Is human moral virtue between the legs?
Doctrinal and theological constructs often go far beyond the primary intention, which is often childish and naive, as is the case in the theogony of Jesus, where Catholicism sought to demonstrate the purity of the origin of the man Jesus. They suggested that Joseph could not contaminate Mary's virginity by arranging fertilization without consummating the act of marital carnal conjunction. On the contrary, it was a non-human fertilization. However, the result was a disaster, because it ends up looking like there was adultery where the holy spirit ejaculated in Mary, and the intention of constructing an origin without sin transforms Joseph into Jesus' stepfather and Mary into an adulterous woman who was raped by the holy spirit, since she did not even consent to the fertilization of her uterus. Would the alternative be the abiogenesis of Jesus?
Mat. 1:6 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Would there have been other ways for Jesus to be born other than through a woman?
If a pure virgin woman was supposed to give birth to Jesus, the idea of spiritual fertilization created much more problems than it was intended to solve. So the semantic consequences are in a sophistical cast of explanations and speculations of the most diverse kinds and have opened space for all kinds of consequences and possibilities that are totally plausible and likely.
Once the decision was made to conceive Mary, or in Mary, the fertilization of a boy depended on a chromosome that only exists in male sperm, the Y chromosome. The capacity of the female monozygote is limited to the paired sex chromosomes of the XX type. Therefore, the male fetus would need the intervention of a Y chromosome to have a man, to be conceived by artificial insemination by an external agent, in this case, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would have to insert the Y chromosome so that the baby Jesus would be a XY type man, a normal zygote, in order to have, in accordance with the totally normal gestation of nine months, a standard pregnancy, except for the exception of physical genital intercourse. Everything else was described as an insemination of the Holy Spirit as if it were a completely natural, conventional fertilization. To create an immaculate son from an immaculate virgin, even without observing the logical genealogical genetic line of David's descendants, they created a virgin character who could not be sexually impure, except morally, nor was Mary necessarily a descendant of David as they wanted, and for Jesus Christ to enter the genealogical line of Joseph he would need Joseph's sperm and not the sperm of the Holy Spirit as was done, so morally according to Mosaic laws Mary could be considered an adulteress by the population and her community since she was not fertilized by her legitimate sperm of her husband Joseph, betrayed, cuckolded, sexually defrauded by Mary without her explicit consent and by the Holy Spirit who should have warned her husband Joseph before notifying her that he would impregnate his wife!
Did she have the pregnancy, did she have blood, did she have XY chromosomes, did she have organs but not sperm? Wasn't it God who created sperm, and fertilization in the vagina, in the uterus, and the entire process of human vegetative reproduction?
Is there a part of the human body that is separated as pure and impure, sinful and sanctified? What are these parts?
Where is this theology written?
Adam and Eve were naked before eating the forbidden fruit and after eating it they felt ashamed of their nakedness. God said nothing about nakedness relating to sin. Genesis 2:25 “And they were both naked, the man and his wife; and they were not ashamed.” Genesis 3:7:7 “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.” But before eating they were not ashamed of their nakedness. Since then, all modern Western civilization has placed human ethical and moral virtue between the legs, in the genitals; other groups place virtue in scientific and intellectual knowledge, others place it in the social status of celebrities and authorities, and others in wealth and physical beauty and youth.
It is possible to see that Hinduism, unlike Christianity, does not include genitalia among human virtues, not even to punish and judge behavior related to virginity or sexual promiscuity, much less related to marital infidelity, which impoverishes a person's character by reducing it to sexuality and the sexual organ alone.
How many Western families break up because of a sexual act that overrides anything else that the spouse can provide, from affection, respect, protection, dedication and care? Everything is nullified by the behavior regulated by the sexual act. It is a reductionism of the human person to the genitals.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário