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

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Rian » Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:47 am

Claire, who is a Catholic, and who wanted her name on this quote even though the context of the quote clearly doesn't require it because all I'm doing is using the quote to illustrate a belief and comment on it, and I'm always very careful to give credit to quotes when the context requires it, but since she's upset about it I edited the post and put her name in, wrote:
Additionally, I suggest you read Ex. 25. There's parallels between the ark of the covenant and Mary, and the ten commandments and Jesus. God desired the creation of a perfect ark to contain His written word. So, why would He create an imperfect ark to contain His word made flesh?
To comment on this, while not starting up another fruitless argument:

I agree with Chap that nowhere does the Bible say that Mary was created sinless, so IMO to come out and have such a strong opinion on that, as the RCC does, is WAY overstepping bounds with an unsupported extrapolation that is completely unnecessary. Jesus saves, whether or not Mary was sinless, so it's an irrelevant point anyway.

I don't recall God saying that the ark was perfect. It probably had some wormholes in the wood. But it was designed by God for its purpose. I'd even be willing to say that it was perfectly designed for its purpose. And if I had to make an extrapolation and give an opinion on the subject of whether or not Mary was created sinless, I'd say that the perfect option is that she was NOT, because that demonstrates even more clearly that Jesus understands the human condition. I think it's beautiful how Jesus came down to live among us, eating and drinking and talking with us, even weeping with us. It's beautiful that the God of all creation came to live among us, and to bring us back to Him, all while having to deal with what it means to be born of a woman with a sin nature. I think that's the more beautiful and "perfect" opinion on the subject, as well as the more supported opinion, given that the Bible DOES speak about the matter of all people sinning (Romans 3:23). But I also realize that it's an opinion and no one can say for sure either way (although again, of the two opinions, the position of the RCC is LESS supported).

I suppose one could argue that Mary was born without a sin nature but sinned anyway, but one could argue just about anything, so I think it's best to not state as fact something that the Bible doesn't speak to. I think the RCC should temper its position on this issue. I think they spend way too much time and energy on Mary, which takes away from time and energy that could be spent loving God and loving others, the things that Jesus says to do.
Last edited by Rian on Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.

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

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Rian » Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:52 am

Claire wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:07 am

Additionally, I extend to the LORD sincere prayers for peace, love, relief, and health of the body/soul in your behalf.
Thank you very much! That's a good prayer and one that I will pray for you, too.

Claire
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Claire » Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:40 am

Rian wrote:
Claire wrote:Additionally, I extend to the LORD sincere prayers for peace, love, relief, and health of the body/soul in your behalf.
Thank you very much! That's a good prayer and one that I will pray for you, too.
My pleasure and I thank you in return. It's a good prayer to be made in the behalf of every human being.

Claire
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Claire » Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:33 am

Rian wrote:
Additionally, I suggest you read Ex. 25. There's parallels between the ark of the covenant and Mary, and the ten commandments and Jesus. God desired the creation of a perfect ark to contain His written word. So, why would He create an imperfect ark to contain His word made flesh?
To comment on this, while not starting up another fruitless argument:

I agree with Chap that nowhere does the Bible say that Mary was created sinless, so IMO to come out and have such a strong opinion on that, as the RCC does, is WAY overstepping bounds with an unsupported extrapolation that is completely unnecessary. Jesus saves, whether or not Mary was sinless, so it's an irrelevant point anyway.

I don't recall God saying that the ark was perfect. It probably had some wormholes in the wood. But it was designed by God for its purpose. I'd even be willing to say that it was perfectly designed for its purpose. And if I had to make an extrapolation and give an opinion on the subject of whether or not Mary was created sinless, I'd say that the perfect option is that she was NOT, because that demonstrates even more clearly that Jesus understands the human condition. I think it's beautiful how Jesus came down to live among us, eating and drinking and talking with us, even weeping with us. It's beautiful that the God of all creation came to live among us, and to bring us back to Him, all while having to deal with what it means to be born of a woman with a sin nature. I think that's the more beautiful and "perfect" opinion on the subject, as well as the more supported opinion, given that the Bible DOES speak about the matter of all people sinning (Romans 3:23). But I also realize that it's an opinion and no one can say for sure either way (although again, of the two opinions, the position of the RCC is LESS supported).

