottom line: you took a term that has a particular meaning in this context, you botched that meaning, and you are too proud, angry, or both to simply acknowledge the fact and move on.  
 
Since it&#039;s likely we both understand that now, there&#039;s no point in beating that horse.  I&#039;ll read your response with interest, but unless you have something pertinent and new to offer, I&#039;ll leave the last word to you.  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nobody&#8217;s preaching, nor is anyone taking you to task for any &#8220;impropriety&#8221; in &#8220;going against Catholic dogma.&#8221;  You simply employed a phrase that has a specific meaning in this context &#8211; specifically, &#8220;immaculate conception&#8221; &#8211; and made a common mistake in using it.  You&#8217;ve since been trying to redefine the term &#8211; not to mention engaging in increasingly hysterical personal comments (No, I&#8217;m not any kind of Catholic, though I am fairly familiar with Catholic doctrine) &#8211; rather than simply acknowledge a poor choice of words.  </p>
<p>&#8220;Jesus&#8217;s birth was the result on an immaculate conception.&#8221;</p>
<p>So Christians believe &#8211; but that belief is not the same as their belief that Mary was a virgin.  &#8220;Immaculate&#8221; refers to the condition of being free from sin, which is a separate issue from Mary&#8217;s virginity. </p>
<p>Your comments over the past few posts sound like a fellow who mistakenly refers to the electricity driving his plasma TV as &#8220;direct current.&#8221;  When the error is pointed out, rather than simply acknowledge the mistake, he posts a link to Merriam-Webster for &#8220;direct&#8221; and &#8220;current,&#8221; then argue &#8220;hey, it follows a straight path from the substation to your house, so it&#8217;s &#8216;direct,&#8217; and it&#8217;s clearly an electrical current, so it&#8217;s &#8216;current.&#8217;  It&#8217;s not my fault if you can&#8217;t follow my plain English&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Bottom line: you took a term that has a particular meaning in this context, you botched that meaning, and you are too proud, angry, or both to simply acknowledge the fact and move on.  </p>
<p>Since it&#8217;s likely we both understand that now, there&#8217;s no point in beating that horse.  I&#8217;ll read your response with interest, but unless you have something pertinent and new to offer, I&#8217;ll leave the last word to you.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5298369</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5298369</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Was the conception of Jesus immaculate according to the Bible or not?


Was the conception of Jesus immaculate according to Catholics or not?


What more do your dogmas have for us on these matters?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was the conception of Jesus immaculate according to the Bible or not?</p>
<p>Was the conception of Jesus immaculate according to Catholics or not?</p>
<p>What more do your dogmas have for us on these matters?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5298368</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5298368</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Well, yes, I do get it. You misused the term and you&#039;re now engaging in a bit of face-saving involving some interesting personal theology, some contorted redirection, and the pointlessly insulting posturing often associated with the embarrassed.&quot;

Wow. You really are deranged. You must be a Nancy Pelosi Catholic. I wonder if you realize that you&#039;re preaching dogmas rather than conversing?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaculate

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception



Anyone can read what I wrote and challenge the logic rather than the &quot;propriety&quot; of going against Catholic dogma.


Jesus&#039;s birth was the result on an immaculate conception. Mary&#039;s was not, unless you accept all Catholic dogma. They also teach that people &quot;get confused&quot; just like you do, because they want to insist that Mary&#039;s conception was &quot;immaculate&quot; while Jesus&#039;s conception was..what? Not immaculate?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Well, yes, I do get it. You misused the term and you&#8217;re now engaging in a bit of face-saving involving some interesting personal theology, some contorted redirection, and the pointlessly insulting posturing often associated with the embarrassed.&#8221;</p>
<p>Wow. You really are deranged. You must be a Nancy Pelosi Catholic. I wonder if you realize that you&#8217;re preaching dogmas rather than conversing?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaculate" rel="nofollow">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaculate</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception" rel="nofollow">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception</a></p>
<p>Anyone can read what I wrote and challenge the logic rather than the &#8220;propriety&#8221; of going against Catholic dogma.</p>
<p>Jesus&#8217;s birth was the result on an immaculate conception. Mary&#8217;s was not, unless you accept all Catholic dogma. They also teach that people &#8220;get confused&#8221; just like you do, because they want to insist that Mary&#8217;s conception was &#8220;immaculate&#8221; while Jesus&#8217;s conception was..what? Not immaculate?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5298359</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5298359</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;In any case, if I use plain English to draw attention to the similarities, and you conflate the terms in your own mind, that&#039;s your problem. Not mine. Get it?&quot;
 
