Remarkable
enthusiast
Reged: 09/30/05
Posts: 326
|
|
Yes. My point is - Mary obviously had sex with someone (not God), in order to give birth to Jesus. All the "God made mary pregnant" theories don't make any sense at all.
|
Arras
enthusiast
Reged: 05/24/04
Posts: 263
Loc: B.C., Canada
|
|
Quote:
Remarkable said:
Mary obviously had sex with someone (not God), in order to give birth to Jesus. All the "God made mary pregnant" theories don't make any sense at all.
Well, if you decide that those "theories" are bunk, you might as well throw away the rest of Catholic dogma while you're at it, because it's all tied to that root event. That's why it's a "dogma" after all--it's a basic tenet of Catholicism that must be accepted as truth if the rest is to make any sense at all.
Now if you decide that no "miracle" occurred, and that Jesus was conceived and born in the usual manner, then yes, you have to posit that there was a human father. Mary's husband, Joseph, might be a candidate if you're willing to figure that he lied about never having had sex with her, and that Mary conspired with him to keep it secret. It's also possible that Mary had an extra-marital affair and didn't want to admit it to Joseph, and thus concocted the whole "God did me" story to explain her mysterious pregnancy. Joseph's gullibility in that case might indeed make him worthy of sainthood, since he exhibited superhuman tolerance by not having Mary stoned for adultery 
In any case, the reason this one isn't really talked about is that either you're a Christian (and therefore buy the "virgin birth" story), or it's an implication so obvious that it needs no debate. Quite obviously Mary was not a virgin, if you don't accept the "virgin birth" account, just as quite obviously Jesus was not the Son of God if you don't accept the "divinity" tenets. If you want to limit yourself to provable human truths, you have no business trying to make sense of scripture--to an atheist, all scripture is fiction, and we must suspend our disbelief at points in order to enjoy the story
|
Arras
enthusiast
Reged: 05/24/04
Posts: 263
Loc: B.C., Canada
|
|
Quote:
EVDebs said:
...but what about the elephant in the room everyone ignores: that the Catholic Church worships The Virgin Mary ? Not exactly a supression of the sacred feminine, is it ?
Well, understand that Catholics revere the Virgin Mary because of the dogma of Immaculate Conception, which holds that Mary herself--though conceived by humans--was touched by the Holy Spirit at the time of conception to shield her from original sin. This made her a "pure" and "sinless" creature, almost as much so as her son, Jesus. She is not holy solely because she gave birth to the Son of God, she's holy in her own right because God chose her at the moment of her conception. In many ways, she's the Daughter of God, though apparently God only wanted to use her as an incubator for his Son.
As for where the "sacred feminine" comes into it, the early Church of Constantine's day was keen to convert as many pagans to Christianity as it could, since pagans formed the majority in most of the Roman Empire. To do this, these early architects of Christianity designed their religion in ways that would appeal to the pagans, hoping to make it easier for them to make the switch. Most pagan religions of the time worshipped a "Mother Goddess" or "Earth Mother"--a sacred feminine figure. Asking such people to cast off their belief in an all-powerful Mother in favour of an all-powerful Father was a bit much, but using the Virgin Mary as a surrogate was a viable idea. These pagans could identify readily with Mary, envisioning her as just "another face" of the Mother Goddess.
These architects, of course, were using Mary as a "loss leader" for the rest of the Christian tenets they wanted to sell the pagans. In theory, once the pagans bought into the Mary aspect, they would have to eventually sign on to the rest of the Christian tenets, and could thus be gradually swayed away from their reverence for the sacred feminine, and toward the Father and His Son. Mary was just the teaser to get them in the door, to make their conversion to Christianity more straightforward. I mean, if your Mother Goddess had a son, would that son not be a divine and worship-worthy creature as well?
