One MAJOR hypocrisy in Catholicism

Leinsterr

Catholicism is completely against adoption for same sex couples. However, Jesus had two fathers. Is this not a complete contradiction of the church's teachings?

SimonTemplar

To be more precise, Jesus is his own father who also impregnated his own mother so she could give birth to him.

Seems perfectly logical to me....:rolleyes:

coffee_cake

Only one?

marketty

I have a radio in my car

hfallada

If he was the son of God he had one father. Joseph wasnt his biological father.

Kivaro

SimonTemplar wrote: »

To be more precise, Jesus is his own father who also impregnated his own mother so she could give birth to him.

Seems perfectly logical to me....:rolleyes:

Who in their rights minds would fall for that malarkey?

MrPudding

hfallada wrote: »

If he was the son of God he had one father. Joseph wasnt his biological father.

Ok, the subject of the thread was adoption. The point would go something like this. He was the son of god, so god would be like the biological father. The. We have Joseph. He is in a relationship with the mother, so is like a non-biological father. Two dads.

Compare this with a man who is married and has kids, then "come out", my some miracle gets custody, starts a same sex relationship and that partner adopts the child.

Actually, on reflection, here is a closer scenario. Two men in a loving long term relationship decide they want children. They find a willing surrogate (clearly this is slightly different to what god did as it does not involve a kind of rape but should do to make the point) to carry their child. One of them does the business and the surrogate is artificially (or otherwise) inseminated. The child is born a d the man who's sperm was not used adopts the child. That pretty closely matches the son of god scenario.

MrP

the culture of deference

SimonTemplar wrote: »

To be more precise, Jesus is his own father who also impregnated his own mother so she could give birth to him.

Seems perfectly logical to me....:rolleyes:

Or even more precise


Jesus is his own father, who sent his mate down to earth to magically knock up an 11 or 12 year old virgin girl (by whispering to her) for him to be BORN, this immortal omnipotent being then faked his own death ....

Sarky

The immaculate conception always seemed a bit rapey to me:

"hi there Mary! I'm God's spokesman. You can tell by the angels and stuff. Good news! God has chosen you to have his child! Now, you can back out if you REALLY want to, but you'd be negating prophecy and letting the forces of darkness win, not to mention personally insulting and scorning God Almighty, ruler of the universe and judge of your soul when you die. But like I said, no pressure..."

Fulfill prophecy or kick her vengeful jealous all-powerful god in the balls? Like the poor girl had a choice.

coffee_cake

That's not what "immaculate conception" means.


Is there an echo on my account?

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

That's not what "immaculate conception" means.


Is there an echo on my account?

Don't think that's possible there blue. A wolf's how isn't supposed to produce an echo.
(Though according to something called science this is a myth.)

the culture of deference

bluewolf wrote: »

That's not what "immaculate conception" means.


Is there an echo on my account?

The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism

it was excluded, it never was in her soul

Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded.

Genesis 3:15

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.

But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.

eyescreamcone

the culture of deference wrote: »

The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism

it was excluded, it never was in her soul

Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded.

Genesis 3:15

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.

But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.

If Ms. Mary Christ was given the option of opting out of the plan, surely someone as clued in as a supreme being would have had Plan B already organised.
It's not as if he didn't have much time to sort it out (6000 years or so :rolleyes:)

Were there others out there untainted by original sin waiting in reserve??
(First and second runner ups)

Was Mary the Plan B??

the culture of deference

eyescreamcone wrote: »

If Ms. Mary Christ was given the option of opting out of the plan, surely someone as clued in as a supreme being would have had Plan B already organised.
It's not as if he didn't have much time to sort it out (6000 years or so :rolleyes:)

Were there others out there untainted by original sin waiting in reserve??
(First and second runner ups)

Was Mary the Plan B??

Strangely this is making sense to me now.

god is Q from star trek. Buzzing around for 13 billion years bored out of his head, finally he finds semi intelligent life he can fcuk with

eyescreamcone

the culture of deference wrote: »

Strangely this is making sense to me now.

god is Q from star trek. Buzzing around for 13 billion years bored out of his head, finally he finds semi intelligent life he can fcuk with

Interesting
What was god really up to before we came along??


Will all the info be contained in Batman begins
god - the early years?


Dear diary

Monday - played with rings of saturn
Tuesday - threw meteor at earth, hit moon
Wednesday - threw meteor at earth, hit moon
Thursday - played with rings of saturn again
Friday - threw meteor at earth, hit earth, killed dinosaurs, my bad!

(Sorry about that.
In honour of the dead dinosaurs, from now on, no fish shall allowed to be consumed on this day, Freja's Day (the cute norse goddess)).




Note to self - check have I invented fish yet!

Riskymove

MrPudding wrote: »

Ok, the subject of the thread was adoption. The point would go something like this. He was the son of god, so god would be like the biological father. The. We have Joseph. He is in a relationship with the mother, so is like a non-biological father. Two dads.

The Church has, afaik, no issue with more than one dad in cases of Step-Fathers or a man adopting someone else's child.

Their issue remains about sexual orientation