The Unforgiveable Sin

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinity,

You're absolutely right, you do have a question for me. The use of the word "why" and the question mark are both tip offs. I must say I appreciate your attempt at interjecting humor into what could be a very contentious situation.

Keep it up, that's good work.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I would appreciate an answer though.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinty,

Sorry, I was going 40-60 that you were serious and obviously I got the odds wrong.

The problems here are the definitions of the words "adultery" and "impregnate." By using inappropriate definitions we can come up with all sorts of strange results.

Remember the story about how the Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? Sure, you do. Speaking with tongues, that sort of thing. Well, one definition of "impregnate" is:

Medical Definition of IMPREGNATE

1 a : to make pregnant b : to introduce sperm into : fertilize


2 : to cause to be filled, imbued, permeated, or saturated

www.merriam-webster.com...

So, using definition 2, I suppose you could say that God impregnated the Apostles at Pentecost. That leads to all sorts of interesting ideas when you remember they were men. But tittering and giggling aside, the definition is what matters.

Besides, we don't know how Mary became pregnant. Was there sperm involved? Was the foetus created inside her? Was a giant phallus created out of thin air which did the job?

How about adultery?

Legal definitions of adultery vary. For example, New York defines an adulterer as a person who "engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse." North Carolina defines adultery as occurring when any man and woman "lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed, and cohabit together." Minnesota law provides: "when a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery." In the 2003 New Hampshire Supreme Court case Blanchflower v. Blanchflower, it was held that female same-sex sexual relations did not constitute sexual intercourse, based on a 1961 definition from Webster's Third New International Dictionary; and thereby an accused wife in a divorce case was found not guilty of adultery.

en.wikipedia.org...

The more specific we get when we talk about adultery and impregnating, the sillier it seems to think that's what happened in Mary's case.

If you'd like to reconsider the words you're using, I'll have an easier time coming up with an answer.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Thank you for the instructive reply. Mary delivered a child from her womb. Pregnancy is obviously a given. "God" supposedly caused this pregnancy to happen. Thus, it can be said that he impregnated her - it doesn't matter how.

As for the adultery - sexual intercourse did not happen. According to scripture, it was an immaculate conception. However: should a woman choose to undergo artificial insemination without her spouse's knowledge or consent, is this considered cheating?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinity,

Very nice questions. I'm impressed by your novel approach to the idea of talking it over with Joseph. (Well, it's novel to me.)

I hope you don't mind if I appear nitpicky in this, but I just can't help myself. The Immaculate Conception is the idea that Mary started out pure and sinless, no Original Sin. She was prepared from her conception to be the Mother of God. The Virgin Birth is the idea that Mary gave birth to Jesus without any "hanky-panky," so to speak.

I may be objecting where there is no reason to, but you're not talking to a scholar, teacher, or minister here. As my mini-profile says, I'm "Just a guy." I'm not even sure I can explain my own feeling. "Artificial Insemination," "Impregnate," "Adultery," all convey images in my mind that are very human, natural, physical. I wonder if it was really like that.

Remember the business about turning water into wine? Amazing, yeah, sure. But consider. Wasn't Jesus simply speeding up the natural processes, cutting out the middleman? Water goes into the earth, is drawn into the vine, fills the grape, comes out as juice, ferments into wine, all perfectly natural. It's almost as if Jesus turns to the end of the book.

I think that happened to Mary. God turned her from a young, innocent (indeed, holy) young woman into the soon-to-be Mother of His Son. The steps between happened the same way the water was turned to wine. I don't think God created a sperm cell and slipped it under Mary's dress. (And I don't think you do either)

As far as telling Joseph beforehand goes, why? Mary has accepted God's plan. Nothing Joseph can say is going to change that. If Joseph can't take it, he's free to walk. In fact, he almost does walk, until the angel explains things and calms him down.

I wish I could be face-to-face, so I could tell if I was saying anything useful to you. I suppose all I can do is hope, and await your response.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

I hope you don't mind if I appear nitpicky in this, but I just can't help myself. The Immaculate Conception is the idea that Mary started out pure and sinless, no Original Sin. She was prepared from her conception to be the Mother of God. The Virgin Birth is the idea that Mary gave birth to Jesus without any "hanky-panky," so to speak.

Do you have any scripture to support her "destined" role in this?

