Indiana GOP Senate Candidate's Mind-blowing Comment

C

Cackalacky

Guest
Nope. The announcenemnt was that she had been chosen, not that she was pregnant. The conception did not occur until after her knowing consent was given.

In either event, even if you don't believe in God, the story still assumes an all-knowing God. Within the story's internal framework, God would know with absolute certainty what she wanted before it happened. He was not coming in blind, he chose her, of all people, specifically because of her faith. That is the point of the story.

Remember, these people (in the story at least) were waiting for the Messiah. This was not a courtship resulting in some random child. This was God announcing to a faithful Jew that she would be the mother of the Savior of the world. It is the honor of honors.

Luke 1

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

And he came to her and said, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"

But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.

And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, nd he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end."

And Marysaid to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"

And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible."

And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

....

And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is on those who fear him
from generation to generation.[/I]

Once again you are making my point for me. "you will concieve", " and "you shall call his name Jesus".... This is the case and will be with or without consent. and is as much as command as anything else. Whether Mary was enamored and happy is another thing entirely. This has been addressed by BGIF above. To be chosen by God = lack of free will. Mary had no choice. She could not say no. She could have done everything in her power to do otherwise and could not. Becasue God said " you will concieve," betrothed or not.
 
Last edited:

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,976
And Maxine Waters and Andrew Cuomo are stating the views of the modern liberal

Is that supposed to be an insult to liberals? You're attempts to justify this morons statment along with similar statements made by various members if the GOP is pathetic.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
I don't mean this the wrong way, but so after she was chosen she said it was ok. Wouldn't that be similar to a woman being raped and then saying that since it is God's will I am going to carry the baby?

I am not saying that I believe that but your arguement is leaving something to be desired. You are trying to argue a point but more or less making your opponents point.

I think the disconnect here is that y'all are using the term "rape" when what you mean is "unplanned pregnancy". Rape is forced intercourse. Pregnancy occurs with all intercourse. Rape and pregnancy are not synonymous. Plus, God doesn't have genitals, so he can't forcably have intercourse with anyone.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
I think the disconnect here is that y'all are using the term "rape" when what you mean is "unplanned pregnancy". Rape is forced intercourse. Pregnancy occurs with all intercourse. Rape and pregnancy are not synonymous. Plus, God doesn't have genitals, so he can't forcably have intercourse with anyone.

How do you know this? We were made in his image.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
I think the disconnect here is that y'all are using the term "rape" when what you mean is "unplanned pregnancy". Rape is forced intercourse. Pregnancy occurs with all intercourse. Rape and pregnancy are not synonymous. Plus, God doesn't have genitals, so he can't forcably have intercourse with anyone.

And roughly 35-60% of conceptions end in "natural abortions" or "miscarriages."
 
Messages
7,068
Reaction score
410
Good news

1025_IN.png


This is what happens when you kick a great man like Lugar out for a nutjob.
 

Domina Nostra

Well-known member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
1,388
How do you know this? We were made in his image.

The story comes from a certain tradition. The tradition has a concept of God. How can use a quote from that tradition as authority for your point ("we were made in his image") and then ignore what the tradition says about what that concept means. Also, if you believe in thre premises of evolution, its readily apparent that body parts have purposes. If God existed before creation, what was he doing with reproductive organs? What were they for? He didn't use them to create.

Gen. 1-3 "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return."


Gen. 1 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

2 Chron. 2 "But who is able to build Him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain Him?"

John 24: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Luke: 24: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Col. 1 "[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;"
 
Last edited:
C

Cackalacky

Guest
The story comes from a certain tradition. The tradition has a concept of God. How can use a quote from that tradition as authority for your point ("we were made in his image") and then ignore what the tradition says about what that concept means. Also, if you believe in thre premises of evolution, its readily apparent that body parts have purposes. If God existed before creation, what was he doing with reproductive organs? What were they for? He didn't use them to create.

Gen. 1-3 "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return."


