Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The impossibility of Christianity

By David Young - posted Monday, 2 March 2009


This makes utter nonsense of the doctrine that all mankind inherits original sin from the female line at the moment of conception, and that physical woman is the cause of all sin in this world. Jesus had to inherit sin from the flesh of Mary whether she was a virgin or not. Without the doctrine of original sin, Christianity self-destructs.

A virgin birth was legally possible, and maybe even common, according to Jewish law. The real problem for Christianity came when the Christian church elevated the virgin birth to the level where Mary had to have an immaculate conception, if she were to be the mother of Jesus.

The concept of the immaculate conception was not part of original Christianity; it evolved over a period of several hundred years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Horton, quoting apocryphal texts, writes:

Advertisement

Of the immediate sequel to this happy meeting we know no more than “Joachim rested the first day in his house,” that Anne conceived and Joachim was readmitted to the temple; and that eventually a girl was to be born to them they called Mary. The coming of this child had been announced to each of the parents by divine messengers, and we know that this was the child who was to be the Virgin Mother of Jesus, the Mother of God. But as yet there is no suggestion that any special circumstances had to attend her begetting; which brings up a point in the story which is delicate to the extreme, for in later centuries the conception of Mary was required to have a far more subtle character: to be, in fact, the “Immaculate” conception.

(The Child Jesus, Horton, 1975)

And so Mary’s mother had to be pure if Mary was to be pure. “And once this point was accepted it was no great leap forward, and to eventually to establish, the theory that on this spot they had exchanged a chaste, and holy, and procreative kiss which had breathed into the mother’s womb the concept and substance of Mary her daughter; a kiss which precluded the need for any physical act of generation” (Horton). And if Mary’s mother had to be a virgin, what about her grandmother? And her great grandmother? And so on.

If Mary was pure because she was a virgin original sin self-destructs, and so does Christianity. This is a paradox that plagued the Christian church for 1,800 years.

When all else fails, use retrospective legislation, which is exactly what the Christian church did. On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX decreed, in bull Ineffabilis Deus, that by a special act of grace, Mary had been made utterly sinless from the moment of her conception. I wonder if Pius IX was able to keep a straight face when he made that decree?

It is worth looking closer at what this piece of retrospective legislation by “God’s lawyers” means.

For Christianity to stand up, physical woman has to be the blame for all sin and suffering in this world. Without that, original sin self-destructs, and Christianity self-destructs with it.

Advertisement

This piece of legislation re-affirms the position of physical woman as the sole cause of sin and suffering in this world. It does so by giving Mary absolution for being a woman.

If a woman claims to be a Christian, then she is accepting this hideous piece of legislation that brought the Immaculate Conception into being, and accepts by default that she is the cause of all the sin and suffering in this world. To me this is a ridiculous position to take.

Papal decrees have been very useful over the years for solving problems for the Church that cannot be solved by factual means.

It also brings out the place of theology in the Abrahamic religions. Theologians are the part of the organisation that plugs the holes in the ship as they appear by making up excuses. No doubt some “theologian” will come up with an excuse as to why everything in this article is wrong. The job of theologians is to bail like mad to keep the ship from sinking.

Theologians are also incestuous in that they only reference their own sources to support themselves. The use of external sources would prove them wrong.

This article does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God. It is Christianity that is in question. It also has nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus is the excuse for Christianity, not the reason. Jesus viewed free of the Christian enveloped is a fascinating philosopher no matter who he or she was.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

36 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Young has been a writer for 20 years. At other times he has been an architect and a flying instructor. Details of his books and writings can be found at his website davidyoungauthor.com

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Young

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 36 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy