Posted on 12/08/2004 8:02:13 AM PST by skellmeyer
A few weeks ago, I attended a philosophical debate on the merits of abortion. Shortly after the discussion began, I pointed out that this act destroyed a human person.
"Do you have proof of that?" asked several members of the panel simultaneously.
"Of course," I replied, "proof that cannot be controverted."
"What proof would that be?"
"The declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception," I replied.
"That's not proof!" they shouted.
"Oh, but it is," said I, and proceeded to demonstrate how.
In 1931, a Czech mathematician named Kurt Godel demonstrated that any logical system as advanced as arithmetic is built on foundational premises which can neither be proved true nor false within the system. That is, every logical system as advanced as addition and subtraction is a faith-based system. The impact of Godel's observations have yet to be felt in blue-state America.
(Excerpt) Read more at bridegroompress.com ...
You could then ask them to point out the precise point at which they "became" human -- and if they're honest, they could not point to any specific point at which they were "not human" at one instant, and "human" the next. At least, not until they got to the moment of conception.
They're not honest, though -- which is why arguments from science are ineffective. The whole point of this false distinction between embryo and human is to obscure the fact that abortion does kill humans.
There's a separate question for that: does it matter if we kill fetal humans? The logic of a "yes" is horrifying -- which is why they deny the humanity of the "products of abortion."
Oh, they agreed that abortion kills human beings. Man yof them just didn't think it kills human persons. One of the two philosophers agreed it killed a human person, but he saw it as a competition between the baby and the mother in which the mother had the right to kill because the baby was a parasite.
I have a problem with what this article is saying about science. It claims that since both are built on a set of assumptions, or axioms, that they both proceed with the same kind of logic. But they don't! Religion (and philosophy) starts with these axioms and proceeds with PURE logic. Science does not accept pure logic. Anything that is asserted must be TESTABLE (on the scale of a human lifetime). I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that they're different.
Abortion is not a matter of science, or at least, the objections to abortion are not scientific. They are matter of pure logic. If human life begins at conception, then abortion is murder. If human life begins at birth, then abortion is choice. Maybe we just need a constitutional amendment defining this question in all matters related to the law to make this whole thing simple.
-joe
...Mary has always been understood to have been immaculately conceived. Now, the Immaculate Conception means only that she had no stain of original sin upon her at the moment she came into existence.
This is a false statement. The only person without sin, original or otherwise, was Jesus Christ - period.
You are, of course, absolutely right. That essay actually is much softer than it should be on the relative merits of science and religion. I intend to write a follow-up that exposes the differences much more clearly.
Implicit to Godel's proof is the fact that testability (science) is actually a lesser standard than truth, since there are things we know are true within every logical system, but we can't prove them from within the system of choice.
Sorry, but that is an absolutely modern idea. It has no basis in historic Christianity. Even Martin Luther insisted on Mary's Immaculate Conception. The idea that Jesus did not protect His mother from the stain of sin has been around for less than 500 years.
This is a dogma of the Catholic Church. Other faiths may or may not accept it.
Well, it also means she never commited a sin throughout her entire life, not even the most venial.
Other faiths may reject the idea in the same way that you or I might reject the idea that the sun rises in the east. Our rejection of the concept does not change the reality: if Jesus is fully God, fully man and possessed a sinless human nature, then His mother must necessarily have been sinless as well. In fact, that is precisely why she called Her Son her Saviour - He saved her from sin both by creating her sinless (as He did Adam and Eve) and by preserving her from all stain of sin throughout her life.
I do not think you are correct about this and would be very interested in a source. I think the IC is a somewhat late Catholic doctrine. Declared by a Pope in either the 19th or the 20th century. I will look when I get a chance.
Great article!
Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mother bore no more children besides Him...'brothers' really means 'cousins' here , and Holy Writ and the Jews have always called cousins brothers" (Sermons on John, Chap. 1-4)
"God says...Mary's Son is My only Son.' Thus Mary is the Mother of God."
"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart." (Sermon; Sept. 1, 1522)
"The infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin...From the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin." - Martin Luther, Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God." Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception right up until his death.
"We can never honor her enough. Still, honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures." (Sermon: Christimas, 1531) And Catholics do honor her but not in a way injurious to Christ nor the Scriptures.
"Whoever possesses a good faith says the Hail Mary without danger." (Sermon: March 11, 1523).
The Dogmatic Declaration
The dogmatic definition was proclaimed December 8th, 1854 in Ineffebilus Deus - today is the 150th anniversary of the dogmatic declaration (thus the essay).
Unfortunately, many people misunderstand what a dogmatic definition involves. The declaration of this dogma this does not imply that Catholics did not believe it prior to 1854 or were divided in opinion on it. A dogma is simply a very clear statement of doctrine. Dogma never changes doctrine - it can't, because God is Truth and the Truth cannot change. Every dogmatic declaration is preceded by an enormous amount of historical research in order to make sure the statement takes into account and accords with all that the Church has ever said on the matter.
You're both wrong, unfortunately. There is no such thing as inherited "original sin" and therefore every conception is 'immaculate' in that sense. Mary was born without sin, but so were the two of you, and me, and everybody else.
And Ezekiel 18:20 was written more than 500 years ago.
How has the fetus sinned?
Ezekiel 18:20 is not referring to original sin, it is referring to personal sin. That is, up to Ezekiel's time, if a man decided to commit a sin, his personally chosen sin was imputed to his children. But, as Ez 18:3 points out, that imputation from father to son was no longer going to be allowed. This does not mean that post-Ezekiel children were now immaculately conceived, it means a post-Ezekiel child is not held liable for the personal sins of the biological father who begat him. Original sin still applies, as Psalm 51 testifies.
To answer that question, we hav to understand what grace is. Grace is an inheritance of power. It is the indwelling of the Trinity, it is the power of God, it is the inheritance due to every child of God.
Adam and Eve, children of God by their creation in an unfallen state, repudiated the inheritance by breaking with God.
Let's say your father was a millionaire, but you walked away from him, repudiated his name and his lifestyle and he respected your choice to no longer be associated with him, so he wrote you out of his will and gave all his money to charity when he died.
Will your children receive any of your father's money? Of course not. You were written out of his will - at your request - so your children are also out of the will.
That is original sin. Adam and Eve were stewards over all that God gave them, but they broke their stewardship, threw away the gifts, so we are not given what they were given. Original sin is not a personal sin - it is the recognition that each of us does not have the inheritance of grace necessary to deal with the world as it is or to live out a decent relationship with God.
This is a false statement. The only person without sin, original or otherwise, was Jesus Christ - period.
I'm not Catholic, but it seems to me that removing the stain of original sin alone would not preclude the possibility of subsequent volitional sin. Also, if Jesus Christ is without original sin, and if we inherit original sin from our parents, and if the stain of original sin can only be removed by Jesus Christ, then he must have preserved Mary from the stain of original sin or he would have inherited original sin from her upon his Incarnation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.