Gen. 1 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

2 Chron. 2 "But who is able to build Him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain Him?"

John 24: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Luke: 24: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Col. 1 "[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;"

So he does have genitals bt is also ethereal. Thanks for the bible quotes supporting me again. .... Smh. Are you arguing against me or for me?
 

Domina Nostra

Well-known member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
1,388
And roughly 35-60% of conceptions end in "natural abortions" or "miscarriages."

Is the commandment "thou shalt not murder" undermined by the fact that people die of diseases? Of course not.

Religious commandments like "Thou shalt not kill" are understood as divine limitations of human actions. Their point is to draw boundaries around human activity. In "you shalt not murder," God tells us that we are forbidden to destroy innocent life. The reasons for this can be extrappolated. Mock it all you will, but NO ONE ON EARTH argues that it is not generally a bedrock principal for any functioning society. There is not a single sciety that argues that murder should be legal; the disagreement is all around the edges: who is innocent, what is an intentional killing, does the state have the same limitations as a individual, who is a person (slaves? fetuses? indiginent peoples) etc.

If Murdoch wanted to be non-controversial Christian tradition he could have said "I have come to believe that God loves life and intends that we always protect innocent life." However, when you start talking about God's intentions in the face of horrible crimes, the tradition is generally much more humble and does not pretend to understand:

Job.40

1] And the LORD said to Job:
[2] "Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
He who argues with God, let him answer it."
[3] Then Job answered the LORD:
[4] "Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer thee?
I lay my hand on my mouth.
[5] I have spoken once, and I will not answer;
twice, but I will proceed no further."
[6] Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind:
[7] "Gird up your loins like a man;
I will question you, and you declare to me.
[8] Will you even put me in the wrong?
Will you condemn me that you may be justified?
[9] Have you an arm like God,
and can you thunder with a voice like his?
[10] "Deck yourself with majesty and dignity;
clothe yourself with glory and splendor.
[11] Pour forth the overflowings of your anger,
and look on every one that is proud, and abase him.
[12] Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low;
and tread down the wicked where they stand.
[13] Hide them all in the dust together;
bind their faces in the world below.
[14] Then will I also acknowledge to you,
that your own right hand can give you victory.
[15] "Behold, Be'hemoth,
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
[16] Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
[17] He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
[18] His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron.
[19] "He is the first of the works of God;
let him who made him bring near his sword!
[20] For the mountains yield food for him
where all the wild beasts play.
[21] Under the lotus plants he lies,
in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh.
[22] For his shade the lotus trees cover him;
the willows of the brook surround him.
[23] Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened;
he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth.
[24] Can one take him with hooks,
or pierce his nose with a snare?
 
Last edited:

Jason Pham

Administrator
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
320
How do you know this? We were made in his image.

You throw out these phrases as if you were knowledgeable on these terms of art but then use them in the most facile and unartful ways. I find the "theology" discussion in this thread so oversimplified and filled with strawmen suppositions that either I should feel insulted that you think I ought to think these are well-informed, cogent arguments or you ought to feel insulted because I think you think these are well-informed, cogent arguments.

Being made in the image of God does not mean that God is made in the image of human biology.

The free will discussion in this thread is flawed in its assumption that God is limited to our conception of space and time and that God could not contain within God's self every choice we might make.

The paradox between all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful falls upon the question of what is good. Not saving you from your driving off a bridge does not necessitate God's powerlessness but is consistent with the idea that your free will is a grace God chooses not to interrupt.
 

Domina Nostra

Well-known member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
1,388
So he does have genitals bt is also ethereal. Thanks for the bible quotes supporting me again. .... Smh. Are you arguing against me or for me?

Your whole argument is that if the Bible says X is made "in the image of" Y, and X has genitals, then Y necessarily has genitals too. Pretty powerful stuff! The only way it could possible be undone is if the term "in the image of" means something other than reproducing organ for organ. In Blade Runner, for example, the androids were made in the image of their creator in the sense that they had reason, will, emotions. The movie never really bothered to unviel their genitals. I wonder why? Its almost as if that wasn't the point...

