Quote:
I serve Christ by following His lead. ==>Then follow his lead and tell the truth, and don't cower from it, and don't deny it.
When Jesus spoke with Roman soldiers, tax collectors, prostitutes, and all manner of people who were doctrinally wrong. ==> I'm doing that.
Jesus looked at people's hearts, as they revealed themselves. This is why Jesus could speak approvingly of a Samaritan but rebuke priests. ==> Neither I, nor you, know people's hearts.
You have ignored/mocked most of what I wrote in this thread, but if you paid any heed at all you know I do not think the practice of praying to Mary is sound doctrine or wise. I also think that attacking a Catholic for their opinion regarding Mary is not going to persuade them. ==> I don't ignore anything. If anyone's "mocked" anyone it's been you. Other threads have proven that your perceptions are way off, and that you outright lie. I didn't ask you if the practice of praying to Mary was "sound" or "wise", I asked if those prayers I posted elevated Mary to Jesus, and whether that was heretical and idolatrous. You were too afraid to answer. If I am "attacking" anything, it's the idolatry and the reasoning to justify it, not the person.
I also think that attacking a Catholic for their opinion regarding Mary is not going to persuade them.==> you persuade them by first telling them the truth.
I am never 'afraid' to speak truth; my many posts standing up against bigots and mob think over the years more than prove that. ==> if you're not afraid, then why did you cower from answering my question?
I have no interest in being the most popular member of the forum. ==> no comment
Jesus said 'come, let us reason'. He did not demand he get his way, but was more gentle and meek than anyone. ==> He was also the Jesus who turned the tables of the moneychangers, the offenders of God, and drove them out with whips.
How To Get To Heaven When You Die
215,560 Views |
2849 Replies |
Last: 3 hrs ago by Oldbear83
The fact that you think "context" exonerates these prayers, is a perfect example of what I mean by being in complete denial. Any Christian who has the Holy Spirit would never even THINK of stringing those words and phrases together with anyone but Jesus, let alone dare to, NO MATTER the "context". The failure, or stubborn refusal, to recognize this as being heretical and idolatrous is absolutely astounding. The argument "I know I said 'Mary is Lord", but no, that's not sacrilege, it's YOUR fault for not understanding what I mean in context" is absolutely incredulous. What fools do you take others to be? You seem intelligent - why do you fool yourself?Sam Lowry said:That goes back to interpretation. Again there are two ways:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The most likely possibility is the one you left out:Sam Lowry said:No good Catholic "worships" Mary or believes she is in any way equal to God. If you see the Church endorsing a document that appears to elevate Mary in that way, there are two possibilities:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.Sam Lowry said:Definitely not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.Sam Lowry said:God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.Sam Lowry said:It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?Sam Lowry said:Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.Sam Lowry said:https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htmBusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Question for the Catholics:
Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):
- I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
- You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.
Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):
""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......
Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?
These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.
The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.
Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?
1. The Church is misinterpreting the text.
2. You are misinterpreting the text.
3. Catholics are in complete, psychopathologic denial. Calling Mary "sovereign", "Mediatrix", "peacemaker between sinners and God", the "salvation of the universe", "advocate", "ruler of my whole house", and saying "I give Mary my heart and soul" and "I put in her hands my salvation and to her I entrust my soul"....is so OBVIOUS to even the most remedially educated person as giving Mary the role, attributes, and accolades that the Bible gives to Jesus, even using the exact words used to describe God/Jesus, that it takes a completely duped, dishonest, or deceived soul, or a combination of all of them, to think otherwise.
Catholics, wake up. Stop lying to yourself. Denying this reality just makes you look either insane or like complete fools. The Catholics here seem like very intelligent people, so I KNOW you know this to be true.
1. Study the tradition and try to understand what these beliefs mean based on Catholic theology and history.
2. Insist on the "plain meaning," i.e. whatever TarpDuster thinks, regardless of what Catholics actually say.
I don't blame you for questioning. Some of the texts are confusing even for Catholics. That's why you need to look deeper into the context.
If Catholic "tradition" is what led to the "context" behind these prayers, then obviously, there is something egregiously wrong with Catholic tradition. You know a tree by its fruits.
Have you never seen "lord" in any other context? Where do you think the word comes from?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The fact that you think "context" exonerates these prayers, is a perfect example of what I mean by being in complete denial. Any Christian who has the Holy Spirit would never even THINK of stringing those words and phrases together with anyone but Jesus, let alone dare to, NO MATTER the "context". The failure, or stubborn refusal, to recognize this as being heretical and idolatrous is absolutely astounding. The argument "I know I said 'Mary is Lord", but no, that's not sacrilege, it's YOUR fault for not understanding what I mean in context" is absolutely incredulous. What fools do you take others to be? You seem intelligent - why do you fool yourself?Sam Lowry said:That goes back to interpretation. Again there are two ways:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The most likely possibility is the one you left out:Sam Lowry said:No good Catholic "worships" Mary or believes she is in any way equal to God. If you see the Church endorsing a document that appears to elevate Mary in that way, there are two possibilities:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.Sam Lowry said:Definitely not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.Sam Lowry said:God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.Sam Lowry said:It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?Sam Lowry said:Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.Sam Lowry said:https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htmBusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Question for the Catholics:
Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):
- I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
- You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.
Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):
""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......
Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?
These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.
The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.
Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?
1. The Church is misinterpreting the text.
2. You are misinterpreting the text.
3. Catholics are in complete, psychopathologic denial. Calling Mary "sovereign", "Mediatrix", "peacemaker between sinners and God", the "salvation of the universe", "advocate", "ruler of my whole house", and saying "I give Mary my heart and soul" and "I put in her hands my salvation and to her I entrust my soul"....is so OBVIOUS to even the most remedially educated person as giving Mary the role, attributes, and accolades that the Bible gives to Jesus, even using the exact words used to describe God/Jesus, that it takes a completely duped, dishonest, or deceived soul, or a combination of all of them, to think otherwise.
Catholics, wake up. Stop lying to yourself. Denying this reality just makes you look either insane or like complete fools. The Catholics here seem like very intelligent people, so I KNOW you know this to be true.
1. Study the tradition and try to understand what these beliefs mean based on Catholic theology and history.
2. Insist on the "plain meaning," i.e. whatever TarpDuster thinks, regardless of what Catholics actually say.
I don't blame you for questioning. Some of the texts are confusing even for Catholics. That's why you need to look deeper into the context.
If Catholic "tradition" is what led to the "context" behind these prayers, then obviously, there is something egregiously wrong with Catholic tradition. You know a tree by its fruits.
And have you ever seen "lord" capitalized? In what "context" would you suppose that meant?Sam Lowry said:
I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.Have you never seen "lord" in any other context? Where do you think the word comes from?Quote:The fact that you think "context" exonerates these prayers, is a perfect example of what I mean by being in complete denial. Any Christian who has the Holy Spirit would never even THINK of stringing those words and phrases together with anyone but Jesus, let alone dare to, NO MATTER the "context". The failure, or stubborn refusal, to recognize this as being heretical and idolatrous is absolutely astounding. The argument "I know I said 'Mary is Lord", but no, that's not sacrilege, it's YOUR fault for not understanding what I mean in context" is absolutely incredulous. What fools do you take others to be? You seem intelligent - why do you fool yourself?Quote:That goes back to interpretation. Again there are two ways:Quote:The most likely possibility is the one you left out:Quote:No good Catholic "worships" Mary or believes she is in any way equal to God. If you see the Church endorsing a document that appears to elevate Mary in that way, there are two possibilities:Quote:"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.Quote:Definitely not.Quote:Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.Quote:God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.Quote:So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.Quote:It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.Quote:How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?Quote:
Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.
