Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
zep73

You don't have a soul

965 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker
5 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

No on both counts. 

The immaculate conception is not the virgin nature of mary when she gave birth to christ   but the belief that Mary herself was conceived without the stain of original sin.

  i dont believe in original sin, and thus don't believe in immaculate conception, but virgin births are "commonplace "  today.

  Artificial insemination allows a woman who is technically a virgin to conceive, and to give birth, without having had sex. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The immaculate conception is not the virgin nature of mary when she gave birth to christ   but the belief that Mary herself was conceived without the stain of original sin.

  i dont believe in original sin, and thus don't believe in immaculate conception, but virgin births are "commonplace "  today.

  Artificial insemination allows a woman who is technically a virgin to conceive, and to give birth, without having had sex. 

Thank you for the unnecessary clarification. I'm well aware what the claim of the immaculate conception entails. 

I'm also aware that virgins can nowadays be impregnated.

I'm not sure why you are trying to clarify the situation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
12 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Thank you for the unnecessary clarification. I'm well aware what the claim of the immaculate conception entails. 

I'm also aware that virgins can nowadays be impregnated.

I'm not sure why you are trying to clarify the situation.

You said you didn't believe in immaculate conception, but sounded as if you actully meant virgin births.

One is"impossible" or a theological position.

 The other  is a fact of modern medicine, not a miracle 

  Just wondered which one you didn't believe in.  

 Imo you are right not to believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, but wrong if you think virgins can't give birth.

  Its even scientifically possible for a true virgin birth to occur naturally in a woman but the chances are over one in a billion. 

quote

So, while it’s possible for a human baby to be born of a virgin mother, it’s very, very unlikely: These two genetic deletions might each have a one in 1 billion chance of occurring, and that’s not counting the calcium spike and division problem required to initiate parthenogenesis in the first place.

Are there any case reports of virgin births in the medical literature? Sort of. According to a 1995 report in the journal Nature Genetics, a mother brought her infant boy to the doctor after noticing that his head was developing abnormally. When doctors analyzed his blood, they found something truly bizarre: Despite his anatomically male features, the boy’s blood cells were entirely female, consisting only of genetic material from his mother. 

 

(Some of his other cells—such as those found in his urine—were normal, consisting of a combination of both maternal and paternal DNA. No one knows exactly how this occurred, but the best guess is that immediately after being fertilized, one of his mother’s eggs fused with a neighboring unfertilized egg that was dividing parthogenetically. This gave rise to a boy who was considered half-parthenogenetic, since approximately half of his cells were derived from a “faux” conception, containing no remnants of his father’s DNA.)

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/12/is-it-possible-for-a-virgin-to-give-birth.html

 

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
7 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You said you didn't believe in immaculate conception, but sounded as if you actully meant virgin births.

One is"impossible" or a theological position.

 The other  is a fact of modern medicine, not a miracle 

  Just wondered which one you didn't believe in.  

 Imo you are right not to believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, but wrong if you think virgins can't give birth 

 

 

I was asked if I believed in Noah's Ark or the immaculate conception of Mary.

I said, "No to both counts."

I don't see where you could possibly think it sounded like I was denying that virgins could give birth. Unless you, for whatever reason, thought I considered Jesus being born to a virgin the Immaculate Conception. 

Either way, I don't know of any evidence that points to artificial insemination occurring two thousand years ago. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
17 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Either way, I don't know of any evidence that points to artificial insemination occurring two thousand years ago.

And it's not the claim for which the phrase virgin birth is the English-language shorthand.

The claim is not about creative uses for turkey basters, but that Jesus had only a non-human father (Nicene Christian) or no father at all (Islam). It is no less "theological" a claim than the Immaculate Conception, and equally refers to a special religious status for Mary ("holy" = dedicated exclusively to God's "use," not for human "use," i.e. "virgin").

FWIW, the Eastern churches not in full communion with Rome agree with Mr Walker that there is no macula, so in that regard Mary is like everybody else: immaculately conceived. Rome apparently felt it needed to have some story what baptism is for, and cleaning up those pesky maculae is the story they came up with. However, Mary never was baptized so far as anybody knows. Rome could have decided to pitch a further story that she was baptiized after all, but then there'd be tons of religious paintings of a nubile naked lady emerging from her bath. That's Mary Magdalene's job.

So: Mary wasn't baptized 'cause she didn't need to be, but you do.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xeno-Fish
On 7/31/2020 at 10:56 PM, jmccr8 said:

I don't like eggplant either do you?

