Home » God bothering » Christainity » Mary, Joseph, Jesus and paternity fraud

Mary, Joseph, Jesus and paternity fraud

“Christ in the house of his father” by Millais

Given the time of year and the fact that Joseph was the archetypal parent who was not the father of the child he raised its probably quite timely to consider these two you tube vids about the issue of paternity fraud:

Does that make you think differently about the the Christian mythology about the concretion and birth of their saviour?

Cheers Comrades

immaculate

This post is dedicated to my brothers who are Christians

Identigene Raises Awareness of Paternity Fraud in America (prweb.com)
Questions About Paternity Fraud Laws (socyberty.com)
“Paternity Fraud” in Tennessee Divorce: Hodge v. Craig (herstontennesseefamilylaw.com)
The white daddy Syndrome and the knee-grow bed wench (blackmystory.net)

About these ads

Tags: Child support, Christian, christian mythology, current-events, DNA profiling, Free, Holy Spirit, Hosting, Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Parental testing, Paternity fraud, sarcasm warning, Women, youtube

By Iain Hall in Christainity, Ethical questions, Gender Issues, God bothering, human rights, Men and Women, Misandry on December 17, 2012.

2 Comments

Simon says:

December 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM
Iain Hall says:

December 18, 2012 at 5:39 AM

That is a great clip Simon! and most apt!
I love family Guy!

Comments are closed.

Copyright

Portions of any work that are quoted are reproduced on the basis of the "fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review" section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968.
let's look at the Australian Copyright Council's fact sheet on Fair Use:

The Federal Court has stated that “criticism and review” involves making a judgment of the material concerned, or of the underlying ideas. Criticism and review may be strongly expressed, and may be expressed humorously, and need not be balanced. The defence can apply where the criticism or review takes place in a commercial context, such as in published books or newspapers or on commercial television.

However, the court emphasised that the purpose of criticism or review must be genuine. If the person has other motives – especially if these motives involve using the material to make a profit, or using a competitor’s material to
divert customers from the competitor – the fact that they have also engaged in a form of criticism or review is not
enough to prevent the use from infringing copyright

All other content on this site is copyright Iain Hall and may not be reproduced in any form with out explicit permission of the author.

Comment Copyright

Anyone who comments at the Sandpit under a pseudonym does so on the clear understanding that by doing so they are giving any and all rights and ownership of those comments to the site-owner who may reproduce them in any form or at any other site or venue entirely at his own discretion.

Blog at WordPress.com. / The Academica Theme.

Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Mary, Joseph, Jesus and paternity fraud

2 Comments

Welcome to the Sandpit

Copyright

Follow “Iain Hall's SANDPIT”

Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Mary, Joseph, Jesus and paternity fraud

Related articles

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Related

2 Comments

Welcome to the Sandpit

Copyright

Follow “Iain Hall's SANDPIT”