These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.
The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.
Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?
1. The Church is misinterpreting the text.
2. You are misinterpreting the text.
3. Catholics are in complete, psychopathologic denial. Calling Mary "sovereign", "Mediatrix", "peacemaker between sinners and God", the "salvation of the universe", "advocate", "ruler of my whole house", and saying "I give Mary my heart and soul" and "I put in her hands my salvation and to her I entrust my soul"....is so OBVIOUS to even the most remedially educated person as giving Mary the role, attributes, and accolades that the Bible gives to Jesus, even using the exact words used to describe God/Jesus, that it takes a completely duped, dishonest, or deceived soul, or a combination of all of them, to think otherwise.
Catholics, wake up. Stop lying to yourself. Denying this reality just makes you look either insane or like complete fools. The Catholics here seem like very intelligent people, so I KNOW you know this to be true.
1. Study the tradition and try to understand what these beliefs mean based on Catholic theology and history.
2. Insist on the "plain meaning," i.e. whatever TarpDuster thinks, regardless of what Catholics actually say.
I don't blame you for questioning. Some of the texts are confusing even for Catholics. That's why you need to look deeper into the context.
If Catholic "tradition" is what led to the "context" behind these prayers, then obviously, there is something egregiously wrong with Catholic tradition. You know a tree by its fruits.
I know you know this, so quit acting obtuse. If it's not an act, then God help you.
*The example here is one I made up, but I definitely would not be surprised if that was actually in a Catholic prayer to Mary.
Only every time it's used as a proper noun.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:And have you ever seen "lord" capitalized? In what "context" would you suppose that meant?Sam Lowry said:
I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.Have you never seen "lord" in any other context? Where do you think the word comes from?Quote:The fact that you think "context" exonerates these prayers, is a perfect example of what I mean by being in complete denial. Any Christian who has the Holy Spirit would never even THINK of stringing those words and phrases together with anyone but Jesus, let alone dare to, NO MATTER the "context". The failure, or stubborn refusal, to recognize this as being heretical and idolatrous is absolutely astounding. The argument "I know I said 'Mary is Lord", but no, that's not sacrilege, it's YOUR fault for not understanding what I mean in context" is absolutely incredulous. What fools do you take others to be? You seem intelligent - why do you fool yourself?Quote:That goes back to interpretation. Again there are two ways:Quote:The most likely possibility is the one you left out:Quote:No good Catholic "worships" Mary or believes she is in any way equal to God. If you see the Church endorsing a document that appears to elevate Mary in that way, there are two possibilities:Quote:"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.Quote:Definitely not.Quote:Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.Quote:God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.Quote:So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.Quote:It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.Quote:How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?Quote:
Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.
These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.
The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.
Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?
1. The Church is misinterpreting the text.
2. You are misinterpreting the text.
3. Catholics are in complete, psychopathologic denial. Calling Mary "sovereign", "Mediatrix", "peacemaker between sinners and God", the "salvation of the universe", "advocate", "ruler of my whole house", and saying "I give Mary my heart and soul" and "I put in her hands my salvation and to her I entrust my soul"....is so OBVIOUS to even the most remedially educated person as giving Mary the role, attributes, and accolades that the Bible gives to Jesus, even using the exact words used to describe God/Jesus, that it takes a completely duped, dishonest, or deceived soul, or a combination of all of them, to think otherwise.
Catholics, wake up. Stop lying to yourself. Denying this reality just makes you look either insane or like complete fools. The Catholics here seem like very intelligent people, so I KNOW you know this to be true.
1. Study the tradition and try to understand what these beliefs mean based on Catholic theology and history.
2. Insist on the "plain meaning," i.e. whatever TarpDuster thinks, regardless of what Catholics actually say.
I don't blame you for questioning. Some of the texts are confusing even for Catholics. That's why you need to look deeper into the context.
If Catholic "tradition" is what led to the "context" behind these prayers, then obviously, there is something egregiously wrong with Catholic tradition. You know a tree by its fruits.
Your welcome.Sam Lowry said:Only every time it's used as a proper noun.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:And have you ever seen "lord" capitalized? In what "context" would you suppose that meant?Sam Lowry said:
I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.Have you never seen "lord" in any other context? Where do you think the word comes from?Quote:The fact that you think "context" exonerates these prayers, is a perfect example of what I mean by being in complete denial. Any Christian who has the Holy Spirit would never even THINK of stringing those words and phrases together with anyone but Jesus, let alone dare to, NO MATTER the "context". The failure, or stubborn refusal, to recognize this as being heretical and idolatrous is absolutely astounding. The argument "I know I said 'Mary is Lord", but no, that's not sacrilege, it's YOUR fault for not understanding what I mean in context" is absolutely incredulous. What fools do you take others to be? You seem intelligent - why do you fool yourself?Quote:That goes back to interpretation. Again there are two ways:Quote:The most likely possibility is the one you left out:Quote:No good Catholic "worships" Mary or believes she is in any way equal to God. If you see the Church endorsing a document that appears to elevate Mary in that way, there are two possibilities:Quote:"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.Quote:Definitely not.Quote:Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.Quote:God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.Quote:So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.Quote:It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.Quote:How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?Quote:
Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.
These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.
The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.
Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?
1. The Church is misinterpreting the text.
2. You are misinterpreting the text.
3. Catholics are in complete, psychopathologic denial. Calling Mary "sovereign", "Mediatrix", "peacemaker between sinners and God", the "salvation of the universe", "advocate", "ruler of my whole house", and saying "I give Mary my heart and soul" and "I put in her hands my salvation and to her I entrust my soul"....is so OBVIOUS to even the most remedially educated person as giving Mary the role, attributes, and accolades that the Bible gives to Jesus, even using the exact words used to describe God/Jesus, that it takes a completely duped, dishonest, or deceived soul, or a combination of all of them, to think otherwise.
Catholics, wake up. Stop lying to yourself. Denying this reality just makes you look either insane or like complete fools. The Catholics here seem like very intelligent people, so I KNOW you know this to be true.
1. Study the tradition and try to understand what these beliefs mean based on Catholic theology and history.
2. Insist on the "plain meaning," i.e. whatever TarpDuster thinks, regardless of what Catholics actually say.
I don't blame you for questioning. Some of the texts are confusing even for Catholics. That's why you need to look deeper into the context.
If Catholic "tradition" is what led to the "context" behind these prayers, then obviously, there is something egregiously wrong with Catholic tradition. You know a tree by its fruits.
Of which there are obviously many. Lord Acton, Lord Byron, Lord Cornwallis…run through the alphabet and take your pick.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your welcome.Sam Lowry said:Only every time it's used as a proper noun.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:And have you ever seen "lord" capitalized? In what "context" would you suppose that meant?Sam Lowry said:
I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.Have you never seen "lord" in any other context? Where do you think the word comes from?Quote:The fact that you think "context" exonerates these prayers, is a perfect example of what I mean by being in complete denial. Any Christian who has the Holy Spirit would never even THINK of stringing those words and phrases together with anyone but Jesus, let alone dare to, NO MATTER the "context". The failure, or stubborn refusal, to recognize this as being heretical and idolatrous is absolutely astounding. The argument "I know I said 'Mary is Lord", but no, that's not sacrilege, it's YOUR fault for not understanding what I mean in context" is absolutely incredulous. What fools do you take others to be? You seem intelligent - why do you fool yourself?Quote:That goes back to interpretation. Again there are two ways:Quote:The most likely possibility is the one you left out:Quote:No good Catholic "worships" Mary or believes she is in any way equal to God. If you see the Church endorsing a document that appears to elevate Mary in that way, there are two possibilities:Quote:"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.Quote:Definitely not.Quote:Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.Quote:God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.Quote:So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.Quote:It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.Quote:How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?Quote:
Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.
