Was man created in god's image, or was god created in man's?

Frank Apisa wrote:

The Immaculate Conception has to do with the birth of the Virgin Mary -- not Jesus.

Whuttt?

I got it all wrong, then. Not for the first time, eh. :wink:

0 Replies

TO NEVERMIND IS A LONG TIME

In all of creation
the greatest re-creation
is fornication,
thus playful biology meets it's genetic obligation
towards incremental experimentation.

So shouldn't a properly anthropomorphized divinity
not be a menage-a-trinity
but a single universal entity,
polygamous in how it fools with our amenity
towards rational thought and serenity?

Religion messes with our soul at each thrust,
plants, needs and feeds a spiritual rust.
Submission to theocracy propagates what society must,
a spiritual and intellectual miasm of woeful dust.
Can you live with yourself, as yourself, in heaven's lust?

Don't you time losing your mind
in sermons of someone else's god?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Perhaps BPB meant God coming on earth . . .

The Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with God coming on[/[] earth either.

The Immaculate Conception has to do with the birth of the Virgin Mary -- not Jesus.

Strictly form the point of view of theology as presented by the Catholic church, your statement is utterly wrong. That does not surprise me.

Obviously you do not know what you are talking about -- but that does not surprise me!

0 Replies

Quote:

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

0 Replies

Correct, Phoenix.

The Immaculate Conception is the occurance of Mary being conceived without sin in the womb of her mother -- and is often confused with the conception of Jesus.

0 Replies

I could always see why this got mixed up -- perhaps Immaculate Counterception should be attached to the birth of Jesus.

0 Replies

Gee whiz Frank- That's why I love A2K. I would have argued with you about the Immaculate Conception. Then I decided to look it up, just to make sure. All my life, I erroneously thought it had to do with Jesus, as I think many people do.

You learn something new every day!

0 Replies

My own take on it is that Mary being conceived immaculately was formulated to assure that there was no question of taint of sin in the birth of Jesus - a theological "necessity", thus related.

0 Replies

I don't think Pope Wassname wrote that very clearly...does he mean that there was no bonking involved?
Plenty of people will attest that bonking is not sinful.

0 Replies

McTag- Oh no, there WAS boinking involved:

Quote:

". . .in the first instance of her conception . . ." The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul

0 Replies

I am happy enough to admit that i was wrong about that aspect of Catholic theology, and will point out that it was not taught to me in that manner in the days when i was under the tutelege of the Brothers and Sisters of Charity.

I would also like to point out that my remark was entirely facetious, and had no theological intent.

Of course, i ought also to remember the religious devotion Frank has for expounding his superior agnostic views . . . lighten up Frank.

Oh that's right, it's a crusade, and Frank wants to win.

You win Frank.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I am happy enough to admit that i was wrong about that aspect of Catholic theology, and will point out that it was not taught to me in that manner in the days when i was under the tutelege of the Brothers and Sisters of Charity.

I would also like to point out that my remark was entirely facetious, and had no theological intent.

Of course, i ought also to remember the religious devotion Frank has for expounding his superior agnostic views . . . lighten up Frank.

Oh that's right, it's a crusade, and Frank wants to win.

You win Frank.

That was almost an adult and reasonable resolution to our little dispute...at least for the first 10 words it was. But it went downhill fast after that.

I seriously doubt that the good brothers and Sisters of Charity ever taught this to you wrong -- I suspect you simply didn't listen. I infer that from the way you conduct yourself now.

The lecture and the gratuitous remarks aimed at me were laughable -- considering the way this disagreement developed.

Lighten up yourself, Setanta.

Oh, before I forget...

...best wishes to you and yours for the holiday season. May 2004 bring you continued peace and contentment.

0 Replies

I still think the doctrine of the immaculate conception (a fairly recently defined doctrine, I think, in terms of the length of church dogma) was predicated on the need for the birth of the son of god to be pure, and that they are related in formulation and in many people's minds. The understanding of what 'immaculate conception' means when you are young when you learn it, and remembering it for decades is often misplaced, even when you once understood it.

This is a tangent to the main question on 'was man created in god's image or was god created in man's. On that issue I
answer a resounding vote for the latter.

0 Replies

A person with the eyes closed touches an elephant, and the person says, "it's a hose."

0 Replies

Wasn't that a blind mouse?

0 Replies

I suspect that from man's need to personify and anthropomorphise everything he sees, god was created in man's image. And man was created in nature's.

Either that, or like someone said earlier: both defined each other.

0 Replies

Your judgments on my relative maturity reflect as well a judgment on your own Frank. I am not surprised at the tenor of your response, i consider it typical. I return your good wishes for the new year.

0 Replies

Oh I see. Fair enough then. I was fairly sure in my own mind that the principle of conceptio seminis carnis inchoata would not apply in this case.

0 Replies

I hate latin...
Conception semen meat....?
Should look that up.
Probably just means immaculate conception.

0 Replies

I sense trouble here. If Mary was a married woman then didn't God violate his own commandment by impregnating her? Some folks say she was "betrothed" meaning "not married yet. In this case, isn't it a sin to impregnate another mans fiancee? Seems to me God must be saying, "do as I say, not as I do".

0 Replies

Was man created in god's image, or was god created in man's?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know