In the end, Mary is carefully disempowered by the Church, kept separate from the Holy Trinity, and used as a role model for women's place in the Church. She may be the Daughter of God, but her role was clearly not to lead or to prophesy or to preach--her life before becoming impregnated by God--and after giving birth to Jesus--is said to have been pretty unremarkable. Clearly the message is that women exist solely to give birth, raise children, and support men. Thus women can become nuns (in Mary's image) but not priestesses. The reverence for the Virgin Mary is, ultimately, an endorsement of women's submissive, second-class status in the world--quite the opposite of what the sacred feminine is all about.
|
RoseyORyan
member
Reged: 04/03/05
Posts: 128
Loc: Scotland
|
|
Hi Arras,
Ha, yes. Christianity. Now there's the rub! 'The Protocols of the Wisemen of Sion', state, "NOTHING as changed over the vast eons". Hello. Hello.
Rosey
|
Remarkable
enthusiast
Reged: 09/30/05
Posts: 326
|
|
Quote:
In any case, the reason this one isn't really talked about is that either you're a Christian (and therefore buy the "virgin birth" story), or it's an implication so obvious that it needs no debate.
You can be a Christian - live your life according to the morals and teachings of Jesus - without accepting that he is *literally* the son of God. In fact, you can be a Christian without even believing in God.
|
Arras
enthusiast
Reged: 05/24/04
Posts: 263
Loc: B.C., Canada
|
|
Quote:
Remarkable said:
You can be a Christian - live your life according to the morals and teachings of Jesus - without accepting that he is *literally* the son of God. In fact, you can be a Christian without even believing in God.
I suppose if you want to play semantic games that's true, but tell someone that you're a "Christian" and you'll conjure a pretty clear picture in their minds of someone who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God; Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Unitarian, Jehovah's Witness--on that most basic point all Christian faiths agree.
What you're referring to is Christianity as a philosophy and not as a religion--i.e. the ideas of Christ as opposed to a worshipful belief in Christ as a divine being. You've stripped away the miracles and references to the divine and chosen to extract the rest as a set of lessons in morality, resulting in something very similar to Buddhism in that regard (that's essentially what Thomas Jefferson did, though he considered himself a Deist). That's fine of course, but it seems to me that this requires a different name--"Christomoralism," perhaps. To call yourself a "Christian" is to associate yourself with the religion of Christianity, when you clearly mean something quite different.
|
EVDebs
enthusiast
Reged: 07/10/05
Posts: 272
|
|
Arras
""It could also be argued that Roman Catholics and Calvinists, who believe in a strict concept of original sin also fully or partially deny the human nature of Christ. The Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary is but one of several necessary doctrinal bulkheads implemented in the wake of the dogma of original sin.
Roman Catholics and Calvinists follow St Augustine’s teachings on original sin in believing that human beings inherit not only the tendency and urges to sin, but the actual guilt of sin as well. They commonly cite Paul’s statement "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." (Rom 5:12 NRSV). However this leaves the question of Jesus Christ in an untenable position. If we are all born with the actual guilt of sin, then Christ was also born a sinner.
In order to get around the concept that Jesus was born a sinner, the Catholic dogma on the immaculate conception of Mary took shape. This doctrine should not be confused with the virgin birth of Christ, which is commonly but incorrectly called the immaculate conception.
According to common Catholic understandings, Mary the mother of Jesus was preserved by God from the stain of original sin by being born totally sinless. Mary is then said to have never sinned ever in her life. The net result of this doctrine is that when Jesus was born, he did not inherit the same sinful nature as the rest of humanity. He was born with the nature of Adam before the fall, not after the fall like the rest of us.
The problem of this is it denies Christ the same frail post-fall human nature we all have to live with. It also appears inconsistent with a number of other statements by the Apostle Paul...""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology
It would appear that denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh would be in the spirit of the antichrist
""Clearly, "flesh" can be interpreted as synonymous with being a sinner, or "carnal", which is defined as lacking the Holy Spirit. Adam and Eve when they were created were in perfect harmony with God, and had a spiritual nature. When they sinned, they lost this spiritual nature, and became carnal sinners. Ever since the fall, the children of Adam and Eve and their descendents are born carnal, lacking the spiritual nature forfeited in the garden. So when John says that Christ is "come in the flesh", he is actually saying that Christ was born by a sinner that had a carnal nature.""