You are spitting out a bunch of nonsense, and I am providing some of my Christian friends some quick Bible quotes to the contrary.
 
Last edited:

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,569
Reaction score
20,019
Yeah... the OP is one of the worst examples selective quoting I may have ever seen... almost as bad as the "you didn't build that" hack job Republicans did on that one Obama clip.

Frankly, you can disagree with him all you want, but there is nothing logically incorrect with his statement "life begins at conception, I don't believe in ending an innocent persons life, therefor you shouldn't have an abortion"... I mean I personally disagree with it on some levels, but it's not even close to "crazy" or "mind blowing".

He's not the first politician to say this.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Well I can see this is going no where fast. My intent was to examine this politician's statement of God's will and intent with regard to abortions. No one answered the question about original sin and if a baby was guilty. Domina replied to the natural abortions or miscarriages statement by completely evading the notion that God could have intended for that zygote to be aborted by the body even providing a mechanism for it to abort naturally. etc...

Needless to say, and irrespective of theological intepretations, what I got was less than illuminating. I asked simple questions (maybe uncomfortable for some) to keep things simple, to move forward in a simple and logical manner. I recieved the complete opposite. Lesson learned.
 

Jason Pham

Administrator
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
320
Well I can see this is going no where fast. My intent was to examine this politician's statement of God's will and intent with regard to abortions. No one answered the question about original sin and if a baby was guilty. Domina replied to the natural abortions or miscarriages statement by completely evading the notion that God could have intended for that zygote to be aborted by the body even providing a mechanism for it to abort naturally. etc...

Needless to say, and irrespective of theological intepretations, what I got was less than illuminating. I asked simple questions (maybe uncomfortable for some) to keep things simple, to move forward in a simple and logical manner. I recieved the complete opposite. Lesson learned.

I think most of us agree that the politician was either inarticulate or stupid, or both. But that's not where this conversation was headed and I know you to be a smarter person than to think that your simple treatment of the topic would foster the sort of meaningful answers and discussion you claim to want.
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
1,920
God is omnipotent. Therefore He could or could not have genitals. Also, he could or could not have raped Mary. Really, the version of the conception of Christ that I find to be most likely is that it was a creative way to account for an unplanned pregnancy made out of wedlock. It's impossible to tell, but you can't argue that it was a rape based on the biblical accounts (though it's equally or more absurd to argue that God couldn't have raped her).

The Christian God is, by definition, omipotent, omniscient and good. This has always been, to me, the third strongest argument against the existence of God as He is described in Christian mythology. It does not take much time in the world to wonder if goodness and omnipotence are, in fact, mutually exclusive.

Which brings me to the topic of this thread. I actually admire Indiana GOP Senate Candidate Mourdock for sticking by his convictions- if you believe abortion is murder and that murder must be illegal because it is abhorent to God and your sense of morality, then abortion should be illegal. Period. Nothing follows. Any hand wringing about rape and "mother's life" has always struck me as inconsistent to the extreme.

Of course, my opinion differs- radically- from Candidate Mourdock. I don't believe that our law should be derived from individual morality or divine providence. I believe our laws should be carefully calibrated to provide an optimal balance of social order and individual freedom. As I fail to see how social order is improved by criminalizing abortions, I believe that the morality of the decision should be left to individuals. If Candidate Mourdock has a daughter and she is ever- God forbid- raped, I hope that she will have the choice to carry the child or not based on her own private moral, emotional, and practical calculations.
 
Last edited:

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
1,920
And with that, the size of God's penis forever remained a mystery on IrishEnvy.

THE END

Obviously, God's penis can be as big or small or existant or non-existant as God wants*. You were all right, in a way.




*God's will being dependant on the existance of an omnipotent God, which seems impossible to confirm or deny.
 

