Insurance Firm Revokes "Immaculate Conception" Policy

**Lemur** · 06-22-2006, 21:50

I love stories like this. First there was rapture insurance. Now it turns out three sisters have been paying for immaculate conception coverage since 2000, and now the underwriting firm has revoked the policy. What's wrong, Britishinsurance.com? Afraid of paying for the Christ child's care and feeding?

"The people were concerned about having sufficient funds if they immaculately conceived. It was for caring and bringing up the Christ," said a spokesman for the company.

What's more, they were going to put it all on the girls to prove they had really, truly concieved the Savior. You say he's the Christ? Let's see some miracles, then, or no payout on the policy.

The burden of proof that it was Christ had rested with the women. ... The siblings had paid £100 annually since 2000. If they had secured a payout, they stood to receive £1m. He added: "The Catholic Church is up in arms about what we've been doing. We have withdrawn the cover because it was causing a furore."

**Papewaio** · 06-23-2006, 03:45

Immaculate conception would be having a child without having sex.

So would a test tube conception would count and hence the company would have to pay out?

**Lemur** · 06-23-2006, 03:47

Pretty sure from reading the article that the payout would only occur if one of them concieved the Christ child, and then proved it to the insurance company's satisfaction. Not sure what that would involve ...

**Lehesu** · 06-23-2006, 05:51

I thought the insurance firm was revoking "Immaculate Reception" insurance. I figured, someone musta got burned on the last one.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 06-23-2006, 06:07

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Immaculate conception would be having a child without having sex.

So would a test tube conception would count and hence the company would have to pay out?

No, that is not Immaculate Conception.

Crazed Rabbit

**English assassin** · 06-23-2006, 09:36

Originally Posted by Lemur

Pretty sure from reading the article that the payout would only occur if one of them concieved the Christ child, and then proved it to the insurance company's satisfaction. Not sure what that would involve ...

Insurance companies are agents of satan, so they would recognise Christ instantly.

I note that Christ's tastes have obviously got a lot more expensive since the last time around.

Still, the real news is that there are apparently as many as three virgins in Inverness...

**doc_bean** · 06-23-2006, 11:24

In another boon for the company, several Southern states have begun considering new public safety legislation to make rapture insurance mandatory for all drivers in addition to the minimal vehicle insurance they are already required to carry.

"How do we know for sure that our agents will be available when the Lord comes to take us home? They're all jews."

**Sigurd** · 06-23-2006, 13:38

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

No, that is not Immaculate Conception.

Crazed Rabbit

That is right, to immaculate conceive you are going to have a child exempt from original sin. Mary the Virgin was immaculate conceived as was Jesus Christ (according to catholic dogma). This does however not necessitate a virgin birth as was the case of the conception of Mary the mother of Christ.
It is quite common to confuse the concepts immaculate conception and the Incarnation of Christ which this article is all about.
Besides, I can’t understand that any Christian would believe that Christ will be reborn as a child at his second coming.

In my opinion every woman giving birth immaculately conceives. There is not a thread of sin in a newborn.
The women should get pregnant the proper way and get their 1m.