Sinner, sinner!!!!! You shall burn in an every lasting fiery grill...hell....yeah....

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 8/3/2020 at 9:22 AM, XenoFish said:

You shall burn in an every lasting fiery grill

Be careful guys - you are heading down the same path as George Foreman.

 

..boom-tish.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
On 8/2/2020 at 6:35 PM, eight bits said:

And it's not the claim for which the phrase virgin birth is the English-language shorthand.

The claim is not about creative uses for turkey basters, but that Jesus had only a non-human father (Nicene Christian) or no father at all (Islam). It is no less "theological" a claim than the Immaculate Conception, and equally refers to a special religious status for Mary ("holy" = dedicated exclusively to God's "use," not for human "use," i.e. "virgin").

FWIW, the Eastern churches not in full communion with Rome agree with Mr Walker that there is no macula, so in that regard Mary is like everybody else: immaculately conceived. Rome apparently felt it needed to have some story what baptism is for, and cleaning up those pesky maculae is the story they came up with. However, Mary never was baptized so far as anybody knows. Rome could have decided to pitch a further story that she was baptiized after all, but then there'd be tons of religious paintings of a nubile naked lady emerging from her bath. That's Mary Magdalene's job.

So: Mary wasn't baptized 'cause she didn't need to be, but you do.

 

One of the most ubiquitous and beloved images and idols found throughout the Roman Empire was that of Isis and child. Mary became a substitute for that goddess, cherished by, women, their gender's touchstone with the divine.

92af2ec1e81426ad7ed60bffb79a14f0.jpg1200px-Virgin_and_Child_from_the_Sainte-Chapelle.JPG

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 8/3/2020 at 8:05 AM, eight bits said:

And it's not the claim for which the phrase virgin birth is the English-language shorthand.

The claim is not about creative uses for turkey basters, but that Jesus had only a non-human father (Nicene Christian) or no father at all (Islam). It is no less "theological" a claim than the Immaculate Conception, and equally refers to a special religious status for Mary ("holy" = dedicated exclusively to God's "use," not for human "use," i.e. "virgin").

FWIW, the Eastern churches not in full communion with Rome agree with Mr Walker that there is no macula, so in that regard Mary is like everybody else: immaculately conceived. Rome apparently felt it needed to have some story what baptism is for, and cleaning up those pesky maculae is the story they came up with. However, Mary never was baptized so far as anybody knows. Rome could have decided to pitch a further story that she was baptiized after all, but then there'd be tons of religious paintings of a nubile naked lady emerging from her bath. That's Mary Magdalene's job.

So: Mary wasn't baptized 'cause she didn't need to be, but you do.

 

IMO the catholic theology evolved to differentiate Mary, the mother of god, from all other women.

By making her an exception, they cast all other women as sinners and temptresses, and sex as a sinful act.

It was the only way a very misogynistic, patriarchal, and authoritative organisation could argue for the purity of Mary, (required as the mother of christ)  but maintain the especially sinful nature of all other women  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

IMO the catholic theology evolved to differentiate Mary, the mother of god, from all other women.

By making her an exception, they cast all other women as sinners and temptresses, and sex as a sinful act.

It was the only way a very misogynistic, patriarchal, and authoritative organisation could argue for the purity of Mary, (required as the mother of christ)  but maintain the especially sinful nature of all other women 

Recall that the Eastern churches are as old as the Roman church, and that at the time Marian doctrine was developing, the Roman church wasn't especially dominant in the process. It's also instructive, I think, that the Eastern churches don't much villainize Eve, Mary's obvious counterpart in "salvation history."

So far as I can tell, sex wasn't a "sinful act." Early on, when the world was supposed to be ending any day now, reproductive sex was of doubtful status, but after a generation or so, it was good for the church and legally convenient in the Roman world, since the birth religion of a person was to some extent presumed to be legitimate for them. You can't have cradle Christians without sex. So, gents, take a break from sex for fun (boys), and do your duty once in a while ("the first commandment," be fruitful and multiply).

 

9 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

One of the most ubiquitous and beloved images and idols found throughout the Roman Empire was that of Isis and child. Mary became a substitute for that goddess, cherished by, women, their gender's touchstone with the divine.

