On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Craig J. Bolton wrote:
> Further, the terminology itself illustrates the ambiguity in the
> "canonical" writings that is, in turn, a reflection of the differing points
> of views from which the writings were composed and sometimes revised. For
> instance, in addition to the two interpretations of "son of God" I gave
> before, one could also add that perhaps J.C. was the "son of God" in the
> same sense that Hercules was purportedly the son of Zeus. That is, if the
> "Holy Spirit" is God, and God impregnated Mary, then Jesus was the "son of
> God" biologically. Hence, perhaps the terminology was intended to support
> the doctrine of virgin birth [virgin = untouched by HUMAN or "material"
> hands], which was apparently one of the last inventions and had not a lot
> of support in any of the earlier texts.
>
> CJB
>
Mary worship appeared somewhere after the 300's and was popular
through the middle ages. In the lore, Mary was tested and found to be a
virgin (untouched by man). But the Immaculate Conception refers to the
fact that Anne (Mary's mother) conceived Mary 'purely' thereby ensuring
Mary's exemption from 'original sin'. (But this was not officially added
to Catholic Dogma until the 1800's by Pius IX)
Mary Worship is singularly interesting because it was created by and is
still more popular amoung men than women. The prevailing theory is that
the Mary Icon (as conceived by Catholics) counteracted the less passive,
sexually more aggressive Greek Godesses.
So what does this all have to do with Libertariansim? I'm totally off
track now. Was it that originally someone said that if one believed in God
he was weak-minded and therefore a slave to illusion
and therefore not free??
As for myself I am an atheist but I find the Histry of Religion
fascinating ESP since Medieval and Renaissance history, Art, Science, etc
is so totally influenced by it.
For now, CB