Printable View
No - because it isn't the act that is impure, it is humanity in general.
"Immaculate Conception" probably doesn't mean what you think it does - it pertains to Mary and means she was concieved without Original Sin, i.e. Sin was not present in her when she was concieved.
How come Mary was without sin? I haven't heard that take on things, indulge me :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Honestly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
I dunno, it's a Roman Catholic thing - it's not something I personally believe and it's relatively recent (like 600 years) as an idea. I believe it stems from the belief that in order to carry God, Mary would have had to have been a pure vessel, but that begs the question of her own mother - which implies the problem of infinite regression.
This isn't a problem in earlier medieval theology because Original Sin is inherited via the father, not the mother. That has some interesting implications for what the Original Sin actually was.
Personally, I believe it was not the eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge but trying to hide afterwards, when Adam and Eve tried to deceive God despite knowing it was wrong.
I honestly never heard the idea that Mary was without sin generally speaking. I have heard that she was somewhat of a prude, sure. But that she of all the people would be without sin for me comes off as a big conundrum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I mean, I thought we were all sinners and that that was the whole point of Jesus speeches, as well as the basis for more or less the whole of Christianity (that he died for our sins).
To then hear that there obviously are people walking around without sin, would kind of shake the roots of Christianity as I understand it. Or was she for some reason or another special in any way?
Everyone loses original sin when they are baptized. Mary was born without original sin because she apparently needed to to have God's son.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
She was special because she had God..... :eyerolls:
It makes no sense, or rather it is an esoteric elaboration, and it leads to...Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
...this. The prime reason that people think Catholics are weird. It's like the whole catagorisation of angels thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Personally I think catholics are weird because they don't seem to mind sexual abuse of minors all that much. The flesh is weak, yeah of course it is it's underage
As in.... they won't need baptism?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
But I see what you mean... this needs answering!!!
edit: oh.. there was a page 2.
But as Pape brilliantly hinted to... There was a few objections to the concept of immaculate conceived in the earlier church. (It was not formalized as a dogma until late 19th century). How could anything be immaculate when sex was involved? Mary was not virgin born and had a father and a mother who copulated to conceive Mary. But test tube babies are conceived without the filthy methods of human carnality.
What? you have never talked to any born agains? They are already saved, ya know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadgar
Surely sex within marriage is not regarded as filthy or wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Ask St.Augustine... :sneaky:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr
He was very clear on the theory that original sin was passed on through the carnal concupiscence of sex, even under the wedlock.
The idea of original sin being passed on on a hereditary basis seems strange to me. And yes, I realise this is unusual given what Calvin had to say on it and indeed he based his ideas a lot on Augustine.
I always thought we shared Adam's sinfulness more due to our common nature than genetic inheritance.
Am I a heretic?
Yes
Now please feel more guilty than you already do.
Lies beget lies...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr
You should question ANY ideas of any of the Church fathers. IF any of their ideas were pulled out of thin air, then they would have to invent new stuff to cover up the holes it creates when scrutinized. And finally the corruption is complete and the religion is not savable or recognizable for what it originally was.
You should do reversible engineering techniques on these dogma. Take the immaculate conception. You should ask - why did Mary need to be sinless from birth? Is there really a need? No... then why did one establish such? ... you need to look at the influx of Manichaeism and monasticsim which were in their introduction merely extremists much like the ones we entertain today. As found with today's extremists - the lack of faith in established religion leads them to do "extra" things to be more worthy but doesn't see that they are moving outside the requirements and are in fact being counter productive regarding their own religion's guidelines for salvation.
And that is how new dogma is established... the need for extra - and the stretching of rules and boundaries. This is what started to happen as soon as the apostles were removed and the gnostic worms started to emerge from the woodwork. Gnosticism is the claim of having the esoteric knowledge of the teachings of Christ during his 40 day ministry as a resurrected being, having received the full Glory of His Father and therefore shared a oneness in purpose, power and knowledge with the Almighty. Only the Apostles knew the full extent of this teaching, but the Gnostics claims to have this knowledge.
Is copulation a sin? No... Why? Because it was the very first commandment of the Almighty to his creation. Even before Adam and Eve was taught about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they received the commandment of going forth to multiply. Which is basically God saying to mankind. Go forth and have sex. How can an explicit commandment when followed be sinful? And the very first commandment given as well, which should indicate some sort of importance. There is no original sin... no hereditary sin. There is no sin passed on from father to children - hence there is no need for a immaculate conception. All are born sinless. Hence - child baptisms are not necessary. But children as all mortals born, needs resurrection - which is where Christ's grace will apply, as it will with Mary his mother.
Baptism - is for the remission of sins which will apply for those accountable. Commandments are not followed, laws are broken and Christ's mercy will save and mend.
So... if you do not copulate to beget children, you are sinning against the very first commandment given. Spinster nuns, monks and priests that do not multiply - are under condemnation, and will need Christ's grace to save them. As Luther realized... :sneaky:
I am just a humble servant of God then :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Heck, I follow his first commandment WAY better than the priests and stuff.
Patently offensive as well as being incorrect. At best you cannot speak credibly for any Catholic and at worst you are attempting to insult me personally as a member of that faith group. Shame on you sir, shame on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I think you will find this has more to do with people in authority exploiting the privilage and respect given them like that Jimmy Savile fella did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony