Its changed in the revision I am working on. I'm just saying that describing a sex-less conception as an "immaculate conception" is not that inaccurate.
It's completely inaccurate. The term has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX, and everything to do with ORIGINAL SIN.
Immaculate Conception = someone is conceived without the stain of original sin (applies to Jesus and Mary, but since Jesus is DIVINE, there's no reason to single him out as sinless, since of course God is sinless)
Virginal Conception = someone is conceived without sex (applies to Jesus alone)
Virtually all Christians accept the virginal conception of Jesus. Only Catholics (and perhaps some Orthodox, but it is not official teaching of any of those communions) accept the Immaculate Conception, and it refers exclusively to the virgin Mary.
Fact: In Catholic (and non-Catholic Christian) understanding, MARY'S PARENTS HAD SEX. Her mother got pregnant from her husband's sperm. Mary's mom gave birth to her. The only difference (for Catholics) between Mary and all other mortal human beings who have ever been born, is that she didn't have original sin (meaning she had no tendency to sin in life, meaning she was sinless as an adult). Protestants don't accept Mary's sinlessness (though Muslims apparently accept it), but they do accept the fact that her parents conceived her in the usual, biological fashion.
Fact: Both Catholics and the vast majority of non-Catholic Christians have traditionally accepted the "virgin birth" (virginal conception) of JESUS (Mary and Joseph didn't have sex to produce Jesus, rather Mary became pregnant miraculously of the Holy Spirit). I don't know of any who assert that Mary's parents didn't have sex to produce her.
So if sex is "dirty" then how was Mary kept unstained by Original Sin even though her parents had sex? IC just means that she herself is unstained, not that her virginity made her pure (she was pure from conception, not from when she hit puberty and decided to abstain from all sexual activity).
Since non-Christian religions (like Greco-Roman pagan religions) lack a belief in original sin, "Immaculate Conception" has no meaning. Virginal Conception might, but again, that's another topic entirely (and I would still say there's a difference Christianity's virgin birth story and Zeus transforming into an animal to physically seduce a human woman and produce a half-divine child).
It belongs completely to Catholics, who have and continue to define it as the sinless condition of Mary, the mother of Christ. If non-Catholic (or even some Catholic) laymen misuse the term to refer to another concept, that doesn't make their misapplication therefore excusable. A lot of people misquote Shakespeare or confuse common words with one another. That doesn't mean those things therefore are excusable mistakes when we know better either.
and its used freely by catholics and non-catholics to describe miraculous sexless conception. Schmi is not a virgin birth, so you could call it a "divine conception" or an "immaculate conception", but people understand "immaculate conception" better.
It's completely inaccurate. The term has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX, and everything to do with ORIGINAL SIN.
Immaculate Conception = someone is conceived without the stain of original sin (applies to Jesus and Mary, but since Jesus is DIVINE, there's no reason to single him out as sinless, since of course God is sinless)
Virginal Conception = someone is conceived without sex (applies to Jesus alone)
Virtually all Christians accept the virginal conception of Jesus. Only Catholics (and perhaps some Orthodox, but it is not official teaching of any of those communions) accept the Immaculate Conception, and it refers exclusively to the virgin Mary.
Fact: In Catholic (and non-Catholic Christian) understanding, MARY'S PARENTS HAD SEX. Her mother got pregnant from her husband's sperm. Mary's mom gave birth to her. The only difference (for Catholics) between Mary and all other mortal human beings who have ever been born, is that she didn't have original sin (meaning she had no tendency to sin in life, meaning she was sinless as an adult). Protestants don't accept Mary's sinlessness (though Muslims apparently accept it), but they do accept the fact that her parents conceived her in the usual, biological fashion.
Fact: Both Catholics and the vast majority of non-Catholic Christians have traditionally accepted the "virgin birth" (virginal conception) of JESUS (Mary and Joseph didn't have sex to produce Jesus, rather Mary became pregnant miraculously of the Holy Spirit). I don't know of any who assert that Mary's parents didn't have sex to produce her.
So if sex is "dirty" then how was Mary kept unstained by Original Sin even though her parents had sex? IC just means that she herself is unstained, not that her virginity made her pure (she was pure from conception, not from when she hit puberty and decided to abstain from all sexual activity).
Since non-Christian religions (like Greco-Roman pagan religions) lack a belief in original sin, "Immaculate Conception" has no meaning. Virginal Conception might, but again, that's another topic entirely (and I would still say there's a difference Christianity's virgin birth story and Zeus transforming into an animal to physically seduce a human woman and produce a half-divine child).
Its not a catholic thing; its part of a public calloquialism.
And it's completely wrong, just like the stories Lucas is perpetuating about Star Wars. So promoting ignorance via repetition of a common misunderstanding undermines the entire point of the work which is to correct the history of the development of the Star Wars stories.
It has catholic etymological roots but it doesn't belong belong to catholics,
And it's completely wrong, just like the stories Lucas is perpetuating about Star Wars. So promoting ignorance via repetition of a common misunderstanding undermines the entire point of the work which is to correct the history of the development of the Star Wars stories.
It has catholic etymological roots but it doesn't belong belong to catholics,
It belongs completely to Catholics, who have and continue to define it as the sinless condition of Mary, the mother of Christ. If non-Catholic (or even some Catholic) laymen misuse the term to refer to another concept, that doesn't make their misapplication therefore excusable. A lot of people misquote Shakespeare or confuse common words with one another. That doesn't mean those things therefore are excusable mistakes when we know better either.
and its used freely by catholics and non-catholics to describe miraculous sexless conception. Schmi is not a virgin birth, so you could call it a "divine conception" or an "immaculate conception", but people understand "immaculate conception" better.
Anakin isn't divine (and calling the Force "God" is an outside interpretation of Star Wars which is another whole can of worms), so it's not a divine conception. We know he turns into an evil jerk, so he can't be sinless. We have no idea whether Shmi ever has had sex, but the movie leads us to believe that Anakin has no human father. So his conception is "miraculous" in the sense that the Force presumably has something to do with it (no other theory is presented in the movies themselves and Lucas hasn't said word one against those ideas, though in an early draft of Episode III Palpatine was to be Anakin's real father). Calling Anakin's conception an "Immaculate Conception" is completely erroneous, no matter how many Star Wars fans and movie reviewers have misapplied it to Anakin.
The fact is that if Anakin were sinless, the entire Star Wars saga wouldn't have happened like it did.
Once this error has been corrected (and it's a simple one to fix), I'll be happy. It's a pet peeve of mine too (ever since '99 when every other rant on Episode I misused the term).