michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (09/26/85)
[tempting morsel.] > Mike Andrews Hi, Mike. I just wanted to make a few comments about your recent article, according to my own differing perceptions and conclusions. To make my point, I'm slightly altering the order of your comments. > Many Christians do believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception > of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Since according to the Bible the sins of > the fathers fall on their children it makes sense that God would make > the Blessed Mother sinless, too, breaking the chain of her own > father's sins. I certainly agree that many Christians do believe this, but using the above logic to defend the belief does not lead anywhere conclusively. Since God could break the sinful chain at any point, it makes just as much sense that He would break the chain in *between* Mary and Jesus. > This principle would also explain why the Holy Spirit filled Mary with > the human person of Jesus, rather than becoming pregnant by Joseph, > her future husband at the time. ... If God wanted to do all this, > He certainly could. It seems here you are arguing my position. Where does this leave the need for Mary to be sinless? In any event, I feel safe in concluding that you agree with me about God's ability to do whatever He pleases. > The Immaculate Conception is neither the center, nor the focus of > belief in God, Jesus is the focus. I'm glad you stated that immaculate conception isn't the *center* (presumably of Christian religion). However, you go on to say: > Because we believe Jesus to be both fully human in every way except > sin, and also fully God, Jesus has eternally been God, long before > He was made flesh through the working of the Holy Spirit in Mary. You've just stated that Jesus *is* God! What then does it *mean* to say that the focus isn't *God* but Jesus? Finally, I wanted to discuss your "sins of the fathers" principle: > If you want an example of this Biblical principle just look at a > person you know who has a short fuse and a problem with unrighteous > anger, or someone who is very impatient with others or themselves, > then look at his or her children. We all give our children some > of our bad points as well as the good. I'm afraid I have a number of problems with this principle. Taken literally, it means that the children of murderers and other sinners are *already* guilty of the crimes their fathers (and, presumably, mothers) committed. It completely ignores the effects of upbringing. Yes, the "sins of the fathers" *was* a fine old tradition, held indeed by some of the writers of the Bible. These fine men applied their "principle" by *murdering* the children of deposed kings and evil men. I don't know about you, but I've met *many* people who were *quite* unlike their parents in their "unrighteous anger," impatience, and other personal characteristics. In cases where parental influences *are* discernable, don't you suppose having the parents around for twenty years as role models could have something to do with it? -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation ``All disclaimers including this one apply'' (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm ... if ``dead'' matter has reared up this curious landscape of fiddling crickets, song sparrows, and wondering men, it must be plain even to the most devoted materialist that the matter of which he speaks contains amazing, if not dreadful powers, and may not impossibly be, as Hardy has suggested, ``but one mask of many worn by the Great Face behind.'' Loren Eiseley, *The Immense Journey*, 1946
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (10/03/85)
>> The Immaculate Conception is neither the center, nor the focus of >> belief in God, Jesus is the focus. [Mike Andrews] > >You've just stated that Jesus *is* God! What then does it *mean* to >say that the focus isn't *God* but Jesus? [Michael McNeil] > It appears that Mr. Andrews made a common error in punctuation. He should have written: "The Immaculate Conception is neither the center nor the focus of belief in God; Jesus is the focus." Center and focus are in this case parallel words both modified by the prepositional phrase "of belief in God." To put it more wordily, he was saying "the Immaculate Conception is not the center of belief in God, neither is it the focus of belief in God; Jesus is the focus of belief in God." (And you all wondered why English teachers and editors are so picky about where commas go! See what a trouble such a little mark can cause?) :-) charli