Misandry in Immaculate Conception, The Virgin Birth, and Annunciation?

[Pacman7331]

I'm not sure the differences between these three concepts.

But looking on Wiki it shows that the Immaculate Conception was the idea that the human mother of Christ was without sin.

The Virgin Birth (which I thought was the same as the immaculate conception) shows itself separate from that and calls that the Annunciation.

I'm not super familiar with Catholicism.

Here is my question or point:

Isn't the idea that the savior of mankind had to come from the conception of a child in the absence of sexual intercourse with a man - insulting to our gender? Is there institutionalized misandry on this point? The assumption is that if a woman is able to give birth without having a man around... This will produce salvation for mankind?

I mean whew... if thats not a perfect line from the arsenal gender warfare against men I dunno what is.



Granted she did have a male child. But still the point is clear. He wouldn't have been holy if a man had been involved.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annunciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus

[Captain Courageous]

No Pac, she didn't need a man. God willed it. Even the most macho Muslims assert that. The religious point being God's omnipotence ... not misandry.

Using Wikipedia to launch a serious critique of Catholic dogma?

[neoteny]

Isn't the idea that the savior of mankind had to come from the conception of a child in the absence of sexual intercourse with a man - insulting to our gender?

Immaculate Conception: for Jesus to be a deity (God manifest in a human body), Catholic dogmatics had to get around the problem of original sin, something all of us are born with, according to Catholic teaching. The appropriate authorities resolved the problem by making Mary sinless from conception (ie. she wasn't born under the shadow of original sin), and the Holy Spirit obviously doesn't suffer from that defect.

Virgin Birth: for Jesus to be the Son of God (God manifest in a human body), he had to have God (through the Holy Spirit) as his 'biological' father, not any human male. The problem isn't sexual intercourse; it is of parentage.

[julie]

I don't think it's about leaving MAN out. GOD is considered a MAN and Jesus is considered the SON of GOD.

Joseph is considered to be the step-father, the man GOD entrusted to raise the SON of GOD.

Mary was the chosen women to be the mother of God's SON. She was of the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David and God had promised a saviour would come from this linage.

...........

I don't think there's any other way they could have come up with a son of God.

[The Biscuit Queen]

I always wondered about this. The original sin was not sex, it was disobeying God by eating of the tree. Do you really think Adam and Eve weren't having sex while romping around Eden naked? The punishment for original sin was shame of their bodies.

I think the Bible is not misandrous in this due to Joseph. While Mary was pregnant with some one else's child (presumably God's) Joseph stood by her side. He later married her and raised Jesus as his own as well as had other children with Mary. He was a stand up guy and a true believer. Jesus had two fathers, one heavenly and one earthly. One may consider this as Joseph being duped or being a sucker; I personally do not, as he made a choice.

I assume the immaculate conception was also about having a miracle pregnancy as much as having one concieved without sin. Sex within marriage is not a sin, so why wouldn't God just pick a newly married couple if sinnless was the motivation. 

[CaptDMO]

Using Wikipedia to launch a serious critique of Catholic dogma?

BAM

[Captain Courageous]

Feminists are avowed enemies of the Catholic Church. Fr. John Corapi frequently makes references to this. In addition to infiltration by NAMBLA and self-appointed, amateur theologians carping at them, one of their hidden problems is agitation from feminist nunny-buns, including a few that recently ordained themselves to the priesthood.

[Pacman7331]

Interesting explanations.

This is the weakest one of all however:

Using Wikipedia to launch a serious critique of Catholic dogma?

BAM

Anyhow.

Immaculate Conception: for Jesus to be a deity (God manifest in a human body), Catholic dogmatics had to get around the problem of original sin, something all of us are born with, according to Catholic teaching. The appropriate authorities resolved the problem by making Mary sinless from conception (ie. she wasn't born under the shadow of original sin), and the Holy Spirit obviously doesn't suffer from that defect.

MK. I mean... it just seems arbitrary. A million questions can come out of this... good ones.

Virgin Birth: for Jesus to be the Son of God (God manifest in a human body), he had to have God (through the Holy Spirit) as his 'biological' father, not any human male. The problem isn't sexual intercourse; it is of parentage.

I see that... it's still difficult to accept.

Perhaps it's just a metaphor.

Feminists are avowed enemies of the Catholic Church. Fr. John Corapi frequently makes references to this. In addition to infiltration by NAMBLA and self-appointed, amateur theologians carping at them, one of their hidden problems is agitation from feminist nunny-buns, including a few that recently ordained themselves to the priesthood.

There are definite parts of this story that a feminist could mount on like a wild bull and really piss people off. I'm surprised they haven't done it yet... 

Probably because as soon as they pick up a bible they turn into ashes. 

[Captain Courageous]

Here is my question or point:

Isn't the idea that the savior of mankind had to come from the conception of a child in the absence of sexual intercourse with a man - insulting to our gender? Is there institutionalized misandry on this point? The assumption is that if a woman is able to give birth without having a man around... This will produce salvation for mankind?

I mean whew... if thats not a perfect line from the arsenal gender warfare against men I dunno what is.

Was your question originally meant to be rhetorical?

Precisely what haven't we answered? "Difficult to accept" does not support an assertion of misandry, institutionalized misandry, or "gender warfare against men". Will there be any give-and-take here?

[neoteny]

MK. I mean... it just seems arbitrary. A million questions can come out of this... good ones.

[...]

I see that... it's still difficult to accept.

I was giving you the standard Catholic explanation (as I understand it without extensive research into the subject); I wasn't saying that one has to accept it. Faithful Catholics do have to accept it, though; that's why they're dogmas.

There are definite parts of this story that a feminist could mount on like a wild bull and really piss people off. I'm surprised they haven't done it yet...  

Oh, they already done it; at least some radfems (maybe even Mary Daly?) refer to "God the Rapist" as -- according to the story -- Mary was simply told that she's with child by God, her consent wasn't solicited beforehand.

[Captain Courageous]

Is this just the impetuousness of youth, or do you really intend to slog this one out?

[Pacman7331]

Oh, they already done it; at least some radfems (maybe even Mary Daly?) refer to "God the Rapist" as -- according to the story -- Mary was simply told that she's with child by God, her consent wasn't solicited beforehand.

Ah yes, your right they did do that one - work of the devil.... It just seems like they'd make a bigger claim that God is actually sees women as more pure and men as unnecessary if not a corruption to women to which otherwise they'd be constantly giving birth to Christs if men would exit the picture. Or that when men do exit the picture they give birth to Christs. Or something like that.

Was your question originally meant to be rhetorical?

Precisely what haven't we answered? "Difficult to accept" does not support an assertion of misandry, institutionalized misandry, or "gender warfare against men". Will there be any give-and-take here?

Look Captain Courageous, i'm not asking you or anyone here to pull my chestnuts out of the fire or give me spiritual guidance. I just thought i'd bring up the idea to the rest to see what others familiar with Misandry thought of this theological mystery. Thats about it.

Is this just the impetuousness of youth, or do you really intend to slog this one out?

I suppose if I really wanted to slog it out I'd go to a Priest.
I'm not being impetuous i'm being downright flaky.

[Captain Courageous]

"Flay-kee's good!"

[Peter]

It is more like the perfect story to tell her fiance how she got pregnant - the Immaculate Deception.

[Captain Courageous]

Blow it out your enema bag, kumquat!