Mary, Mother of God

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by SEG » Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:14 pm

Claire wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:47 am
[
For explanations on how the term "woman" was used in the Bible go here.
You need to look at the contest:
When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me?
He sounds like a sexist pig!
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1295
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Claire » Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:14 pm

Claire wrote:
Rian wrote:
Claire wrote:And, there are verses in the Bible that point to Mary being without sin, and a perpetual virgin;

Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of Christ's virgin birth -- see also Matthew 1:23 & Luke 1:27-- and the term "virgin" does not only refer to an individual who abstains from sexual intercourse. It can also be used to describe someone who is ''inexperienced in a usually specified sphere of activity" and "an absolutely chaste young woman". One of the definitions of "chaste" is "pure in thought and act".

In Luke 1:28 Gabriel recognized Mary as being full of Grace. Grace gives light and knowledge to the soul. But, original sin, and the mortal one, removes Grace. So, if Mary had original sin, and committed personal sins, then She couldn't have been full of God's Grace at the same time.

As for Mary's perpetual virginity, in Luke 1:31 it's after Mary is espoused to Joseph that Gabriel tells Her She will conceive a child, and She asks, "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" That question doesn't make sense unless She had taken a vow of virginity. Also, notice Her response wasn't "How shall this be done, because I have not yet known man".

To conclude, I suggest reading Exodus 25. God gave Moses detailed instruction in regards to the creation of the Ark that was to carry His written word. How much more care and attention would He give to Mary, the Ark who would carry His Son, the Savior of world, and His Word made flesh?

I would argue these passages alone point to God having preserved Mary's soul from original sin, and Her being a perpetual virgin in thought/act. And, She maintained that immaculate state by Her natural, good faithful will.

Food for thought.
I think the RCC is really reaching here (and reeeeeely reaching on the whole ark thing - Mary already has enough honor without the whole sinless idea), and if we are saved by Christ alone, then the whole Mary issue isn't even important enough to make a stand on. I think at the most, it should be a kind of "hey this is kind of academic, but we think Mary was sinless for these reasons, but it really doesn't matter and we could be wrong on it - Christ is what really matters". I think their strong position on Mary takes away from the wonderful work of Christ on our behalf and how he is our only Savior.
The Catholic Church teachings regarding Mary are not, nor have ever been, matters of salvation.

I referenced Bible verses that I view point to God having created Mary without the stain of original sin and explained why -- you're welcome to share your reasons for why those verses don't.

There's parallels between the ark of the covenant and Mary, and the ten commandments and Jesus. And, because there's people who don't recognize She was created without original sin, I referenced Exodus 25 where God gave Moses detailed instruction on how to create the ark that would carry His word on stone tablets, then I encouraged those to at least contemplate the question "How much more care and attention would God give to creating the one who would carry His Son, the Word of God made flesh?"

If you don't mind answering, how exactly does anything I have said about Mary take away from the work of Christ?
Rian wrote:Maybe it wasn't clear, I'll try to be more clear.

I said they (the RCC) were really reaching, which means IMO their interpretation is not supported very well at all. Don't need to explain further than that - it just isn't supported. It's extremely vague extrapolation.
My views on Mary are also the teachings by the Catholic Church. So, to say they're reaching, have vague, unsupported arguments, and are taking away from Christ, is to say the same about me.

And, you're accusing the RCC of vague, unsupported arguments while using vague, unsupported arguments yourself. Bravo. Please apply the same standard to yourself.

What's your interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23, Luke 1:27-28, Luke 1:34, and Luke 1:49? Which Bible verse(s) do you consider support the argument Mary inherited original sin?
Rian wrote:
Claire wrote:The Catholic Church teachings regarding Mary are not, nor have ever been, matters of salvation.
I know it's not a matter of salvation, but they are making it about as close as you can get without actually saying she has a part in salvation, which I think is not merely unnecessary but also takes away from Christ's salvation work for us because of how much time and energy the RCC puts into Mary.
You admit it's not a matter of salvation, yet you try to keep with the argument that it is by saying it's "as close as you can get" without being a matter of salvation. Please elaborate. And, how does anything I have said about Mary take away from Jesus's sacrifice?
Rian wrote:
Claire wrote:To conclude, I suggest reading Exodus 25. God gave Moses detailed instruction in regards to the creation of the Ark that was to carry His written word. How much more care and attention would He give to Mary, the Ark who would carry His Son, the Savior of world, and His Word made flesh?
And as far as the "detailed instruction to create the ark" thing - I can buy that God might have given "much more care and attention" creating Mary, but it definitely doesn't follow that she was created without original sin.
The ark of the covenant and the ten commandments are a foreshadowing of Mary and Jesus. The ark was to carry and protect God's written word, and He gave precise instructions regarding its design -- it was holy and perfect. So, why would God place His word made flesh in the womb and care of an unholy and imperfect vessel? And, if not created free from sin, in what way(s) do you think God might've created Mary different from other human beings?
Rian wrote:And if you add any MV, I will definitely not respond.
What if you were speaking with an atheist about your beliefs and they said "If you add anything from the Bible, I will definitely not respond"? Not only have you never addressed excerpts from Maria Valtorta's writings, but you've criticized them, and you've read little to nothing. The hatred you've shown for her is ridiculously disproportionate to what you know about her or her work. I don't know what that stems from, other than your ignorance and fear of venturing into uncharted territory, and therefore being unprepared to converse with someone who's not unfamiliar. Is that accurate to say?