Emcee77

latress on the men-jay
Messages
7,295
Reaction score
555
Which brings me to the topic of this thread. I actually admire Indiana GOP Senate Candidate Mourdock for sticking by his convictions- if you believe abortion is murder and that murder must be illegal because it is abhorent to God and your sense of morality, then abortion should be illegal. Period. Nothing follows. Any hand wringing about rape and "mother's life" has always struck me as inconsistent to the extreme.

Of course, my opinion differs- radically- from Candidate Mourdock. I don't believe that our law should be derived from individual morality or divine providence. I believe our laws should be carefully calibrated to provide an optimal balance of social order and individual freedom. As I fail to see how social order is improved by criminalizing abortions, I believe that the morality of the decision should be left to individuals. If Candidate Mourdock has a daughter and she is ever- God forbid- raped, I hope that she will have the choice to carry the child or not based on her own private moral, emotional, and practical calculations.

Could not agree more with this. If you believe that abortion is wrong because life begins at conception, why should there be any exception for rape? The circumstances are horrible, but the child is no less an innocent child because it was conceived in rape. The debate over exceptions for rape or the life of the mother only show that the hard-line pro-life position is bad policy.
 
Last edited:

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
1,920
IrishinSyria, are you really in Syria? Is that safe?

Not there anymore, but I was living in Damascus back when I joined this site. Was my only way of getting my Irish fix. Was safe then, not so much now. Though in a few weeks I could be IrishinAfghanistan, so safe is obviously not a top priority.
 

Anchorman

New member
Messages
658
Reaction score
60
No way... he went from 85% to 40% based on that quote? For serious? That's downright insane.

I *think* its talking about chance of winning rather than voting results, IE he went from almost definitely winning to the underdog. I could be wrong.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
...

Which brings me to the topic of this thread. I actually admire Indiana GOP Senate Candidate Mourdock for sticking by his convictions- if you believe abortion is murder and that murder must be illegal because it is abhorent to God and your sense of morality, then abortion should be illegal. Period. Nothing follows. Any hand wringing about rape and "mother's life" has always struck me as inconsistent to the extreme.

Of course, my opinion differs- radically- from Candidate Mourdock. I don't believe that our law should be derived from individual morality or divine providence. I believe our laws should be carefully calibrated to provide an optimal balance of social order and individual freedom. As I fail to see how social order is improved by criminalizing abortions, I believe that the morality of the decision should be left to individuals. If Candidate Mourdock has a daughter and she is ever- God forbid- raped, I hope that she will have the choice to carry the child or not based on her own private moral, emotional, and practical calculations.

Could not agree more with this. If you believe that abortion is wrong because life begins at conception, why should there be any exception for rape? The circumstances are horrible, but the child is no less an innocent child because it was conceived in rape. The debate over exceptions for rape or the life of the mother only show that the hard-line pro-life position is bad policy.

I've struggled with the abortion question throughout my adult life. It's a very personal decision in my mind. Between you and your god. I don't accept it as a means of birth control. I respect Mourdock's religious conviction but do not agree that anyone's religious perspective should become the law of the land. If that is the case, Sharia Law has a future in the USA.

If one believes that life begins at fertilization and termination is murder than termination for any reason is murder. There is no exception possible.

A lot of years ago my mother was about to deliver my brother, the last of her 5 children. Her OBGYN had advised an abortion due to her advanced age. Roe v Wade was way down the road. My parents had discussed it in detail and followed the Church's position. Many years later as adults, my mom told us the story. As she was being wheeled to the Delivery Room my father took the OBGYN's arm and passionately noted, he had 4 children. He would rue the loss of the 5th but the 4 children needed a mother. If there was problem he beseeched the doctor to save the mother's life and terminate the unborn infant. The doctor nodded. Once in the delivery room my mother took out a typed notarized statement stating her clear choice that if the doctor had to make a choice between mother and child, he was to save the newborn at the expense of the mother. She refused any medical procedures until the doctor signed the document agreeing to her choice and the rest of the delivery team did the same.