As far as telling Joseph beforehand goes, why? Mary has accepted God's plan. Nothing Joseph can say is going to change that. If Joseph can't take it, he's free to walk. In fact, he almost does walk, until the angel explains things and calms him down.

Had she said no, would he have listened?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinty,

I have the impression that you're playing with me. Yes, of course, I could be wrong, but I have other things to do than walk into set-ups.

I hope you don't mind if I appear nitpicky in this, but I just can't help myself. The Immaculate Conception is the idea that Mary started out pure and sinless, no Original Sin. She was prepared from her conception to be the Mother of God. The Virgin Birth is the idea that Mary gave birth to Jesus without any "hanky-panky," so to speak.

Do you have any scripture to support her "destined" role in this?

What? You misused the term Immaculate Conception. I explained it's meaning. Why do I have to go to scripture to defend or support anything? I was defining a phrase, not a dogma.

If supporting things from scripture is important to you, may I assume that you are a believer in the Bible, a Protestant of some denomination?

Had she said no, would he have listened?

Again, please clarify. If she had refused to be Jesus' mother, would the Angel have listened? Joseph? God?

And listened to what?

I'm lost.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I am not entirely convinced that "God" actually cared about her consent.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinity,

Ok, but I don't think God wants to take away our free will and treat us like robots. So, we've got different takes. Have we resolved the question of the Unforgivable Sin?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Ok, but I don't think God wants to take away our free will and treat us like robots. So, we've got different takes. Have we resolved the question of the Unforgivable Sin?

Then why punish us for our mistakes? If we have been given the opportunity and the inclination by divine powers, then those powers should not take it upon themselves to punish us for something they instigated and foresaw. Unless, of course, they are not nearly as powerful as they claim to be - which would then suggest that at least partial control falls to us, which puts us on somewhat equal footing with our divine masters, correct? That would make us the other equally potent half of the equation. But we can't have that idea floating around. Hell no. What would we do with that kind of responsibility?

And no, we have not. As you have stated, you have no particular investment and therefore I have no reason to question you further. Unless you believe you have information that might answer my question?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by charles1952

 

Ok, but I don't think God wants to take away our free will and treat us like robots. So, we've got different takes. Have we resolved the question of the Unforgivable Sin?

Then why punish us for our mistakes? If we have been given the opportunity and the inclination by divine powers, then those powers should not take it upon themselves to punish us for something they instigated and foresaw. Unless, of course, they are not nearly as powerful as they claim to be - which would then suggest that at least partial control falls to us, which puts us on somewhat equal footing with our divine masters, correct? That would make us the other equally potent half of the equation. But we can't have that idea floating around. Hell no. What would we do with that kind of responsibility?

And no, we have not. As you have stated, you have no particular investment and therefore I have no reason to question you further. Unless you believe you have information that might answer my question.

If the immaculate conception was a cleansing of our bodily sins (of being gross matter) as AI says why are we still being punished for being born of 'matter'. The water breaking was to babtise double triple as well, who and what turned this obvious iconograpy inside out? Charles, birth is not a metaphysical confabulation, its real it produces beings. An idea of the immaculate conception is a METAPHOR; an idea NOT REAL.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Dear AfterInfinity,

Ok, but I don't think God wants to take away our free will and treat us like robots. So, we've got different takes. Have we resolved the question of the Unforgivable Sin?With respect,
Charles1952

There is no unforgiveable sin, all Sins can be forgiven. It was never God that took free will away, bestowed it and it wasnt God that restored it. We did ourselves as thinking beings constructed paradyms or boundries to identify what we were missing and innacted a new idea, we create (has to be massive similar and contiguous) through using the ether; thoughtforms that Will manifest. This is why it is so central to not be negative in thinking. Look at the Middle East and what its thoughtforms are doing to itself its inhabitants.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinty,

I have the impression that you're playing with me. Yes, of course, I could be wrong, but I have other things to do than walk into set-ups.

I hope you don't mind if I appear nitpicky in this, but I just can't help myself. The Immaculate Conception is the idea that Mary started out pure and sinless, no Original Sin. She was prepared from her conception to be the Mother of God. The Virgin Birth is the idea that Mary gave birth to Jesus without any "hanky-panky," so to speak.