These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.
The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.
Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?
1. The Church is misinterpreting the text.
2. You are misinterpreting the text.
3. Catholics are in complete, psychopathologic denial. Calling Mary "sovereign", "Mediatrix", "peacemaker between sinners and God", the "salvation of the universe", "advocate", "ruler of my whole house", and saying "I give Mary my heart and soul" and "I put in her hands my salvation and to her I entrust my soul"....is so OBVIOUS to even the most remedially educated person as giving Mary the role, attributes, and accolades that the Bible gives to Jesus, even using the exact words used to describe God/Jesus, that it takes a completely duped, dishonest, or deceived soul, or a combination of all of them, to think otherwise.
Catholics, wake up. Stop lying to yourself. Denying this reality just makes you look either insane or like complete fools. The Catholics here seem like very intelligent people, so I KNOW you know this to be true.
1. Study the tradition and try to understand what these beliefs mean based on Catholic theology and history.
2. Insist on the "plain meaning," i.e. whatever TarpDuster thinks, regardless of what Catholics actually say.
I don't blame you for questioning. Some of the texts are confusing even for Catholics. That's why you need to look deeper into the context.
If Catholic "tradition" is what led to the "context" behind these prayers, then obviously, there is something egregiously wrong with Catholic tradition. You know a tree by its fruits.
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the devil as "god of this world."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
Isn't it exceedingly interesting, then, that one of those prayers to Mary called her, "God, as it were, of this world" ??Sam Lowry said:2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the devil as "god of this world."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Isn't it exceedingly interesting, then, that one of those prayers to Mary called her, "God, as it were, of this world" ??Sam Lowry said:2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the devil as "god of this world."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
I wasn't referring to what Ligouri was intending to do. I'm referring to the spirit behind the inspiration for him writing those words, unbeknownst to him, and to Catholics who say this prayer. This is a revelation of how this spirit has manipulated Christians to worship Mary, in order for them to be really worshiping him. Another classic example of this is how Catholics call Mary the "Queen of Heaven". Do you know who the queen of heaven is in the bible?Sam Lowry said:Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Isn't it exceedingly interesting, then, that one of those prayers to Mary called her, "God, as it were, of this world" ??Sam Lowry said:2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the devil as "god of this world."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
Also, you do know that Mary isn't the one who crushes the serpent under their feet, don't you? Genesis 3:15 says "HE":
"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse is a foreshadowing of Jesus. Jesus is going to defeat the power of Satan (crush him under his feet). NOT Mary. This is yet another attempt by Catholics to steal the glory and power from Jesus and give it to Mary by using an ad hoc translation.
Please wake up, Catholics, and see this for what it really is. And please wake up, OldBear, and be bold enough to say the truth.
It's not taking anything away from Jesus. It's simply referring to Mary's role in the Incarnation, through which Christ defeated Satan's plan.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I wasn't referring to what Ligouri was intending to do. I'm referring to the spirit behind the inspiration for him writing those words, unbeknownst to him, and to Catholics who say this prayer. This is a revelation of how this spirit has manipulated Christians to worship Mary, in order for them to be really worshiping him. Another classic example of this is how Catholics call Mary the "Queen of Heaven". Do you know who the queen of heaven is in the bible?Sam Lowry said:Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Isn't it exceedingly interesting, then, that one of those prayers to Mary called her, "God, as it were, of this world" ??Sam Lowry said:2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the devil as "god of this world."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
Also, you do know that Mary isn't the one who crushes the serpent under their feet, don't you? Genesis 3:15 says "HE":
"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse is a foreshadowing of Jesus. Jesus is going to defeat the power of Satan (crush him under his feet). NOT Mary. This is yet another attempt by Catholics to steal the glory and power from Jesus and give it to Mary by using an ad hoc translation.
Please wake up, Catholics, and see this for what it really is. And please wake up, OldBear, and be bold enough to say the truth.
Is this a joke? You just got done saying Mary crushes the head of the serpent meaning she defeats Satan's power, when it's Jesus that does it. And that's not taking away from Jesus? The dishonesty here is astounding. This is yet another example of what I'm talking about.Sam Lowry said:It's not taking anything away from Jesus. It's simply referring to Mary's role in the Incarnation, through which Christ defeated Satan's plan.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I wasn't referring to what Ligouri was intending to do. I'm referring to the spirit behind the inspiration for him writing those words, unbeknownst to him, and to Catholics who say this prayer. This is a revelation of how this spirit has manipulated Christians to worship Mary, in order for them to be really worshiping him. Another classic example of this is how Catholics call Mary the "Queen of Heaven". Do you know who the queen of heaven is in the bible?Sam Lowry said:Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Isn't it exceedingly interesting, then, that one of those prayers to Mary called her, "God, as it were, of this world" ??Sam Lowry said:2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the devil as "god of this world."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
Also, you do know that Mary isn't the one who crushes the serpent under their feet, don't you? Genesis 3:15 says "HE":
"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse is a foreshadowing of Jesus. Jesus is going to defeat the power of Satan (crush him under his feet). NOT Mary. This is yet another attempt by Catholics to steal the glory and power from Jesus and give it to Mary by using an ad hoc translation.
Please wake up, Catholics, and see this for what it really is. And please wake up, OldBear, and be bold enough to say the truth.
Sam Lowry said:It's not taking anything away from Jesus. It's simply referring to Mary's role in the Incarnation, through which Christ defeated Satan's plan.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I wasn't referring to what Ligouri was intending to do. I'm referring to the spirit behind the inspiration for him writing those words, unbeknownst to him, and to Catholics who say this prayer. This is a revelation of how this spirit has manipulated Christians to worship Mary, in order for them to be really worshiping him. Another classic example of this is how Catholics call Mary the "Queen of Heaven". Do you know who the queen of heaven is in the bible?Sam Lowry said:Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Isn't it exceedingly interesting, then, that one of those prayers to Mary called her, "God, as it were, of this world" ??Sam Lowry said:2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the devil as "god of this world."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
Also, you do know that Mary isn't the one who crushes the serpent under their feet, don't you? Genesis 3:15 says "HE":
"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse is a foreshadowing of Jesus. Jesus is going to defeat the power of Satan (crush him under his feet). NOT Mary. This is yet another attempt by Catholics to steal the glory and power from Jesus and give it to Mary by using an ad hoc translation.
Please wake up, Catholics, and see this for what it really is. And please wake up, OldBear, and be bold enough to say the truth.
All true.
You know crushing the serpent is a metaphor, right? We're not debating whose foot is on the head of an actual snake. It's like poetry. The idea is that sin came into the world through a woman, and so does redemption.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Is this a joke? You just got done saying Mary crushes the head of the serpent meaning she defeats Satan's power, when it's Jesus that does it. And that's not taking away from Jesus? The dishonesty here is astounding. This is yet another example of what I'm talking about.Sam Lowry said:It's not taking anything away from Jesus. It's simply referring to Mary's role in the Incarnation, through which Christ defeated Satan's plan.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I wasn't referring to what Ligouri was intending to do. I'm referring to the spirit behind the inspiration for him writing those words, unbeknownst to him, and to Catholics who say this prayer. This is a revelation of how this spirit has manipulated Christians to worship Mary, in order for them to be really worshiping him. Another classic example of this is how Catholics call Mary the "Queen of Heaven". Do you know who the queen of heaven is in the bible?Sam Lowry said:Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Isn't it exceedingly interesting, then, that one of those prayers to Mary called her, "God, as it were, of this world" ??Sam Lowry said:2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the devil as "god of this world."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
Also, you do know that Mary isn't the one who crushes the serpent under their feet, don't you? Genesis 3:15 says "HE":
"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse is a foreshadowing of Jesus. Jesus is going to defeat the power of Satan (crush him under his feet). NOT Mary. This is yet another attempt by Catholics to steal the glory and power from Jesus and give it to Mary by using an ad hoc translation.
