Your edit makes your post even more ridiculous. You were wrong, so why not just admit it, instead of digging your hole deeper?
And you're still avoiding the question. And it's clear why.
1. What is your explanation for the metaphysical events surrounding Guadalupe?
2. Why does Guadalupe lead to the immediate end of some of the most brutal practices of human (in particular child) sacrifice that have ever happened in the world? She also leads to one of the largest mass evangelization events recorded in history with countless Baptisms in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirt. Those all seem consistent with God's plan. How do you explain that one?
3. Does it not seem odd to you that we deny worshipping what *you* think is deity to us? Catholics freely admit they worship the Trinitarian God of Abraham. If we really thought of Mary as worthy of worship then a denial of worship would be an offense. So which it: are we worshipping or offending by denying we worship?
4. What denomination are you?
1. I do not believe metaphysical events occurred. The story surrounding Guadalupe is very suspect. And even if it did happen, do you not realize that Satan is capable of "signs and wonders"?
2. Does the fact that human sacrifices were ended mean that the message isn't a deception? Satan can present himself as an "angel of light". And water baptisms don't mean people are saved. It's based on what they believe. And what do they believe? Latin America is the worlds HOT SPOT for marian worship and idolatry. Was that God's plan?
3. No, it is not odd at all. Denying that you worship Mary doesn't mean that you're not. You are so deep in deception, that you're even deceiving yourselves.
4. I belong to no denomination. I am simply a Bible-believing Christian.
If you don't believe the metaphysical events occurred, then not much point to discussing this.... You are certainly within your rights there. Everything else is downstream from there, so really no point in discussing the rest.
You do realize that Satan is capable of false signs and wonders in order to deceive, don't you?
You do know that we are to "test every spirit" instead of blindly accept them and their wondrous signs as being from God, don't you?:
I John 4:1 - "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world."
We test them by judging their message against God's word and his gospel message. The apparition messages CLEARLY violate those. If you truly can't see this, then you are fully bewitched by a deceiving spirit. If you, as well as your fellow Catholics here know in your heart that they're wrong, then why on earth are you fighting tooth and nail to defend it? How can you trust the authority of your church that condoned it?
Not making that comparison at all. Only illustrating that a failure to address an accusation is not a confession (using an example we all agree on).
Granted, both sides are acting a bit heated. Not conducive to a healthy conversation climate, that.
The level of projection here is absolutely INSANE.
Folks, not answering the question is what isn't conducive to a "healthy conversation climate".
It's very strange. Not long ago, one of these Catholics told me that I should study the story of Fatima, because it would prove to me that the worship of Mary was legit. Then another one talked about Guadalupe as proof that Mary worship was powerful and so on.
Now they want to ignore both stories?? Very strange.
I've studied both stories, and all it proves is that Catholics are engaged in idolatry. There is no way that the same God who said, "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," would then send a woman to tell His followers to pray to her, build her a bunch of churches, sing songs of praise to her... no way that Fatima and Guadalupe were sent from heaven. Those messages are in direct opposition to the direct instructions from God through the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.
As has been stated ad nauseum, theres no worship without sacrifice. Never seen anyone sacrifice anything to Mary
Ive been to many a sunday mega church, Bible church as they call it, etc. never seen a sacrifice at any of those either. Ever.
At stations of the cross tonight we said 14 different individualized prayers directed at Jesus. I suppose we squeezed in a Hail Mary in between an Our Father and Glory Be at the end…. We must have missed the memo on the Mary worship tonight….
Honestly if the brick wall and his little side kick could at least be honest in their criticism and attacks it might be worth engagement. But the intentional misrepresentation says a lot.
Are you familiar with the rosary?
If so, please tell us how many rosary prayers are to God vs how many to Mary.
Also if you don't worship Mary, please explain why there are more Catholic Church named in honor of Mary, than in honor of God.
Also explain why every year millions of Catholics go on pianos pilgrimage to visit one of the sites of her apparition, and offer flowers, songs and prayers to her.
I'm glad you had an experience the other day without worshipping Mary.
I know the conversation has moved past this, but I was jammed up this weekend. So want to give you a good faith response.
*Rosary has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread. If you do not want to pray the rosary, do not do so. There is clearly a difference between a mandated practice and an approved one for private devotion.
*While a name is an indicator, it is not dispositive of what is happening within an institution. None of us are worshipping Judge Baylor even though he is namesake of our beloved university. I don't think the folks at University Baptist Church in Waco are worshipping a university. I don't think the folks at Antioch are worshipping a city or the era the city represents. Same thing for folks at Watermark and City Church and countless others. So, clearly, the name of a church does not establish what is being worshipped within that church. The Catholic faith is a highly ritualistic faith. Weekly Mass is the most important thing in the Church (and even within the Mass celebration of the Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith). And this is followed by the Sacraments. Mass structure is 50+10 model. 50 minutes that are highly ritualized and scripted with about 10 minutes of homily.
There are up to three times the Blessed Mother is mentioned in the Mass Script:
The Confiteor (not always used):
Quote:
I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
The Nicene Creed (excerpted):
Quote:
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
The Eucharistic Prayer (excerpted-- there are four different versions, I think this is the version you could find most offensive):
Quote:
In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph, her Spouse, your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew,....
And occasionally the Blessed Mother will be mentioned in hymns.
That's it. You can search the script of the Mass, you won't find anything else. So please, where are you seeing worship in there?
I don't have the scripts for the various sacraments memorized, but I was at a confirmation Mass this past Saturday morning and she was not mentioned as part of the sacrament.
People go on pilgrimages to places where they believe miraculous signs sent forth by God (in whatever form He has chosen) have occurred. I presume that you believe the metaphysical miraculous works stopped with the apostles. Others disagree. Those pilgrimages are not required. People find spiritual meaning in these places. I find spiritual growth pours forth for all of my family on these pilgrimages. This year I am taking my family to Croagh Patrick and various other holy sites nearby. Next year I plan on taking my family on pilgrimage to Patmos. My wife has asked me to take each of my sons individually to do El Camino before they graduate from high school and I'll probably do that. Point being, we do lots of pilgrimages to places where various saints lived their lives or made a difference in the Christian faith.
I appreciate your response. Thanks.
The naming of the church alone is not an act of worship, I agree with you on that topic.
Yes, the naming of a church for a person is worship and idolatry. I am surprised you conceded this. Churches are for JESUS. Not for extolling, honoring, or in dedication to his human followers. I can almost 100% guarantee that Peter, Andrew, John, Mary, etc, if they were to look down at some "Christian" churches, they would be absolutely forlorn that their names were put above Jesus' in ANY way.
Not making that comparison at all. Only illustrating that a failure to address an accusation is not a confession (using an example we all agree on).
Granted, both sides are acting a bit heated. Not conducive to a healthy conversation climate, that.
The level of projection here is absolutely INSANE.
Folks, not answering the question is what isn't conducive to a "healthy conversation climate".
It's very strange. Not long ago, one of these Catholics told me that I should study the story of Fatima, because it would prove to me that the worship of Mary was legit. Then another one talked about Guadalupe as proof that Mary worship was powerful and so on.
Now they want to ignore both stories?? Very strange.
I've studied both stories, and all it proves is that Catholics are engaged in idolatry. There is no way that the same God who said, "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," would then send a woman to tell His followers to pray to her, build her a bunch of churches, sing songs of praise to her... no way that Fatima and Guadalupe were sent from heaven. Those messages are in direct opposition to the direct instructions from God through the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.
As has been stated ad nauseum, theres no worship without sacrifice. Never seen anyone sacrifice anything to Mary
Ive been to many a sunday mega church, Bible church as they call it, etc. never seen a sacrifice at any of those either. Ever.
At stations of the cross tonight we said 14 different individualized prayers directed at Jesus. I suppose we squeezed in a Hail Mary in between an Our Father and Glory Be at the end…. We must have missed the memo on the Mary worship tonight….
Honestly if the brick wall and his little side kick could at least be honest in their criticism and attacks it might be worth engagement. But the intentional misrepresentation says a lot.
Are you familiar with the rosary?
If so, please tell us how many rosary prayers are to God vs how many to Mary.
Also if you don't worship Mary, please explain why there are more Catholic Church named in honor of Mary, than in honor of God.
Also explain why every year millions of Catholics go on pianos pilgrimage to visit one of the sites of her apparition, and offer flowers, songs and prayers to her.
I'm glad you had an experience the other day without worshipping Mary.
I know the conversation has moved past this, but I was jammed up this weekend. So want to give you a good faith response.
*Rosary has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread. If you do not want to pray the rosary, do not do so. There is clearly a difference between a mandated practice and an approved one for private devotion.
*While a name is an indicator, it is not dispositive of what is happening within an institution. None of us are worshipping Judge Baylor even though he is namesake of our beloved university. I don't think the folks at University Baptist Church in Waco are worshipping a university. I don't think the folks at Antioch are worshipping a city or the era the city represents. Same thing for folks at Watermark and City Church and countless others. So, clearly, the name of a church does not establish what is being worshipped within that church. The Catholic faith is a highly ritualistic faith. Weekly Mass is the most important thing in the Church (and even within the Mass celebration of the Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith). And this is followed by the Sacraments. Mass structure is 50+10 model. 50 minutes that are highly ritualized and scripted with about 10 minutes of homily.
There are up to three times the Blessed Mother is mentioned in the Mass Script:
The Confiteor (not always used):
Quote:
I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
The Nicene Creed (excerpted):
Quote:
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
The Eucharistic Prayer (excerpted-- there are four different versions, I think this is the version you could find most offensive):
Quote:
In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph, her Spouse, your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew,....
And occasionally the Blessed Mother will be mentioned in hymns.
That's it. You can search the script of the Mass, you won't find anything else. So please, where are you seeing worship in there?
I don't have the scripts for the various sacraments memorized, but I was at a confirmation Mass this past Saturday morning and she was not mentioned as part of the sacrament.
People go on pilgrimages to places where they believe miraculous signs sent forth by God (in whatever form He has chosen) have occurred. I presume that you believe the metaphysical miraculous works stopped with the apostles. Others disagree. Those pilgrimages are not required. People find spiritual meaning in these places. I find spiritual growth pours forth for all of my family on these pilgrimages. This year I am taking my family to Croagh Patrick and various other holy sites nearby. Next year I plan on taking my family on pilgrimage to Patmos. My wife has asked me to take each of my sons individually to do El Camino before they graduate from high school and I'll probably do that. Point being, we do lots of pilgrimages to places where various saints lived their lives or made a difference in the Christian faith.
I appreciate your response. Thanks.
The naming of the church alone is not an act of worship, I agree with you on that topic.
Yes, the naming of a church for a person is worship and idolatry. I am surprised you conceded this. Churches are for JESUS. Not for extolling, honoring, or in dedication to his human followers. I can almost 100% guarantee that Peter, Andrew, John, Mary, etc, if they were to look down at some "Christian" churches, they would be absolutely forlorn that their names were put above Jesus' in ANY way.
Believers are called to examine their lives for any form of idolatry, whether it be material possessions, relationships, or ideologies that take precedence over God. The call to holiness and separation from pagan practices remains relevant, urging Christians to live distinctively in a world that often promotes values contrary to biblical teachings (1 Peter 1:14-16).
Naming a church after a person is not inherently idolatry, but some argue it can shift focus away from Christ and toward the individual, which may foster an unhealthy veneration. Many churches are named after saints, historical figures, or locations without intending idolatry, but critics caution against it to avoid misplaced honor.
If the prayer services are dedicated to the Father in the name of the son Jesus, the name on the building isnt doing anything other than identifying a building at a specific location.