I suppose one could argue that Mary was born without a sin nature but sinned anyway, but one could argue just about anything, so I think it's best to not state as fact something that the Bible doesn't speak to. I think the RCC should temper its position on this issue. I think they spend way too much time and energy on Mary, which takes away from time and energy that could be spent loving God and loving others, the things that Jesus says to do.
To be clear, you're the one who just re-initiated you and I's discussion on Mary, despite your limited time, family obligations, serious health/insurance issues, and your assertions I'm delusional, and that it's nearly impossible to have a discussion with me. So, I hope you plan to not waste time like before, and possibly even make up for time previously lost.
Last edited by Claire on Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Rian » Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:49 am

No, I did NOT re-initiate the discussion. As I said, I wanted to COMMENT on it. In case you didn't notice, I didn't even use your name - I just said "a Catholic". I was interested in commenting on the Catholic position on the ark/Mary comparison, and your statement of it was handy, so I used it.

End of comment.

Claire
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Claire » Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:35 am

Claire wrote:
Rian wrote:
a Catholic wrote:Additionally, I suggest you read Ex. 25. There's parallels between the ark of the covenant and Mary, and the ten commandments and Jesus. God desired the creation of a perfect ark to contain His written word. So, why would He create an imperfect ark to contain His word made flesh?
To comment on this, while not starting up another fruitless argument:

I agree with Chap that nowhere does the Bible say that Mary was created sinless, so IMO to come out and have such a strong opinion on that, as the RCC does, is WAY overstepping bounds with an unsupported extrapolation that is completely unnecessary. Jesus saves, whether or not Mary was sinless, so it's an irrelevant point anyway.

I don't recall God saying that the ark was perfect. It probably had some wormholes in the wood. But it was designed by God for its purpose. I'd even be willing to say that it was perfectly designed for its purpose. And if I had to make an extrapolation and give an opinion on the subject of whether or not Mary was created sinless, I'd say that the perfect option is that she was NOT, because that demonstrates even more clearly that Jesus understands the human condition. I think it's beautiful how Jesus came down to live among us, eating and drinking and talking with us, even weeping with us. It's beautiful that the God of all creation came to live among us, and to bring us back to Him, all while having to deal with what it means to be born of a woman with a sin nature. I think that's the more beautiful and "perfect" opinion on the subject, as well as the more supported opinion, given that the Bible DOES speak about the matter of all people sinning (Romans 3:23). But I also realize that it's an opinion and no one can say for sure either way (although again, of the two opinions, the position of the RCC is LESS supported).

I suppose one could argue that Mary was born without a sin nature but sinned anyway, but one could argue just about anything, so I think it's best to not state as fact something that the Bible doesn't speak to. I think the RCC should temper its position on this issue. I think they spend way too much time and energy on Mary, which takes away from time and energy that could be spent loving God and loving others, the things that Jesus says to do.
To be clear, you're the one who just reinitiated you and I's discussion on Mary, despite your limited time, family obligations, serious health/insurance issues, and your assertions I'm delusional, and that it's nearly impossible to have a discussion with me. So, I hope you plan to not waste time like before, and possibly even make up for time previously lost.
Rian wrote:No, I did NOT re-initiate the discussion. As I said, I wanted to COMMENT on it. In case you didn't notice, I didn't even use your name - I just said "a Catholic". I was interested in commenting on the Catholic position on the ark/Mary comparison, and your statement of it was handy, so I used it.

