Freethought & Rationalism Archive

07-28-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Tara: Surrogate mothers are mentioned in the OT?

Are you addressing me? As far as I'm concerned, I have no idea, but I doubt that surrogacy is mentioned in the OT, because it must be a modern technique, (I'd think). If you want to know where I came up with the idea of surrogate mother, it came from enquiries I made elsewhere, about whose DNA Jesus must have had. The answer seemed to be that no one knows. So whose child was Jesus exactly, "God's and Mary's"; "God's alone" (?) ... GoODness knows - I don't.

What I do know is that if God were act as he is supposed to have, and if God were a mortal human being, theology would label him immoral.

Tuffa Nuff

Roland · 07-28-2007, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Anybody have suggestions for who should be the judge?

JW:
This reminds me of the Riddle:

A man who has just been crucified is brought by the Paracletics
into the Emergency Room. The Deity says, "I can not Save this
man because he's my Son". The Deity is not the Son's Father.
How can this be?

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

She's the boy's mother.

I remember this riddle being done on "All in the Family" back in the '70's. However, there it wasn't about a deity, just about regular people.

Chris Weimer · 07-29-2007, 10:21 AM

Sorry for the misspelling. For some reason I looked at it as "Tara Nuff". Apologies.

Chili · 07-29-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

This is what I mean by a linguistic argument, Chili. Satan might claim that in order to make Mary pregnant, God had to "penetrate" her ... in a manner of speaking. There was no dick involved, yet something went into her from the outside, penetrating her womb.

I think Joan that Mary is the womb of man to which the persona of this generation is added for presentation and recognition. Mary is the sum-total of our own inner beauty that contains our aboriginal heritage as man in the image of God wherein we were created. Jesus called it 'truth' with an eminent right to be just who we are without being a pretender and usurper of the Man identity that resides deep within us (note that Man is androgyne here).

So the impregnation affects Joseph who's womb is Mary (sic) and thus Joseph was "pregnant with dispair" (as James Joyce put it in Finnigans Wake) which really is the advent of life itself that initiates metamorphosis and gives new life to the man we were created to be. Mary therefore is our dowry in betrothal and always the perfect image of mortal beauty for the simple reason that she is our own limit of perfection.

Notice that in her appearances she is always a local girl with a message and perhaps a battle scar or two.

ETA: this also explains how our mother can become our bride and crown of glory as man with a mind of his own = God as Gogol would have it.

xaxxat · 07-29-2007, 11:08 AM

Why did Mary, being a human being and thus "born in sin", not pass along her sin to Jebus?

Chris Weimer · 07-29-2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Why did Mary, being a human being and thus "born in sin", not pass along her sin to Jebus?

Immaculate Conception.

Chili · 07-29-2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Why did Mary, being a human being and thus "born in sin", not pass along her sin to Jebus?

Mary was not human.

Toto · 07-29-2007, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Why did Mary, being a human being and thus "born in sin", not pass along her sin to Jebus?

I bet you think this is a question designed to point out how silly this line of thinking is, based on your use of "Jebus." But in fact, it has been the subject of intense theological debate throughout Christian history. (Or does that just reinforce the idea that this is a silly line of thought?)

The quandry of original sin passed on to children is behind the Roman Catholic Church's invention of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception, the idea that Mary was born without sin. The alternative to Immaculate Conception is the idea, according to Luther that Mary was born in sin but purified by the Holy Spirit so she could give birth to a sinless child:

Quote:

Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are…For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person.

St. Augustine, however, claimed that Jesus avoided sin because he was not the product of filthy sexual intercourse:

Quote:

Jesus was not born from sexual intercourse, i.e. from 'sinful flesh'

On Concupiscence, Book I, chap. 13.

“Only there was no nuptial cohabitation [between Mary and Joseph]; because He who was to be without sin, and was sent not in sinful flesh, but in the likeness of sinful flesh, could not possibly have been made in sinful flesh itself without that shameful lust of the flesh which comes from sin, and without which He willed to be born, in order that He might teach us, that every one who is born of sexual intercourse is in fact sinful flesh, since that alone which was not born of such intercourse was not sinful flesh. Nevertheless conjugal intercourse is not in itself sin, when it is had with the intention of producing children; because the mind's good-will leads the ensuing bodily pleasure, instead of following its lead; and the human choice is not distracted by the yoke of sin pressing upon it, inasmuch as the blow of the sin is rightly brought back to the purposes of procreation. This lust, then, is not in itself the good of the nuptial institution; but it is obscenity in sinful men, a necessity in procreant parents, the fire of lascivious indulgences, the shame of nuptial pleasures.”

Chili · 07-29-2007, 02:50 PM

Luther doesn't know Mary who is the Love of life for the sake of life itself. For example, how can Mary be purified by the HS if she is the angelic force behind the HS (she's our "Queen of angels") and replaces the HS after it's descend upon the chosen one for whom 'the father and son are one' to make the HS redundant as a 'fly-by.'

Augustine was a faith-builder and cannot write gnostic concepts to the flock but he knew better as this is know from his line: "have perfect love (freedom in Christ?) and do what you want?" (or something like that).

Jesus may have avoided sin to prevent misleading believers but the fact is that without the law it is impossible to sin. The difficulty of this concept is to feel forgiven and for this we must part company with religion and go through the barren locust and honey stage.

xaxxat · 07-29-2007, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Why did Mary, being a human being and thus "born in sin", not pass along her sin to Jebus?

I bet you think this is a question designed to point out how silly this line of thinking is, based on your use of "Jebus." But in fact, it has been the subject of intense theological debate throughout Christian history. (Or does that just reinforce the idea that this is a silly line of thought?)

Yeah, I do consider it silly. It's just another variant of the Emperor's New Clothes to me...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-29-2007, 10:21 AM	#23
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Sorry for the misspelling. For some reason I looked at it as "Tara Nuff". Apologies.

07-29-2007, 11:08 AM	#25
xaxxat Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Space Station 33 Posts: 2,543	Why did Mary, being a human being and thus "born in sin", not pass along her sin to Jebus?

07-29-2007, 02:50 PM	#29
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	Luther doesn't know Mary who is the Love of life for the sake of life itself. For example, how can Mary be purified by the HS if she is the angelic force behind the HS (she's our "Queen of angels") and replaces the HS after it's descend upon the chosen one for whom 'the father and son are one' to make the HS redundant as a 'fly-by.' Augustine was a faith-builder and cannot write gnostic concepts to the flock but he knew better as this is know from his line: "have perfect love (freedom in Christ?) and do what you want?" (or something like that). Jesus may have avoided sin to prevent misleading believers but the fact is that without the law it is impossible to sin. The difficulty of this concept is to feel forgiven and for this we must part company with religion and go through the barren locust and honey stage.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.