Star of wonder

[Rick]

I would agree that Christmas is an arbitrary date assigned by the Catholic church.

[Gob]

Not arbitrary, mendacious and deliberate, to usurp and commandeer the pagan solstice festivals.

[Rick]

Then there's that...

[Sean]

No offence meant to you Meade but the thought of maintaining historical accuracy simply by removing the wise men from the Nativity scene made me chuckle...

I'd also like to ask you something I've always wondered...
From your earlier post you clearly do not believe in the immaculate conception. How, in your faith, do you reconcile this with Jesus being the son of God?

[Rick]

Immaculate conception has more to do with Mary (required by Catholicism) than Jesus.

There does not have to be reconciliation between the two.

[Sean]

There does if you believe that Joseph was Jesus' natural father...

[Rick]

I don't see where Meade said Joseph was the natural father of Jesus...

[Sean]

Well if there was no immaculate conception, somebody apart from God was!

I thought Joseph was the most likely candidate...

[Rick]

The immaculate conception was the concept that Mary was in a state of sinless perfection.

This is the only way Catholicism can reconcile this birth since we are all (according to them) born in original sin.

Why HER sinless perfection is so important is beyond me...

[Gob]

The immaculate conception was the concept that Mary was in a state of sinless perfection.

So as an unmarried woman, she'd not been boned, so it must have been an immaculate conception.

[Sean]

Because quite a lot of the fuss surrounding Jesus stems from the fact that his mum was a virgin and his dad was God. If his dad was just a bloke then what's the big deal with Jesus?

Anyway, doesn't the bible tell us that Mary was a virgin?

[Rick]

There is no denial that Mary was a virgin (not on my part) nor that Joseph was not the father.

The mechanism by which Mary became pregnant is not known to me either, I don't doubt it was divine in it's nature.

But the immaculate part of this conception has nothing to do with that. Again they (Catholics) insist that Mary was free from original sin (again Catholic) thus immaculate...

Don't believe me look it up...

[Gob]

Oh I believe you, but I don't believe it.

As I say, the very idea that a divine being would go through such a silly charade to get a point over is laughable.

[Rick]

That's yer prerogative, free will and all...

[Sean]

There is no denial that Mary was a virgin (not on my part) nor that Joseph was not the father.

The mechanism by which Mary became pregnant is not known to me either, I don't doubt it was divine in it's nature.

But the immaculate part of this conception has nothing to do with that. Again they (Catholics) insist that Mary was free from original sin (again Catholic) thus immaculate...

Don't believe me look it up...

You are correct Keld, I was misremembering dogma. Thanks for the clarification.

[Lord Jim]

That was a lot of work LJ! Unfortunately the angels you quote in Luke 2 were speaking to shepherds - not wise men.

Yes, I misinterpreted your comments to mean that you were writing the "babe" and "the manger" entirely out of the story...(BTW, it wasn't a lot of work... I got all those references from a single link.... )

I should have known better than to wade into a discussion on scripture...(or think I could have caught someone as schooled on the subject as yourself in an error...)

When it comes to discussions of the existence of God in general, I can hold my own....

I can discuss intelligently and with reasonable knowledge the merits and shortcomings of all the major philosophical arguments; the teleological argument, the argument from First Cause, the argument from Design...(which has been around for a long time, but which is now fashionably referred to as "The argument from intelligent design"...)

But when it comes to the specifics of Biblical scripture...

I'm completely out of my depth, and knowledge comfort level....I should never even try to go there...

I might as well be trying to talk about how to rebuild the transmission of a 1975 Chevy Nova....

(I wind up looking as ignorant as rube trying to talk about history...)

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh I believe you, but I don't believe it.

As I say, the very idea that a divine being would go through such a silly charade to get a point over is laughable.

Well most Christians are with you there Gob. The idea that Mary must have been conceived "immaculately" (for she herself must be without sin) is a Catholic thing. They can't figure out how Jesus could be without sin if mum was a sinner; therefore she must have been sinless; therefore her parents somehow didn't pass a sin nature to her.

Such logic of course ignores that the parents too would need to be born without sin etc etc etc back to the dawn of man. I don't know why Rome needed to come up with such nonsense when it's clear that God can do whatever God can do - and if He can miraculously quicken a virgin then making the resulting DNA sinless should be a snap. It would indeed be a silly charade to have made Mary sinless.

Reading the Bible usually corrects these silly ideas (for sensible people). Both Psalms and Paul state (and it's God's truth, not man's) that NO ONE other than God does right; all are sinners. Jesus said it too. Jesus being God 'n all that works out OK for Christians.

LJ de nada... I can be caught out, believe me! I rather enjoy the kalam argument for God myself.

Meade