Two fervent Catholics deeply in love with each other and with their children, born and unborn, yet with diverging perspectives. They respected the Churches position to the point where each did what they believed was in the best interest for all the lives involved.

I don't see that dilemma any easier today regardless of Supreme Court decisions, political party platforms, or encyclicals.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,959
Reaction score
6,451
Finally opened this thread and wish I hadn't. The politics here is what it is; the commenter candidate can be interpreted anyway ones bias takes you, but at the minimum he comes across as crudely insensitive. That alone might be good cause for not having such an individual in leadership positions.

It's really the "theology" of this thread which is appalling. Now I will admit that anyone can be forgiven for not having made a real study of theology, but in these cases they should at least not be making strong opinionated statements. That is particularly true when that person knows that those statements are offensive to many other persons' religious beliefs. By doing so, the opinion-maker is doing the same crude insensitivity that the candidate has done, but probably more consciously.

No theologian takes the "Mary was Raped" argument as a position of seriousness. Very long ago, the Church philosophers set down the following views as clear dogma:
1). The "impregnation" was voluntary. Mary could have refused. She was the right candidate for the task, but she was not required by a freewill-respecting God to take on that task. It is just as we are faced with our own moral tasks, and may or may not choose to do them;
2). The "impregnation" was not physical intercourse. This was not like some Greco-Roman myth of Zeus gamboling about the Earth raping [yes, the proper word in his cases] our beautiful girls, and fathering "heroes". Catholic theology states that the conception occurred by the "breath" of the Holy Spirit directly into Mary's womb --- a paranormal event which did not occur until after Mary consented to "not my will but Thine be done". This "breath" was a Spiritual reality, based not on physical matter but on something akin to "Grace".
3). But how could such happen without the physical? In a way it's none of our business, but in fact we know quite a bit about how something like this could happen. The Hebrew name for a young woman-virgin is "Alma" and in Greek that is translated "Parthenos". In biology there are several species which occasionally or even regularly produce "parthenogenic births", that is the reproduction of an individual without the "benefit" of a male. This is possible because all cells have all the DNA necessary to replicate an individual of that species. Most cells are locked into only certain areas of physical expression, but some less so. If these more generic cells become potentiated in their division, and are fortuitously placed in a fertile "birthing" area, they might proceed to develop an entire individual.
4). Jesus did not occur this way. All parthenogenic births are clones of the bearer, and therefore all cloned female. But the fact of parthenogenesis shows that physical intrusion from outside [intercourse, voluntary or not] is not required for potentiating the birth process. What then happened? The "Breath"/Grace of the Holy Spirit "immediately" altered the genetics of one of Mary's properly-placed cells [the easiest biologically would be a pre-chromosome-separating egg] and at the minimum paranormally-altered one chromosome [ an "X"] to become a "Y". The Church philosophers of old don't speak in these terms of course; this is just adding the known science to the Theology without distorting either. Something like this [rather than creating a whole embryo out of nothing] should have occurred so that Jesus could have physically been Mary's son, and thereby the "Son of (Wo)Man".
5). Church philosophers even went so far as to say that the birth itself was paranormal NOT INVOLVING PHYSICAL PASSAGE through the birth canal, such that Mary retained her virginity in even that physical sign. This is a doctrine which even most Catholics do not know.

On the separate note of we humans being "made in God's Image": this too is Stone Age in the way persons who do not study theology think about things. The concept that God exists looking physically like a Homo Sapiens is not taken seriously by any thinker other than regressives who are trying to hold onto primitive arguments of "we are physically special". Modern theology views the "made in God's Image" phrase as referring to how our SOUL is made, not our body. We are "made in God's image" in that we are fully conscious of our acts and the consequences of acting one way or the other. We therefore must choose right vs wrong, and must have the freedom [like only God has] to do so.

To explain the entirety of theology is beyond my abilities and this site's storage, so I'll quit with this: many of the comments in the thread were very like trolling. Well, trolling can be "good clean fun" if both parties are voluntarily enjoying the repartee. If one person is just pursuing fun at the expense of others and "sticking it to them", it's a little like.... well....
 

