Rape and the virgin birth

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Mary's womb was immaculate.
Her conception with Jesus was not sexual, not rape, not adultery.

Don't preach catechism at me pal!

bilby's right, you're wrong. The Immaculate Conception was the conception of Mary, which had to be immaculate because only a woman free from the stain of Original Sin could give birth to the son of God.

But don't beat yourself up about it, it's a common mistake.

It is NOT a mistake to say that Mary's conception of Jesus was immaculate. It is a mistake (unscriptural) to say that Mary's mother was ALSO immaculate when Mary was conceived.

I'm perfectly well aware what the Catholic Church thinks about how Mary herself was conceived.

But it sets up a chain of past-regression whereby Mary's mother also needs to be free from original sin in order to immaculately conceive Mary. Then too does Mary's grandmother need to be immaculately conceived lest she pass on her original sin. And so forth and so on all the way back to Eve.

You're right that it's not scriptural to say Mary's mother was immaculate, but then nobody says that. The Immaculate Conception concern's Mary's sinless state from conception, not her mother's. No regress because it's some kind of special dispensation from The Big Guy Upstairs, not an inherited trait.
There is no doctrine of Immaculate Conception concerning Jesus, because there's no need for it. Everybody "knew" he was conceived without sin because it didn't happen by the normal, "sinful" means. The IC doctrine was specifically cooked up to explain how the son of god, himself god, could be born through a base, sinful human being. Answer: god must have made it so that she didn't have the sinful nature we all share.

 

[Lion IRC]

So what you're saying is that it makes no sense when you think about it for just a minute? Welcome to the fold.

You don't have to think about it.
You can just accept it's a glorious mystery.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

As to catechism, The Catholic theology has very little to do with the gospels, which have very little dialogue attributed to JC. The catechism is a 0100 years of religious invention.

Ask a catholic, they'll tell you it has everything to do with the gospels. Or the church's interpretation of the gospels, at the very least. Note: always the church's interpretation, never the individual catholic.

 

[steve_bank]

As to catechism, The Catholic theology has very little to do with the gospels, which have very little dialogue attributed to JC. The catechism is a 0100 years of religious invention.

Ask a catholic, they'll tell you it has everything to do with the gospels. Or the church's interpretation of the gospels, at the very least. Note: always the church's interpretation, never the individual catholic.

Not interpretation, the 'gospel' truth. As a kid back in the 50s I used to be afraid of eating meat on Fridays,

 

[bilby]

So what you're saying is that it makes no sense when you think about it for just a minute? Welcome to the fold.

You don't have to think about it.
You can just accept it's a glorious mystery.

Fuck that.

It's pretty obvious that if someone says you don't have to think about something, they are trying to fuck you over.

Glorious mystery my arse. If it can't stand being thought through, then it isn't worthy of the slightest consideration.

 

[braces_for_impact]

So what you're saying is that it makes no sense when you think about it for just a minute? Welcome to the fold.

You don't have to think about it.
You can just accept it's a glorious mystery.

That which explains anything in actuality explains nothing.

 

[braces_for_impact]

So what you're saying is that it makes no sense when you think about it for just a minute? Welcome to the fold.

You don't have to think about it.
You can just accept it's a glorious mystery.

Fuck that.

It's pretty obvious that if someone says you don't have to think about something, they are trying to fuck you over.

Glorious mystery my arse. If it can't stand being thought through, then it isn't worthy of the slightest consideration.

I always find it interesting when (not if) such "answers" come up. Only with regards to religion would such a dodge be taken at any kind of face value. Such an answer wouldn't be acceptable in any other field of discourse, any science, or philosophy. I'm always embarrassed for whoever regurgitates such nonsense. It's hard as hell to see it as anything other than a shrug and a "fuck it".

 

[ideologyhunter]

Same here. Whenever I hear a believer tout the ineffable truth and majesty of his/her faith, or go into the formula about 'God cannot be tested, you must believe,' that George Orwell phrase about 'the smutty little orthodoxies now competing for our souls' comes into my head.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

People should try that on math tests. When asked to solve an equation, just write that it’s a glorious mystery and move on to the next question.

 

[Lion IRC]

So what you're saying is that it makes no sense when you think about it for just a minute? Welcome to the fold.

You don't have to think about it.
You can just accept it's a glorious mystery.

Fuck that.

You obviously didn't see that I italicised the word "have".
It's entirely optional.
You can either voluntarily take it on blind faith or you can question it and apply the test of reason.

It's pretty obvious that if someone says you don't have to think about something, they are trying to fuck you over.

How's that bleak cynicism working out for you?
You don't trust anyone do you.

Glorious mystery my arse. If it can't stand being thought through, then it isn't worthy of the slightest consideration.

Ever heard of a dude called Sean Carroll?
He says scientific falsafiability is overrated and if a theory is "sufficiently elegant" it doesn't need to stand up to the rigours of the scientific method.

Now why would folks like him and Marcelo Gleiser be admitting that certain 'glorious mysteries'
of physics might never be resolved by the scientific method?
Answer - because they are trying to you over???

 

[Rhea]

Ever heard of a dude called Sean Carroll?
He says scientific falsafiability is overrated and if a theory is "sufficiently elegant" it doesn't need to stand up to the rigours of the scientific method.

A nickel says you have totally misunderstood (either willfully or due to your religious blind spot) the point of his statement.

 

[Rhea]

LOL, well that took exactly 25 seconds to demonstrate.

Google "Sean Carroll" and "Sufficently elegant" and you can see his repsonse to this preposterous claim. I mean, didn't you just read it and think, "That's absurd. Sean Carroll would not be likely to say that. let me go find out what he really said before I repeat something that is so achingly obvious as a falsehood," But no, false witness is not a problem in the religious universe... sigh. Yet another example of christianity not having honest results.

After my short piece came out, George Ellis and Joe Silk wrote an editorial in Nature, arguing that theories like the multiverse served to undermine the integrity of physics, which needs to be defended from attack. They suggested that people like me think that “elegance [as opposed to data] should suffice,” that sufficiently elegant theories “need not be tested experimentally,” and that I wanted to “to weaken the testability requirement for fundamental physics.” All of which is, of course, thoroughly false.

Nobody argues that elegance should suffice — indeed, I explicitly emphasized the importance of empirical testing in my very short piece. And I’m not suggesting that we “weaken” anything at all — I’m suggesting that we physicists treat the philosophy of science with the intellectual care that it deserves. The point is not that falsifiability used to be the right criterion for demarcating science from non-science, and now we want to change it; the point is that it never was, and we should be more honest about how science is practiced.

[...go read his blog...]

Hopefully with this longer format, the message I am trying to convey will be less amenable to misconstrual. Nobody is trying to change the rules of science; we are just trying to state them accurately. The multiverse is scientific in an utterly boring, conventional way: it makes definite statements about how things are, it has explanatory power for phenomena we do observe empirically, and our credence in it can go up or down on the basis of both observations and improvements in our theoretical understanding. Most importantly, it might be true, even if it might be difficult to ever decide with high confidence whether it is or not. Understanding how science progresses is an interesting and difficult question, and should not be reduced to brandishing bumper-sticker mottos to attack theoretical approaches to which we are not personally sympathetic.

Lion - Christianity doesn't help you think. It helps you accept without thinking - even false statements about another person - which falsehood you then happily advertise. You know, like gossip.

 

[jab]

God creates humans. God forbids fornication, no sex outside of marriage. God impregnates Mary a married woman. How is that not rape? Of course god toys with us at his pleasure.

Mary was engaged, not yet married, as I recall--or are the Gospels contradictory.
In one or some Gospels Mary consents, committing fornication.

 

[Lion IRC]

LOL, well that took exactly 25 seconds to demonstrate.

Google "Sean Carroll" and "Sufficently elegant" and you can see his repsonse to this preposterous claim. I mean, didn't you just read it and think, "That's absurd. Sean Carroll would not be likely to say that. let me go find out what he really said before I repeat something that is so achingly obvious as a falsehood," But no, false witness is not a problem in the religious universe... sigh. Yet another example of christianity not having honest results.

After my short piece came out, George Ellis and Joe Silk wrote an editorial in Nature, arguing that theories like the multiverse served to undermine the integrity of physics, which needs to be defended from attack. They suggested that people like me think that “elegance [as opposed to data] should suffice,” that sufficiently elegant theories “need not be tested experimentally,” and that I wanted to “to weaken the testability requirement for fundamental physics.” All of which is, of course, thoroughly false.

Of course he didn't WANT to weaken the testability requirement. Of course he isn't HAPPY to admit that science - his area of science - is unavoidably drifting towards "elegant" theories instead of ones that can be crash tested by good old fashioned Baconian repeatability and falsifiability.
It's quite clear that he's scrambling into damage control - because he has said too much and too honestly.

Nobody argues that elegance should suffice — indeed, I explicitly emphasized the importance of empirical testing in my very short piece.

"Elegant" is not a scientific term and testable empirical evidence is not "important" to science it's mandatory.

And I’m not suggesting that we “weaken” anything at all — I’m suggesting that we physicists treat the philosophy of science with the intellectual care that it deserves.

Of course he wants others - real scientists - to stick with science rather than philosophy. But he himself knows that elegant theories (like glorious mysteries) should be treated with the care and respect and reverence that they deserve. Do you agree bilby?

The point is not that falsifiability used to be the right criterion for demarcating science from non-science, and now we want to change it; the point is that it never was, and we should be more honest about how science is practiced.

Falsifiability never was????

 

[Rhea]

Of course he didn't WANT to weake... blah blah blah

No Lion, you said,

Ever heard of a dude called Sean Carroll?
He says scientific falsafiability is overrated and if a theory is "sufficiently elegant" it doesn't need to stand up to the rigours of the scientific method.

And you were completely wrong.
You're also wrong about your new interpretation of what he said.
I'm afraid your world-view may prevent you from ever understanding it.

For other people other than Lion, who can actually think about what a person says instead of what they want him to say...

