Gauracandra Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 People who believe in the virgin Mary, will believe in anything. - UG Considering the view UG has towards people who believe in anything spiritual this quote isn’t particularly surprising. He could just as easily have said “People who believe in God will believe in anything”. Not a whole lot new from UG is there. But the idea of the Virgin birth is interesting. There are a number of varying paths this takes in Christianity. In Catholicism I believe the view is that the Holy Spirit conceived within the womb of Mary. Mary then physically carried within her womb the Christ child. There was another small group of Christians that believed that the child within the womb of Mary was a normal human. Once born the spirit of Christ entered the body of the human Christ. Thus while the body of Christ died (the human), the eternal Christ didn’t die (the spirit). Then you have Mormon theology which states that God physically had relations with Mary and imparted DNA to form the body of Christ. It was considered a virgin birth because these were relations with such a higher entity (the Mormon conception of God is much different from the traditional Christian conception of God). There was even a program on television a few months back that showed that virgin births do occur in nature. They are extremely rare and are due to a genetic alteration that allows this. Personally I have always found it very nice that some Christians honor Mother Mary. It is a way of honoring the purity of womanhood. Gauracandra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animesh Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 Why is it that the women who become mothers after losing their virginity are considered less pure? After, all this is quite natural. Even if one believes in all of the stories that talk about a virigin conceiving a child, then also such instances are very rare. If we think that women who are not virgin are not pure, then we have to accept that there should not have been life on Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauracandra Posted October 19, 2001 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 I think the purity comes from the notion of "original state". I think to some degree most religions have the idea of a pull between matter and spirit. So virginity which is a state prior to having engaged in sex is seen as purity, because sex is an attachment to matter (I know some people will claim "Our sex is pure love....", but it is tinged with lust to a greater or lesser degree). Lust is what creates impurity in our heart. Still one can regain that purity in their heart by becoming free from lust. But once we take a step down a path (whether it be sex, intoxication etc....) it is very difficult to come back to that "original state". It should also be pointed out that virginity as purity is applicable to both men and women. These are my thoughts. Gauracandra [This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 10-19-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animesh Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 I am not in a good position to comment on the love between man and woman because of simple fact that I have never fallen in love with any girl and no girl has ever fallen in love with me. But call it pure love or lust or whatever you want, it is a must for life to continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animesh Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 It should also be pointed out that virginity as purity is applicable to both men and women. He, he. This means that I am pure. Nice to know this. Clap clap clap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 Originally posted by Gauracandra: I think the purity comes from the notion of "original state". I think to some degree most religions have the idea of a pull between matter and spirit. So virginity which is a state prior to having engaged in sex is seen as purity, because sex is an attachment to matter (I know some people will claim "Our sex is pure love....", but it is tinged with lust to a greater or lesser degree). Lust is what creates impurity in our heart. Still one can regain that purity in their heart by becoming free from lust. But once we take a step down a path (whether it be sex, intoxication etc....) it is very difficult to come back to that "original state". It should also be pointed out that virginity as purity is applicable to both men and women. These are my thoughts. Gauracandra [This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 10-19-2001).] "Lust"??? Why call it lust? Why be so negative? Why not address it as the innate mechanism for the survival of the species? A strong libido is that which directs the continuity of the species/humanity? Why not see it as a God-given function to ensure “natural selection” persists so as to help in his creation . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 If I am right, the OT predicted the savior would be born to a virgin. Hence the x'tians who had the task of writing the NT, made Jesus's birth a virgin birth. Also, if it was not a virgin birth, Jesus would have been the son of Joseph and not the son of God. Two good reasons. According to the story, Joseph was engaged to Mary, when he discovered she was pregnant. He was about to break off the engagment, when an angel told him about the truth of Mary's pregnancy, after which he married her. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 As it is very well established in sruti, muktas can create worlds within the samvyoma of their hearts and there they can reciprocate with Hari, gathering his parents, relatives, friends and all living entities that they may love. Jesus, Caitanya and countless other muktas may be considered as saviors due this possibility. Undoubtedly the relationship between mother and son is very strong, and if someone is dear for a mother he may be dear for that mother’s son. So, if one is praying to Mary to attain Jesus’ samvyoma for certain he will be placed there. No matter what kind of theologies one may raise to establish Mary’s virginity, or to establish Mary’s position as mother of God or not. The relationship between the follower and Jesus won’t be dependent on these theologies. It will only depend on their mutual love and affection and nothing else. Hari is bounded to fulfil muta’s satya-sankalpa, and a loving follower will attain mukta’s world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jijaji Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 SEX organs are seen as FILTHY...as they are engaged in FORNICATION (a dastardly act) according to many celibate frustrates! celibate frustrates: How could a holy being pass through a VAGINA to make it's way into the world..? jijaji: IT'S A HOLY YONI....I say! ¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:- ¸.·´ .·´¨¨)) ((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji -:¦:- ((¸¸.·´* [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 10-19-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 "Lust"??? Why call it lust? Why be so negative? Why not address it as the innate mechanism for the survival of the species? Why is lust negative? it is the "innate mechanism for the survival of the species". Lust is a natural, biological factor. It is not something that is learnt. It is religion which steps in and says, lust is bad, negative, it must be controlled, etc. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 10-19-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahak Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 Quote--"Why is lust negative? it is the "innate mechanism for the survival of the species". Lust is a natural, biological factor. It is not something that is learnt." Biology is not negative, it is just a very limited truth. The very basis of spiritual understanding has, at the very beginning stages, the acceptance of the "ghost in the machine". This means acceptance that the material manifestation is an arena for the living entity to "ride in" and not the life form itself. So, lust, as a biological pushing, is accepted as just that by one of spiritual understanding, not artificially rejected, rather, seen as inferior to the emotion that lust is a shadow of, the real Love Exchange. Lust and love cannot be accepted as the same thing, even in the biology world. Anyone who has "fallen" in love knows this, and though the physical expression of love often arouses lusty desire, the love is real if the lust has no effect on the expressed relationship. So, sex in love is not at all to be considered the same as lust, which is nothing more than having the senses dictate to the mind and not much more spiritually advanced than those in animal bodies. Love, sex, and lust are three separate subjects, and if one cannot see distinctions in the three and interchange the words as if synonomous, a discussion of the subject will never get anywhere. Actually, my personal "belief" (which I consider realization due to the concept being brought to beyond reasonable doubt) is tha Jesus and Lord Brahma are one and the same. The virginity of Mary can remain intact by the siddhis of Lord Brahma, who has the distinction of being the only begotten son of the Supreme Father, Lord Narayan, who gave to Lord Brahma from the lotus without the need of a female spouse. Anyway, apologies to SHVU for being a bit rough due to what I perceived as a slam on the other channel. Hope you will remain to feel free to express yourself without fear of such reprisal even though I may have a sharp tongue now and then. Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 Originally posted by suryaz: "Lust"??? Why call it lust? Why be so negative? (There are seven four letter words in English ending with "ust") For some lust is a mixture of love and must For others it is love and bust Still others for whom it is just a gust of corrosive air which renders their iron will into rust and blows it about as dust ------------------ talasiga@hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 Actually, my personal "belief" (which I consider realization due to the concept being brought to beyond reasonable doubt) is tha Jesus and Lord Brahma are one and the same. For certain that is a very interesting speculation. But Brahma cannot be considered as a mukta. Neither he can place countless other jivas into the samvyoma of his own heart to live there eternally reciprocating with Hari. Jesus clear states in St John’s Gospel that he was preparing a place (a room) at his Father abode to receive his beloved ones, for his Father abode was his own abode. Brahma cannot do it. Only a mukta can proceed in that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 Anyway, apologies to SHVU for being a bit rough due to what I perceived as a slam on the other channel. Hope you will remain to feel free to express yourself without fear of such reprisal even though I may have a sharp tongue now and then. No issues, mahak. We all have our opinions and when they differ as they do sometimes, friction is inevitable. I think that is the way it is, and I am fine with that. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.