Of course this can also be extended to religious ideas in general, and perhaps you can understand why I referred to the bastardization of someone else's ideas. Are you listening Mr. Cuttlefish? Isn't this what you were asking me to explain? So, if somebody has had a (genuine) religious experience -- at least you know who the mother is, right? -- it's up to them to bear the burden of proof. So in that sense this is what a women represents in the spiritual sense ... hence the birth of both Judaism and Christianity, respectively.

While something similar is signified by the following passage ...

Here the woman signifies the advent of the New Church (the New Jerusalem), and the birth of a child, specifically a male, signifies the birth of New Doctrine, which is about to be brought forth, to establish the New Church.

While something similar (believe it or not) is portrayed by chapter 5 of my book ...

Of course we all understand who the burden of proof is on now don't we?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

You still haven't shown that they made a practice of killing unwed mothers. As you may know, adultry is the act of a married person (almost always a woman) having sex with a person who is not their spouse. So what are the locals going to do? Possibly they might say, "She's married to Joseph, but we caught her sleeping with God." You think?

Not only that, there is nothing in the Biblical accounts of Jesus that I have found that indicates Mary was fearful of being stoned as an adultress. This is your own invention. Plus, as usual, you have failed to address an important point I made: What with all the ruckus around the birth, her "adultry" was revealed to all. Heck, wise men in other countries knew it. Still, no stoning.

But it is a minor point, since the story of the birth of Jesus is just a legend, incorporating the mythology and symbology of several other religions, like Mithraism Anything there sound familiar?

You love to stretch your metaphors, don't you? This one is practically yelping in pain...I am listening, Iacchus, but frankly this does not answer a thing; I would love for you to try once more, but in less metaphorical and more concrete terms. Certainly, in order to express something metaphorically, one must understand it well enough to explain it in a simpler, more concrete manner.

For instance, you say here "if somebody has a (genuine) religious experience--at least you know who the mother is". Two things--first off, how is a genuine experience distinguished from an other-than-genuine one? Can we ever be fooled? Second thing...what mother? I assume you mean this metaphorically, but I am at a loss as to what the hell you mean by the mother in this case, let alone how one would know who she is! Please try again, more concretely, if you are interested at all in my understanding (which I only can infer is the case, given that you asked if I was listening.)Again...metaphor...don't overextend them...WHat...on you, for claiming to be fully awake in what could easily have been a hypnopompic state? I see no reason to take this story at face value--or rather, if I do take it at face value, I see very good reasons not to trust its validity.