Please wake up, Catholics, and see this for what it really is. And please wake up, OldBear, and be bold enough to say the truth.
Did you credit Mary with crushing the head of the serpent, or did you not? We'll go through this with baby steps, if we have to,Sam Lowry said:You know crushing the serpent is a metaphor, right? We're not debating whose foot is on the head of an actual snake. It's like poetry. The idea is that sin came into the world through a woman, and so does redemption.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Is this a joke? You just got done saying Mary crushes the head of the serpent meaning she defeats Satan's power, when it's Jesus that does it. And that's not taking away from Jesus? The dishonesty here is astounding. This is yet another example of what I'm talking about.Sam Lowry said:It's not taking anything away from Jesus. It's simply referring to Mary's role in the Incarnation, through which Christ defeated Satan's plan.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I wasn't referring to what Ligouri was intending to do. I'm referring to the spirit behind the inspiration for him writing those words, unbeknownst to him, and to Catholics who say this prayer. This is a revelation of how this spirit has manipulated Christians to worship Mary, in order for them to be really worshiping him. Another classic example of this is how Catholics call Mary the "Queen of Heaven". Do you know who the queen of heaven is in the bible?Sam Lowry said:Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Isn't it exceedingly interesting, then, that one of those prayers to Mary called her, "God, as it were, of this world" ??Sam Lowry said:2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the devil as "god of this world."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
Also, you do know that Mary isn't the one who crushes the serpent under their feet, don't you? Genesis 3:15 says "HE":
"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse is a foreshadowing of Jesus. Jesus is going to defeat the power of Satan (crush him under his feet). NOT Mary. This is yet another attempt by Catholics to steal the glory and power from Jesus and give it to Mary by using an ad hoc translation.
Please wake up, Catholics, and see this for what it really is. And please wake up, OldBear, and be bold enough to say the truth.
Yes, in the same sense that God credits Eve when he says her offspring will prevail in the enmity between her and the serpent. Like Christ is the new Adam, Mary is the new Eve.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Did you credit Mary with crushing the head of the serpent, or did you not? We'll go through this with baby steps, if we have to,Sam Lowry said:You know crushing the serpent is a metaphor, right? We're not debating whose foot is on the head of an actual snake. It's like poetry. The idea is that sin came into the world through a woman, and so does redemption.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Is this a joke? You just got done saying Mary crushes the head of the serpent meaning she defeats Satan's power, when it's Jesus that does it. And that's not taking away from Jesus? The dishonesty here is astounding. This is yet another example of what I'm talking about.Sam Lowry said:It's not taking anything away from Jesus. It's simply referring to Mary's role in the Incarnation, through which Christ defeated Satan's plan.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I wasn't referring to what Ligouri was intending to do. I'm referring to the spirit behind the inspiration for him writing those words, unbeknownst to him, and to Catholics who say this prayer. This is a revelation of how this spirit has manipulated Christians to worship Mary, in order for them to be really worshiping him. Another classic example of this is how Catholics call Mary the "Queen of Heaven". Do you know who the queen of heaven is in the bible?Sam Lowry said:Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Isn't it exceedingly interesting, then, that one of those prayers to Mary called her, "God, as it were, of this world" ??Sam Lowry said:2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the devil as "god of this world."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
Also, you do know that Mary isn't the one who crushes the serpent under their feet, don't you? Genesis 3:15 says "HE":
"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse is a foreshadowing of Jesus. Jesus is going to defeat the power of Satan (crush him under his feet). NOT Mary. This is yet another attempt by Catholics to steal the glory and power from Jesus and give it to Mary by using an ad hoc translation.
Please wake up, Catholics, and see this for what it really is. And please wake up, OldBear, and be bold enough to say the truth.
Which is why I am not devoting a lot of energy to someone who isn't really interested in exploring what's really true and what's really false.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
Ok, so you said yes. Now - is Jesus the one who actually crushes the head of the serpent, NOT Mary, who you credited? Baby steps...Sam Lowry said:Yes, in the same sense that God credits Eve when he says her offspring will prevail in the enmity between her and the serpent. Like Christ is the new Adam, Mary is the new Eve.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Did you credit Mary with crushing the head of the serpent, or did you not? We'll go through this with baby steps, if we have to,Sam Lowry said:You know crushing the serpent is a metaphor, right? We're not debating whose foot is on the head of an actual snake. It's like poetry. The idea is that sin came into the world through a woman, and so does redemption.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Is this a joke? You just got done saying Mary crushes the head of the serpent meaning she defeats Satan's power, when it's Jesus that does it. And that's not taking away from Jesus? The dishonesty here is astounding. This is yet another example of what I'm talking about.Sam Lowry said:It's not taking anything away from Jesus. It's simply referring to Mary's role in the Incarnation, through which Christ defeated Satan's plan.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I wasn't referring to what Ligouri was intending to do. I'm referring to the spirit behind the inspiration for him writing those words, unbeknownst to him, and to Catholics who say this prayer. This is a revelation of how this spirit has manipulated Christians to worship Mary, in order for them to be really worshiping him. Another classic example of this is how Catholics call Mary the "Queen of Heaven". Do you know who the queen of heaven is in the bible?Sam Lowry said:Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Isn't it exceedingly interesting, then, that one of those prayers to Mary called her, "God, as it were, of this world" ??Sam Lowry said:2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the devil as "god of this world."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
Also, you do know that Mary isn't the one who crushes the serpent under their feet, don't you? Genesis 3:15 says "HE":
"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse is a foreshadowing of Jesus. Jesus is going to defeat the power of Satan (crush him under his feet). NOT Mary. This is yet another attempt by Catholics to steal the glory and power from Jesus and give it to Mary by using an ad hoc translation.
Please wake up, Catholics, and see this for what it really is. And please wake up, OldBear, and be bold enough to say the truth.
I get you. But I think there still is value in exposing their dishonesty for all to see. People witness the shaky foundation upon which they stand, and they take it to heart. Plus, its kinda fun to see just how vigorous their defense mechanisms are.xfrodobagginsx said:Which is why I am not devoting a lot of energy to someone who isn't really interested in exploring what's really true and what's really false.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
That you hyperventilate over hyperdulia comes as little surprise. Here's something that seems straightforward enough that perhaps even you can grasp the meaning:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.Sam Lowry said:Definitely not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.Sam Lowry said:God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.Sam Lowry said:It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?Sam Lowry said:Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.Sam Lowry said:https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htmBusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Question for the Catholics:
Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):
- I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
- You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.
Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):
""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......
Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?
These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.
The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.
Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34033
Your work here is reminiscent of the Puritans who white washed church interiors and took axes to organs and even burned Quakers. You are as bad in your own way as those whose veneration of Mary veers too far towards some Maximalist view of Mariology (which has been officially cautioned against).