I encourage Christians and non-Christians to not only familiarize with the Bible, but other Christian sources as well because not all Christians only reference the Bible. But, if you're unwilling to do that, and your comfort zone is conversing with those who are only familiar with the Bible, I understand why. I merely suggest you please refrain from condemning Christian writers, or their work, until you've read enough to form a sufficient opinion. Fair?
Last edited by Claire on Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rian
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Rian » Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:25 am

Claire wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:14 pm
The hatred you've shown for her is ridiculously disproportionate to what you know about her or her work.
"Hatred"?

Wow. :roll:

No.
I encourage Christians and non-Christians to not only familiarize with the Bible, but other Christian sources as well because not all Christians only reference the Bible. But, if you're unwilling to do that, and your comfort zone is conversing with those who are only familiar with the Bible, I understand why. I merely suggest you please refrain from condemning Christian writers, or their work, until you've read enough to form a sufficient opinion. Fair?
Yes, and that's what I've done. Tally up another passive-aggressive insult from you with the "comfort zone" comment, too - I've discussed writings of other Christians writers, so no, that's not my "comfort zone". You really have passive-aggressive issues, Clair.

Since you first brought her up on this board, I've researched quite a bit about her, and read quite a lot of her writings. There's no hatred there - I just feel that she is significantly off in quite a few ways. If she's a blessing to you, then good.

BTW, first you say that I've never addressed any of her writings, then you say I've criticized them. Which is it? Criticizing them is addressing them.
What if you were speaking with an atheist about your beliefs and they said "If you add anything from the Bible, I will definitely not respond"?
Then I'd say, "Well I guess we can't talk any further on that subject."

I'm off to a quick overnight trip to the beach for some quiet time of reflection. If you can avoid any more mean extrapolations and baiting while I'm gone, then I will probably address more of your post. Right before I clicked on this site, I thought "Maybe I shouldn't look to see if Clair responded because it's probably pretty passive-aggressive and filled with errors". I should have followed by own advice.

Claire
Posts: 1295
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Claire » Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:08 pm

Rian wrote:
Claire wrote:
Rian wrote:And if you add any MV, I will definitely not respond.
What if you were speaking with an atheist about your beliefs and they said "If you add anything from the Bible, I will definitely not respond"?
Then I'd say, "Well I guess we can't talk any further on that subject."
I'd say something to the effect of, "Telling someone you're not going to respond if they talk about a, b, or c reveals discomfort and intolerance".
Claire wrote:Not only have you never addressed excerpts from Maria Valtorta's writings, but you've criticized them, and you've read little to nothing. The hatred you've shown for her is ridiculously disproportionate to what you know about her or her work. I don't know what that stems from, other than your ignorance and fear of venturing into uncharted territory, and therefore being unprepared to converse with someone who's not unfamiliar. Is that accurate to say?

I encourage Christians and non-Christians to not only familiarize with the writers mentioned in the Bible, but other Christian sources as well because not all Christians only reference the Bible. But, if you're unwilling to do that, and your comfort zone is conversing with those who are only familiar with the Bible, I understand why. I merely suggest you please refrain from condemning Christian writers, or their work, until you've read enough to form a sufficient opinion. Fair?
Rian wrote:Tally up another passive-aggressive insult from you with the "comfort zone" comment, too - I've discussed writings of other Christians writers, so no, that's not my "comfort zone". You really have passive-aggressive issues, Clair.
There are people who would rather only discuss the writings of Bible figures since that's what they're familiar with. And, I said if you're unwilling to familiarize yourself with non-Biblical Christian writers/writings, and your comfort zone is only discussing the writings of Biblical figures, then I would understand why.
Rian wrote:Since you first brought her up on this board, I've researched quite a bit about her, and read quite a lot of her writings. There's no hatred there - I just feel that she is significantly off in quite a few ways.

