[Magdalen] Images and words about Mary

[Molly Wolf]

My problem with the Immaculate Conception is twofold: it makes no sense when yoked to biology (and for me, science and faith are a double helix); and, more importantly, it views sin as contagion -- the Doctrine of Cootification -- which makes nonsense of free will and depends on the dogma that we inherit original sin as a form of Girl Germs. 

I have immense respect for the vivid, bold young woman who took God's challenge without a moment's hesitation, risking her future and even her life.  She is the greatest of saints.  But I believe that she went on to have a fruitful and joyous marriage with the man who was willing to take God's Son on faith and to be his earthly abba.

I understand the poetic desire to gussy up Mary, but too much of that is rooted in misogyny.  "Alone of all her sex she pleased the Lord" -- not on yer life, buster.

Molly

The man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. -- Mark Twain

> On Jan 29, 2016, at 5:42 PM, James Oppenheimer-Crawford <oppenheimerjw at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> What say we?
> 
> Well, I for one fully agree with you. The idea that Mary was to conceived
> without sin was just so that God would have a sin-free womb to grow in.  I
> agree with you; there is no need to sterilize the female or any male for
> that matter. After all, scripture states that God pronounced Her creation
> good, indeed, very good.  The old men of first-century Palestine were
> convinced that the world is polluted with sin, so that God would have
> nothing to do with it.  This was why the second person was designated as
> the go-to person to travel to the created world, and not the father. What's
> more, they believed that even so the second person would need a sinless
> place to reside. A womb? Under ordinary circumstances, utterly unthinkable!
> So they thought and thought, and finally dreamed up the immaculate
> conception, etc.
> 
> This would all be very neat except that Mary keeps on showing up to people
> in various times and places -- both naive and schooled -- and she has even
> affirmed that she is what those traditions say she is.  So I guess we all
> need to take care what we say about the wonderful Lady.
> 
> I think we can accept one side of the picture and just not dwell on the
> implied other.  We do it all the time anyway, and it seems to be a frequent
> aspect of scripture.
> 
> Just before the flood myth, we read about the Nephilim; and according to
> scripture, they all were lost in the flood.  However, a while later, there
> are references to these entities again, and nobody thinks there's any
> problem -- because the two accounts are compartmentalized and do not
> necessarily have anything to do with each other.
> 
> Likewise, I think we can celebrate Mary as the bearer and parent of god,
> and not dwell on those other ideas promulgated by those first century old
> guys.  They were laying the foundations for the toxic anti-female role of
> the Church -- an horrible, hateful attitude which prevailed for centuries
> until we finally called it out and renounced it.
> 
> And the folks in some denominations and benighted areas of our own
> communion still are resisting!
> 
> James W. Oppenheimer-Crawford
> *“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved,
> except in memory. LLAP**”  -- *Leonard Nimoy
> 
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Sally Davies <sally.davies at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Fascinating - thanks Ian. This site has prompted me to download Tumblr
>> which looks like a good thing to have...
>> 
>> I have SUCH mixed feelings. At a purely emotional level I love "Our Lady"
>> far more than a Protestant should (and in Southern Africa the Anglican
>> church is firmly in the protestant tradition). The love I have for her is
>> simple and trusting, as the Mother of the church and one of the treasures
>> bequeathed to us by Jesus as he died, through the "beloved disciple".
>> 
>> But there are aspects, brought out by some of these contributors, that
>> annoy me so much I can scarcely stand to look at them. Such as, the world
>> of misogyny and anti-humanism implicit in notions such as "unstained", or
>> "undefiled". YECHH!!
>> 
>> What the heck does any of that mean? If Mary was "unstained by original
>> sin" then who was that person who fully identified with her people in the
>> joyous explosion of the Magnificat? Not a perfect woman, just a very young
>> human who gave her whole heart to the purposes of God.
>> 
>> Why do we allow a very dubious doctrine ("original sin") to subvert
>> everything like this?
>> 
>> And it gets worse - it's clear from some posts that "undefiled" means that
>> Mary never had sex. Now I don't take a position on that either way,
>> considering it her private business, but I cannot go along with any
>> discourse implying that being sexual somehow "defiles" a woman (it's
>> unlikely to be a man in that context).
>> 
>> Bah. Sorry to rant, but it's because I AM so fascinated by all this that I
>> end up biting off more than I can chew.
>> 
>> What say you, pub friends?
>> 
>> Sally D
>> 
>>> On Friday, 29 January 2016, Ian Gomersall <ian.gomersall at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Friends
>>> 
>>> Our Church is hosting a friendly Facebook Group called 'Mary, images,
>> words
>>> and music' simply for people of *any* Christian tradtion *(or none)* to
>>> share images or verse or prose about Mary.
>>> 
>>> It doesn't assume a particular stance on devotion to Mary ...
>>> 
>>> Please feel free to join if you're on Facebook. You'd be very welcome.
>>> 
>>> <goog_1806472691>
>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/986129021426449/
>>> 
>>> Ian
>>> 
>>> *Ian Gomersall*
>>