Again, I'm not Roman Catholic so my views are a little different but they mostly involve objections to Rome's teachings on ecclesiology and the role of the Bishop of Rome. Those of us in the Anglican faith fall on a spectrum that includes those who are very Protestant including Calvinist tendencies to those who are very Catholic but who acknowledge the need for reformation. I tilt towards the Catholic wing, but my Baptist upbringing will always be an influence. My experience on the Canterbury Trail has led me to see the bareness and limited vision of most Evangelicals/Protestants who, in their zeal to root out what they perceive to be Popish practices have managed to discard much of the fullness of the Christian experience. I consider the Eucharist to be the focal point of worship at which the communion of saints and the blessed company of all faithful people are united in the mystical body of Christ through the partaking of the elements. I believe we are literally partakers in the body and blood of our Savior. I comport with Lancelot Andrewes who said essentially that how this is so, he was not so bold as to say. I am content to leave it in the realm of Holy Mystery.
Regarding Mary and the saints, I consider them as all being able and eager to intercede on our behalf and am convinced that invoking them is functionally no different from asking your own mother or friend to pray for you. I take comfort believing that St Joan is praying for my daughter, St George is praying for my son, St Michael is praying for me, and my late father is praying for my 92 year old mother. They are all right now in this very moment and forever part of the cloud of witnesses alive in Christ's presence. None of this in any way detracts one iota from a robust and orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. To believe otherwise is to be unnecessarily juridical and demonstrates a lack of graciousness, maturity, and understanding.
Let me put it to you straight: you actually said that I was a "Pharisee" because I believed Christians should believe and practice Christianity.....curtpenn said:That you hyperventilate over hyperdulia comes as little surprise. Here's something that seems straightforward enough that perhaps even you can grasp the meaning:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.Sam Lowry said:Definitely not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.Sam Lowry said:God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.Sam Lowry said:It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?Sam Lowry said:Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.Sam Lowry said:https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htmBusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Question for the Catholics:
Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):
- I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
- You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.
Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):
""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......
Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?
These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.
The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.
Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34033
Your work here is reminiscent of the Puritans who white washed church interiors and took axes to organs and even burned Quakers. You are as bad in your own way as those whose veneration of Mary veers too far towards some Maximalist view of Mariology (which has been officially cautioned against).
Again, I'm not Roman Catholic so my views are a little different but they mostly involve objections to Rome's teachings on ecclesiology and the role of the Bishop of Rome. Those of us in the Anglican faith fall on a spectrum that includes those who are very Protestant including Calvinist tendencies to those who are very Catholic but who acknowledge the need for reformation. I tilt towards the Catholic wing, but my Baptist upbringing will always be an influence. My experience on the Canterbury Trail has led me to see the bareness and limited vision of most Evangelicals/Protestants who, in their zeal to root out what they perceive to be Popish practices have managed to discard much of the fullness of the Christian experience. I consider the Eucharist to be the focal point of worship at which the communion of saints and the blessed company of all faithful people are united in the mystical body of Christ through the partaking of the elements. I believe we are literally partakers in the body and blood of our Savior. I comport with Lancelot Andrewes who said essentially that how this is so, he was not so bold as to say. I am content to leave it in the realm of Holy Mystery.
Regarding Mary and the saints, I consider them as all being able and eager to intercede on our behalf and am convinced that invoking them is functionally no different from asking your own mother or friend to pray for you. I take comfort believing that St Joan is praying for my daughter, St George is praying for my son, St Michael is praying for me, and my late father is praying for my 92 year old mother. They are all right now in this very moment and forever part of the cloud of witnesses alive in Christ's presence. None of this in any way detracts one iota from a robust and orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. To believe otherwise is to be unnecessarily juridical and demonstrates a lack of graciousness, maturity, and understanding.
I'm sorry, but such a mindset demonstrates a failure in the understanding of certain base realities that are absolutely foundational to being able to formulate valid opinions on this subject matter. Consequently, your assessment of me and what I'm saying has no validity. In simple terms, based off a comment like that, it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. If you don't even have a basic understanding of what Christianity is, how would you even begin to understand why certain Catholic beliefs and practices violate it, let alone be able to discuss it intelligently? It's clear that after your comment we were at an impasse, and it would be unfruitful to continue. To be fair, though, I'm starting to think that others here don't really have a basic grasp of Christianity either, or even believe the parts that they say they believe, so they might be in the same boat.
It can be both. It's a prayer, not a set of instructions for putting together a gas grill.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, so you said yes. Now - is Jesus the one who actually crushes the head of the serpent, NOT Mary, who you credited? Baby steps...Sam Lowry said:Yes, in the same sense that God credits Eve when he says her offspring will prevail in the enmity between her and the serpent. Like Christ is the new Adam, Mary is the new Eve.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Did you credit Mary with crushing the head of the serpent, or did you not? We'll go through this with baby steps, if we have to,Sam Lowry said:You know crushing the serpent is a metaphor, right? We're not debating whose foot is on the head of an actual snake. It's like poetry. The idea is that sin came into the world through a woman, and so does redemption.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Is this a joke? You just got done saying Mary crushes the head of the serpent meaning she defeats Satan's power, when it's Jesus that does it. And that's not taking away from Jesus? The dishonesty here is astounding. This is yet another example of what I'm talking about.Sam Lowry said:It's not taking anything away from Jesus. It's simply referring to Mary's role in the Incarnation, through which Christ defeated Satan's plan.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I wasn't referring to what Ligouri was intending to do. I'm referring to the spirit behind the inspiration for him writing those words, unbeknownst to him, and to Catholics who say this prayer. This is a revelation of how this spirit has manipulated Christians to worship Mary, in order for them to be really worshiping him. Another classic example of this is how Catholics call Mary the "Queen of Heaven". Do you know who the queen of heaven is in the bible?Sam Lowry said:Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Isn't it exceedingly interesting, then, that one of those prayers to Mary called her, "God, as it were, of this world" ??Sam Lowry said:2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the devil as "god of this world."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
Also, you do know that Mary isn't the one who crushes the serpent under their feet, don't you? Genesis 3:15 says "HE":
"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse is a foreshadowing of Jesus. Jesus is going to defeat the power of Satan (crush him under his feet). NOT Mary. This is yet another attempt by Catholics to steal the glory and power from Jesus and give it to Mary by using an ad hoc translation.
Please wake up, Catholics, and see this for what it really is. And please wake up, OldBear, and be bold enough to say the truth.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Let me put it to you straight: you actually said that I was a "Pharisee" because I believed Christians should believe and practice Christianity.....curtpenn said:That you hyperventilate over hyperdulia comes as little surprise. Here's something that seems straightforward enough that perhaps even you can grasp the meaning:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.Sam Lowry said:Definitely not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.Sam Lowry said:God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.Sam Lowry said:It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?Sam Lowry said:Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.Sam Lowry said:https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htmBusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Question for the Catholics:
Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):
- I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
- You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.
Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):
""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......
Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?
These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.
The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.
Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34033
Your work here is reminiscent of the Puritans who white washed church interiors and took axes to organs and even burned Quakers. You are as bad in your own way as those whose veneration of Mary veers too far towards some Maximalist view of Mariology (which has been officially cautioned against).
Again, I'm not Roman Catholic so my views are a little different but they mostly involve objections to Rome's teachings on ecclesiology and the role of the Bishop of Rome. Those of us in the Anglican faith fall on a spectrum that includes those who are very Protestant including Calvinist tendencies to those who are very Catholic but who acknowledge the need for reformation. I tilt towards the Catholic wing, but my Baptist upbringing will always be an influence. My experience on the Canterbury Trail has led me to see the bareness and limited vision of most Evangelicals/Protestants who, in their zeal to root out what they perceive to be Popish practices have managed to discard much of the fullness of the Christian experience. I consider the Eucharist to be the focal point of worship at which the communion of saints and the blessed company of all faithful people are united in the mystical body of Christ through the partaking of the elements. I believe we are literally partakers in the body and blood of our Savior. I comport with Lancelot Andrewes who said essentially that how this is so, he was not so bold as to say. I am content to leave it in the realm of Holy Mystery.