St Pauls episcopal church and St Matthews lutheran church in Waco are named after two of the apostles.
As the church under the bridge has shown in Waco, buildings are mostly unimportant, it is the gathering of people in community that is pleasing to God.
Not making that comparison at all. Only illustrating that a failure to address an accusation is not a confession (using an example we all agree on).
Granted, both sides are acting a bit heated. Not conducive to a healthy conversation climate, that.
The level of projection here is absolutely INSANE.
Folks, not answering the question is what isn't conducive to a "healthy conversation climate".
It's very strange. Not long ago, one of these Catholics told me that I should study the story of Fatima, because it would prove to me that the worship of Mary was legit. Then another one talked about Guadalupe as proof that Mary worship was powerful and so on.
Now they want to ignore both stories?? Very strange.
I've studied both stories, and all it proves is that Catholics are engaged in idolatry. There is no way that the same God who said, "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," would then send a woman to tell His followers to pray to her, build her a bunch of churches, sing songs of praise to her... no way that Fatima and Guadalupe were sent from heaven. Those messages are in direct opposition to the direct instructions from God through the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.
As has been stated ad nauseum, theres no worship without sacrifice. Never seen anyone sacrifice anything to Mary
Ive been to many a sunday mega church, Bible church as they call it, etc. never seen a sacrifice at any of those either. Ever.
At stations of the cross tonight we said 14 different individualized prayers directed at Jesus. I suppose we squeezed in a Hail Mary in between an Our Father and Glory Be at the end…. We must have missed the memo on the Mary worship tonight….
Honestly if the brick wall and his little side kick could at least be honest in their criticism and attacks it might be worth engagement. But the intentional misrepresentation says a lot.
Are you familiar with the rosary?
If so, please tell us how many rosary prayers are to God vs how many to Mary.
Also if you don't worship Mary, please explain why there are more Catholic Church named in honor of Mary, than in honor of God.
Also explain why every year millions of Catholics go on pianos pilgrimage to visit one of the sites of her apparition, and offer flowers, songs and prayers to her.
I'm glad you had an experience the other day without worshipping Mary.
I know the conversation has moved past this, but I was jammed up this weekend. So want to give you a good faith response.
*Rosary has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread. If you do not want to pray the rosary, do not do so. There is clearly a difference between a mandated practice and an approved one for private devotion.
*While a name is an indicator, it is not dispositive of what is happening within an institution. None of us are worshipping Judge Baylor even though he is namesake of our beloved university. I don't think the folks at University Baptist Church in Waco are worshipping a university. I don't think the folks at Antioch are worshipping a city or the era the city represents. Same thing for folks at Watermark and City Church and countless others. So, clearly, the name of a church does not establish what is being worshipped within that church. The Catholic faith is a highly ritualistic faith. Weekly Mass is the most important thing in the Church (and even within the Mass celebration of the Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith). And this is followed by the Sacraments. Mass structure is 50+10 model. 50 minutes that are highly ritualized and scripted with about 10 minutes of homily.
There are up to three times the Blessed Mother is mentioned in the Mass Script:
The Confiteor (not always used):
Quote:
I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
The Nicene Creed (excerpted):
Quote:
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
The Eucharistic Prayer (excerpted-- there are four different versions, I think this is the version you could find most offensive):
Quote:
In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph, her Spouse, your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew,....
And occasionally the Blessed Mother will be mentioned in hymns.
That's it. You can search the script of the Mass, you won't find anything else. So please, where are you seeing worship in there?
I don't have the scripts for the various sacraments memorized, but I was at a confirmation Mass this past Saturday morning and she was not mentioned as part of the sacrament.
People go on pilgrimages to places where they believe miraculous signs sent forth by God (in whatever form He has chosen) have occurred. I presume that you believe the metaphysical miraculous works stopped with the apostles. Others disagree. Those pilgrimages are not required. People find spiritual meaning in these places. I find spiritual growth pours forth for all of my family on these pilgrimages. This year I am taking my family to Croagh Patrick and various other holy sites nearby. Next year I plan on taking my family on pilgrimage to Patmos. My wife has asked me to take each of my sons individually to do El Camino before they graduate from high school and I'll probably do that. Point being, we do lots of pilgrimages to places where various saints lived their lives or made a difference in the Christian faith.
I appreciate your response. Thanks.
The naming of the church alone is not an act of worship, I agree with you on that topic.
Yes, the naming of a church for a person is worship and idolatry. I am surprised you conceded this. Churches are for JESUS. Not for extolling, honoring, or in dedication to his human followers. I can almost 100% guarantee that Peter, Andrew, John, Mary, etc, if they were to look down at some "Christian" churches, they would be absolutely forlorn that their names were put above Jesus' in ANY way.
Believers are called to examine their lives for any form of idolatry, whether it be material possessions, relationships, or ideologies that take precedence over God. The call to holiness and separation from pagan practices remains relevant, urging Christians to live distinctively in a world that often promotes values contrary to biblical teachings (1 Peter 1:14-16).
Naming a church after a person is not inherently idolatry, but some argue it can shift focus away from Christ and toward the individual, which may foster an unhealthy veneration. Many churches are named after saints, historical figures, or locations without intending idolatry, but critics caution against it to avoid misplaced honor.
If the prayer services are dedicated to the Father in the name of the son Jesus, the name on the building isnt doing anything other than identifying a building at a specific location.
St Pauls episcopal church and St Matthews lutheran church in Waco are named after two of the apostles.
As the church under the bridge has shown in Waco, buildings are mostly unimportant, it is the gathering of people in community that is pleasing to God.
We're talking about churches named after people, not church names as identifiers (location, denomination). If for a person, the name is a dedication. It gives honor and praise. The building is for JESUS, not for anyone else. Even if what's going on inside the building is perfect, still, that doesn't change the fact that their church's name can be a form of idolatry if named for a human. It already IS misplaced honor. If that church was truly loving Jesus, they would not name their church for any human person. Do you honestly in your heart of hearts, believe that if Paul, Matthew, John, Andrew, or Mary were to look down at churches named for them, that they'd say "Yeah, that's perfectly fine, makes me proud"??
Suppose you met your spouse through a friend. Would you engrave every anniversary gift to your spouse every year with your friend's name?
I'm not saying this is a form of idolatry that will necessarilly lead people away from Jesus. But it is idolatry. And there's no greater symbol that projects what your church is, and what you stand for, than the NAME. Did God have the Israelites name their tabernacles, synagogues, and Temple after their patriarchs or prophets? Were the churches in the New Testament named after the apostles? The seven churches in Revelation?
Key point: when did churches start naming themselves after people? It was after the Romanization, i.e. paganization of Christianity in the 4th century, when pagan gods were re-cast into Christian figures so that the pagans could easily "convert" over to Christianity. It was at the same time, not by coincidence, that having of statues of Mary and the saints and praying to them also began, much like they had been doing for their pagan gods. True Christians need to know and understand this history.
Not making that comparison at all. Only illustrating that a failure to address an accusation is not a confession (using an example we all agree on).
Granted, both sides are acting a bit heated. Not conducive to a healthy conversation climate, that.
The level of projection here is absolutely INSANE.
Folks, not answering the question is what isn't conducive to a "healthy conversation climate".
It's very strange. Not long ago, one of these Catholics told me that I should study the story of Fatima, because it would prove to me that the worship of Mary was legit. Then another one talked about Guadalupe as proof that Mary worship was powerful and so on.
Now they want to ignore both stories?? Very strange.
I've studied both stories, and all it proves is that Catholics are engaged in idolatry. There is no way that the same God who said, "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," would then send a woman to tell His followers to pray to her, build her a bunch of churches, sing songs of praise to her... no way that Fatima and Guadalupe were sent from heaven. Those messages are in direct opposition to the direct instructions from God through the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.
As has been stated ad nauseum, theres no worship without sacrifice. Never seen anyone sacrifice anything to Mary
Ive been to many a sunday mega church, Bible church as they call it, etc. never seen a sacrifice at any of those either. Ever.
At stations of the cross tonight we said 14 different individualized prayers directed at Jesus. I suppose we squeezed in a Hail Mary in between an Our Father and Glory Be at the end…. We must have missed the memo on the Mary worship tonight….
Honestly if the brick wall and his little side kick could at least be honest in their criticism and attacks it might be worth engagement. But the intentional misrepresentation says a lot.
Are you familiar with the rosary?
If so, please tell us how many rosary prayers are to God vs how many to Mary.
Also if you don't worship Mary, please explain why there are more Catholic Church named in honor of Mary, than in honor of God.
Also explain why every year millions of Catholics go on pianos pilgrimage to visit one of the sites of her apparition, and offer flowers, songs and prayers to her.
I'm glad you had an experience the other day without worshipping Mary.
I know the conversation has moved past this, but I was jammed up this weekend. So want to give you a good faith response.
*Rosary has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread. If you do not want to pray the rosary, do not do so. There is clearly a difference between a mandated practice and an approved one for private devotion.
*While a name is an indicator, it is not dispositive of what is happening within an institution. None of us are worshipping Judge Baylor even though he is namesake of our beloved university. I don't think the folks at University Baptist Church in Waco are worshipping a university. I don't think the folks at Antioch are worshipping a city or the era the city represents. Same thing for folks at Watermark and City Church and countless others. So, clearly, the name of a church does not establish what is being worshipped within that church. The Catholic faith is a highly ritualistic faith. Weekly Mass is the most important thing in the Church (and even within the Mass celebration of the Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith). And this is followed by the Sacraments. Mass structure is 50+10 model. 50 minutes that are highly ritualized and scripted with about 10 minutes of homily.
There are up to three times the Blessed Mother is mentioned in the Mass Script:
The Confiteor (not always used):
Quote:
I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
The Nicene Creed (excerpted):
Quote:
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
The Eucharistic Prayer (excerpted-- there are four different versions, I think this is the version you could find most offensive):
Quote:
In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph, her Spouse, your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew,....
And occasionally the Blessed Mother will be mentioned in hymns.
That's it. You can search the script of the Mass, you won't find anything else. So please, where are you seeing worship in there?
I don't have the scripts for the various sacraments memorized, but I was at a confirmation Mass this past Saturday morning and she was not mentioned as part of the sacrament.
People go on pilgrimages to places where they believe miraculous signs sent forth by God (in whatever form He has chosen) have occurred. I presume that you believe the metaphysical miraculous works stopped with the apostles. Others disagree. Those pilgrimages are not required. People find spiritual meaning in these places. I find spiritual growth pours forth for all of my family on these pilgrimages. This year I am taking my family to Croagh Patrick and various other holy sites nearby. Next year I plan on taking my family on pilgrimage to Patmos. My wife has asked me to take each of my sons individually to do El Camino before they graduate from high school and I'll probably do that. Point being, we do lots of pilgrimages to places where various saints lived their lives or made a difference in the Christian faith.
I appreciate your response. Thanks.
The naming of the church alone is not an act of worship, I agree with you on that topic.
Yes, the naming of a church for a person is worship and idolatry. I am surprised you conceded this. Churches are for JESUS. Not for extolling, honoring, or in dedication to his human followers. I can almost 100% guarantee that Peter, Andrew, John, Mary, etc, if they were to look down at some "Christian" churches, they would be absolutely forlorn that their names were put above Jesus' in ANY way.
It's not just the name, but the dedication and much more.
If I go to the Waco Chapel, it doesn't mean that I am dedicated to the "veneration" of Waco. However many catholics who go to Our Lady of the Lake, are dedicated to the "veneration" of the Lady. It is more than just a name. There are acts of worship that take place as well as the naming of the church. That was my point.
