In Nirvana -- FawnDoo's Cavalcade of Whimsy

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:53:18 11/22/04 Mon
Author: Goktimus Prime
Subject: In Nirvana
In reply to: Perceptor II 's message, "*sigh!*" on 17:41:32 11/22/04 Mon

What point #1 makes clear is that Jesus existed before he took human form, and that the "Father/Son"* relationship existed beforehand as well. Since God (the Father) did not need Mary to create or become the father of Jesus (God the Son), it appears safe to say that something other than sexual intercourse happened is Jesus' earthly conception. Something miraculous, to which the usual mores about sexuality and "wedlock" simply do not apply.

The Gospel certainly does state that Jesus did exist before his human incarnation - including the fact that Jesus knew Satan before he was expelled from Heaven (there's one passsage where Jesus describes how he witnessed Satan's expulsion). And also, since Christ's conception was 'Immaculate,' then I can see how the normal realms of "wedlock" would not necessarily apply.

So as I understand it, your rationale essentially states that the normal realms of wedlock do not apply when a person is born whose soul already pre-existed before their birth on Earth - and thus the standard definition of 'bastardism' (yes, I made this word up) don't apply.

So according to this rationale, would a reincarnated human soul born out wedlock also be exempted from the standard definition of wedlock and bastardism? For example, if a child is conceived and born from unmarried Hindu parents - who believe that their child's soul is that soul's reincarnation along its journey to Nirvana, then would that child be exempted from defined as a bastard? Furthermore, would that child's parents be exempted from marriage and thus would it nullify the meaning of Hindu marriage?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]