End of comment.
You're right, you didn't re-initiate the discussion, not directly anyway, because that would require confidence and integrity. You re-initiated our discussion indirectly by repeating unsupported, preexisting counter-arguments/claims, under the guise of commentary this time to avoid challenge from me whilst saving face.

As for your attributing a quote to "a Catholic", rather than my name, do you realize how problematic it's to reference without properly citing the source? Not only did you pass my arguments off as general Catholic belief (which it may not be), but as far as anyone else reading that quote, unless they've been following since page 1, they wouldn't have known if you were quoting another member of the forum, some random Catholic online elsewhere, the Pope, or whether or not you made it up.
Last edited by Claire on Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Rian » Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:48 pm

Claire wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:35 am
You're right, you didn't re-initiate the discussion, not directly anyway, because that would require confidence and integrity.
Wow, your nasty is showing more than usual...

And speaking of integrity, please remember that it was you that made a sock puppet to praise your own posts.
You re-initiated our discussion indirectly by repeating unsupported, preexisting counter-arguments/claims, under the guise of commentary this time to avoid challenge from me whilst saving face.
Another delusional thought, but I hope you seek out help soon. Please, please talk to a priest or someone in authority and ACCURATELY describe how EVERYONE at a discussion forum, who has commented on you, has said over and over that it's practically impossible to have a discussion with you. If you can work on this, it will help you in your real life relationships, too. Seriously, please, please do this. At least pray about it.

But I'm making this post to deal with the citation issue, since it bothered you, SO:
As for your attributing a quote to "a Catholic", rather than my name, do you realize how problematic it's to reference without properly citing the source?
I'm always careful to cite when appropriate. In this context, it wasn't necessary, but I went back and put your name in so you would feel better.
Not only did you pass my arguments off as general Catholic belief (which it may not be) ...
I guess you didn't read my post. The only thing that I at all "passed off" as a general Catholic belief was the opinion that Mary was preserved from original sin. If you don't think that could be classified as a "general Catholic belief", then you'd better talk to your priest!!

But the "Mary as a type of the ark" thing is definitely in major Catholic writings, although I don't know if most Catholics believe it, which is why I didn't make that claim. It was something that "a Catholic" said, and that I wanted to make a comment on but not discuss.
...but as far as anyone else reading that quote, unless they've been following since page 1, they wouldn't have known if you were quoting another member of the forum, some random Catholic online elsewhere, the Pope, or whether or not you made it up.
As I said, in this particular case it didn't matter. But I went back and put in your name because it bothered you.

Anyway, your name is there now, so I'm done. I hope you will get some help.

Claire
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Claire » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:46 am

Rian wrote:
Claire wrote:
Rian wrote:No, I did NOT re-initiate the discussion.
You're right, you didn't re-initiate the discussion, not directly anyway, because that would require confidence and integrity.
Wow, your nasty is showing more than usual...

And speaking of integrity, please remember that it was you that made a sock puppet to praise your own posts.
Classic "whataboutism".

I remember telling the forum, including you, why I made a sockpuppet account. And, you've just dishonestly revised my explanation.
Rian wrote:
Claire wrote:As for your attributing a quote to "a Catholic", rather than my name, do you realize how problematic it's to reference without properly citing the source? Not only did you pass my arguments off as general Catholic belief (which it may not be), but as far as anyone else reading that quote, unless they've been following since page 1, they wouldn't have known if you were quoting another member of the forum, some random Catholic online elsewhere, the Pope, or whether or not you made it up.
I'm always careful to cite when appropriate. In this context, it wasn't necessary, but I went back and put your name in so you would feel better.
Identifying as a Catholic doesn't mean one believes Mary was without sin, or sees parallels between Mary and the ark of the covenant. So, to quote an individual expressing belief in these, then attribute their words to that of "a Catholic", it could confuse your audience into thinking they're general Catholic beliefs. For this and other reasons given, it wasn't unnecessary to cite properly. And, you've rectified because you were wrong, but are unwilling to admit that outright.