Not making that comparison at all. Only illustrating that a failure to address an accusation is not a confession (using an example we all agree on).
Granted, both sides are acting a bit heated. Not conducive to a healthy conversation climate, that.
The level of projection here is absolutely INSANE.
Folks, not answering the question is what isn't conducive to a "healthy conversation climate".
It's very strange. Not long ago, one of these Catholics told me that I should study the story of Fatima, because it would prove to me that the worship of Mary was legit. Then another one talked about Guadalupe as proof that Mary worship was powerful and so on.
Now they want to ignore both stories?? Very strange.
I've studied both stories, and all it proves is that Catholics are engaged in idolatry. There is no way that the same God who said, "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," would then send a woman to tell His followers to pray to her, build her a bunch of churches, sing songs of praise to her... no way that Fatima and Guadalupe were sent from heaven. Those messages are in direct opposition to the direct instructions from God through the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.
As has been stated ad nauseum, theres no worship without sacrifice. Never seen anyone sacrifice anything to Mary
Ive been to many a sunday mega church, Bible church as they call it, etc. never seen a sacrifice at any of those either. Ever.
At stations of the cross tonight we said 14 different individualized prayers directed at Jesus. I suppose we squeezed in a Hail Mary in between an Our Father and Glory Be at the end…. We must have missed the memo on the Mary worship tonight….
Honestly if the brick wall and his little side kick could at least be honest in their criticism and attacks it might be worth engagement. But the intentional misrepresentation says a lot.
Are you familiar with the rosary?
If so, please tell us how many rosary prayers are to God vs how many to Mary.
Also if you don't worship Mary, please explain why there are more Catholic Church named in honor of Mary, than in honor of God.
Also explain why every year millions of Catholics go on pianos pilgrimage to visit one of the sites of her apparition, and offer flowers, songs and prayers to her.
I'm glad you had an experience the other day without worshipping Mary.
I know the conversation has moved past this, but I was jammed up this weekend. So want to give you a good faith response.
*Rosary has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread. If you do not want to pray the rosary, do not do so. There is clearly a difference between a mandated practice and an approved one for private devotion.
*While a name is an indicator, it is not dispositive of what is happening within an institution. None of us are worshipping Judge Baylor even though he is namesake of our beloved university. I don't think the folks at University Baptist Church in Waco are worshipping a university. I don't think the folks at Antioch are worshipping a city or the era the city represents. Same thing for folks at Watermark and City Church and countless others. So, clearly, the name of a church does not establish what is being worshipped within that church. The Catholic faith is a highly ritualistic faith. Weekly Mass is the most important thing in the Church (and even within the Mass celebration of the Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith). And this is followed by the Sacraments. Mass structure is 50+10 model. 50 minutes that are highly ritualized and scripted with about 10 minutes of homily.
There are up to three times the Blessed Mother is mentioned in the Mass Script:
The Confiteor (not always used):
Quote:
I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
The Nicene Creed (excerpted):
Quote:
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
The Eucharistic Prayer (excerpted-- there are four different versions, I think this is the version you could find most offensive):
Quote:
In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph, her Spouse, your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew,....
And occasionally the Blessed Mother will be mentioned in hymns.
That's it. You can search the script of the Mass, you won't find anything else. So please, where are you seeing worship in there?
I don't have the scripts for the various sacraments memorized, but I was at a confirmation Mass this past Saturday morning and she was not mentioned as part of the sacrament.
People go on pilgrimages to places where they believe miraculous signs sent forth by God (in whatever form He has chosen) have occurred. I presume that you believe the metaphysical miraculous works stopped with the apostles. Others disagree. Those pilgrimages are not required. People find spiritual meaning in these places. I find spiritual growth pours forth for all of my family on these pilgrimages. This year I am taking my family to Croagh Patrick and various other holy sites nearby. Next year I plan on taking my family on pilgrimage to Patmos. My wife has asked me to take each of my sons individually to do El Camino before they graduate from high school and I'll probably do that. Point being, we do lots of pilgrimages to places where various saints lived their lives or made a difference in the Christian faith.
I appreciate your response. Thanks.
The naming of the church alone is not an act of worship, I agree with you on that topic.
Yes, the naming of a church for a person is worship and idolatry. I am surprised you conceded this. Churches are for JESUS. Not for extolling, honoring, or in dedication to his human followers. I can almost 100% guarantee that Peter, Andrew, John, Mary, etc, if they were to look down at some "Christian" churches, they would be absolutely forlorn that their names were put above Jesus' in ANY way.
Believers are called to examine their lives for any form of idolatry, whether it be material possessions, relationships, or ideologies that take precedence over God. The call to holiness and separation from pagan practices remains relevant, urging Christians to live distinctively in a world that often promotes values contrary to biblical teachings (1 Peter 1:14-16).
Naming a church after a person is not inherently idolatry, but some argue it can shift focus away from Christ and toward the individual, which may foster an unhealthy veneration. Many churches are named after saints, historical figures, or locations without intending idolatry, but critics caution against it to avoid misplaced honor.
If the prayer services are dedicated to the Father in the name of the son Jesus, the name on the building isnt doing anything other than identifying a building at a specific location.
St Pauls episcopal church and St Matthews lutheran church in Waco are named after two of the apostles.
As the church under the bridge has shown in Waco, buildings are mostly unimportant, it is the gathering of people in community that is pleasing to God.
We're talking about churches named after people, not church names as identifiers (location, denomination). If for a person, the name is a dedication. It gives honor and praise. The building is for JESUS, not for anyone else. Even if what's going on inside the building is perfect, still, that doesn't change the fact that their church's name can be a form of idolatry if named for a human. It already IS misplaced honor. If that church was truly loving Jesus, they would not name their church for any human person. Do you honestly in your heart of hearts, believe that if Paul, Matthew, John, Andrew, or Mary were to look down at churches named for them, that they'd say "Yeah, that's perfectly fine, makes me proud"??
Suppose you met your spouse through a friend. Would you engrave every anniversary gift to your spouse every year with your friend's name?
I'm not saying this is a form of idolatry that will necessarilly lead people away from Jesus. But it is idolatry. And there's no greater symbol that projects what your church is, and what you stand for, than the NAME. Did God have the Israelites name their tabernacles, synagogues, and Temple after their patriarchs or prophets? Were the churches in the New Testament named after the apostles? The seven churches in Revelation?
Key point: when did churches start naming themselves after people? It was after the Romanization, i.e. paganization of Christianity in the 4th century, when pagan gods were re-cast into Christian figures so that the pagans could easily "convert" over to Christianity. It was at the same time, not by coincidence, that having of statues of Mary and the saints and praying to them also began, much like they had been doing for their pagan gods. True Christians need to know and understand this history.
i feel no conviction at all from the Holy Spirit about church names. They are just empty buildings until the important thing happens- people gather
I feel strongly convicted about praying to Mary when I think about it or research on it.
Keeping the idea of name of the church as could be ok if whats going on inside is according to scripture. They cant all be named Gods church or church of Jesus..
Not making that comparison at all. Only illustrating that a failure to address an accusation is not a confession (using an example we all agree on).
Granted, both sides are acting a bit heated. Not conducive to a healthy conversation climate, that.
The level of projection here is absolutely INSANE.
Folks, not answering the question is what isn't conducive to a "healthy conversation climate".
It's very strange. Not long ago, one of these Catholics told me that I should study the story of Fatima, because it would prove to me that the worship of Mary was legit. Then another one talked about Guadalupe as proof that Mary worship was powerful and so on.
Now they want to ignore both stories?? Very strange.
I've studied both stories, and all it proves is that Catholics are engaged in idolatry. There is no way that the same God who said, "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," would then send a woman to tell His followers to pray to her, build her a bunch of churches, sing songs of praise to her... no way that Fatima and Guadalupe were sent from heaven. Those messages are in direct opposition to the direct instructions from God through the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.
As has been stated ad nauseum, theres no worship without sacrifice. Never seen anyone sacrifice anything to Mary
Ive been to many a sunday mega church, Bible church as they call it, etc. never seen a sacrifice at any of those either. Ever.
At stations of the cross tonight we said 14 different individualized prayers directed at Jesus. I suppose we squeezed in a Hail Mary in between an Our Father and Glory Be at the end…. We must have missed the memo on the Mary worship tonight….
Honestly if the brick wall and his little side kick could at least be honest in their criticism and attacks it might be worth engagement. But the intentional misrepresentation says a lot.
Are you familiar with the rosary?
If so, please tell us how many rosary prayers are to God vs how many to Mary.
Also if you don't worship Mary, please explain why there are more Catholic Church named in honor of Mary, than in honor of God.
Also explain why every year millions of Catholics go on pianos pilgrimage to visit one of the sites of her apparition, and offer flowers, songs and prayers to her.
I'm glad you had an experience the other day without worshipping Mary.
I know the conversation has moved past this, but I was jammed up this weekend. So want to give you a good faith response.
*Rosary has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread. If you do not want to pray the rosary, do not do so. There is clearly a difference between a mandated practice and an approved one for private devotion.
*While a name is an indicator, it is not dispositive of what is happening within an institution. None of us are worshipping Judge Baylor even though he is namesake of our beloved university. I don't think the folks at University Baptist Church in Waco are worshipping a university. I don't think the folks at Antioch are worshipping a city or the era the city represents. Same thing for folks at Watermark and City Church and countless others. So, clearly, the name of a church does not establish what is being worshipped within that church. The Catholic faith is a highly ritualistic faith. Weekly Mass is the most important thing in the Church (and even within the Mass celebration of the Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith). And this is followed by the Sacraments. Mass structure is 50+10 model. 50 minutes that are highly ritualized and scripted with about 10 minutes of homily.
There are up to three times the Blessed Mother is mentioned in the Mass Script:
The Confiteor (not always used):
Quote:
I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
The Nicene Creed (excerpted):
Quote:
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
The Eucharistic Prayer (excerpted-- there are four different versions, I think this is the version you could find most offensive):
Quote:
In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph, her Spouse, your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew,....
And occasionally the Blessed Mother will be mentioned in hymns.
That's it. You can search the script of the Mass, you won't find anything else. So please, where are you seeing worship in there?
I don't have the scripts for the various sacraments memorized, but I was at a confirmation Mass this past Saturday morning and she was not mentioned as part of the sacrament.
People go on pilgrimages to places where they believe miraculous signs sent forth by God (in whatever form He has chosen) have occurred. I presume that you believe the metaphysical miraculous works stopped with the apostles. Others disagree. Those pilgrimages are not required. People find spiritual meaning in these places. I find spiritual growth pours forth for all of my family on these pilgrimages. This year I am taking my family to Croagh Patrick and various other holy sites nearby. Next year I plan on taking my family on pilgrimage to Patmos. My wife has asked me to take each of my sons individually to do El Camino before they graduate from high school and I'll probably do that. Point being, we do lots of pilgrimages to places where various saints lived their lives or made a difference in the Christian faith.
I appreciate your response. Thanks.
The naming of the church alone is not an act of worship, I agree with you on that topic.
Yes, the naming of a church for a person is worship and idolatry. I am surprised you conceded this. Churches are for JESUS. Not for extolling, honoring, or in dedication to his human followers. I can almost 100% guarantee that Peter, Andrew, John, Mary, etc, if they were to look down at some "Christian" churches, they would be absolutely forlorn that their names were put above Jesus' in ANY way.
It's not just the name, but the dedication and much more.