Good religions borrow; great religions steal.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 8/4/2020 at 8:00 PM, eight bits said:

Recall that the Eastern churches are as old as the Roman church, and that at the time Marian doctrine was developing, the Roman church wasn't especially dominant in the process. It's also instructive, I think, that the Eastern churches don't much villainize Eve, Mary's obvious counterpart in "salvation history."

So far as I can tell, sex wasn't a "sinful act." Early on, when the world was supposed to be ending any day now, reproductive sex was of doubtful status, but after a generation or so, it was good for the church and legally convenient in the Roman world, since the birth religion of a person was to some extent presumed to be legitimate for them. You can't have cradle Christians without sex. So, gents, take a break from sex for fun (boys), and do your duty once in a while ("the first commandment," be fruitful and multiply).

 

Good religions borrow; great religions steal.

Catholic doctrine evolved that all sex was naturally sinful but that it could be lessened if only performed to have children and within  the bonds of marriage  

Celibacy in the church was theologically to lessen the clergy's attachment to /involvement with, sex and thus sin, although it had other practical purposes.

The difference in attitude to Eve between the two groups is interesting and telling. 

Indeed, in my opinion, the doctrine of Eve's sinful sexual temptation of adam to disobey god is non biblical and was introduced for both  practical purposes and  as result of misogynist  culture in the church  (no "me too" movement back then)  Sadly it remains common theology, even in many modern churches, including some protestant ones. 

There was a significant issue of inheritance involved. The church expected most wealthy men (and all clergy)  to leave their lands and money to the church when they died.  Diminishing the power/ authority /status  of women made this much easier, They became property of the man and not easily able to inherit their husband's estate. 

quote

Second and Third Century
Age of Gnosticism: light and spirit are good, darkness and material things are evil. A person cannot be married and be perfect. However, most priests were married.

 

590-604-Pope Gregory the Great said that all sexual desire is sinful in itself (meaning that sexual desire is intrinsically evil?).

https://www.futurechurch.org/brief-history-of-celibacy-in-catholic-church

Obviously as this source illustrates there was a big difference between theory and practice Most priests were married for the first few centuries 

 

306-Council of Elvira, Spain, decree #43: a priest who sleeps with his wife the night before Mass will lose his job.
325-Council of Nicea: decreed that after ordination a priest could not marry. Proclaimed the Nicene Creed.
352-Council of Laodicea: women are not to be ordained. This suggests that before this time there was ordination of women.
385-Pope Siricius left his wife in order to become pope. Decreed that priests may no longer sleep with their wives.

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@Mr Walker

Clerical celibacy is a big topic, and you would seem to agree that its rules and regulations throughout the apostolic succession churches are only tenuously related to the general views of the various churches about sex itself. There's more to family life than sex, everywhere and always.

Obviously, 2000 years is a long time, and many different ideas about all kinds of issues will come and go in that span of generations. In the first and second centuries women weren't necessarily seen as temptresses, but often simply as "weaker vessels," deemed unfit for church leadership roles except the ministry to other women. Even that much misogyny wasn't necessarily universal.

I am also aware from earlier conversations that you entertain a peculiarly sexualized view of the first sin. I read with interest that you now see that that idea isn't "biblical." Beyond that, though, it's a fictional story and a short one, so there's not much to discuss that's on-topic here in this thread.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

You don't have a soul?

like one man said man is not a soul,but is a soul .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 8/8/2020 at 7:33 PM, eight bits said:

@Mr Walker

Clerical celibacy is a big topic, and you would seem to agree that its rules and regulations throughout the apostolic succession churches are only tenuously related to the general views of the various churches about sex itself. There's more to family life than sex, everywhere and always.

Obviously, 2000 years is a long time, and many different ideas about all kinds of issues will come and go in that span of generations. In the first and second centuries women weren't necessarily seen as temptresses, but often simply as "weaker vessels," deemed unfit for church leadership roles except the ministry to other women. Even that much misogyny wasn't necessarily universal.

I am also aware from earlier conversations that you entertain a peculiarly sexualized view of the first sin. I read with interest that you now see that that idea isn't "biblical." Beyond that, though, it's a fictional story and a short one, so there's not much to discuss that's on-topic here in this thread.

Indeed Its almost certain that there were even woman priests in the first few centuries especially in parts of the church with  a celtic heritage.

The situation of women, and the hardening of attitude to them, and thus to marriage of priests, really firmed up from  about 300 AD onwards.

Again, it seems that one motivator was money Too many married priests were leaving considerable wealth to wives and children, rather  than it reverting back to the church on their death  

Nup Ive never seen original  sin as associated  with sex.