Regarding Mary and the saints, I consider them as all being able and eager to intercede on our behalf and am convinced that invoking them is functionally no different from asking your own mother or friend to pray for you. I take comfort believing that St Joan is praying for my daughter, St George is praying for my son, St Michael is praying for me, and my late father is praying for my 92 year old mother. They are all right now in this very moment and forever part of the cloud of witnesses alive in Christ's presence. None of this in any way detracts one iota from a robust and orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. To believe otherwise is to be unnecessarily juridical and demonstrates a lack of graciousness, maturity, and understanding.
I'm sorry, but such a mindset demonstrates a failure in the understanding of certain base realities that are absolutely foundational to being able to formulate valid opinions on this subject matter. Consequently, your assessment of me and what I'm saying has no validity. In simple terms, based off a comment like that, it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. If you don't even have a basic understanding of what Christianity is, how would you even begin to understand why certain Catholic beliefs and practices violate it, let alone be able to discuss it intelligently? It's clear that after your comment we were at an impasse, and it would be unfruitful to continue. To be fair, though, I'm starting to think that others here don't really have a basic grasp of Christianity either, or even believe the parts that they say they believe, so they might be in the same boat.
Too funny. Thanks for the chuckle. Needed it after the game tonight. No longer surprised that you reach false conclusions based on stupid assumptions. You seem to have that mastered.
The only way it can be both is if you've deceived yourself with a dishonest ad hoc interpretation of scripture so that both can exist in your mind. But it really isn't both in reality. The scripture clearly says it is HE who crushes the head of the serpent, NOT "she". It was a foreshadowing of God's plan for salvation through Jesus. That reality has already been made plain.Sam Lowry said:It can be both. It's a prayer, not a set of instructions for putting together a gas grill.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, so you said yes. Now - is Jesus the one who actually crushes the head of the serpent, NOT Mary, who you credited? Baby steps...Sam Lowry said:Yes, in the same sense that God credits Eve when he says her offspring will prevail in the enmity between her and the serpent. Like Christ is the new Adam, Mary is the new Eve.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Did you credit Mary with crushing the head of the serpent, or did you not? We'll go through this with baby steps, if we have to,Sam Lowry said:You know crushing the serpent is a metaphor, right? We're not debating whose foot is on the head of an actual snake. It's like poetry. The idea is that sin came into the world through a woman, and so does redemption.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Is this a joke? You just got done saying Mary crushes the head of the serpent meaning she defeats Satan's power, when it's Jesus that does it. And that's not taking away from Jesus? The dishonesty here is astounding. This is yet another example of what I'm talking about.Sam Lowry said:It's not taking anything away from Jesus. It's simply referring to Mary's role in the Incarnation, through which Christ defeated Satan's plan.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I wasn't referring to what Ligouri was intending to do. I'm referring to the spirit behind the inspiration for him writing those words, unbeknownst to him, and to Catholics who say this prayer. This is a revelation of how this spirit has manipulated Christians to worship Mary, in order for them to be really worshiping him. Another classic example of this is how Catholics call Mary the "Queen of Heaven". Do you know who the queen of heaven is in the bible?Sam Lowry said:Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Isn't it exceedingly interesting, then, that one of those prayers to Mary called her, "God, as it were, of this world" ??Sam Lowry said:2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the devil as "god of this world."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
Also, you do know that Mary isn't the one who crushes the serpent under their feet, don't you? Genesis 3:15 says "HE":
"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse is a foreshadowing of Jesus. Jesus is going to defeat the power of Satan (crush him under his feet). NOT Mary. This is yet another attempt by Catholics to steal the glory and power from Jesus and give it to Mary by using an ad hoc translation.
Please wake up, Catholics, and see this for what it really is. And please wake up, OldBear, and be bold enough to say the truth.
The only set of instructions here is the one you've been following, which is the Catholic strategy for diverting the glory, honor, and praise from Jesus and directing it towards Mary. But instead of a gas grill, what you Catholics are putting together is an idol in place of God.
Didn't I just make it clear how YOU are the one who is reaching false conclusions based on stupid assumptions? You actually said that I'm a "Pharisee" for thinking that Christians should believe in Christianity. As far as "stupid assumptions" goes, I'm pretty sure that's as about as stupid as we've ever seen in the history of this forum.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Let me put it to you straight: you actually said that I was a "Pharisee" because I believed Christians should believe and practice Christianity.....curtpenn said:That you hyperventilate over hyperdulia comes as little surprise. Here's something that seems straightforward enough that perhaps even you can grasp the meaning:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.Sam Lowry said:Definitely not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.Sam Lowry said:God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.Sam Lowry said:It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?Sam Lowry said:Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.Sam Lowry said:https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htmBusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Question for the Catholics:
Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):
- I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
- You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.
Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):
""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......
Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?
These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.
The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.
Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34033
Your work here is reminiscent of the Puritans who white washed church interiors and took axes to organs and even burned Quakers. You are as bad in your own way as those whose veneration of Mary veers too far towards some Maximalist view of Mariology (which has been officially cautioned against).
Again, I'm not Roman Catholic so my views are a little different but they mostly involve objections to Rome's teachings on ecclesiology and the role of the Bishop of Rome. Those of us in the Anglican faith fall on a spectrum that includes those who are very Protestant including Calvinist tendencies to those who are very Catholic but who acknowledge the need for reformation. I tilt towards the Catholic wing, but my Baptist upbringing will always be an influence. My experience on the Canterbury Trail has led me to see the bareness and limited vision of most Evangelicals/Protestants who, in their zeal to root out what they perceive to be Popish practices have managed to discard much of the fullness of the Christian experience. I consider the Eucharist to be the focal point of worship at which the communion of saints and the blessed company of all faithful people are united in the mystical body of Christ through the partaking of the elements. I believe we are literally partakers in the body and blood of our Savior. I comport with Lancelot Andrewes who said essentially that how this is so, he was not so bold as to say. I am content to leave it in the realm of Holy Mystery.
Regarding Mary and the saints, I consider them as all being able and eager to intercede on our behalf and am convinced that invoking them is functionally no different from asking your own mother or friend to pray for you. I take comfort believing that St Joan is praying for my daughter, St George is praying for my son, St Michael is praying for me, and my late father is praying for my 92 year old mother. They are all right now in this very moment and forever part of the cloud of witnesses alive in Christ's presence. None of this in any way detracts one iota from a robust and orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. To believe otherwise is to be unnecessarily juridical and demonstrates a lack of graciousness, maturity, and understanding.
I'm sorry, but such a mindset demonstrates a failure in the understanding of certain base realities that are absolutely foundational to being able to formulate valid opinions on this subject matter. Consequently, your assessment of me and what I'm saying has no validity. In simple terms, based off a comment like that, it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. If you don't even have a basic understanding of what Christianity is, how would you even begin to understand why certain Catholic beliefs and practices violate it, let alone be able to discuss it intelligently? It's clear that after your comment we were at an impasse, and it would be unfruitful to continue. To be fair, though, I'm starting to think that others here don't really have a basic grasp of Christianity either, or even believe the parts that they say they believe, so they might be in the same boat.