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
Finally opened this thread and wish I hadn't. The politics here is what it is; the commenter candidate can be interpreted anyway ones bias takes you, but at the minimum he comes across as crudely insensitive. That alone might be good cause for not having such an individual in leadership positions.

It's really the "theology" of this thread which is appalling. Now I will admit that anyone can be forgiven for not having made a real study of theology, but in these cases they should at least not be making strong opinionated statements. That is particularly true when that person knows that those statements are offensive to many other persons' religious beliefs. By doing so, the opinion-maker is doing the same crude insensitivity that the candidate has done, but probably more consciously.

No theologian takes the "Mary was Raped" argument as a position of seriousness. Very long ago, the Church philosophers set down the following views as clear dogma:
1). The "impregnation" was voluntary. Mary could have refused. She was the right candidate for the task, but she was not required by a freewill-respecting God to take on that task. It is just as we are faced with our own moral tasks, and may or may not choose to do them;
2). The "impregnation" was not physical intercourse. This was not like some Greco-Roman myth of Zeus gamboling about the Earth raping [yes, the proper word in his cases] our beautiful girls, and fathering "heroes". Catholic theology states that the conception occurred by the "breath" of the Holy Spirit directly into Mary's womb --- a paranormal event which did not occur until after Mary consented to "not my will but Thine be done". This "breath" was a Spiritual reality, based not on physical matter but on something akin to "Grace".
3). But how could such happen without the physical? In a way it's none of our business, but in fact we know quite a bit about how something like this could happen. The Hebrew name for a young woman-virgin is "Alma" and in Greek that is translated "Parthenos". In biology there are several species which occasionally or even regularly produce "parthenogenic births", that is the reproduction of an individual without the "benefit" of a male. This is possible because all cells have all the DNA necessary to replicate an individual of that species. Most cells are locked into only certain areas of physical expression, but some less so. If these more generic cells become potentiated in their division, and are fortuitously placed in a fertile "birthing" area, they might proceed to develop an entire individual.
4). Jesus did not occur this way. All parthenogenic births are clones of the bearer, and therefore all cloned female. But the fact of parthenogenesis shows that physical intrusion from outside [intercourse, voluntary or not] is not required for potentiating the birth process. What then happened? The "Breath"/Grace of the Holy Spirit "immediately" altered the genetics of one of Mary's properly-placed cells [the easiest biologically would be a pre-chromosome-separating egg] and at the minimum paranormally-altered one chromosome [ an "X"] to become a "Y". The Church philosophers of old don't speak in these terms of course; this is just adding the known science to the Theology without distorting either. Something like this [rather than creating a whole embryo out of nothing] should have occurred so that Jesus could have physically been Mary's son, and thereby the "Son of (Wo)Man".
5). Church philosophers even went so far as to say that the birth itself was paranormal NOT INVOLVING PHYSICAL PASSAGE through the birth canal, such that Mary retained her virginity in even that physical sign. This is a doctrine which even most Catholics do not know.

On the separate note of we humans being "made in God's Image": this too is Stone Age in the way persons who do not study theology think about things. The concept that God exists looking physically like a Homo Sapiens is not taken seriously by any thinker other than regressives who are trying to hold onto primitive arguments of "we are physically special". Modern theology views the "made in God's Image" phrase as referring to how our SOUL is made, not our body. We are "made in God's image" in that we are fully conscious of our acts and the consequences of acting one way or the other. We therefore must choose right vs wrong, and must have the freedom [like only God has] to do so.

To explain the entirety of theology is beyond my abilities and this site's storage, so I'll quit with this: many of the comments in the thread were very like trolling. Well, trolling can be "good clean fun" if both parties are voluntarily enjoying the repartee. If one person is just pursuing fun at the expense of others and "sticking it to them", it's a little like.... well....

Great stuff, Mike.

