# Note: Immaculate conception = conception of Mary, NOT conception of Jesus **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 12, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/note-immaculate-conception-conception-of-mary-not-conception-of-jesus/284433 "2005-01-12T20:26:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Shirley\_Ujest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shirley\_Ujest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shirley_Ujest)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/note-immaculate-conception-conception-of-mary-not-conception-of-jesus/284433/21 "2005-01-13T12:24:26Z")
Ok, I give you Post #10, but no one answered my ab-so-lutely utter stream of consciousness question about **mangers**. I mean, c’mon. Virgins, sex and baby Jesus are kinda important, but ferchristsake! ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/note-immaculate-conception-conception-of-mary-not-conception-of-jesus/284433/22 "2005-01-13T12:35:29Z")
Damn! How did I not know this? It also ruins the joke: Q. What’s the difference between the virgin birth and immaculate conception? A. Nine months. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/note-immaculate-conception-conception-of-mary-not-conception-of-jesus/284433/23 "2005-01-13T12:47:46Z")
> [@Shirley Ujest](#): > > Ok, I give you Post #10, but no one answered my ab-so-lutely utter stream of consciousness question about **mangers**. > > I mean, c’mon. Virgins, sex and baby Jesus are kinda important, but ferchristsake! And what is the manger, exactly, anyway? We know it’s enclosing, because the little lord Jesus was away in it. Is it the barn? The little wooden creche Jesus is laying in? And what’s the creche? Is it a feeding dish for sheep? A watering trough? C’mon, let’s get to the important stuff! 😃 And I still don’t know HOW Anne conceived Mary without catching the “STD” of Original Sin, if she had Bliblical Knowledge of her husband. (And if I hear “It’s a mystery knowable only by God,” why then…I’ll just go start planning my May Pole for Beltane!) ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/note-immaculate-conception-conception-of-mary-not-conception-of-jesus/284433/24 "2005-01-13T13:26:09Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > And what is the manger, exactly, anyway? We know it’s enclosing, because the little lord Jesus was away in it. Is it the barn? The little wooden creche Jesus is laying in? And what’s the creche? Is it a feeding dish for sheep? A watering trough? C’mon, let’s get to the important stuff! 😃 Am I beeing whooshed? The dictionary says “manger, n: A trough or an open box in which feed for livestock is placed.” Why isn’t that the answer to all your manger, and manger related, queries? ---
**Author:** ![Trunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@Trunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trunk)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/note-immaculate-conception-conception-of-mary-not-conception-of-jesus/284433/25 "2005-01-13T13:30:35Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Of course, a more fascinating question would be, who received the Immaculate Reception? Franco Harris’ mother. ---
**Author:** ![JeffB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeffb/32/188_2.png) [@JeffB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JeffB)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/note-immaculate-conception-conception-of-mary-not-conception-of-jesus/284433/26 "2005-01-13T18:16:05Z")
> [@The Devil's Grandmother](#): > > And while we’re at it, please refrain from using the words chaste, celibate and abstinent interchangeably. A chaste person can have all the sex they want with their legal spouse. A celibate person is not married, not necessarily refraining from sexual activity. An abstinent person is refraining from any sexual activity. > Museum curators who write the captions for art involving saint’s lives should be required to have these simple definitions tattooed on their feet. [Chaste](http://www.bartleby.com/61/83/C0258300.html) has different meanings, so can be confusing: > [@](#): > > 1. Morally pure in thought or conduct; decent and modest. 2a. Not having experienced sexual intercourse; virginal. b. Abstaining from unlawful sexual intercourse. c. Abstaining from all sexual intercourse; celibate. 3. Pure or simple in design or style; austere. [Celibate](http://www.bartleby.com/61/86/C0188600.html) has (or had) the meaning you cite, but it’s disappearing in the U.S.: > [@](#): > > Historically, celibate means only “unmarried”; its use to mean “abstaining from sexual intercourse” is a 20th-century development. But the new sense of the word seems to have displaced the old, and the use of celibate to mean “unmarried” is now almost sure to invite misinterpretation in other than narrowly ecclesiastical contexts. Sixty-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejected the older use in the sentence He remained celibate [unmarried], although he engaged in sexual intercourse. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Devil\_s\_Grandmother](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/74df32/32.png) [@The\_Devil\_s\_Grandmother](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Devil_s_Grandmother)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/note-immaculate-conception-conception-of-mary-not-conception-of-jesus/284433/27 "2005-01-13T18:37:33Z")
> [@Happy Lendervedder](#): > > Wouldn’t make her (or Jesus) unaware that sin exists in the world, and thus the need for modesty. Actually, that’s always been a question of mine. Was Jesus “contaminated” with original sin? He came to earth to share the mortal nature of man, he became a man in every way…wouldn’t be a better story if Jesus had all the temptation of our flesh and still remained without sin? Thanks, **JeffB**. I’m familiar with those modern definitions, it’s just as a hobby-medievalist I prefer the old definitions so I don’t have to read something like \*although St. FillintheBlank was married she lived her life in celibacy \* in museum commentary. It’s confusing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/note-immaculate-conception-conception-of-mary-not-conception-of-jesus/284433.md?page=1)