BTW, first you say that I've never addressed any of her writings, then you say I've criticized them. Which is it? Criticizing them is addressing them.
When I first referenced Maria Valtorta, and up until that point you hadn't even heard of her, your initial response on the forum was immediate disapproval by condemning her and her writings, with having read to little to nothing about her work or her. I don't know what that stemmed from, other than your ignorance and fear of venturing into uncharted territory, and therefore being unprepared to converse with someone who's not unfamiliar. Over the years you've repeatedly told me you refuse to read anything she wrote, would become angry, and request I stop referencing her, etc.

All that was the case before the two or three times, including this one, where you've randomly claimed to have read a good amount of Maria's writings, and asserted something similar to what you're now, which is she's significantly off. When I've asked you to discuss what you've read you refused to do so. You claim you've discussed the writings of other Christian writers, but, I have to say, in regards to Maria Valtorta specifically, based on your posts and lack thereof, your claims of having read "quite a lot of her writings", and not having hatred for Maria Valtorta, are unfounded.
Rian wrote:I'm off to a quick overnight trip to the beach for some quiet time of reflection. If you can avoid any more mean extrapolations and baiting while I'm gone, then I will probably address more of your post. Right before I clicked on this site, I thought "Maybe I shouldn't look to see if Clair responded because it's probably pretty passive-aggressive and filled with errors". I should have followed by own advice.
I think you don't want to continue discussing Jesus's Mother, so you gave yourself an out by claiming there's "problems" with me where there's not. Go ahead and use this post to make good on your threat to end our discussion.

Claire
Posts: 1295
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Claire » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:35 am

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:What evidence do you have to support your claim that every time Jesus called His Mother "woman" it was said with a negative connotation?
I have never heard or seen written "woman" being used directly to a person's mother except in anger or insult.
What you're saying is because you have only ever heard and seen the term "woman" have a negative connotation that means that's the only connotation that can be applied, and therefore proves every time Jesus said that term it was to be insulting. Well, I have never heard or seen the term "woman" used with a negative connotation, so that proves every time Jesus said that term it wasn't to be insulting! See what I did there?

For explanations on how the term "woman" was used in the Bible go here.
SEG wrote:You need to look at the contest:
When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me?
He sounds like a sexist pig!
How so?

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by SEG » Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:14 pm

In the normal way.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1295
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Claire » Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:17 am

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:You need to look at the contest:
When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me?
He sounds like a sexist pig!
How so?
SEG wrote:In the normal way.
You honestly think addressing a woman as "woman" is sexist?

Humanguy
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:48 pm

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Humanguy » Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:10 am

Claire wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:39 pm

All human beings, with the exception of those Graced by the intervention of God, inherit the stain of original sin, and its consequences, because of Adam and Eve for they both committed an offense against God.
Bullshit.

Humanguy
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:48 pm

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Humanguy » Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:25 am

Claire, do you like this arrangement where most human beings inherit the stain of original sin and its consequences? It seems quite harsh, doesn't it, considering that a fetus will inherit the stain of original sin and its consequences.

Honestly, you have to admit that it's a very dark way to look at life, and I fail to see the point of it all. But here again, we see that Christianity hates humanity. It's where all of you, every single one of you falls down. All this original sin being bestowed upon fetuses. Your world view is depressing, there's no happiness to be found there.

Claire
Posts: 1295
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Claire » Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:17 pm

Humanguy wrote:
Claire wrote:All human beings, with the exception of those Graced by the intervention of God, inherit the stain of original sin, and its consequences, because of Adam and Eve for they both committed an offense against God.
Bullshit.

Claire, do you like this arrangement where most human beings inherit the stain of original sin and its consequences? It seems quite harsh, doesn't it, considering that a fetus will inherit the stain of original sin and its consequences.

Honestly, you have to admit that it's a very dark way to look at life, and I fail to see the point of it all. But here again, we see that Christianity hates humanity. It's where all of you, every single one of you falls down. All this original sin being bestowed upon fetuses. Your world view is depressing, there's no happiness to be found there.
It's not a matter of liking. It just is.

While Lucifer, now satan, became the incubator of evil, evil entered the world because Eve and Adam wanted it so, thereby severing the cord which fed Grace by God. So, now there are two forces at work influencing free will: good and evil. The meaning of inheriting original sin is this: the tendency to sin innate in human beings, or commit immoralities in other words. A human being, at the fetus stage, has not actively sinned. If they live long enough, sins or immoralities if you prefer, will be committed by them if there's a will to do so.

The happiness to be found is by the Lord's willingness to endure human trials, i.e. loss, temptation, ridicule, calumny, betrayal, torture, and death, etc, He restored the bridge between man and God. Those who fall but remain faithful to love in this life, attain merit for themselves in recompense, leading to spiritual growth, and eternal life in Heaven.

I fail to see how that's a God who hates humanity.
I fail to see how acknowledging humanities lack of love is hateful.

Post Reply