However, i have presented that concpet to argue against  it 

The sin was disobedience, and thus separation  from god . Sex was NOT used in the biblical narrative  by eve, to get adam to disobey 

I was raised a bit old fashioned in attitudes as was the norm at the time,  but was never taught  to see sex as bad/evil,  but rather one of the wonders of the human condition.  I was taught that it  was so powerful, ,however, that  it should always be approached with some caution or discretion, and was most appropriate (and safest)  within a loving and committed relationship .

Also when i was born,  and until my mid teens,   there was no reliable contraception, and so sex outside of marriage had many dangers. Plus breach of promise still existed. b******* were a source of shame, and girls went to orphanages to have children conceived out of wedlock, Often they never saw  their child again  after the birth,  and no one outside of the close family knew they had been pregnant Thus, sex was a different social bargaining form then than it is now   and had  a very different value (and cost)  for women.

  The change occurred  in the mid to late sixties, with the introduction of the oral contraceptive. The biggest change i noticed was in the attitude and behaviour of women at the tim, especially young women Freed from the fear of pregnancy their natural sexual impulses could be liberated and they became "normalised"  and more like men.

It was an astounding change, with very real individual and social consequences   from women's liberation to totally new laws and attitudes to sex abortion marriage etc.  It also enabled women's economic and thus financial emancipation,  and  consequently,  their social, economic, and political power to be increased significantly   

One might argue that, for women, these changes allowed a revolutionary growth in their souls, making modern women almost a difernt type of human to those from before the mid 20th century. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
On 8/2/2020 at 3:35 PM, eight bits said:

 Rome could have decided to pitch a further story that she was baptiized after all . . . " 

 

Who cares about what Rome thought. What about what the God of the Hebrews thought. YHWH.  Why get the opinion of someone who merged Hebrew culture, with Roman tradition and idolatry. It does't make any sense!!:mellow:

Edited by larryp
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
On 7/25/2020 at 7:01 PM, ChrLzs said:

It's also an extremely valid approach - to deny bullshiɫ.  So, why don't you grow a set and nominate the BEST evidenced claim from your side?

That should be really easy, surely, if any of it is real...?  And so logical - pick the best, the one thing we cannot possibly deny.

Hey pal, the idea was that if you believe in some of the Bible, you must believe in all of it. You can't cherry-pick what you want to hear. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
On 7/26/2020 at 12:07 AM, XenoFish said:

I sometimes wonder if religious beliefs create brain damage in some people. 

in all of them imo= belief in crap like this is by default brain damaged...

For a laugh I looked upwards shouting abuse & won the lottery..

My friends looked up asking for help & their 12 year old daughter still died in agony.. anyways, what do i know

Edited by Dejarma
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 hour ago, larryp said:

Hey pal, the idea was that if you believe in some of the Bible, you must believe in all of it. You can't cherry-pick what you want to hear. Period.

nope, you've lost me there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
On 8/24/2020 at 10:35 PM, larryp said:

Why get the opinion of someone who merged Hebrew culture, with Roman tradition and idolatry. It does't make any sense!!:mellow:

Do you really think that Hebrew culture is untouched and not just an amalgam of what came before? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
1 hour ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Do you really think that Hebrew culture is untouched and not just an amalgam of what came before? 

Roman Paganism replaced Hebrew culture. If you don't believe me, ask Constantine:

 "... it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul ... Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
2 minutes ago, larryp said:

Roman Paganism replaced Hebrew culture. If you don't believe me, ask Constantine:

 "... it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul ... Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way."

My point is that you disregard the Romanization of hebrewism, but seem to think that hebrewish itself is untouched by other cultures, 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
35 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

My point is that you disregard the Romanization of hebrewism, but seem to think that hebrewish itself is untouched by other cultures, 

It's not that I disregard Rome's influence on the Jew, but rather what YHWH thought about that direction. He told the Jews, repeatedly, don't practice the culture of your neighbors. He told them this until he was blue in the face. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Sometimes I feel like this cat when I drop in on this thread.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
16 minutes ago, larryp said:

It's not that I disregard Rome's influence on the Jew, but rather what YHWH thought about that direction. He told the Jews, repeatedly, don't practice the culture of your neighbors. He told them this until he was blue in the face. 

The other way. Judaism wasn't first. Their god isn't even original. He's a storm god stolen from another culture. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.