Well, yes, I do get it.  You misused the term and you&#039;re now engaging in a bit of face-saving involving some interesting personal theology, some contorted redirection, and the pointlessly insulting posturing often associated with the embarrassed.

&quot;Try to maintain some credibility.&quot;
 
That&#039;s always good advice.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;In any case, if I use plain English to draw attention to the similarities, and you conflate the terms in your own mind, that&#8217;s your problem. Not mine. Get it?&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, yes, I do get it.  You misused the term and you&#8217;re now engaging in a bit of face-saving involving some interesting personal theology, some contorted redirection, and the pointlessly insulting posturing often associated with the embarrassed.</p>
<p>&#8220;Try to maintain some credibility.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s always good advice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5298349</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 23:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5298349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Your response indicated that, at the time you made it, you were confusing &quot;immaculate conception&quot; with &quot;virgin birth.&quot; The alternative reading is that your reference to &#039;immaculate conception&#039; was a non-sequitur.&quot;



You are hilarious. YOU are clear that I was confused. OK then.


Dumbass, Catholics and others make the miracles of Jesus&#039;s sinless birth focus on Mary&#039;s virginity because they have an agenda. They refer to the &quot;immaculate conception&quot; of Mary because they are trying to tie her to Jesus by elevating her, showing she had similar if not identical origins and trying to show that these things in common are salient with regard to her status as a quasi-divine or divine person. I believe I said this to you at least once, perhaps even twice or thrice.


In any case, if I use plain English to draw attention to the similarities, and you conflate the terms in your own mind, that&#039;s your problem. Not mine. Get it?


Now, in the Bible it is not even clear how much Jesus&#039;s divinity and &quot;lack of sin&quot; have to do with Mary&#039;s virginity per se, but rather it&#039;s much more about the clear fact that virgins can&#039;t point to human fathers. It&#039;s mostly to emphasize that Jesus has a divine father. It&#039;s about the &quot;immaculate conception&quot; vis-a-vis God as his only father, not because Mary was super disciplined. Mary as virgin is merely a supporting statement, not the central feature of &quot;immaculate conception.&quot;


This is crucial to understand because the Bible makes clear that Mary was also a sinner. So it&#039;s not about avoiding Original Sin unless you want to deify Mary.


Jesus DID have an &quot;immaculate conception&quot; but Mary did not, except to Catholics and those that follow these traditions that originate with them. But immaculate conception is mostly about having no human father, because God in Heaven is the father of Jesus while Mary had 2 human parents. Making Mary&#039;s mother sinless is fruitless if she had an ordinary sinner for a father. Catholic tradition and dogma must distract from this line of thinking.


