> > > Actually, no. The term "Immaculate Conception" refers to the
> > conception of Mary, not of Jesus.
> >
> > Oh. Well, that shows me. I'm an idiot...
>
> Not at all. I gotta say, this is one of the most profoundly pedantic debates ever. Immaculate conception, virgin birth -- these terms, as used as proper names in the context of specific denominations, are completely irrelevant to the point Rifty was making. Who cares what the Catholic church uses the term "Immaculate Conception" (capitalized) to mean, when the conversation is about Star Wars? In Star Wars (as far as I remember) neither term is used, but *both* are perfectly adequate to describe the idea at hand.

Perhaps so. I simply wanted to point out that, as real-world theological terms, Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth are *not* interchangeable. It was a minor point, and I didn't intend for it to become a significant part of the discussion.

> Discussions like this are way more fun and way more productive if we don't spend all our energy trying to achieve pinpoint precision and instead run with the ideas everybody fully understands anyhow.
>
> > Jesus, being of God, and Mary is half-man, half-God, and thus
> > the bridge between the gap of man and God. Or something. I
> > don't know.
>
> This may be the Catholic doctrine, but it's not common across Christianity, and I don't think it's biblical, either. Mary was a human woman, nothing more, and that's largely the point. She was a virgin at the time of Christ's birth, but unless Christ's brothers were also immaculately conceived (not), she didn't remain one, and this fact is not to her discredit. Stated and restated in the Bible is that the sin nature passes down through the father, not the mother, and so Christ could be sinless and yet born to a human woman.

I believe that there's a misplaced comma somewhere. I read it as Jesus, being of God and Mary, is half-man, half-God...", and saying nothing about the nature of Mary.

As to whether Mary remained a virgin, Catholics (and many Protestants) believe that she did; this goes back to the idea of her being utterly without sin. The references to Jesus refering to people as his brother is seen as being a reference to everyone having God for a father, in the same way that my Father-in-Law calls members of the congregation of the church he attends "brother" or "sister". Jesus' saying "call no man father" is a clear indication that he though of family in these terms, rather than purely as bloodlines.

Again, I don't see that there is any convergence between any doctrine on this subject and Star Wars, unless you find a way to equate Uncle Owen with John / James / Thomas / Peter / whoever else is described as being Jesus' brother.

> How this all relates to Anakin Skywalker, though, I have no idea. The immaculate conception of Anakin really sounds like one of those ideas Lucas had that sounded good on the surface and so was used, but to what end? Sure, Anakin was the one to bring balance back to the force. But, as Gabe pointed out, he was more affected by a sin nature than any other Star Wars character. And Jesus didn't come into the world to bring "balance" anyhow. He came to conquer death, the effects of sin, and the otherwise inevitable fate of mankind in hell. That was the purpose (or one of them) of the first coming; the second will be to vanquish sin itself. There's no balance or compromise in anything Christ does.
>
> The above paragraph (obviously) takes Star Wars far too seriously, but the point is that Lucas seems to be inviting a comparison between Jesus and Anakin, and yet no meaningful comparison seems to hold! It's a little bizarre.

Agreed.