If I go to the Waco Chapel, it doesn't mean that I am dedicated to the "veneration" of Waco. However many catholics who go to Our Lady of the Lake, are dedicated to the "veneration" of the Lady. It is more than just a name. There are acts of worship that take place as well as the naming of the church. That was my point.
Gotcha. I was only talking about churches named after human beings, not identifiers like location - the churches in Revelation were addressed by Jesus in that way (The church at Ephesus, the church at Philadelphia, etc.) My view is perhaps a lot more strict than others, but I think naming a church after someone even by itself is a form of worship. To reiterate my reasons in the earlier post: 1) It's a church for Jesus, and the name is an honorific title- the apostles named for such churches I'm sure would hate it for good reason; 2) God NEVER had his places of worship named for people throughout Jewish history; 2) No Christian church was named for a person until after Christianity was *******ized by pagan practices in the early 4th century - an indicator that naming churches after people was likely a carryover of pagan practices.
Not making that comparison at all. Only illustrating that a failure to address an accusation is not a confession (using an example we all agree on).
Granted, both sides are acting a bit heated. Not conducive to a healthy conversation climate, that.
The level of projection here is absolutely INSANE.
Folks, not answering the question is what isn't conducive to a "healthy conversation climate".
It's very strange. Not long ago, one of these Catholics told me that I should study the story of Fatima, because it would prove to me that the worship of Mary was legit. Then another one talked about Guadalupe as proof that Mary worship was powerful and so on.
Now they want to ignore both stories?? Very strange.
I've studied both stories, and all it proves is that Catholics are engaged in idolatry. There is no way that the same God who said, "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," would then send a woman to tell His followers to pray to her, build her a bunch of churches, sing songs of praise to her... no way that Fatima and Guadalupe were sent from heaven. Those messages are in direct opposition to the direct instructions from God through the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.
As has been stated ad nauseum, theres no worship without sacrifice. Never seen anyone sacrifice anything to Mary
Ive been to many a sunday mega church, Bible church as they call it, etc. never seen a sacrifice at any of those either. Ever.
At stations of the cross tonight we said 14 different individualized prayers directed at Jesus. I suppose we squeezed in a Hail Mary in between an Our Father and Glory Be at the end…. We must have missed the memo on the Mary worship tonight….
Honestly if the brick wall and his little side kick could at least be honest in their criticism and attacks it might be worth engagement. But the intentional misrepresentation says a lot.
Are you familiar with the rosary?
If so, please tell us how many rosary prayers are to God vs how many to Mary.
Also if you don't worship Mary, please explain why there are more Catholic Church named in honor of Mary, than in honor of God.
Also explain why every year millions of Catholics go on pianos pilgrimage to visit one of the sites of her apparition, and offer flowers, songs and prayers to her.
I'm glad you had an experience the other day without worshipping Mary.
I know the conversation has moved past this, but I was jammed up this weekend. So want to give you a good faith response.
*Rosary has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread. If you do not want to pray the rosary, do not do so. There is clearly a difference between a mandated practice and an approved one for private devotion.
*While a name is an indicator, it is not dispositive of what is happening within an institution. None of us are worshipping Judge Baylor even though he is namesake of our beloved university. I don't think the folks at University Baptist Church in Waco are worshipping a university. I don't think the folks at Antioch are worshipping a city or the era the city represents. Same thing for folks at Watermark and City Church and countless others. So, clearly, the name of a church does not establish what is being worshipped within that church. The Catholic faith is a highly ritualistic faith. Weekly Mass is the most important thing in the Church (and even within the Mass celebration of the Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith). And this is followed by the Sacraments. Mass structure is 50+10 model. 50 minutes that are highly ritualized and scripted with about 10 minutes of homily.
There are up to three times the Blessed Mother is mentioned in the Mass Script:
The Confiteor (not always used):
Quote:
I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
The Nicene Creed (excerpted):
Quote:
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
The Eucharistic Prayer (excerpted-- there are four different versions, I think this is the version you could find most offensive):
Quote:
In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph, her Spouse, your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew,....
And occasionally the Blessed Mother will be mentioned in hymns.
That's it. You can search the script of the Mass, you won't find anything else. So please, where are you seeing worship in there?
I don't have the scripts for the various sacraments memorized, but I was at a confirmation Mass this past Saturday morning and she was not mentioned as part of the sacrament.
People go on pilgrimages to places where they believe miraculous signs sent forth by God (in whatever form He has chosen) have occurred. I presume that you believe the metaphysical miraculous works stopped with the apostles. Others disagree. Those pilgrimages are not required. People find spiritual meaning in these places. I find spiritual growth pours forth for all of my family on these pilgrimages. This year I am taking my family to Croagh Patrick and various other holy sites nearby. Next year I plan on taking my family on pilgrimage to Patmos. My wife has asked me to take each of my sons individually to do El Camino before they graduate from high school and I'll probably do that. Point being, we do lots of pilgrimages to places where various saints lived their lives or made a difference in the Christian faith.
I appreciate your response. Thanks.
The naming of the church alone is not an act of worship, I agree with you on that topic.
Yes, the naming of a church for a person is worship and idolatry. I am surprised you conceded this. Churches are for JESUS. Not for extolling, honoring, or in dedication to his human followers. I can almost 100% guarantee that Peter, Andrew, John, Mary, etc, if they were to look down at some "Christian" churches, they would be absolutely forlorn that their names were put above Jesus' in ANY way.
Believers are called to examine their lives for any form of idolatry, whether it be material possessions, relationships, or ideologies that take precedence over God. The call to holiness and separation from pagan practices remains relevant, urging Christians to live distinctively in a world that often promotes values contrary to biblical teachings (1 Peter 1:14-16).
Naming a church after a person is not inherently idolatry, but some argue it can shift focus away from Christ and toward the individual, which may foster an unhealthy veneration. Many churches are named after saints, historical figures, or locations without intending idolatry, but critics caution against it to avoid misplaced honor.
If the prayer services are dedicated to the Father in the name of the son Jesus, the name on the building isnt doing anything other than identifying a building at a specific location.
St Pauls episcopal church and St Matthews lutheran church in Waco are named after two of the apostles.
As the church under the bridge has shown in Waco, buildings are mostly unimportant, it is the gathering of people in community that is pleasing to God.
We're talking about churches named after people, not church names as identifiers (location, denomination). If for a person, the name is a dedication. It gives honor and praise. The building is for JESUS, not for anyone else. Even if what's going on inside the building is perfect, still, that doesn't change the fact that their church's name can be a form of idolatry if named for a human. It already IS misplaced honor. If that church was truly loving Jesus, they would not name their church for any human person. Do you honestly in your heart of hearts, believe that if Paul, Matthew, John, Andrew, or Mary were to look down at churches named for them, that they'd say "Yeah, that's perfectly fine, makes me proud"??
Suppose you met your spouse through a friend. Would you engrave every anniversary gift to your spouse every year with your friend's name?
I'm not saying this is a form of idolatry that will necessarilly lead people away from Jesus. But it is idolatry. And there's no greater symbol that projects what your church is, and what you stand for, than the NAME. Did God have the Israelites name their tabernacles, synagogues, and Temple after their patriarchs or prophets? Were the churches in the New Testament named after the apostles? The seven churches in Revelation?
Key point: when did churches start naming themselves after people? It was after the Romanization, i.e. paganization of Christianity in the 4th century, when pagan gods were re-cast into Christian figures so that the pagans could easily "convert" over to Christianity. It was at the same time, not by coincidence, that having of statues of Mary and the saints and praying to them also began, much like they had been doing for their pagan gods. True Christians need to know and understand this history.
i feel no conviction at all from the Holy Spirit about church names. They are just empty buildings until the important thing happens- people gather
I feel strongly convicted about praying to Mary when I think about it or research on it.
Keeping the idea of name of the church as could be ok if whats going on inside is according to scripture. They cant all be named Gods church or church of Jesus..
Honest, hypothetical question - how would you feel if a doctrinally sound church where people gather in loving Christian fellowship named their church "Donald Trump Church"? If the only thing that matters is what happens inside, then you should be okay with that, right?
Not making that comparison at all. Only illustrating that a failure to address an accusation is not a confession (using an example we all agree on).
Granted, both sides are acting a bit heated. Not conducive to a healthy conversation climate, that.
The level of projection here is absolutely INSANE.
Folks, not answering the question is what isn't conducive to a "healthy conversation climate".
It's very strange. Not long ago, one of these Catholics told me that I should study the story of Fatima, because it would prove to me that the worship of Mary was legit. Then another one talked about Guadalupe as proof that Mary worship was powerful and so on.
Now they want to ignore both stories?? Very strange.
I've studied both stories, and all it proves is that Catholics are engaged in idolatry. There is no way that the same God who said, "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," would then send a woman to tell His followers to pray to her, build her a bunch of churches, sing songs of praise to her... no way that Fatima and Guadalupe were sent from heaven. Those messages are in direct opposition to the direct instructions from God through the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.
As has been stated ad nauseum, theres no worship without sacrifice. Never seen anyone sacrifice anything to Mary
Ive been to many a sunday mega church, Bible church as they call it, etc. never seen a sacrifice at any of those either. Ever.
At stations of the cross tonight we said 14 different individualized prayers directed at Jesus. I suppose we squeezed in a Hail Mary in between an Our Father and Glory Be at the end…. We must have missed the memo on the Mary worship tonight….
Honestly if the brick wall and his little side kick could at least be honest in their criticism and attacks it might be worth engagement. But the intentional misrepresentation says a lot.
Are you familiar with the rosary?
If so, please tell us how many rosary prayers are to God vs how many to Mary.
Also if you don't worship Mary, please explain why there are more Catholic Church named in honor of Mary, than in honor of God.
Also explain why every year millions of Catholics go on pianos pilgrimage to visit one of the sites of her apparition, and offer flowers, songs and prayers to her.
I'm glad you had an experience the other day without worshipping Mary.
I know the conversation has moved past this, but I was jammed up this weekend. So want to give you a good faith response.
*Rosary has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread. If you do not want to pray the rosary, do not do so. There is clearly a difference between a mandated practice and an approved one for private devotion.
*While a name is an indicator, it is not dispositive of what is happening within an institution. None of us are worshipping Judge Baylor even though he is namesake of our beloved university. I don't think the folks at University Baptist Church in Waco are worshipping a university. I don't think the folks at Antioch are worshipping a city or the era the city represents. Same thing for folks at Watermark and City Church and countless others. So, clearly, the name of a church does not establish what is being worshipped within that church. The Catholic faith is a highly ritualistic faith. Weekly Mass is the most important thing in the Church (and even within the Mass celebration of the Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith). And this is followed by the Sacraments. Mass structure is 50+10 model. 50 minutes that are highly ritualized and scripted with about 10 minutes of homily.
There are up to three times the Blessed Mother is mentioned in the Mass Script:
The Confiteor (not always used):
Quote:
I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
The Nicene Creed (excerpted):
Quote:
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
The Eucharistic Prayer (excerpted-- there are four different versions, I think this is the version you could find most offensive):
Quote:
In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph, her Spouse, your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew,....
And occasionally the Blessed Mother will be mentioned in hymns.
That's it. You can search the script of the Mass, you won't find anything else. So please, where are you seeing worship in there?
I don't have the scripts for the various sacraments memorized, but I was at a confirmation Mass this past Saturday morning and she was not mentioned as part of the sacrament.