If you&#039;re not clear now, stop blaming me or you will look even worse. Try to maintain some credibility.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Your response indicated that, at the time you made it, you were confusing &#8220;immaculate conception&#8221; with &#8220;virgin birth.&#8221; The alternative reading is that your reference to &#8216;immaculate conception&#8217; was a non-sequitur.&#8221;</p>
<p>You are hilarious. YOU are clear that I was confused. OK then.</p>
<p>Dumbass, Catholics and others make the miracles of Jesus&#8217;s sinless birth focus on Mary&#8217;s virginity because they have an agenda. They refer to the &#8220;immaculate conception&#8221; of Mary because they are trying to tie her to Jesus by elevating her, showing she had similar if not identical origins and trying to show that these things in common are salient with regard to her status as a quasi-divine or divine person. I believe I said this to you at least once, perhaps even twice or thrice.</p>
<p>In any case, if I use plain English to draw attention to the similarities, and you conflate the terms in your own mind, that&#8217;s your problem. Not mine. Get it?</p>
<p>Now, in the Bible it is not even clear how much Jesus&#8217;s divinity and &#8220;lack of sin&#8221; have to do with Mary&#8217;s virginity per se, but rather it&#8217;s much more about the clear fact that virgins can&#8217;t point to human fathers. It&#8217;s mostly to emphasize that Jesus has a divine father. It&#8217;s about the &#8220;immaculate conception&#8221; vis-a-vis God as his only father, not because Mary was super disciplined. Mary as virgin is merely a supporting statement, not the central feature of &#8220;immaculate conception.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is crucial to understand because the Bible makes clear that Mary was also a sinner. So it&#8217;s not about avoiding Original Sin unless you want to deify Mary.</p>
<p>Jesus DID have an &#8220;immaculate conception&#8221; but Mary did not, except to Catholics and those that follow these traditions that originate with them. But immaculate conception is mostly about having no human father, because God in Heaven is the father of Jesus while Mary had 2 human parents. Making Mary&#8217;s mother sinless is fruitless if she had an ordinary sinner for a father. Catholic tradition and dogma must distract from this line of thinking.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re not clear now, stop blaming me or you will look even worse. Try to maintain some credibility.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5298341</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 23:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5298341</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[H:  &quot;Mary&#039;s virginity was established as doctrine before the schisms...&quot;

O:  &quot;The doctrine of &quot;immaculate conception&quot; of Jesus is supported by the Biblical texts. The doctrine that deifies Mary as &quot;perpetual virgin&quot; is Catholic, and is contradicted by the texts.&quot;

Your response indicated that, at the time you made it, you were confusing &quot;immaculate conception&quot; with &quot;virgin birth.&quot;  The alternative reading is that your reference to &#039;immaculate conception&#039; was a non-sequitur.  

&quot;Here again you miss the point and blame everyone but yourself.&quot;


If your points are so consistently &#039;missed,&#039; you might want to revisit your assumption that you&#039;re actually making them.  You might want to focus your efforts on the topical aspects of the posts, rather than the posturing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>H:  &#8220;Mary&#8217;s virginity was established as doctrine before the schisms&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>O:  &#8220;The doctrine of &#8220;immaculate conception&#8221; of Jesus is supported by the Biblical texts. The doctrine that deifies Mary as &#8220;perpetual virgin&#8221; is Catholic, and is contradicted by the texts.&#8221;</p>
<p>Your response indicated that, at the time you made it, you were confusing &#8220;immaculate conception&#8221; with &#8220;virgin birth.&#8221;  The alternative reading is that your reference to &#8216;immaculate conception&#8217; was a non-sequitur.  </p>
<p>&#8220;Here again you miss the point and blame everyone but yourself.&#8221;</p>
<p>If your points are so consistently &#8216;missed,&#8217; you might want to revisit your assumption that you&#8217;re actually making them.  You might want to focus your efforts on the topical aspects of the posts, rather than the posturing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5298021</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5298021</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;&quot;Immaculate&quot; is not a synonym for &quot;virgin.&quot; The &quot;immaculate conception of Jesus&quot; does not refer to the condition of his mother&#039;s hymen at the moment he was conceived, but of his own soul.&quot;

The point being that according to the Catholic Church if Mary had not been &quot;immaculate&quot; *in her life and her own conception* then neither could Jesus have been.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/f/Imm_Concept_FAQ.htm

&quot;The Immaculate Conception refers to the condition that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from Original Sin from the very moment of her conception in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne. We celebrate the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary on September 8; nine months before is December 8, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.&quot;

I&#039;m not quite sure why you felt the need to mention her hymen.

