[extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised
thespike at satx.rr.com
Tue May 24 03:09:44 UTC 2005
At 05:59 PM 5/23/2005 -0700, Stuart wrote:
>The two theological doctrines that make up the meat of
>that part of my argument are The Immaculate Conception
>and the Infallibility of God. The second I don't
>explicitly mention [but] I do allude to.
Yikes! Did you actually take a moment to find out what the doctrine of
Immaculate Conception *is*:
< The subject of this immunity from
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm>original sin is the person of
Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.
". . .in the first instance of her conception . . ." The term conception
does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body
was formed in the womb of the
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01538a.htm>mother, and the
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08406b.htm>father had the usual share in
its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the
generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive
conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata),
which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the
rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and
infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm>original sin at the first
moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin
could have taken effect in her soul. >
> > Is derision a risk you have to take?
>I sincerely hope not, as a scientist much rides on my
If you insist on getting the basic details of theological dogmas wrong, and
adding hokey spiritualist silliness like "weighing souls", the derision you
attract will not be the kind of scorn you can happily adopt as an ensign of
your valid thinking in a gullible and superstitious world. It will be the
laughter of those you've try to persuade with feeble arguments that will be
seen as more closely resembling a crank's misuse of Einstein.
Stick to what you know -- which is obviously an awful lot, specialized
information that people *will* respect.
More information about the extropy-chat