Charles, there is no denighing that Mary was a Virginal Child of 13 sold to Joseph (a 40 something widower with 5 other children). If you can call this a metaphor for immaculate conception I would call this the lie of the centuries, who impregnated Mary? Davids bloodlines lie with Mary, Joseph is nonconsequencial (Mary could have been one of a sheep fold). Why is Joseph so important to the story, they never had a conjugal relationship or produced any children. Was he just the halter rope bearer? Jesus never accepted him as his father and to my mind was not kind to him his STEPFATHER. Jesus never knew the circumstances of his birth did he in any scripture written ASK THE SIMPLE QUESTION, who impregnated my mother? How did Joseph deal with the fact his wife/child of 13 committed adultery, remained a virgin throughout and gave birth to someone elses child. Jewish tradition? stone her and the unborn. If you could possibly ANYone make sense of this Im all ears. NONE OF IT MAKES SENSE. If this is all metaphor for something, (unnatural birth) then everything ALL material stories regarding natural birth are heaved into the trash can. Why use one for another. Why not just say "this immaculate thing is a fairy story" to help you get through your lives with hope of a better destiny?

Why treat us as children NOW, and create a fabricated story, (In a MATERAL LITERAL way), when it could all be told as this sort of truth, a Story Metaphor that has some ideology from the past true BUT deniably not true. Put the pagan back into the God Story, stop the glossing over of and borrowing from. TELL THE TRUTH if you know it and stop making it up, changing it as time progresses.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Dear vethumanbeing,

There's apparently a bit of confusion over "Immaculate Conception." That's the idea that, when Mary was born, she was born without Original Sin and was filled with a Grace that never left her.

Charles, there is no denighing that Mary was a Virginal Child of 13

I'm not sure of the age, but I'll accept it.

sold to Joseph (a 40 something widower with 5 other children).

I have no idea whether any of that is true. Please provide a source, you present more detail than I have ever heard.

The idea that Joseph was of no account is wildly wrong. He was essential.

They both did. At the end of the Book of Numbers an interesting loophole emerged. A man died without a son, leaving 4 daughters. They came to Moses complaining that they would lose the family land since there was no son to inherit it. Moses sought the Lord Who decreed that if there was no son in a family daughters could inherit family land providing they married within their own tribal clan. In effect they had to marry a cousin to keep the land in the "family." This made sense since land was allotted first by tribe then by clan then by family. Marrying within the clan kept the families in close proximity and preserved the tribal allotment. (Num. 36 1:13)

Now compare the 2 genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38, and you'll discover that Mary and Joseph were both of the tribe of Judah and descendants of David. Joseph descended through Solomon, the royal but cursed line, while Mary's line was through Solomon's brother Nathan.

Here's the tricky part. Mary had no brothers, and so was entitled to inherit her family's land as long as she married someone also descended from David. Joseph fit the bill and being in the royal line had a claim to the throne, but carried the blood curse. No biological son of his could ever legally qualify as Israel's king, but Joseph could secure Mary's right of inheritance.

When Mary accepted Joseph's offer of marriage she preserved her family's land and also made good her son's claim to the throne of Israel. Jesus was in the royal succession through Joseph but escaped the curse since he wasn't Joseph's biological son. But He was a biological descendant of David's through his mother and therefore of the "house and lineage of David."

Jesus never accepted him as his father and to my mind was not kind to him his STEPFATHER. Jesus never knew the circumstances of his birth did he in any scripture written ASK THE SIMPLE QUESTION, who impregnated my mother?

In what biography of anyone do you find writing about the child asking "who impregnated my mother?" It's not in the Scripture, because no normal person would expect to find it in the Scripture.

I don't consider this to be a metaphor, because it's not written like any other metaphor in the Bible. If you want me to continue discussing your post, I will, but I suspect you're not really "all ears." Let's see how you react to what I've offered so far.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by vethumanbeing


Playing with you? I wasn't even talking to you. You should get your posts straight otherwise people might suspect your faculties aren't at full processing speed and are therefore unreliable.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Dear vethumanbeing,

There's apparently a bit of confusion over "Immaculate Conception." That's the idea that, when Mary was born, she was born without Original Sin and was filled with a Grace that never left her.

Charles, there is no denighing that Mary was a Virginal Child of 13

I'm not sure of the age, but I'll accept it.

sold to Joseph (a 40 something widower with 5 other children).