Too funny. Thanks for the chuckle. Needed it after the game tonight. No longer surprised that you reach false conclusions based on stupid assumptions. You seem to have that mastered.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Didn't I just make it clear how YOU are the one who is reaching false conclusions based on stupid assumptions? You actually said that I'm a "Pharisee" for thinking that Christians should believe in Christianity. As far as "stupid assumptions" goes, I'm pretty sure that's as about as stupid as we've ever seen in the history of this forum.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Let me put it to you straight: you actually said that I was a "Pharisee" because I believed Christians should believe and practice Christianity.....curtpenn said:That you hyperventilate over hyperdulia comes as little surprise. Here's something that seems straightforward enough that perhaps even you can grasp the meaning:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.Sam Lowry said:Definitely not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.Sam Lowry said:God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.Sam Lowry said:It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?Sam Lowry said:Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.Sam Lowry said:https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htmBusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Question for the Catholics:
Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):
- I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
- You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.
Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):
""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......
Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?
These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.
The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.
Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34033
Your work here is reminiscent of the Puritans who white washed church interiors and took axes to organs and even burned Quakers. You are as bad in your own way as those whose veneration of Mary veers too far towards some Maximalist view of Mariology (which has been officially cautioned against).
Again, I'm not Roman Catholic so my views are a little different but they mostly involve objections to Rome's teachings on ecclesiology and the role of the Bishop of Rome. Those of us in the Anglican faith fall on a spectrum that includes those who are very Protestant including Calvinist tendencies to those who are very Catholic but who acknowledge the need for reformation. I tilt towards the Catholic wing, but my Baptist upbringing will always be an influence. My experience on the Canterbury Trail has led me to see the bareness and limited vision of most Evangelicals/Protestants who, in their zeal to root out what they perceive to be Popish practices have managed to discard much of the fullness of the Christian experience. I consider the Eucharist to be the focal point of worship at which the communion of saints and the blessed company of all faithful people are united in the mystical body of Christ through the partaking of the elements. I believe we are literally partakers in the body and blood of our Savior. I comport with Lancelot Andrewes who said essentially that how this is so, he was not so bold as to say. I am content to leave it in the realm of Holy Mystery.
Regarding Mary and the saints, I consider them as all being able and eager to intercede on our behalf and am convinced that invoking them is functionally no different from asking your own mother or friend to pray for you. I take comfort believing that St Joan is praying for my daughter, St George is praying for my son, St Michael is praying for me, and my late father is praying for my 92 year old mother. They are all right now in this very moment and forever part of the cloud of witnesses alive in Christ's presence. None of this in any way detracts one iota from a robust and orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. To believe otherwise is to be unnecessarily juridical and demonstrates a lack of graciousness, maturity, and understanding.
I'm sorry, but such a mindset demonstrates a failure in the understanding of certain base realities that are absolutely foundational to being able to formulate valid opinions on this subject matter. Consequently, your assessment of me and what I'm saying has no validity. In simple terms, based off a comment like that, it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. If you don't even have a basic understanding of what Christianity is, how would you even begin to understand why certain Catholic beliefs and practices violate it, let alone be able to discuss it intelligently? It's clear that after your comment we were at an impasse, and it would be unfruitful to continue. To be fair, though, I'm starting to think that others here don't really have a basic grasp of Christianity either, or even believe the parts that they say they believe, so they might be in the same boat.
Too funny. Thanks for the chuckle. Needed it after the game tonight. No longer surprised that you reach false conclusions based on stupid assumptions. You seem to have that mastered.
The only thing you've made clear here is that you are a
PATHETIC (starting to like the caps thing, thx) person who personifies Dunning-Kruger. Hope you get better soon.
+ 1Sam Lowry said:Yes, in the same sense that God credits Eve when he says her offspring will prevail in the enmity between her and the serpent. Like Christ is the new Adam, Mary is the new Eve.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Did you credit Mary with crushing the head of the serpent, or did you not? We'll go through this with baby steps, if we have to,Sam Lowry said:You know crushing the serpent is a metaphor, right? We're not debating whose foot is on the head of an actual snake. It's like poetry. The idea is that sin came into the world through a woman, and so does redemption.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Is this a joke? You just got done saying Mary crushes the head of the serpent meaning she defeats Satan's power, when it's Jesus that does it. And that's not taking away from Jesus? The dishonesty here is astounding. This is yet another example of what I'm talking about.Sam Lowry said:It's not taking anything away from Jesus. It's simply referring to Mary's role in the Incarnation, through which Christ defeated Satan's plan.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I wasn't referring to what Ligouri was intending to do. I'm referring to the spirit behind the inspiration for him writing those words, unbeknownst to him, and to Catholics who say this prayer. This is a revelation of how this spirit has manipulated Christians to worship Mary, in order for them to be really worshiping him. Another classic example of this is how Catholics call Mary the "Queen of Heaven". Do you know who the queen of heaven is in the bible?Sam Lowry said:Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Isn't it exceedingly interesting, then, that one of those prayers to Mary called her, "God, as it were, of this world" ??Sam Lowry said:2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the devil as "god of this world."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
Also, you do know that Mary isn't the one who crushes the serpent under their feet, don't you? Genesis 3:15 says "HE":
"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse is a foreshadowing of Jesus. Jesus is going to defeat the power of Satan (crush him under his feet). NOT Mary. This is yet another attempt by Catholics to steal the glory and power from Jesus and give it to Mary by using an ad hoc translation.
Please wake up, Catholics, and see this for what it really is. And please wake up, OldBear, and be bold enough to say the truth.
If Jesus is the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45) then how does that make Mary the second "Eve"? Mary was Jesus' mother, not wife. Mary gave birth to Jesus. Eve did not give birth to Adam. Actually, it was the other way around - Eve came from Adam (his rib).KaiBear said:+ 1Sam Lowry said:Yes, in the same sense that God credits Eve when he says her offspring will prevail in the enmity between her and the serpent. Like Christ is the new Adam, Mary is the new Eve.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Did you credit Mary with crushing the head of the serpent, or did you not? We'll go through this with baby steps, if we have to,Sam Lowry said:You know crushing the serpent is a metaphor, right? We're not debating whose foot is on the head of an actual snake. It's like poetry. The idea is that sin came into the world through a woman, and so does redemption.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Is this a joke? You just got done saying Mary crushes the head of the serpent meaning she defeats Satan's power, when it's Jesus that does it. And that's not taking away from Jesus? The dishonesty here is astounding. This is yet another example of what I'm talking about.Sam Lowry said:It's not taking anything away from Jesus. It's simply referring to Mary's role in the Incarnation, through which Christ defeated Satan's plan.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I wasn't referring to what Ligouri was intending to do. I'm referring to the spirit behind the inspiration for him writing those words, unbeknownst to him, and to Catholics who say this prayer. This is a revelation of how this spirit has manipulated Christians to worship Mary, in order for them to be really worshiping him. Another classic example of this is how Catholics call Mary the "Queen of Heaven". Do you know who the queen of heaven is in the bible?Sam Lowry said:Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Isn't it exceedingly interesting, then, that one of those prayers to Mary called her, "God, as it were, of this world" ??Sam Lowry said:2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the devil as "god of this world."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He knows. He just wants to play his little game.xfrodobagginsx said:
In Scripture, the term "The Lord" is ONLY ascribed to Jesus Christ and it points to His Deity, hence the term "The Lord, Thy God" No one else is given this Title. The term "Lord" is quite different from the term "The Lord"
Jesus Christ is The Lord our God. Mary is not the Lord.
I'm really glad he's doing this, though. It's only proving what I've been talking about - the dishonesty and denial behind their beliefs.
Also, you do know that Mary isn't the one who crushes the serpent under their feet, don't you? Genesis 3:15 says "HE":
"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse is a foreshadowing of Jesus. Jesus is going to defeat the power of Satan (crush him under his feet). NOT Mary. This is yet another attempt by Catholics to steal the glory and power from Jesus and give it to Mary by using an ad hoc translation.
