Immaculate Misconception

[Father-Ted]

Now then, here is a curious thing. It is Catholic dogma that Anne the Mother of Mary (Mother of Jesus) was a virgin which presents an interesting problem, if Anne was a virgin fertilized by Immaculate conception then Mary would be the daughter of god which means that Jesus was the result of immaculate incest and Mary as well as being his mother was also his sister.
If Anne conceived Mary parthenogenetically that is to say without having her ovum fertilized (by incest) then the chances are very high that Mary could also do the same as she would have the same genes as Anne. This would mean that Jesus was not the son of God as no Immaculate Conception was necessary.
So what is it to be ? Either God is an incestuous Deity and Jesus was his Son and Grandson or Jesus is just the result of parthenogenisis.
However can parthenogenesis produce male offspring? If not then the Immaculate Incest is the best option.
There are other options but they are so far fetched as to not be worth considering as they would imply that the Holy Bible is not entirely true and Christianity has been built on a fiction. I look forward to your suggestions for a solution to this conundrum.

[naomi24]

Grasscarp. It took the church several hundred years to decide whether or not Anne was a virgin when she gave birth to Mary, believers consistently bang on about angels, miracles, and magic - and you talk about the ‘crazy ramblings’ of a non-believer? Ironic that.

[grasscarp]

Father Ted talks about a dogma that doesnt exist. He embroiders it with talk of incest, parthenogentics, more talk of incestous Deity etc. I stand by my description of it as crazy rambling. I am fascinated by a subtopic called Religion & Spirituality dominated and protected fiercely by non believers intent on picking holes in religion. Why spend so much time on something that is such rubbish, or magic (when did that come into the subject?), or only believed in by fools etc. I am sure you will quickly come back and tell me I am wrong about everything. As usual.

[naomi24]

Grasscarp, //Why spend so much time on something that is such rubbish//

Although I didn’t mention you by name, I posted a thread especially for you when you asked a similar question a few days ago.

http://www.theanswerb.../Question1141626.html

//magic (when did that come into the subject?),//

Surely, magic has always been fundamental to religion? I can’t think of a more appropriate term to describe supernatural beings and miracles.

I can’t tell you you’re wrong about much because like most of the believers here, you never put your case, but simply object to whatever the non-believers say without giving reasons for your objection. Therefore I don’t know which brand of religion you support or what you think – except that non-believers are prone to crazy ramblings.

[WaldoMcFroog]

To take a very current example, go and look at the CoF scaremongering about what will happen if gay people get equal rights of marriage and ask yourself if there could conceivably be any reasons why non-believers care about religion and its effects.

If you cannot think of any reasons, go and look again until you can.

[AB Editor]

From Naomi's link about Anne:

"This led to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, according to which Mary was conceived through sexual intercourse between her parents, but was born without original sin."

And this is directly about the birth of Mary:

"In the fourth century, and then much later in the fifteenth century, a belief arose that Mary was born to Anne by virgin birth.[...] This belief was condemned as an error by the Catholic Church in 1677. Instead, the Church now teaches that Mary was conceived in the normal fashion, but that she was miraculously preserved from original sin in order to make her fit to bear Christ. The conception of Mary free from original sin is termed the Immaculate Conception (of Mary), which is frequently confused with the Virgin Birth or Incarnation of Christ."

So Father Ted's assertions seem quite incorrect.

[AB Editor]

Also can someone who "does" Catholicism verify that those two quotes I've drawn out are more or less accurate?

[rowanwitch]

Are not parthenogenic offspring clones of the mother...in which case Jesus would be a girl....

[AB Editor]

Not necessarily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

"Normal egg cells form after meiosis and are haploid, with half as many chromosomes as their mother's body cells. Haploid individuals, however, are usually non-viable, and parthenogenetic offspring usually have the diploid chromosome number. Depending on the mechanism involved in restoring the diploid number of chromosomes, parthenogenetic offspring may have anywhere between all and half of the mother's alleles. The offspring having all of the mother's genetic material are called full clones and those having only half are called "half clones". Full clones are usually formed without meiosis. If meiosis occurs, the offspring will get only a fraction of the mother's alleles."

[chakka35]

No-one, I notice, has told me why anyone should take the word of "Luke" and "Matthew" that Mary was a virgin when all they have said are:

LUKE: Mary: "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" How did "Luke" know of this 80-85 years later when no-one else had reported it previously?

MATTHEW: "...as Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost". Who told her that?

That is all the 'evidence' you have about the virgin birth. How credulous do you have to be to accept it?

[jomifl]

I have to say that this thread has been an education to me. I had always been taught that immaculate conception was determined by the non participation of a human male in the fertilization of an egg, instead the fertilization being carried somehow by god. It now transpires that immaculate conception is a kind of spiritual condom that allows a human spermatozoon to fertilize the egg but prevents the the guilt inherent in mankind from crossing the cell membrane. There is a flaw in this argument, in that it was Eve who was the transgressor of god's edict so the guilt as every one knows is carried(naturally) in the female line, therefore it would require a different mechanism to prevent the guilt from being inherited. Unless the catholic church can come up with something better I cannot accept the existence of immaculate conception, as unless god comes up with a new trick women will always carry the guilt of mankind (I must point out that I personally don't think that womankind is guilty of anything, I am just following ecclesiastical logic).
I look forward eagerly to the latest version of the infallible truth to see how it stacks up against the previous versions :-)

[wildwood]

If the birth was in fact a parthenogenic one then God must have had his evil way with Anne or her mother/grandmother etc. Fertilisation has to occur somewhere along the line.

[Father-Ted]

Thank you all for your replies, many of which have been very helpful. I must apologise for apparently misleading some of you over the matter of ann(e)'s virginity or lack thereof. She certainly was a virgin at some time which would explain why she had difficulty conceiving and may later have become a non-virgin, we have no way of knowing the truth of the matter as the Pope in his infallibility throughout the centuries has not been entirely consistent on this matter.

[naomi24]

Chakka, don’t forget the angels that appeared to both Mary and Joseph to tell them the good news. You have to believe that. No?

[mibn2cweus]

//This thread is virgin on the ridiculous.//

Then it's under the right topic . . . at least!

[jomifl]

Mibs, it is certainly maintaining the religious tradition of mixing fact with fiction together with obfuscation and dissimulation and a soupcon of ignorance. His holiness would be proud!

[naomi24]

^^ Amen to that! :o)

[jomifl]

What the concept of immaculate conception demonstrates is that the catholic church made up the story to fit it's understanding of biology. As the church was ignorant of the fact the a woman already has her lifetime supply of eggs when she is born(albeit in an undeveloped state) and a baby is not produced by the growth of a 'seed' planted by a man the concept of immaculate conception doesn't 'cut the mustard' as it were. The problem of transmission of the guilt of mankind is therefore not addressed by the notion of immaculate conception and the edifice of christianity lacks a cornerstone. In a couple of centuries when this information has filtered throught to his infallible holiness no doubt the ecclesiastical builders will be called in to do a bit of underpinning. 'til then be amused.

[goodlife]

In Catholicism a dogma, unlike a simple belief, is said to be a truth solemnly formulated either by an ecumenical council or by the pope’s “infallible magisterium.” Among the doctrines thus defined by the Catholic Church, the most recent is the Assumption of Mary.

But the Bible’s teaching is free from such confusion. Nowhere does it teach—or even hint—that Mary was the product of “immaculate conception.