People go on pilgrimages to places where they believe miraculous signs sent forth by God (in whatever form He has chosen) have occurred. I presume that you believe the metaphysical miraculous works stopped with the apostles. Others disagree. Those pilgrimages are not required. People find spiritual meaning in these places. I find spiritual growth pours forth for all of my family on these pilgrimages. This year I am taking my family to Croagh Patrick and various other holy sites nearby. Next year I plan on taking my family on pilgrimage to Patmos. My wife has asked me to take each of my sons individually to do El Camino before they graduate from high school and I'll probably do that. Point being, we do lots of pilgrimages to places where various saints lived their lives or made a difference in the Christian faith.
I appreciate your response. Thanks.
The naming of the church alone is not an act of worship, I agree with you on that topic.
Yes, the naming of a church for a person is worship and idolatry. I am surprised you conceded this. Churches are for JESUS. Not for extolling, honoring, or in dedication to his human followers. I can almost 100% guarantee that Peter, Andrew, John, Mary, etc, if they were to look down at some "Christian" churches, they would be absolutely forlorn that their names were put above Jesus' in ANY way.
Believers are called to examine their lives for any form of idolatry, whether it be material possessions, relationships, or ideologies that take precedence over God. The call to holiness and separation from pagan practices remains relevant, urging Christians to live distinctively in a world that often promotes values contrary to biblical teachings (1 Peter 1:14-16).
Naming a church after a person is not inherently idolatry, but some argue it can shift focus away from Christ and toward the individual, which may foster an unhealthy veneration. Many churches are named after saints, historical figures, or locations without intending idolatry, but critics caution against it to avoid misplaced honor.
If the prayer services are dedicated to the Father in the name of the son Jesus, the name on the building isnt doing anything other than identifying a building at a specific location.
St Pauls episcopal church and St Matthews lutheran church in Waco are named after two of the apostles.
As the church under the bridge has shown in Waco, buildings are mostly unimportant, it is the gathering of people in community that is pleasing to God.
We're talking about churches named after people, not church names as identifiers (location, denomination). If for a person, the name is a dedication. It gives honor and praise. The building is for JESUS, not for anyone else. Even if what's going on inside the building is perfect, still, that doesn't change the fact that their church's name can be a form of idolatry if named for a human. It already IS misplaced honor. If that church was truly loving Jesus, they would not name their church for any human person. Do you honestly in your heart of hearts, believe that if Paul, Matthew, John, Andrew, or Mary were to look down at churches named for them, that they'd say "Yeah, that's perfectly fine, makes me proud"??
Suppose you met your spouse through a friend. Would you engrave every anniversary gift to your spouse every year with your friend's name?
I'm not saying this is a form of idolatry that will necessarilly lead people away from Jesus. But it is idolatry. And there's no greater symbol that projects what your church is, and what you stand for, than the NAME. Did God have the Israelites name their tabernacles, synagogues, and Temple after their patriarchs or prophets? Were the churches in the New Testament named after the apostles? The seven churches in Revelation?
Key point: when did churches start naming themselves after people? It was after the Romanization, i.e. paganization of Christianity in the 4th century, when pagan gods were re-cast into Christian figures so that the pagans could easily "convert" over to Christianity. It was at the same time, not by coincidence, that having of statues of Mary and the saints and praying to them also began, much like they had been doing for their pagan gods. True Christians need to know and understand this history.
i feel no conviction at all from the Holy Spirit about church names. They are just empty buildings until the important thing happens- people gather
I feel strongly convicted about praying to Mary when I think about it or research on it.
Keeping the idea of name of the church as could be ok if whats going on inside is according to scripture. They cant all be named Gods church or church of Jesus..
Honest, hypothetical question - how would you feel if a doctrinally sound church where people gather in loving Christian fellowship named their church "Donald Trump Church"? If the only thing that matters is what happens inside, then you should be okay with that, right?
i dont feel a doctrine sound church would name their church after a president or a person who is not of Christian Faith historical significance.
I get your point.
I would never step inside of a church named after Donald Trump. I would never join a church that preached anything other than the scripture, and the church must preach the truth, the way, and the life by presching all the scripture.
Not making that comparison at all. Only illustrating that a failure to address an accusation is not a confession (using an example we all agree on).
Granted, both sides are acting a bit heated. Not conducive to a healthy conversation climate, that.
The level of projection here is absolutely INSANE.
Folks, not answering the question is what isn't conducive to a "healthy conversation climate".
It's very strange. Not long ago, one of these Catholics told me that I should study the story of Fatima, because it would prove to me that the worship of Mary was legit. Then another one talked about Guadalupe as proof that Mary worship was powerful and so on.
Now they want to ignore both stories?? Very strange.
I've studied both stories, and all it proves is that Catholics are engaged in idolatry. There is no way that the same God who said, "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," would then send a woman to tell His followers to pray to her, build her a bunch of churches, sing songs of praise to her... no way that Fatima and Guadalupe were sent from heaven. Those messages are in direct opposition to the direct instructions from God through the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.
As has been stated ad nauseum, theres no worship without sacrifice. Never seen anyone sacrifice anything to Mary
Ive been to many a sunday mega church, Bible church as they call it, etc. never seen a sacrifice at any of those either. Ever.
At stations of the cross tonight we said 14 different individualized prayers directed at Jesus. I suppose we squeezed in a Hail Mary in between an Our Father and Glory Be at the end…. We must have missed the memo on the Mary worship tonight….
Honestly if the brick wall and his little side kick could at least be honest in their criticism and attacks it might be worth engagement. But the intentional misrepresentation says a lot.
Are you familiar with the rosary?
If so, please tell us how many rosary prayers are to God vs how many to Mary.
Also if you don't worship Mary, please explain why there are more Catholic Church named in honor of Mary, than in honor of God.
Also explain why every year millions of Catholics go on pianos pilgrimage to visit one of the sites of her apparition, and offer flowers, songs and prayers to her.
I'm glad you had an experience the other day without worshipping Mary.
I know the conversation has moved past this, but I was jammed up this weekend. So want to give you a good faith response.
*Rosary has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread. If you do not want to pray the rosary, do not do so. There is clearly a difference between a mandated practice and an approved one for private devotion.
*While a name is an indicator, it is not dispositive of what is happening within an institution. None of us are worshipping Judge Baylor even though he is namesake of our beloved university. I don't think the folks at University Baptist Church in Waco are worshipping a university. I don't think the folks at Antioch are worshipping a city or the era the city represents. Same thing for folks at Watermark and City Church and countless others. So, clearly, the name of a church does not establish what is being worshipped within that church. The Catholic faith is a highly ritualistic faith. Weekly Mass is the most important thing in the Church (and even within the Mass celebration of the Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith). And this is followed by the Sacraments. Mass structure is 50+10 model. 50 minutes that are highly ritualized and scripted with about 10 minutes of homily.
There are up to three times the Blessed Mother is mentioned in the Mass Script:
The Confiteor (not always used):
Quote:
I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
The Nicene Creed (excerpted):
Quote:
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
The Eucharistic Prayer (excerpted-- there are four different versions, I think this is the version you could find most offensive):
Quote:
In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph, her Spouse, your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew,....
And occasionally the Blessed Mother will be mentioned in hymns.
That's it. You can search the script of the Mass, you won't find anything else. So please, where are you seeing worship in there?
I don't have the scripts for the various sacraments memorized, but I was at a confirmation Mass this past Saturday morning and she was not mentioned as part of the sacrament.
People go on pilgrimages to places where they believe miraculous signs sent forth by God (in whatever form He has chosen) have occurred. I presume that you believe the metaphysical miraculous works stopped with the apostles. Others disagree. Those pilgrimages are not required. People find spiritual meaning in these places. I find spiritual growth pours forth for all of my family on these pilgrimages. This year I am taking my family to Croagh Patrick and various other holy sites nearby. Next year I plan on taking my family on pilgrimage to Patmos. My wife has asked me to take each of my sons individually to do El Camino before they graduate from high school and I'll probably do that. Point being, we do lots of pilgrimages to places where various saints lived their lives or made a difference in the Christian faith.
I appreciate your response. Thanks.
The naming of the church alone is not an act of worship, I agree with you on that topic.
Yes, the naming of a church for a person is worship and idolatry. I am surprised you conceded this. Churches are for JESUS. Not for extolling, honoring, or in dedication to his human followers. I can almost 100% guarantee that Peter, Andrew, John, Mary, etc, if they were to look down at some "Christian" churches, they would be absolutely forlorn that their names were put above Jesus' in ANY way.
Believers are called to examine their lives for any form of idolatry, whether it be material possessions, relationships, or ideologies that take precedence over God. The call to holiness and separation from pagan practices remains relevant, urging Christians to live distinctively in a world that often promotes values contrary to biblical teachings (1 Peter 1:14-16).
Naming a church after a person is not inherently idolatry, but some argue it can shift focus away from Christ and toward the individual, which may foster an unhealthy veneration. Many churches are named after saints, historical figures, or locations without intending idolatry, but critics caution against it to avoid misplaced honor.
If the prayer services are dedicated to the Father in the name of the son Jesus, the name on the building isnt doing anything other than identifying a building at a specific location.
St Pauls episcopal church and St Matthews lutheran church in Waco are named after two of the apostles.
As the church under the bridge has shown in Waco, buildings are mostly unimportant, it is the gathering of people in community that is pleasing to God.
We're talking about churches named after people, not church names as identifiers (location, denomination). If for a person, the name is a dedication. It gives honor and praise. The building is for JESUS, not for anyone else. Even if what's going on inside the building is perfect, still, that doesn't change the fact that their church's name can be a form of idolatry if named for a human. It already IS misplaced honor. If that church was truly loving Jesus, they would not name their church for any human person. Do you honestly in your heart of hearts, believe that if Paul, Matthew, John, Andrew, or Mary were to look down at churches named for them, that they'd say "Yeah, that's perfectly fine, makes me proud"??
Suppose you met your spouse through a friend. Would you engrave every anniversary gift to your spouse every year with your friend's name?
I'm not saying this is a form of idolatry that will necessarilly lead people away from Jesus. But it is idolatry. And there's no greater symbol that projects what your church is, and what you stand for, than the NAME. Did God have the Israelites name their tabernacles, synagogues, and Temple after their patriarchs or prophets? Were the churches in the New Testament named after the apostles? The seven churches in Revelation?
Key point: when did churches start naming themselves after people? It was after the Romanization, i.e. paganization of Christianity in the 4th century, when pagan gods were re-cast into Christian figures so that the pagans could easily "convert" over to Christianity. It was at the same time, not by coincidence, that having of statues of Mary and the saints and praying to them also began, much like they had been doing for their pagan gods. True Christians need to know and understand this history.
i feel no conviction at all from the Holy Spirit about church names. They are just empty buildings until the important thing happens- people gather
I feel strongly convicted about praying to Mary when I think about it or research on it.
Keeping the idea of name of the church as could be ok if whats going on inside is according to scripture. They cant all be named Gods church or church of Jesus..
Honest, hypothetical question - how would you feel if a doctrinally sound church where people gather in loving Christian fellowship named their church "Donald Trump Church"? If the only thing that matters is what happens inside, then you should be okay with that, right?
Personally, I think a church should be named to reflect the community. Waco Baptist or something like Red River Valley Community Church. Naming a church after a person other than Jesus Christ is not appropriate, no matter who the person is.
I understand when a church names a foyer or fellowship hall after a person who served in the church for many years, but even that is a bit of a stretch sometimes. The worst is when a part of a church is named after someone because of donations... that is just wrong. Example: my uncle served as a decon for decades at a local Baptist church. He was beloved by many because of his warm & cheerful greetings every Sunday morning, and he always served the seniors in the church on Wednesday night dinners. He was a Bible study leader and lead many missionary teams in Mexico. After he died, they refurbished the foyer area, and named it in honor of him and his decades of service. My other uncle donated over a million dollars to the local Episcopal church, so they named the choir loft in his honor. I bet you can guess which one I am proud to call my uncle.