Please wake up, Catholics, and see this for what it really is. And please wake up, OldBear, and be bold enough to say the truth.
If Jesus is the new "Adam", then the new "Eve" would be his wife/bride, not his mother. Who is the bride of Jesus? His Church (Ephesians 5:24-27, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Revelation 19:7-9).
In Catholicism, Mary is called the "Queen of Heaven".
Is the "queen of heaven" biblical? It sure is. Read Jeremiah 7:16-20:
"As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I will not hear you. Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger. Is it I whom they provoke? declares the Lord. Is it not themselves, to their own shame? Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, my anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place, upon man and beast, upon the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground; it will burn and not be quenched."
The "queen of heaven" was the goddess Ishtar, also known as Ashtoreth, which was an idol that the Israelites were worshiping, thus provoking God to anger and bringing upon themselves complete and utter destruction in judgement.
It's no accident or coincidence that Mary is called the "Queen of Heaven". Catholics have been led and deceived by the Devil into Mary worship, which is ancient pagan goddess worship reawakened. Please, Catholics, wake up and open your eyes, and see this for what it really is. STOP worshiping Mary and repent, and turn and worship Jesus only.
Is the "queen of heaven" biblical? It sure is. Read Jeremiah 7:16-20:
"As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I will not hear you. Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger. Is it I whom they provoke? declares the Lord. Is it not themselves, to their own shame? Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, my anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place, upon man and beast, upon the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground; it will burn and not be quenched."
The "queen of heaven" was the goddess Ishtar, also known as Ashtoreth, which was an idol that the Israelites were worshiping, thus provoking God to anger and bringing upon themselves complete and utter destruction in judgement.
It's no accident or coincidence that Mary is called the "Queen of Heaven". Catholics have been led and deceived by the Devil into Mary worship, which is ancient pagan goddess worship reawakened. Please, Catholics, wake up and open your eyes, and see this for what it really is. STOP worshiping Mary and repent, and turn and worship Jesus only.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
In Catholicism, Mary is called the "Queen of Heaven".
Is the "queen of heaven" biblical? It sure is. Read Jeremiah 7:16-20:
"As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I will not hear you. Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger. Is it I whom they provoke? declares the Lord. Is it not themselves, to their own shame? Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, my anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place, upon man and beast, upon the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground; it will burn and not be quenched."
The "queen of heaven" was the goddess Ishtar, also known as Ashtoreth, which was an idol that the Israelites were worshiping, thus provoking God to anger and bringing upon themselves complete and utter destruction in judgement.
It's no accident or coincidence that Mary is called the "Queen of Heaven". Catholics have been led and deceived by the Devil into Mary worship, which is ancient pagan goddess worship reawakened. Please, Catholics, wake up and open your eyes, and see this for what it really is. STOP worshiping Mary and repent, and turn and worship Jesus only.
Do you believe veneration = worship?
Oh my.
I had some things I wanted to post, but I see in my time away things have become even harsher in tone.
I am concerned that whatever I write may be misunderstood, perhaps even twisted, to serve some personal emotions rather than advance understanding and fruitful discussion.
From where I stand, I see a number of errors on both sides, so I guess I am about to make both sides angry at me, but the Spirit has moved me to speak to them.
But not tonight. I want to think on the best way to phrase this.
But I did want to say I appreciate the intent of so many here who have posted, and hope we may yet move the discussion forward.
Thanks.
I had some things I wanted to post, but I see in my time away things have become even harsher in tone.
I am concerned that whatever I write may be misunderstood, perhaps even twisted, to serve some personal emotions rather than advance understanding and fruitful discussion.
From where I stand, I see a number of errors on both sides, so I guess I am about to make both sides angry at me, but the Spirit has moved me to speak to them.
But not tonight. I want to think on the best way to phrase this.
But I did want to say I appreciate the intent of so many here who have posted, and hope we may yet move the discussion forward.
Thanks.
It absolutely puzzles me, how someone who has demonstrated near ZERO knowledge of Christianity, can proclaim with such confidence whether certain beliefs and practices are Christian or not - then, in more puzzling fashion, claim it's the other guy displaying the Dunning-Kruger effect.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Didn't I just make it clear how YOU are the one who is reaching false conclusions based on stupid assumptions? You actually said that I'm a "Pharisee" for thinking that Christians should believe in Christianity. As far as "stupid assumptions" goes, I'm pretty sure that's as about as stupid as we've ever seen in the history of this forum.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Let me put it to you straight: you actually said that I was a "Pharisee" because I believed Christians should believe and practice Christianity.....curtpenn said:That you hyperventilate over hyperdulia comes as little surprise. Here's something that seems straightforward enough that perhaps even you can grasp the meaning:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.Sam Lowry said:Definitely not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.Sam Lowry said:God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.Sam Lowry said:It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?Sam Lowry said:Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.Sam Lowry said:https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htmBusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Question for the Catholics:
Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):
- I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
- You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.
Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):
""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......
Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?
These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.
The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.
Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34033
Your work here is reminiscent of the Puritans who white washed church interiors and took axes to organs and even burned Quakers. You are as bad in your own way as those whose veneration of Mary veers too far towards some Maximalist view of Mariology (which has been officially cautioned against).
Again, I'm not Roman Catholic so my views are a little different but they mostly involve objections to Rome's teachings on ecclesiology and the role of the Bishop of Rome. Those of us in the Anglican faith fall on a spectrum that includes those who are very Protestant including Calvinist tendencies to those who are very Catholic but who acknowledge the need for reformation. I tilt towards the Catholic wing, but my Baptist upbringing will always be an influence. My experience on the Canterbury Trail has led me to see the bareness and limited vision of most Evangelicals/Protestants who, in their zeal to root out what they perceive to be Popish practices have managed to discard much of the fullness of the Christian experience. I consider the Eucharist to be the focal point of worship at which the communion of saints and the blessed company of all faithful people are united in the mystical body of Christ through the partaking of the elements. I believe we are literally partakers in the body and blood of our Savior. I comport with Lancelot Andrewes who said essentially that how this is so, he was not so bold as to say. I am content to leave it in the realm of Holy Mystery.
Regarding Mary and the saints, I consider them as all being able and eager to intercede on our behalf and am convinced that invoking them is functionally no different from asking your own mother or friend to pray for you. I take comfort believing that St Joan is praying for my daughter, St George is praying for my son, St Michael is praying for me, and my late father is praying for my 92 year old mother. They are all right now in this very moment and forever part of the cloud of witnesses alive in Christ's presence. None of this in any way detracts one iota from a robust and orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. To believe otherwise is to be unnecessarily juridical and demonstrates a lack of graciousness, maturity, and understanding.
I'm sorry, but such a mindset demonstrates a failure in the understanding of certain base realities that are absolutely foundational to being able to formulate valid opinions on this subject matter. Consequently, your assessment of me and what I'm saying has no validity. In simple terms, based off a comment like that, it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. If you don't even have a basic understanding of what Christianity is, how would you even begin to understand why certain Catholic beliefs and practices violate it, let alone be able to discuss it intelligently? It's clear that after your comment we were at an impasse, and it would be unfruitful to continue. To be fair, though, I'm starting to think that others here don't really have a basic grasp of Christianity either, or even believe the parts that they say they believe, so they might be in the same boat.
Too funny. Thanks for the chuckle. Needed it after the game tonight. No longer surprised that you reach false conclusions based on stupid assumptions. You seem to have that mastered.
The only thing you've made clear here is that you are a
PATHETIC (starting to like the caps thing, thx) person who personifies Dunning-Kruger. Hope you get better soon.