Claire
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Mary, Mother of God

Post by Claire » Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:12 pm

Rian wrote:...I wanted to make a comment on but not discuss.
The following is your recent "comment" broken down and countered:
Rian wrote:I don't recall God saying that the ark was perfect. It probably had some wormholes in the wood. But it was designed by God for its purpose. I'd even be willing to say that it was perfectly designed for its purpose.
God the Father had specific requirements in creating the ark that was to contain His written word, just as He did for the ark that was to contain His word made flesh. Each ark was perfect in meeting His requirements. In Mary's case, that required Her to be without sin.
Rian wrote:I agree with Chap that nowhere does the Bible say that Mary was created sinless, so IMO to come out and have such a strong opinion on that, as the RCC does, is WAY overstepping bounds with an unsupported extrapolation that is completely unnecessary.
If you also agree with Chapabel, and myself, that the Bible isn't a complete biography of Jesus, His family, and friends, then why completely rule out the idea Mary was created free from sin?

In Lk. 1:28, Gabriel described Mary as being "full of Grace". You'll notice the "g" is capitalized, so the meaning of the word is significant. The Grace of God gives light and knowledge, but original sin, and the mortal one, removes Grace. If Mary had a will to sin, and actively committed sins, then She couldn't have been full of Grace at the same time.

Is. 7:14 is a prophecy of Christ's virgin birth (see also Mt. 1:23 & Lk. 1:27). In Lk. 1:31, it's AFTER Mary is espoused to Joseph that Gabriel tells Her She will conceive a son, and She asks: "How shall this be done, because I know not man?". That question doesn't make sense unless She had already taken a vow of virginity. Notice Her response wasn't "How shall this be done, because I have not yet known man". And, the term "virgin" doesn't 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".

For reasons explained, I would argue the aforementioned Bible verses can support God the Father having created and preserved Mary's soul from sin, and Her being a perpetual virgin in thought/act (and She maintained that immaculate state by Her natural, good faithful will).
Rian wrote:Jesus saves, whether or not Mary was sinless, so it's an irrelevant point anyway.
While the immaculate state of Mary is important, I, nor the Catholic Church, argues it surpasses Jesus's sacrifice.
Rian wrote:And if I had to make an extrapolation and give an opinion on the subject of whether or not Mary was created sinless, I'd say that the perfect option is that she was NOT, because that demonstrates even more clearly that Jesus understands the human condition. I think it's beautiful how Jesus came down to live among us, eating and drinking and talking with us, even weeping with us. It's beautiful that the God of all creation came to live among us, and to bring us back to Him, all while having to deal with what it means to be born of a woman with a sin nature. I think that's the more beautiful and "perfect" opinion on the subject, as well as the more supported opinion, given that the Bible DOES speak about the matter of all people sinning (Romans 3:23). But I also realize that it's an opinion and no one can say for sure either way (although again, of the two opinions, the position of the RCC is LESS supported).
You've accused me of vague, unsupported extrapolations and dismiss them, therefore you wouldn't want me to take this vague, unsupported extrapolation of yours seriously, as I shouldn't.

Regarding the word "all", it isn't always used to describe all living beings, including animals. So, when reading Ro. 3:23, obviously it'd be silly to say all animals have sinned as well, therefore there's an implicit exclusion in the word "all". In other words, you're missing the point of that verse if you're so focused on the word "all" that you take it to mean every human, including Mary. And, Jesus was not only divine but human. Was He too a sinner? No, because it's not to be taken as a totality of the human race.
Rian wrote:I think the RCC should temper its position on this issue. I think they spend way too much time and energy on Mary, which takes away from time and energy that could be spent loving God and loving others, the things that Jesus says to do.
Earlier in the thread you claimed the slogan: "To Jesus through Mary", and other content in this bracelet's description box is detrimental, confusing, takes away focus on Christ, and loving God/neighbor. You have yet to explain how so.

Post Reply