I find it interesting to contemplate the difference, as Carroll points out, between proving something scientifically and demarcating the difference between science and non-science. The burdens of proof are different in that one does need to prove through empirical falsifiability in order to demonstrate the scientific veracity of a hypothesis. But in deciding whether something is _capable_ of entering the realm of falsifiability, one can look at broader explanations and determine, "yes that would potentially be falsifiable, that would be science," versus "yeah, no, there's nothing scientific about that, and no amount of scientific application will change it. They need a new hypothesis before they can claim to 'be scientific,' because this one is just swiss cheese in a cape."

The difference between, "that's a scienc-ey explanation, and that one - is not." And then one can later try to test the scienc-ey explanation.
The difference that allows one to escape the judgment, "that's so far off, it's not even wrong. It's unicorns."


The reason this misunderstanding exists, perhaps, is because Sean Carroll is not an authoritarian. He is open to learn and change and discuss nuance; to ponder, to debate honestly and to consider novel viewpoints. Religionists tend to get extremely confused by that. They think, "if you are open to changing your mind based on new evidence, you must be wrong in the first place - unlike me - and therefore untrustworthy." When in reality, the scientist could be completely correct while she is open to testing. Or could be correct as far as things go, but there's more to discover. Religionists do not comprehend the concept of "there's more to discover" and are very frightened of it. They are only comfortable if they already know everything.

Hence the animosity and aggression. And the gossip and lies.

Sean Carroll's comments in this make an interesting topic: what is the threshhold to decide if something exists within the realm of science versus what is the threshhold to determine if it is true and correct.

Cold fusion was science. It was later determined through falsifiability to be incorrect science, but it was of science.

 

[bilby]

Fuck that.

You obviously didn't see that I italicised the word "have".
It's entirely optional.
You can either voluntarily take it on blind faith or you can question it and apply the test of reason.

It's pretty obvious that if someone says you don't have to think about something, they are trying to fuck you over.

How's that bleak cynicism working out for you?

Pretty well.

You don't trust anyone do you.

Not if they are asserting something for which they cannot present evidence, no.

Glorious mystery my arse. If it can't stand being thought through, then it isn't worthy of the slightest consideration.

Ever heard of a dude called Sean Carroll?

Yes. He is a very smart guy, with a lot of excellent ideas.

He says scientific falsafiability is overrated and if a theory is "sufficiently elegant" it doesn't need to stand up to the rigours of the scientific method.

Then he is wrong.

See, anyone, no matter how smart, can be wrong; And there are NO 'authorities' whose every utterance is certain to be true.

The realization that there are no unquestionable authorities is a vital difference between science and religion - it's even the motto of the Royal Society.

Now why would folks like him and Marcelo Gleiser be admitting that certain 'glorious mysteries'
of physics might never be resolved by the scientific method?

I don't know - you would have to ask them.

Answer - because they are trying to you over???

I am pretty sure that Sean Carroll is not advocating blind faith as an alternative to the scientific method. But you and I cannot determine whether he is - that's a question you would need to ask him. And if he was, he is probably wrong to do so. Even smart people are wrong sometimes - that's why we ask them to back up their assertions.

ETA - And I see from Rhea's posts above that he has been asked, and that you are wrong about him being wrong.

See, evidence. Better than assertion since forever.

 

[steve_bank]

God creates humans. God forbids fornication, no sex outside of marriage. God impregnates Mary a married woman. How is that not rape? Of course god toys with us at his pleasure.

Mary was engaged, not yet married, as I recall--or are the Gospels contradictory.
In one or some Gospels Mary consents, committing fornication.

Ok. The charge of adultery is dropped by the prosecution. The remainingg charge is one count of fornication, punishment death by stoning..

It is impossible to get a consistent story from the gospels, although they try and try.

 

[bilby]

God creates humans. God forbids fornication, no sex outside of marriage. God impregnates Mary a married woman. How is that not rape? Of course god toys with us at his pleasure.

Mary was engaged, not yet married, as I recall--or are the Gospels contradictory.
In one or some Gospels Mary consents, committing fornication.

The RC Church says that they were married. But yes, the Gospels are contradictory.

 

[Learner]

Just as in Genesis :" Let there be light" and there was . Whats wrong with God having the same ability/method : "Let there be a baby born from Mary"?

No sex neccessary as with physicalness and human beings, therefore no fornication means no sex before marriage ever took place.

 

[steve_bank]

Just as in Genesis :" Let there be light" and there was . Whats wrong with God having the same ability/method : "Let there be a baby born from Mary"?

No sex neccessary as with physicalness and human beings, therefore no fornication means no sex before marriage ever took place.

Apoligeticsnat its best;\\About 7 years ago I was invited by an Evangelical family to be a judge at a regional homeschoolers debate contest. Competition led a nation meet for scholrships/

They probably invited me thinking I might find Jesus.

I found the kids to be articulate, bright, well read in general.

There were solo presentations and debates between two people. It lassted 4 days.

Apologetics was generally woven into all of it, but not too much.

The point is that when they are teens trhey are well schooled in apologetics and interpretion of scripture to make a moral point. It is pointless to debate scripture interpretations.