Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Another Good Reason Not To Be Married -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edwarda who wrote (5117)	5/13/1999 2:04:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6545

Actually, it's time for me to withdraw my mea culpa. It turns out that I was correct! It's important to note that I used the term immaculate conception in lower case, not upper case. Your article states quite clearly "Christ, being logically unable to sin against Himself, was born without the stain of Original Sin because of his very nature." My dictionary defines both the terms "immaculate" (lower case) and conception (lower case); it defines Immaculate Conception (note capitals) as the doctrine you laid out. BUT, there can also be other immaculate conceptions (lower case), which is how I used the term. And Jesus's conception was clearly immaculate, being without the stain of Original Sin. SO: I concede that the doctrine of Immaculate Conception applies to Mary. However, Jesus's conception was also without sin, so his conception was also immaculate, making him, just as I originally posted, the product of immaculate conception, just not of the Immaculate Conception. Un-mea culpa!