And I agree with the sentence in your last paragraph that I bolded. But, I would very much appreciate it if you would elaborate a bit more on the paragraph above that that I bolded. I agree, for the most part, with what you said there. Our "bodies" are merely vessels for our spirits in this world. After all, we "lose," for lack of a better term, our bodies and it is our spiritual being that can continue on eternally. As our God told us, "I am the God of the Living." Anyway, due to abnormalities and deformities in the physical body, couldn't one argue that some humans are not fully conscious of their acts nor of the consequences of acting one way or another. Obviously, if they are God's child, he or she can act in the manner He created him or her, but would your claim be inconsistent? I'm just curious about your take on that, theologically speaking.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,959
Reaction score
6,451
To the Hog: Your insightful comment upon the requirement of "fully conscious [with consequent conscience and true ability to exercise free will]" is at the heart of much truly serious moral theology, and has been debated by Church philosophers over the centuries. The consensus reduces to two rather different stances:

1). As to the real situation of a human brain/body NOT able to make truly aware freewill choices, in such circumstances there is NO moral "burden" any more than there would be for an animal, no matter how horrendous an action might be. For there to be immorality, "Sin", there must be higher consciousness and the ability to choose. {In my opinion --- this following remark is NOT Church doctrine by a long shot --- it is THIS which is meant by "original sin", not some actual guilty inherited blemish on our souls. We entered the "state of original sin" because of our advancement by God to be truly human, i.e. an ability to Sin or not, and not because we are just bad from the start. We in fact should praise the Lord for being allowed to be in such a state capable of free choice, or we'd be just fancy automatons. But this is an Old Professor speaking, not the Vatican now.} But, to get past my "heresy", conscious awareness of consequences and ability to exercise choice in such matters is required for moral choice.

2). However, having said that, almost all moral philosophers also say that it is a very dangerous behavior for any of us "outside-the-skull" of the individual being assessed to casually judge the ability of that individual to meet those criteria in any meaningful way. This dilemma is of course the dilemma of "just punishment for ones acts" whether one is speaking culturally or legally. It is the foundation of the "insanity" defense, for one concrete example. It is also the dilemma, or can be, in the sorts of issues involving human life. It can arise both in moral evaluation of abortion decisions and in euthanasia decisions. Biological science clearly can indicate when a brain is so dysfunctional that no such moral decision-making is possible, and these situations slide gradually toward the situations where a brain/mind clearly CAN do so. Moral theology would then argue about whether there is any validity in the position that if the brain/mind is beyond moral choice, then there is/is not moral consideration in the act of deliberately terminating that life. As our ability to judge such inner ability of a brain/mind is poor, most courts would scientifically punt on the issue, and most religions "play-it-safe" and forbid.

2a). Nevertheless, some thinking on these issues say that all such decisions rest on "gray" issues and not Black/White, and that this is in fact "normal" for we humans, as gray-area decision-making is what we are almost always dealing with. Plus, the functionality of the brain is almost never the only morality-loaded element in play --- an analogy would be anything from a decision to shoot a home-invader to a "just war" to a woman likely dying if a pregnancy is not terminated "now". And then there are an uncountable number of shades of choices right down to vicarious killing for pleasure.

You brought up the Downs Syndrome issue in your PM. Downs is easily detectible pre-birth and therefore gets involved with abortion decisions, like it or not. It is a HUGE challenge. The vast majority of Trisomy-21s are so severely blasted developmentally by the extra chromosome they they don't even make it through pregnancy let alone the first few months of life. But some do. And Gloriously so. Because there is no way to tell pre-the-birth if you are 1% lucky, a conservative decision is the most moral under most circumstances. Other trisomies ["13" and "18"] are scientifically MUCH clearer. There are NO biologically nor mentally healthy trisomy 13 or 18s. If it was a risky pregnancy, not giving full developmental womb enablement to a human body which would not live a year [likely] and having no normal brain nor bodily chance for anything near normalcy, presents an entirely different basis for choices.

I have to stop. This could go on forever....
 
Last edited:
Top