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist_and_jesus.htm
Also at the weblink above, scroll down to "Roman Catholicism Dogmatically Decrees That Mary Was Sinless" for more on this topic; "Mary Declared The Mediatrix Of Salvation", "Taking The Place Of Christ On Earth"
|
ash
journeyman
Reged: 11/29/05
Posts: 74
Loc: Bombay India
|
|
HA ha wow so 60% of world population leaves in original sin and so worships sinless divine beings. And 40% like me live life with no sin while practicing many a times two religions. Wow I feel previledged.
Have any of your guys thought of an idea where a man/woman can reach divine through good deeds.
|
bankjc
stranger
Reged: 06/06/06
Posts: 21
|
|
Wow. Ive just read all five pages of this discussion and there have been many well developed arguments. I must commend you all for that because there seems to be a lot of rubbish said about this movie/book without there being any real evidence to back up their assertions.
Now what did I think? The movie was good. I've seen it twice now and the second time was far better than the first. I guess the second time I was not looking simply for direct transcription from the page to the screen. I was able to view it for what it was - entertainment. I dont think its wise (or even possible) to directly transcribe a novel onto the screen. As someone has said previously (page 1, i think) there is always something "lost" in the transaction. To me, a film will never replace, or be superior to, a novel. I think imagination is a wonderful thing and a film is simply an interpretation of the material by one or a few people. No one can ever tell you they way you should see and understand things.. and thats what I like about DVC, Dan Brown and fiction in general.
I spend my time on many forums and this movie/novel has come up on many of them. It's very contraversial and opinions seem to really differ. Someone said on one of these forums that:
"thats is the worst movie that could ever have been produced, and i hope that God will hav his vengence upon those who created it, who wrote about it and who starred in it, to contradict the bible then insult jesus is an outrage and i hope with the lords orders that they will see their day & burn in hell.... "
And thats fair enough if someone thinks that. I just despise the fact that people who make such blunt and negative comments on someone's work without providing any evidence for why they think that. Maybe its the English major in me, but I think that you shouldnt judge a movie/novel by its cover without giving it due thought and consideration.
That said (and yes, I'll get off my soap box now!) the film was good. There are a very things that I thought were 'lost in translation' as it were:
* Robert Langdon - I wouldnt have picked Tom Hanks. Maybe someone like Harrison Ford. Tom Hanks is a brilliant actor of course (I think if you speak ill of Tom there is this tendency for people to get angry at you!), but I felt like something was missing. I love Robert. He's this one character out of the many many novels I have read that I just adore - right down to the tweed jacket and Mickey Mouse watch (which I did spot when he was in the armoured car with Sophie). I just felt like there needed to be more there.
* I had a problem with Aringarossa - ie, where was he? He seemed to be missing from all the action and I think not enough weight was given to his relationship with Silas. Aringarossa was, as we know, Silas' reason for committing such attrocites.
* Fache - Since when was Fache Opus Dei? He was Catholic, yes.. but Opus Dei. Adds an interesting dimmension, doesn't it? I'm not quite sure I understand why. Any suggestions?
There are more things that were a little off, but what can you expect. I think there was a big need to make this movie a HUGE blockbuster success - Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, Hollywood etc, and that's nothing to be ashamed of or critical of. Ive read Dan Brown interviews where he has said that aspiring writers should be commercial. I think there is this tension between high-brow (Classic novels or low budget films) and low-brow (popular fiction, or hollywood) and I, frankly, think its stupid. DVC needs to be viewed primarily as fiction, as entertainment, as a story.
Wooo.. ok, shut up now! I just love this story so much I could talk about it for hours!
|
Remarkable
enthusiast
Reged: 09/30/05
Posts: 326
|
|
Quote:
I suppose if you want to play semantic games that's true, but tell someone that you're a "Christian" and you'll conjure a pretty clear picture in their minds of someone who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God; Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Unitarian, Jehovah's Witness--on that most basic point all Christian faiths agree.
It's not true that Christians generally believe that Jesus was the son of God i.e. it's not playing semantic games. A survey of Church of England (protestants) clergy last year revealed a significant proportion - 40% - don't believe in the virgin birth. In fact hundreds of them don't even believe in God. This is the *clergy* we're talking about here.
The results of the survey were reported in the Times newspaper.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