&quot;If you wish to discuss Mary&#039;s status as a virgin at his conception, &quot;immaculate&quot; is probably the most misleading and problematic word you could have chosen.&quot;



Here again you miss the point and blame everyone but yourself. It led to a discussion of origins. I&#039;m sorry you feel that was another problem for you.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8221;Immaculate&#8221; is not a synonym for &#8220;virgin.&#8221; The &#8220;immaculate conception of Jesus&#8221; does not refer to the condition of his mother&#8217;s hymen at the moment he was conceived, but of his own soul.&#8221;</p>
<p>The point being that according to the Catholic Church if Mary had not been &#8220;immaculate&#8221; *in her life and her own conception* then neither could Jesus have been.</p>
<p><a href="http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/f/Imm_Concept_FAQ.htm" rel="nofollow">http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/f/Imm_Concept_FAQ.htm</a></p>
<p>&#8220;The Immaculate Conception refers to the condition that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from Original Sin from the very moment of her conception in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne. We celebrate the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary on September 8; nine months before is December 8, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not quite sure why you felt the need to mention her hymen.</p>
<p>&#8220;If you wish to discuss Mary&#8217;s status as a virgin at his conception, &#8220;immaculate&#8221; is probably the most misleading and problematic word you could have chosen.&#8221;</p>
<p>Here again you miss the point and blame everyone but yourself. It led to a discussion of origins. I&#8217;m sorry you feel that was another problem for you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5298015</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5298015</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Immaculate&quot; is not a synonym for &quot;virgin.&quot;  The &quot;immaculate conception of Jesus&quot; does not refer to the condition of his mother&#039;s hymen at the moment he was conceived, but of his own soul.  If you wish to discuss Mary&#039;s status as a virgin at his conception, &quot;immaculate&quot; is probably the most misleading and problematic word you could have chosen.  
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Immaculate&#8221; is not a synonym for &#8220;virgin.&#8221;  The &#8220;immaculate conception of Jesus&#8221; does not refer to the condition of his mother&#8217;s hymen at the moment he was conceived, but of his own soul.  If you wish to discuss Mary&#8217;s status as a virgin at his conception, &#8220;immaculate&#8221; is probably the most misleading and problematic word you could have chosen.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5297920</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 03:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5297920</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;You&#039;re simply misusing &quot;immaculate conception.&quot; It&#039;s a common mistake.&quot;

You must be an ex-Catholic or Catholic educated if you think that is the only legitimate use of the phrase. I explicitly stated &quot;immaculate conception&quot; of Jesus.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is an explicitly Catholic doctrine. But it was contrived to justify deifying Mary by showing somehow that she was also born without sin more or less as Jesus was according to the Biblical texts. Not only that, but Jesus was also conceived immaculately according to that doctrine. That&#039;s the entire point, to deify them together.

That&#039;s why I used scare quotes and lower case.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You&#8217;re simply misusing &#8220;immaculate conception.&#8221; It&#8217;s a common mistake.&#8221;</p>
<p>You must be an ex-Catholic or Catholic educated if you think that is the only legitimate use of the phrase. I explicitly stated &#8220;immaculate conception&#8221; of Jesus.</p>
<p>The Immaculate Conception of Mary is an explicitly Catholic doctrine. But it was contrived to justify deifying Mary by showing somehow that she was also born without sin more or less as Jesus was according to the Biblical texts. Not only that, but Jesus was also conceived immaculately according to that doctrine. That&#8217;s the entire point, to deify them together.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why I used scare quotes and lower case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5297917</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 03:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5297917</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you say so.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you say so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5297915</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 03:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5297915</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You&#039;re simply misusing &quot;immaculate conception.&quot;  It&#039;s a common mistake.  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re simply misusing &#8220;immaculate conception.&#8221;  It&#8217;s a common mistake.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5297912</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 03:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5297912</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;You are at least aware of the fact that people make a profit all the 
time with organic farming methods that do not depend at all on modern 
technology?&quot;
 
Perhaps there are, though I&#039;ve never met them.  All the organic farmers I know of make constant use of modern technology.  They use the internet and mobile communications to find markets.  They use computers to track purchases and stock.  They use modern transportation to get their produce to market.  They employ tools made of modern alloys that they can afford because they were produced using modern methods.  And so on. 

 
I&#039;d sure hate to have to compete against them while denying myself all modern technology.  I don&#039;t think I&#039;d succeed.  How you conclude that this implies I don&#039;t understand traditional farming methods well enough to &quot;judge what is plausible among a population of farmers from the past&quot; remains a mystery.  You&#039;re also wandering more than a bit far afield.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You are at least aware of the fact that people make a profit all the<br />
time with organic farming methods that do not depend at all on modern<br />
technology?&#8221;</p>
<p>Perhaps there are, though I&#8217;ve never met them.  All the organic farmers I know of make constant use of modern technology.  They use the internet and mobile communications to find markets.  They use computers to track purchases and stock.  They use modern transportation to get their produce to market.  They employ tools made of modern alloys that they can afford because they were produced using modern methods.  And so on. </p>
<p>I&#8217;d sure hate to have to compete against them while denying myself all modern technology.  I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;d succeed.  How you conclude that this implies I don&#8217;t understand traditional farming methods well enough to &#8220;judge what is plausible among a population of farmers from the past&#8221; remains a mystery.  You&#8217;re also wandering more than a bit far afield.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5297887</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 02:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5297887</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Where did you ever get the idea that organic farming doesn&#039;t make use of modern technology?&quot;



So you DO understand organic farming BUT only WITH modern technology? Not too creative. OK then.


You are at least aware of the fact that people make a profit all the time with organic farming methods that do not depend at all on modern technology?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Where did you ever get the idea that organic farming doesn&#8217;t make use of modern technology?&#8221;</p>
<p>So you DO understand organic farming BUT only WITH modern technology? Not too creative. OK then.</p>
<p>You are at least aware of the fact that people make a profit all the time with organic farming methods that do not depend at all on modern technology?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5297884</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 02:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5297884</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;So you don&#039;t really understand organic farming. OK.&quot;

Where did you ever get the idea that organic farming doesn&#039;t make use of modern technology?  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;So you don&#8217;t really understand organic farming. OK.&#8221;</p>
<p>Where did you ever get the idea that organic farming doesn&#8217;t make use of modern technology?  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5297880</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 02:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5297880</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You&#039;re quite used to blaming your confusion on other people and then never giving it another thought.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re quite used to blaming your confusion on other people and then never giving it another thought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5297875</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 02:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5297875</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;You&#039;re getting confused. &quot;Immaculate conception&quot; relates to the doctrine that Mary was free of Original Sin.&quot;

It&#039;s you again. I said, &quot;The doctrine of &quot;immaculate conception&quot; of Jesus is supported by the Biblical texts.&quot;



The &quot;immaculate conception of Mary&quot; is a later tradition and Catholic dogma that states Mary is more or less like Jesus in that way as well. Trying to deify her alongside Jesus.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You&#8217;re getting confused. &#8220;Immaculate conception&#8221; relates to the doctrine that Mary was free of Original Sin.&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s you again. I said, &#8220;The doctrine of &#8220;immaculate conception&#8221; of Jesus is supported by the Biblical texts.&#8221;</p>
<p>The &#8220;immaculate conception of Mary&#8221; is a later tradition and Catholic dogma that states Mary is more or less like Jesus in that way as well. Trying to deify her alongside Jesus.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/ridding-the-nobel-prizes-of-anti-muslim-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-5297869</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 02:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207263#comment-5297869</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My first reply is being moderated. Why don&#039;t you reread the thread and see if you can save us some time please?


Thanks a a lot.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My first reply is being moderated. Why don&#8217;t you reread the thread and see if you can save us some time please?</p>
<p>Thanks a a lot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1306/1409 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-29 12:29:51 by W3 Total Cache -->