The bigger point is that no one prays prayers or sing songs or asks either of my dead uncles for salvation, blessings or miracles. If such a thing were to happen, I would be the first one to go to those churches and rip the plaques off the walls. No one other than Jesus Christ is supposed to be honored with prayers and worship... not my uncle, not Donald Trump and not Mary.
Just name your churches after the community/location of their existence & service. It is less confusing, and doesn't even approach the issue of idolatry.
Not making that comparison at all. Only illustrating that a failure to address an accusation is not a confession (using an example we all agree on).
Granted, both sides are acting a bit heated. Not conducive to a healthy conversation climate, that.
The level of projection here is absolutely INSANE.
Folks, not answering the question is what isn't conducive to a "healthy conversation climate".
It's very strange. Not long ago, one of these Catholics told me that I should study the story of Fatima, because it would prove to me that the worship of Mary was legit. Then another one talked about Guadalupe as proof that Mary worship was powerful and so on.
Now they want to ignore both stories?? Very strange.
I've studied both stories, and all it proves is that Catholics are engaged in idolatry. There is no way that the same God who said, "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," would then send a woman to tell His followers to pray to her, build her a bunch of churches, sing songs of praise to her... no way that Fatima and Guadalupe were sent from heaven. Those messages are in direct opposition to the direct instructions from God through the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.
As has been stated ad nauseum, theres no worship without sacrifice. Never seen anyone sacrifice anything to Mary
Ive been to many a sunday mega church, Bible church as they call it, etc. never seen a sacrifice at any of those either. Ever.
At stations of the cross tonight we said 14 different individualized prayers directed at Jesus. I suppose we squeezed in a Hail Mary in between an Our Father and Glory Be at the end…. We must have missed the memo on the Mary worship tonight….
Honestly if the brick wall and his little side kick could at least be honest in their criticism and attacks it might be worth engagement. But the intentional misrepresentation says a lot.
Are you familiar with the rosary?
If so, please tell us how many rosary prayers are to God vs how many to Mary.
Also if you don't worship Mary, please explain why there are more Catholic Church named in honor of Mary, than in honor of God.
Also explain why every year millions of Catholics go on pianos pilgrimage to visit one of the sites of her apparition, and offer flowers, songs and prayers to her.
I'm glad you had an experience the other day without worshipping Mary.
I know the conversation has moved past this, but I was jammed up this weekend. So want to give you a good faith response.
*Rosary has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread. If you do not want to pray the rosary, do not do so. There is clearly a difference between a mandated practice and an approved one for private devotion.
*While a name is an indicator, it is not dispositive of what is happening within an institution. None of us are worshipping Judge Baylor even though he is namesake of our beloved university. I don't think the folks at University Baptist Church in Waco are worshipping a university. I don't think the folks at Antioch are worshipping a city or the era the city represents. Same thing for folks at Watermark and City Church and countless others. So, clearly, the name of a church does not establish what is being worshipped within that church. The Catholic faith is a highly ritualistic faith. Weekly Mass is the most important thing in the Church (and even within the Mass celebration of the Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith). And this is followed by the Sacraments. Mass structure is 50+10 model. 50 minutes that are highly ritualized and scripted with about 10 minutes of homily.
There are up to three times the Blessed Mother is mentioned in the Mass Script:
The Confiteor (not always used):
Quote:
I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
The Nicene Creed (excerpted):
Quote:
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
The Eucharistic Prayer (excerpted-- there are four different versions, I think this is the version you could find most offensive):
Quote:
In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph, her Spouse, your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew,....
And occasionally the Blessed Mother will be mentioned in hymns.
That's it. You can search the script of the Mass, you won't find anything else. So please, where are you seeing worship in there?
I don't have the scripts for the various sacraments memorized, but I was at a confirmation Mass this past Saturday morning and she was not mentioned as part of the sacrament.
People go on pilgrimages to places where they believe miraculous signs sent forth by God (in whatever form He has chosen) have occurred. I presume that you believe the metaphysical miraculous works stopped with the apostles. Others disagree. Those pilgrimages are not required. People find spiritual meaning in these places. I find spiritual growth pours forth for all of my family on these pilgrimages. This year I am taking my family to Croagh Patrick and various other holy sites nearby. Next year I plan on taking my family on pilgrimage to Patmos. My wife has asked me to take each of my sons individually to do El Camino before they graduate from high school and I'll probably do that. Point being, we do lots of pilgrimages to places where various saints lived their lives or made a difference in the Christian faith.
I appreciate your response. Thanks.
The naming of the church alone is not an act of worship, I agree with you on that topic.
Yes, the naming of a church for a person is worship and idolatry. I am surprised you conceded this. Churches are for JESUS. Not for extolling, honoring, or in dedication to his human followers. I can almost 100% guarantee that Peter, Andrew, John, Mary, etc, if they were to look down at some "Christian" churches, they would be absolutely forlorn that their names were put above Jesus' in ANY way.
Believers are called to examine their lives for any form of idolatry, whether it be material possessions, relationships, or ideologies that take precedence over God. The call to holiness and separation from pagan practices remains relevant, urging Christians to live distinctively in a world that often promotes values contrary to biblical teachings (1 Peter 1:14-16).
Naming a church after a person is not inherently idolatry, but some argue it can shift focus away from Christ and toward the individual, which may foster an unhealthy veneration. Many churches are named after saints, historical figures, or locations without intending idolatry, but critics caution against it to avoid misplaced honor.
If the prayer services are dedicated to the Father in the name of the son Jesus, the name on the building isnt doing anything other than identifying a building at a specific location.
St Pauls episcopal church and St Matthews lutheran church in Waco are named after two of the apostles.
As the church under the bridge has shown in Waco, buildings are mostly unimportant, it is the gathering of people in community that is pleasing to God.
We're talking about churches named after people, not church names as identifiers (location, denomination). If for a person, the name is a dedication. It gives honor and praise. The building is for JESUS, not for anyone else. Even if what's going on inside the building is perfect, still, that doesn't change the fact that their church's name can be a form of idolatry if named for a human. It already IS misplaced honor. If that church was truly loving Jesus, they would not name their church for any human person. Do you honestly in your heart of hearts, believe that if Paul, Matthew, John, Andrew, or Mary were to look down at churches named for them, that they'd say "Yeah, that's perfectly fine, makes me proud"??
Suppose you met your spouse through a friend. Would you engrave every anniversary gift to your spouse every year with your friend's name?
I'm not saying this is a form of idolatry that will necessarilly lead people away from Jesus. But it is idolatry. And there's no greater symbol that projects what your church is, and what you stand for, than the NAME. Did God have the Israelites name their tabernacles, synagogues, and Temple after their patriarchs or prophets? Were the churches in the New Testament named after the apostles? The seven churches in Revelation?
Key point: when did churches start naming themselves after people? It was after the Romanization, i.e. paganization of Christianity in the 4th century, when pagan gods were re-cast into Christian figures so that the pagans could easily "convert" over to Christianity. It was at the same time, not by coincidence, that having of statues of Mary and the saints and praying to them also began, much like they had been doing for their pagan gods. True Christians need to know and understand this history.
i feel no conviction at all from the Holy Spirit about church names. They are just empty buildings until the important thing happens- people gather
I feel strongly convicted about praying to Mary when I think about it or research on it.
Keeping the idea of name of the church as could be ok if whats going on inside is according to scripture. They cant all be named Gods church or church of Jesus..
Honest, hypothetical question - how would you feel if a doctrinally sound church where people gather in loving Christian fellowship named their church "Donald Trump Church"? If the only thing that matters is what happens inside, then you should be okay with that, right?
Personally, I think a church should be named to reflect the community. Waco Baptist or something like Red River Valley Community Church. Naming a church after a person other than Jesus Christ is not appropriate, no matter who the person is.
I understand when a church names a foyer or fellowship hall after a person who served in the church for many years, but even that is a bit of a stretch sometimes. The worst is when a part of a church is named after someone because of donations... that is just wrong. Example: my uncle served as a decon for decades at a local Baptist church. He was beloved by many because of his warm & cheerful greetings every Sunday morning, and he always served the seniors in the church on Wednesday night dinners. He was a Bible study leader and lead many missionary teams in Mexico. After he died, they refurbished the foyer area, and named it in honor of him and his decades of service. My other uncle donated over a million dollars to the local Episcopal church, so they named the choir loft in his honor. I bet you can guess which one I am proud to call my uncle.
The bigger point is that no one prays prayers or sing songs or asks either of my dead uncles for salvation, blessings or miracles. If such a thing were to happen, I would be the first one to go to those churches and rip the plaques off the walls. No one other than Jesus Christ is supposed to be honored with prayers and worship... not my uncle, not Donald Trump and not Mary.
Just name your churches after the community/location of their existence & service. It is less confusing, and doesn't even approach the issue of idolatry.
Agree. No problem at all with naming a library, dining hall, foyer, etc inside a church in honor of individual Christians. The name of the church itself is top billing and it's key identifier, and I guarantee that godly people like your uncle would NEVER allow a whole church be named after him, the same as would the apostles and Mary. I agree we should only do what the New Testament churches had done, and that is name the church for the location or community.
"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him" 1 John 4:16
Really think about this.
But what is "love"?
Love for God is the first and greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-38). You are NOT loving God when you bow and pray to statues of human figures, sing hymns of praise to them in church, call them "THE ALL HOLY ONE", say that their intercession is necessary for salvation, build churches in their name, and spread world-wide devotion to their "Immaculate Heart".
Loving others as yourself is the second greatest commandment. You are not loving others if you see them about to walk off a cliff but you encourage them, or you say very little to nothing. And it certainly isn't loving when you try to silence other people who are "yelling" at them to stop.
Opposing the unbiblical, heretical, and idolatrous beliefs concerning Mary is NOT "slander" against her.
If you really think this video makes a good argument, then present what you think is the BEST argument in there, and let's evaluate and debate it.
Doc? What is it that non-Catholics/Orthodox are doing that you believe is "slandering" Mary? Accusing us of slandering someone when we are not is slander in of itself. So give us an example how we are doing that.
Opposing the unbiblical, heretical, and idolatrous beliefs concerning Mary is NOT "slander" against her.
If you really think this video makes a good argument, then present what you think is the BEST argument in there, and let's evaluate and debate it.
Doc? What is it that non-Catholics/Orthodox are doing that you believe is "slandering" Mary? Accusing us of slandering someone when we are not is slander in of itself. So give us an example how we are doing that.
Don't get it twisted...you've been slandering me and others repeatedly by insinuating that we're pagan idol worshippers.
Its the reductive, dehumanizing, or historically false rhetoric used to diminish her role in salvation that a big part of the slander. To call the mother of Christ an "incubator" is to reduce a person to a plumbing fixture. In any other context, if you called someone's mother "just a vessel for their birth," it would be a fighting word. It strips away her Fiat (her free-will "Yes" to God) and treats her as an inanimate object rather than the first disciple.
You don't have to believe she was sinless to treat her with the honor that the Bible says 'all generations' would give her (Luke 1:48). When that honor is replaced by a desire to prove how 'ordinary' or 'sinful' she was, it feels less like a Bible study and more like an attack.
Opposing the unbiblical, heretical, and idolatrous beliefs concerning Mary is NOT "slander" against her.
If you really think this video makes a good argument, then present what you think is the BEST argument in there, and let's evaluate and debate it.
Doc? What is it that non-Catholics/Orthodox are doing that you believe is "slandering" Mary? Accusing us of slandering someone when we are not is slander in of itself. So give us an example how we are doing that.
