[Milton-L] Mary

Christine Gray langwidge at comcast.net
Sun Dec 19 08:48:54 EST 2010


Sirrah or whatever your real name is,
 
You are wrong.
 
I am a Catholic.
 
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was conceived without
original sin, unlike all other humans
 
Now shut up!!  Can it!
 
This is a Milton list!!
 
 
 
Christine Gray, a lurker who is tired of you
 
 


  _____  

From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu
[mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of Nairba Sirrah
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 2:36 AM
To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
Subject: RE: [Milton-L] Jeffery please


I am NOT wrong. If you are actually reading an excerpt from the Roman
Catholic Catechism, it is simply a typographical error. There is nothing in
the Biblical canon about the birth of Mary. Nothing. There is no reason for
the church to have any doctrine about how Mary was conceived.
 
 "The Immaculate Conception" refers to how God impregnated Mary with Jesus.
Even people who don't practice Christianity know that. Please stop saying
i'm wrong. I am not wrong.
 

  _____  

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:31:38 -0800
From: jefferyhodges at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception (clarified)
To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu


No, Nairba, you are wrong. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate
conception refers to the process by which Mary was conceived in her mother's
womb.
 
Jeffery Hodges 



  _____  

From: Nairba Sirrah <nairbasirrah at msn.com>
To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
Sent: Sun, December 19, 2010 4:26:28 PM
Subject: RE: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception (clarified)

Hello Jeffery,
 
good hearing from you. But..
 
no, again. If your statement were true it would be dealing with the birth of
Mary. Conception refers to the conceiving of a child, a fetus. The person
being conceived in the most famous case of "immaculate conception" is JESUS.
Jesus! you both know what I meant.
 
As for the Biblical passages quoted by Professor Danielson, all of us
scholars know there are many, many different translations of that particular
book and verse...and have several very different wordings and implications.
 
But in them all, is the declaration made by god; the divine mandate of "this
is what is going to happen to you." How Mary responds, as far as my
contention is concerened, is irrelevant. God didn't offer her a choice.
 
Giving a declaration of impregnating a woman is a violation of that woman's
sanctity, no who (or what) makes that declaration. Her response could simply
have been a moment of accepting inneviatablity. For all we know, she was
mortified. Or madder than Hell.
 

  _____  

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:15:00 -0800
From: jefferyhodges at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception (response)
To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu


Nairba, you are wrong. The immaculate conception refers to the process by
which Mary was conceived, not the process by which Jesus was conceived.
 
Jeffery Hodges



  _____  

From: Nairba Sirrah <nairbasirrah at msn.com>
To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
Sent: Sun, December 19, 2010 4:05:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception (response)

amazing you bothered to post that..."the immaculate conception" is the
conception of JESUS inside Mary. It is therefore, quite "concerned" with
both Mary and Jesus, and God.
 
and to append the word "doctrine" to it is absurd.
 
Some of you with your detial debating are truly frightening.
 
> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 01:56:09 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception (response)
> From: alanshorn at gmail.com
> To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
> 
> Once again, as Professor Danielson pointed out to you, the doctrine of
> Immaculate Conception is concerned with the conception of Mary, not of
> Jesus.
> 
> Alan
> 
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Nairba Sirrah <nairbasirrah at msn.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Hello Dennis,
> >
> > didn't mean to infuriate. But that unfortunately happens a lot on here.
> >
> > In response, of course the Roman Catholic church is going to see it that
way. But the main essence of the story is that Mary did not have a choice.
God was the father. And she was the mother. She got preganant by divine
insemination.
> >
> > As hard as it may be to face or admit, the "immacualate conception" by
ancient and modern definition IS rape. She had no choice. Not exactly
immaculate. Had God asked her permission, then fine. But as is, it was rape.
> >
> > Not to mention she was already married to another man. Adultery.
> >
> > And as for it not having anything to do with Milton, in Milton Jesus is
"begotten" in Heaven. And considering he soon after fought in a war, was
also born an adult.
> >
> > What's so wrong about considering the physical implications of these
spiritual narratives? In Milton, we are to suppose that "the Son" is zapped
into her uterus and reborn...but as you so graciosly pointed out, in Luke it
clearly says she will conceive, meaning a sexual bonding between father and
mother.
> >
> > Again, sorry for the offence and infuriation, but a fact is a fact.
> >
> >
> > > Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:42:13 -0800
> > > From: danielso at interchange.ubc.ca
> > > Subject: Re: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception
> > > To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
> > >
> > > OK, so this hasn't much to do with Milton. And perhaps I shouldn't
rise
> > > to the bait. But Mr. Sirrah's assumptions are apparently false
> > > (infuriating, too, but let that pass) on two counts:
> > >
> > > 1. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states
that
> > > *Mary* was conceived without sin; it wasn't officially formulated as
> > > dogma until the 19th century.
> > >
> > > 2. If Sirrah means to say that *Mary* was impregnated against her
will,
> > > that statement is contrary to the plain meaning of the biblical
account
> > > of Luke 2:26-38 (See below, noting the future tense in the angel's
"you
> > > will conceive," plus Mary's compliant response).
> > >
> > > I'm done, except to thank Louis Schwartz for his eminently sensible
> > > comments yesterday, and to wish my fellow Miltonists all the blessings
> > > of the season, whatever feasts or festivals they observe.
> > >
> > > Dennis Danielson
> > > _______________________
> > >
> > > Luke 2:26-38
> > >
> > > In the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, God sent the angel
Gabriel
> > > to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a
> > > man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
The
> > > angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored!
The
> > > Lord is with you."
> > >
> > > Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of
> > > greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid,
> > > Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth
to
> > > a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be
> > > called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne
> > > of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob's descendants
forever;
> > > his kingdom will never end."
> > >
> > > "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
> > >
> > > The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power
of
> > > the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be
> > > called[b] the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to
have
> > > a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive
is
> > > in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail."
> > >
> > > "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May your word to me be
> > > fulfilled."
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10-12-18 9:07 PM, Nairba Sirrah wrote:
> > > > in the vein of considering the classic epic hero and the classic
epic
> > > > villain, let us remember that "the immaculate conception" was (if it
> > > > actually happened) categorically...rape. Anytime you impregnate a
woman
> > > > against her will, it is rape.
> > > >
> > > > So if Satan is the hero, guess who's the villain.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dennis Danielson
> > > Professor of English
> > > University of British Columbia
> > > #397 - 1873 East Mall
> > > Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z1
> > > telephone: 604-822-4092
> > > Author: The First Copernican
> > > Editor: Paradise Lost, Parallel Prose Edition
> > > WEB: http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/ddaniels/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Milton-L mailing list
> > > Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> > > Manage your list membership and access list archives at
http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
> > >
> > > Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Milton-L mailing list
> > Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> > Manage your list membership and access list archives at
http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
> >
> > Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
> 
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/


_______________________________________________ Milton-L mailing list
Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu Manage your list membership and access list
archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l Milton-L web
site: http://johnmilton.org/ 

_______________________________________________ Milton-L mailing list
Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu Manage your list membership and access list
archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l Milton-L web
site: http://johnmilton.org/ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20101219/b740b711/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Milton-L mailing list