I have no idea whether any of that is true. Please provide a source, you present more detail than I have ever heard.

The idea that Joseph was of no account is wildly wrong. He was essential.

They both did. At the end of the Book of Numbers an interesting loophole emerged. A man died without a son, leaving 4 daughters. They came to Moses complaining that they would lose the family land since there was no son to inherit it. Moses sought the Lord Who decreed that if there was no son in a family daughters could inherit family land providing they married within their own tribal clan. In effect they had to marry a cousin to keep the land in the "family." This made sense since land was allotted first by tribe then by clan then by family. Marrying within the clan kept the families in close proximity and preserved the tribal allotment. (Num. 36 1:13)
Here's the tricky part. Mary had no brothers, and so was entitled to inherit her family's land as long as she married someone also descended from David. Joseph fit the bill and being in the royal line had a claim to the throne, but carried the blood curse. No biological son of his could ever legally qualify as Israel's king, but Joseph could secure Mary's right of inheritance.

When Mary accepted Joseph's offer of marriage she preserved her family's land and also made good her son's claim to the throne of Israel. Jesus was in the royal succession through Joseph but escaped the curse since he wasn't Joseph's biological son. But He was a biological descendant of David's through his mother and therefore of the "house and lineage of David."

Jesus never accepted him as his father and to my mind was not kind to him his STEPFATHER. Jesus never knew the circumstances of his birth did he in any scripture written ASK THE SIMPLE QUESTION, who impregnated my mother?

In what biography of anyone do you find writing about the child asking "who impregnated my mother?" It's not in the Scripture, because no normal person would expect to find it in the Scripture.

I don't consider this to be a metaphor, because it's not written like any other metaphor in the Bible. If you want me to continue discussing your post, I will, but I suspect you're not really "all ears." Let's see how you react to what I've offered so far.

With respect,
Charles1952

We have a disconnect. Why is Mary born without sin; are we not all born into this world without original sin? What is this concept exactly and why is Mary deemed so and any newborn is not. We can say Mary was 'traded for land" and in so being, that land automatically transfered to Joseph (what did he do with it..sold/bartered it to Joseph of Aramethiea; Jesus's Godparent as an investment toward his extensive schooling); that you believe in the physicality of Jesus born of Mary and impregnated not by Joseph but of a supernatural being is your belief system entirely personal. Was Gabriel the messenger or the impregnator? I am handicapped as I do not read the Bible, its "OFF LIMITS", to me as it is corrupted knowledge. My information comes from a more direct sourse.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Playing with you? I wasn't even talking to you. You should get your posts straight otherwise people might suspect your faculties aren't at full processing speed and are therefore unreliable.

No, quote me for once instead of tapping the 'dead air' Reply key so that I can understand what in the world you are refering to; are speaking of and answer with full faculties (all neurons firing) processing able and reliable. Do you do this often with persons that are interested enough in your comments to bother responding or is this personal. Its a Forum, your own threads, by the nature of creating them would be for RESPONSES to your Opening Statement. Here would be your response to all respondees "I WASNT EVEN TALKING TO YOU, GET YOUR POSTS STRAIGHT OUTTA HERE, Im talking to myself and NEED NO FURTHER INTERRUPTION OF MY THOUGHT PROCESS".

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by logical7

 

if you havent noticed, thats the topic, its an Unforgiveable Sin to worship anyone along with Allah.

What if you choose to worship no one? What if you refuse to recognize any god as your master?

Then and only then does one acquire freedom of spirit. Organized religion is formed not to liberate but to control the inhabitants of its specific region, area. Logical7 is speaking to the YOKE and what you drag behind you (a belief system set upon you at a young age, and you may never cast off). Its a set rote system of indocrination, many do not stand a chance as it is so INGRAINED into the very fabric of their culture ordered and defined by the religious community; by whom or what. Not a State of beingness free, a dominated populace of whatever the Church/Organism deems to control with and can get away with. Poor nations 3rd worlders, Catholic, Hindi, Buddist, Islamic. Keep them suffering, to what purpose, make them all pray more to a god that does not exist, or as a truely Evil entity feed off that suffering as it is a negative food sourse (energy) that entity can always rely upon. What created religion, it was not Jesus nor God quite its opposites.