Don't get it twisted...you've been slandering me and others repeatedly by insinuating that we're pagan idol worshippers.
Its the reductive, dehumanizing, or historically false rhetoric used to diminish her role in salvation that a big part of the slander. To call the mother of Christ an "incubator" is to reduce a person to a plumbing fixture. In any other context, if you called someone's mother "just a vessel for their birth," it would be a fighting word. It strips away her Fiat (her free-will "Yes" to God) and treats her as an inanimate object rather than the first disciple.
You don't have to believe she was sinless to treat her with the honor that the Bible says 'all generations' would give her (Luke 1:48). When that honor is replaced by a desire to prove how 'ordinary' or 'sinful' she was, it feels less like a Bible study and more like an attack.
Well, if you bow down and pray to images of people, and ascribe to them divine qualities and even credit them for salvation... what else IS there that falls under idol worship? HOW do you not know this, as a professed "Christian"? The pagan origins of these are undeniable. It isn't "slander" when it's what you're actually doing.
SHOW US where the incarnation was contingent upon Mary's free will. SHOW US where she was ASKED. SHOW US where she said "Yes".
You're already elevating Mary to far more than what she was, right there.
"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him" 1 John 4:16
Really think about this.
But what is "love"?
Love for God is the first and greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-38). You are NOT loving God when you bow and pray to statues of human figures, sing hymns of praise to them in church, call them "THE ALL HOLY ONE", say that their intercession is necessary for salvation, build churches in their name, and spread world-wide devotion to their "Immaculate Heart".
Loving others as yourself is the second greatest commandment. You are not loving others if you see them about to walk off a cliff but you encourage them, or you say very little to nothing. And it certainly isn't loving when you try to silence other people who are "yelling" at them to stop.
"You are defining 'love for God' as a zero-sum game, where any honor given to a creature is stolen from the Creator. The Bible shows that God is glorified through His saints. When we honor a masterpiece, we are praising the Artist. Calling Mary 'All Holy' isn't making her a second God: it's acknowledging what the Holy Spirit did in her. To suggest that honoring the Mother is an insult to the Son is a projection by you and your coalition that enjoys damning Roman Catholics to hell and Eastern Orthodoxy by proxy.
Your 'cliff' analogy only works if you assume your private interpretation of Scripture is the only possible truth. I outright deny your interpretation...but I can at least acknowledge your logic based on your interpretation: you refuse to do that for us. That's why I don't really want to discuss this with you anymore.
Opposing the unbiblical, heretical, and idolatrous beliefs concerning Mary is NOT "slander" against her.
If you really think this video makes a good argument, then present what you think is the BEST argument in there, and let's evaluate and debate it.
Doc? What is it that non-Catholics/Orthodox are doing that you believe is "slandering" Mary? Accusing us of slandering someone when we are not is slander in of itself. So give us an example how we are doing that.
Don't get it twisted...you've been slandering me and others repeatedly by insinuating that we're pagan idol worshippers.
Its the reductive, dehumanizing, or historically false rhetoric used to diminish her role in salvation that a big part of the slander. To call the mother of Christ an "incubator" is to reduce a person to a plumbing fixture. In any other context, if you called someone's mother "just a vessel for their birth," it would be a fighting word. It strips away her Fiat (her free-will "Yes" to God) and treats her as an inanimate object rather than the first disciple.
You don't have to believe she was sinless to treat her with the honor that the Bible says 'all generations' would give her (Luke 1:48). When that honor is replaced by a desire to prove how 'ordinary' or 'sinful' she was, it feels less like a Bible study and more like an attack.
Well, if you bow down and pray to images of people, and ascribe to them divine qualities and even credit them for salvation... what else IS there that falls under idol worship? HOW do you not know this, as a professed "Christian"? The pagan origins of these are undeniable. It isn't "slander" when it's what you're actually doing.
SHOW US where the incarnation was contingent upon Mary's free will. SHOW US where she was ASKED. SHOW US where she said "Yes".
You're already elevating Mary to far more than what she was, right there.
Luke 1:38:"And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.'" If God did not value her free will, the Angel wouldn't have waited for her response before the Holy Spirit came upon her.
If bowing to something makes it an idol, then Joshua is an idolater for falling on his face before the Ark (Joshua 7:6), and Solomon is an idolater for bowing to the Temple.
You think I'm an idolater because I bow my head. I think you're missing the idols that actually run our lives. A person can stand perfectly upright in a church and still be an idolater because their heart is bowing to their bank account, their political party, or their own ego.
You're so busy looking for 'pagans' in the pews that you're missing the 'gods' in your pocket. An Icon of Mary reminds me to be a humble servant of Christ. A smartphone, a stock portfolio, and a celebrity's Instagram feed remind me to serve myself. If you want to talk about cliffs, let's talk about the ones that are actually claiming souls today...not the woman who brought the Savior into the world.
"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him" 1 John 4:16
Really think about this.
But what is "love"?
Love for God is the first and greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-38). You are NOT loving God when you bow and pray to statues of human figures, sing hymns of praise to them in church, call them "THE ALL HOLY ONE", say that their intercession is necessary for salvation, build churches in their name, and spread world-wide devotion to their "Immaculate Heart".
Loving others as yourself is the second greatest commandment. You are not loving others if you see them about to walk off a cliff but you encourage them, or you say very little to nothing. And it certainly isn't loving when you try to silence other people who are "yelling" at them to stop.
"You are defining 'love for God' as a zero-sum game, where any honor given to a creature is stolen from the Creator. The Bible shows that God is glorified through His saints. When we honor a masterpiece, we are praising the Artist. Calling Mary 'All Holy' isn't making her a second God: it's acknowledging what the Holy Spirit did in her. To suggest that honoring the Mother is an insult to the Son is a projection by you and your coalition that enjoys damning Roman Catholics to hell and Eastern Orthodoxy by proxy.
Your 'cliff' analogy only works if you assume your private interpretation of Scripture is the only possible truth. I outright deny your interpretation...but I can at least acknowledge your logic based on your interpretation: you refuse to do that for us. That's why I don't really want to discuss this with you anymore.
Goodness sakes. It IS a zero sum game when you steal honor and glory away from what is ONLY to God and you give it to people. When you bow and pray to images, IN CHURCH, when God explicitly told you not to in his Commandments (HOW are you guys so blind to this??), you're flatly defying God which isn't showing him love. When you give them titles that ONLY BELONG TO GOD ("The All Holy One") you are stealing glory and honor from him. When you CONDONE APPARITION MESSAGES WHICH SAY TO SPREAD WORLD-WIDE DEVOTION TO MARY, and when you CREDIT MARY FOR YOUR SALVATION, my God, that is probably the most glaringly obvious indicator that you're in evil idolatry territory and you are flat out USURPING JESUS. This is an absolute no-brainer for Christians, and it is astounding that it even has to be explained. The only explanation is that you're not really a Christian that has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. I'm just gonna give it to you straight.
If you truly believe that what I'm saying is just my "private interpretation" and not plain, simple, immensely obvious common sense stuff, then simply put, you're entrapped by deep deception and you are lost. If there is a even but tiny light in you that is saying "yeah, this stuff is going over the line", then I really hope you'll listen to THAT voice, and not the dominating voice in your head that's telling you to protect your tribe, and defend your tribe's beliefs at all costs, even at the expense of your common sense. That voice is from the Devil.
Opposing the unbiblical, heretical, and idolatrous beliefs concerning Mary is NOT "slander" against her.
If you really think this video makes a good argument, then present what you think is the BEST argument in there, and let's evaluate and debate it.
Doc? What is it that non-Catholics/Orthodox are doing that you believe is "slandering" Mary? Accusing us of slandering someone when we are not is slander in of itself. So give us an example how we are doing that.
Don't get it twisted...you've been slandering me and others repeatedly by insinuating that we're pagan idol worshippers.
Its the reductive, dehumanizing, or historically false rhetoric used to diminish her role in salvation that a big part of the slander. To call the mother of Christ an "incubator" is to reduce a person to a plumbing fixture. In any other context, if you called someone's mother "just a vessel for their birth," it would be a fighting word. It strips away her Fiat (her free-will "Yes" to God) and treats her as an inanimate object rather than the first disciple.
You don't have to believe she was sinless to treat her with the honor that the Bible says 'all generations' would give her (Luke 1:48). When that honor is replaced by a desire to prove how 'ordinary' or 'sinful' she was, it feels less like a Bible study and more like an attack.
Well, if you bow down and pray to images of people, and ascribe to them divine qualities and even credit them for salvation... what else IS there that falls under idol worship? HOW do you not know this, as a professed "Christian"? The pagan origins of these are undeniable. It isn't "slander" when it's what you're actually doing.
SHOW US where the incarnation was contingent upon Mary's free will. SHOW US where she was ASKED. SHOW US where she said "Yes".
You're already elevating Mary to far more than what she was, right there.
Luke 1:38:"And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.'" If God did not value her free will, the Angel wouldn't have waited for her response before the Holy Spirit came upon her.
Go seven verses earlier than Luke 1:38 -
Luke 1:31 - "And behold, YOU WILL conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus."
In verse 38, Mary is SUBMITTING to what had already been decided for her. "YOU WILL", not "Will you?" The angel was not "waiting for her response". He had already declared to her what will be done. He never asked.
Why do guys continually have trouble reading what Scripture actually says, in favor of reading it with horseblinders on and through a lens?
Opposing the unbiblical, heretical, and idolatrous beliefs concerning Mary is NOT "slander" against her.
If you really think this video makes a good argument, then present what you think is the BEST argument in there, and let's evaluate and debate it.
Doc? What is it that non-Catholics/Orthodox are doing that you believe is "slandering" Mary? Accusing us of slandering someone when we are not is slander in of itself. So give us an example how we are doing that.
Don't get it twisted...you've been slandering me and others repeatedly by insinuating that we're pagan idol worshippers.
Its the reductive, dehumanizing, or historically false rhetoric used to diminish her role in salvation that a big part of the slander. To call the mother of Christ an "incubator" is to reduce a person to a plumbing fixture. In any other context, if you called someone's mother "just a vessel for their birth," it would be a fighting word. It strips away her Fiat (her free-will "Yes" to God) and treats her as an inanimate object rather than the first disciple.
You don't have to believe she was sinless to treat her with the honor that the Bible says 'all generations' would give her (Luke 1:48). When that honor is replaced by a desire to prove how 'ordinary' or 'sinful' she was, it feels less like a Bible study and more like an attack.
Well, if you bow down and pray to images of people, and ascribe to them divine qualities and even credit them for salvation... what else IS there that falls under idol worship? HOW do you not know this, as a professed "Christian"? The pagan origins of these are undeniable. It isn't "slander" when it's what you're actually doing.
SHOW US where the incarnation was contingent upon Mary's free will. SHOW US where she was ASKED. SHOW US where she said "Yes".
You're already elevating Mary to far more than what she was, right there.
If bowing to something makes it an idol, then Joshua is an idolater for falling on his face before the Ark (Joshua 7:6), and Solomon is an idolater for bowing to the Temple.
You think I'm an idolater because I bow my head. I think you're missing the idols that actually run our lives. A person can stand perfectly upright in a church and still be an idolater because their heart is bowing to their bank account, their political party, or their own ego.
You're so busy looking for 'pagans' in the pews that you're missing the 'gods' in your pocket. An Icon of Mary reminds me to be a humble servant of Christ. A smartphone, a stock portfolio, and a celebrity's Instagram feed remind me to serve myself. If you want to talk about cliffs, let's talk about the ones that are actually claiming souls today...not the woman who brought the Savior into the world.
The Ark and the Temple were commanded by God to be built, where he told them where his presence would be.
You've been given NO COMMANDMENT from God to build statues and create icons and bow and pray to them. In fact, you were specifically commanded not to.
It is incredibly astounding how something so obvious is completely blocked out by those who are in deep deception. I agree fully that there are idols of wordliness that all Christians regardless of which church they go to have befallen to, but these are preached AGAINST by all churches. The topic at hand here and now is idolatry of Mary and the saints, which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches fully condone, sanction, and even REQUIRE. That's the huge difference.
Opposing the unbiblical, heretical, and idolatrous beliefs concerning Mary is NOT "slander" against her.
If you really think this video makes a good argument, then present what you think is the BEST argument in there, and let's evaluate and debate it.
Doc? What is it that non-Catholics/Orthodox are doing that you believe is "slandering" Mary? Accusing us of slandering someone when we are not is slander in of itself. So give us an example how we are doing that.
Don't get it twisted...you've been slandering me and others repeatedly by insinuating that we're pagan idol worshippers.
Its the reductive, dehumanizing, or historically false rhetoric used to diminish her role in salvation that a big part of the slander. To call the mother of Christ an "incubator" is to reduce a person to a plumbing fixture. In any other context, if you called someone's mother "just a vessel for their birth," it would be a fighting word. It strips away her Fiat (her free-will "Yes" to God) and treats her as an inanimate object rather than the first disciple.
You don't have to believe she was sinless to treat her with the honor that the Bible says 'all generations' would give her (Luke 1:48). When that honor is replaced by a desire to prove how 'ordinary' or 'sinful' she was, it feels less like a Bible study and more like an attack.
Well, if you bow down and pray to images of people, and ascribe to them divine qualities and even credit them for salvation... what else IS there that falls under idol worship? HOW do you not know this, as a professed "Christian"? The pagan origins of these are undeniable. It isn't "slander" when it's what you're actually doing.
SHOW US where the incarnation was contingent upon Mary's free will. SHOW US where she was ASKED. SHOW US where she said "Yes".
You're already elevating Mary to far more than what she was, right there.
Luke 1:38:"And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.'" If God did not value her free will, the Angel wouldn't have waited for her response before the Holy Spirit came upon her.
Go seven verses earlier than Luke 1:38 -
Luke 1:31 - "And behold, YOU WILL conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus."
In verse 38, Mary SUBMITTING to what had already been decided for her. "YOU WILL", not "Will you?" The angel was not "waiting for her response". He had already declared to her what will be done. He never asked.
Why do guys continually have trouble reading what Scripture actually says, in favor of reading it with horseblinders on and through a lens?
You're reading the future tense through Calvinist monergism, where divine declaration = irresistible causation. Everything in your paradigm is hyper Calvinistic. Your importing it into scripture, it's not the plain reading. Now you got yourself into another hole you can't dig your way out of.
On what grammatical or contextual basis does a declarative future announcement eliminate the contingency of the recipient's response? Because if that principle holds, it creates serious problems all over Scripture, not just in Luke 1. God declares through prophets that Israel "will" do various things that Israel then fails to do. Was God wrong, or does declarative future language not actually foreclose contingency?
God declares that Zedekiah's kingdom "will" remain humble and keep the covenant. Zedekiah then breaks the covenant and rebels against Babylon. God says of unfaithful Israel: "I thought, 'After she has done all this she will return to me,' but she did not return." God's own declared expectation was not fulfilled.
Jeremiah 18:7-10 "If at any time I declare concerning a nation that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster I intended to do to it."
Jeremiah 3:7, Ezekiel 24:14 are other examples as well.
Was God wrong, or does declarative future language not actually foreclose contingency
Opposing the unbiblical, heretical, and idolatrous beliefs concerning Mary is NOT "slander" against her.
If you really think this video makes a good argument, then present what you think is the BEST argument in there, and let's evaluate and debate it.
Doc? What is it that non-Catholics/Orthodox are doing that you believe is "slandering" Mary? Accusing us of slandering someone when we are not is slander in of itself. So give us an example how we are doing that.
Don't get it twisted...you've been slandering me and others repeatedly by insinuating that we're pagan idol worshippers.
Its the reductive, dehumanizing, or historically false rhetoric used to diminish her role in salvation that a big part of the slander. To call the mother of Christ an "incubator" is to reduce a person to a plumbing fixture. In any other context, if you called someone's mother "just a vessel for their birth," it would be a fighting word. It strips away her Fiat (her free-will "Yes" to God) and treats her as an inanimate object rather than the first disciple.
You don't have to believe she was sinless to treat her with the honor that the Bible says 'all generations' would give her (Luke 1:48). When that honor is replaced by a desire to prove how 'ordinary' or 'sinful' she was, it feels less like a Bible study and more like an attack.
Well, if you bow down and pray to images of people, and ascribe to them divine qualities and even credit them for salvation... what else IS there that falls under idol worship? HOW do you not know this, as a professed "Christian"? The pagan origins of these are undeniable. It isn't "slander" when it's what you're actually doing.
SHOW US where the incarnation was contingent upon Mary's free will. SHOW US where she was ASKED. SHOW US where she said "Yes".
You're already elevating Mary to far more than what she was, right there.
Luke 1:38:"And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.'" If God did not value her free will, the Angel wouldn't have waited for her response before the Holy Spirit came upon her.
Go seven verses earlier than Luke 1:38 -
Luke 1:31 - "And behold, YOU WILL conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus."
In verse 38, Mary SUBMITTING to what had already been decided for her. "YOU WILL", not "Will you?" The angel was not "waiting for her response". He had already declared to her what will be done. He never asked.
Why do guys continually have trouble reading what Scripture actually says, in favor of reading it with horseblinders on and through a lens?
You're reading the future tense through Calvinist monergism, where divine declaration = irresistible causation. Everything in your paradigm is hyper Calvinistic. Your importing it into scripture, it's not the plain reading. Now you got yourself into another hole you can't dig your way out of.
On what grammatical or contextual basis does a declarative future announcement eliminate the contingency of the recipient's response? Because if that principle holds, it creates serious problems all over Scripture, not just in Luke 1. God declares through prophets that Israel "will" do various things that Israel then fails to do. Was God wrong, or does declarative future language not actually foreclose contingency?
God declares that Zedekiah's kingdom "will" remain humble and keep the covenant. Zedekiah then breaks the covenant and rebels against Babylon. God says of unfaithful Israel: "I thought, 'After she has done all this she will return to me,' but she did not return." God's own declared expectation was not fulfilled.
Jeremiah 18:7-10 "If at any time I declare concerning a nation that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster I intended to do to it."
Jeremiah 3:7, Ezekiel 24:14 are other examples as well.
Was God wrong, or does declarative future language not actually foreclose contingency
There are "you will" statements from God that are declarative COMMANDS to obey, which people can fail to obey. The angel's statement was not a command, but a declaration of an event that was to happen, in the same way that Jesus told Peter, "You will deny me three times". That didn't require Peter to say, "OK, Jesus, I'll do that". Or when God told his people that they will be captured and dispersed across the nations. It didn't require them to say, "OK, God, we'll let these nations come and capture us".
Reading the anunciation passage so that the "you will" is a command to be obeyed but which also can be rejected makes no sense. You don't "obey" a declaration of an event that God announces will happen. You just submit to it.
Opposing the unbiblical, heretical, and idolatrous beliefs concerning Mary is NOT "slander" against her.
If you really think this video makes a good argument, then present what you think is the BEST argument in there, and let's evaluate and debate it.
Doc? What is it that non-Catholics/Orthodox are doing that you believe is "slandering" Mary? Accusing us of slandering someone when we are not is slander in of itself. So give us an example how we are doing that.
Don't get it twisted...you've been slandering me and others repeatedly by insinuating that we're pagan idol worshippers.
Its the reductive, dehumanizing, or historically false rhetoric used to diminish her role in salvation that a big part of the slander. To call the mother of Christ an "incubator" is to reduce a person to a plumbing fixture. In any other context, if you called someone's mother "just a vessel for their birth," it would be a fighting word. It strips away her Fiat (her free-will "Yes" to God) and treats her as an inanimate object rather than the first disciple.
You don't have to believe she was sinless to treat her with the honor that the Bible says 'all generations' would give her (Luke 1:48). When that honor is replaced by a desire to prove how 'ordinary' or 'sinful' she was, it feels less like a Bible study and more like an attack.
Well, if you bow down and pray to images of people, and ascribe to them divine qualities and even credit them for salvation... what else IS there that falls under idol worship? HOW do you not know this, as a professed "Christian"? The pagan origins of these are undeniable. It isn't "slander" when it's what you're actually doing.
SHOW US where the incarnation was contingent upon Mary's free will. SHOW US where she was ASKED. SHOW US where she said "Yes".
You're already elevating Mary to far more than what she was, right there.
Luke 1:38:"And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.'" If God did not value her free will, the Angel wouldn't have waited for her response before the Holy Spirit came upon her.
Go seven verses earlier than Luke 1:38 -
Luke 1:31 - "And behold, YOU WILL conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus."
In verse 38, Mary SUBMITTING to what had already been decided for her. "YOU WILL", not "Will you?" The angel was not "waiting for her response". He had already declared to her what will be done. He never asked.
Why do guys continually have trouble reading what Scripture actually says, in favor of reading it with horseblinders on and through a lens?
You're reading the future tense through Calvinist monergism, where divine declaration = irresistible causation. Everything in your paradigm is hyper Calvinistic. Your importing it into scripture, it's not the plain reading. Now you got yourself into another hole you can't dig your way out of.
On what grammatical or contextual basis does a declarative future announcement eliminate the contingency of the recipient's response? Because if that principle holds, it creates serious problems all over Scripture, not just in Luke 1. God declares through prophets that Israel "will" do various things that Israel then fails to do. Was God wrong, or does declarative future language not actually foreclose contingency?
God declares that Zedekiah's kingdom "will" remain humble and keep the covenant. Zedekiah then breaks the covenant and rebels against Babylon. God says of unfaithful Israel: "I thought, 'After she has done all this she will return to me,' but she did not return." God's own declared expectation was not fulfilled.
Jeremiah 18:7-10 "If at any time I declare concerning a nation that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster I intended to do to it."
Jeremiah 3:7, Ezekiel 24:14 are other examples as well.
Was God wrong, or does declarative future language not actually foreclose contingency
There are "you will" statements from God that are declarative COMMANDS to obey, which people can fail to obey. The angel's statement was not a command, but a declaration of an event that was to happen, in the same way that Jesus told Peter, "You will deny me three times". That didn't require Peter to say, "OK, Jesus, I'll do that". Or when God told his people that they will be captured and dispersed across the nations. It didn't require them to say, "OK, God, we'll let these nations come and capture us".
Reading the anunciation passage so that the "you will" is a command to be obeyed but which also can be rejected makes no sense. You don't "obey" a declaration of an event that God announces will happen. You just submit to it.
God's foreknowledge of an event isn't the same as God's causal determination of it. Peter denied Christ freely, and Christ knew he would.
Does a predictive declaration by God eliminate the contingency of the human act being predicted? You're just reasserting that it does, you're not arguing for it.
Could Mary have said "no"?
Why does Luke record the fiat at all? Your claim of monergism renders verse 38 completely theologically inert. Mary's response adds nothing in your framework. Luke isn't a careless writer.
Your soteriology faces the same structure: you think regeneration precedes faith, that God effectively causes the new birth without the person's cooperation and that the elect cannot ultimately resist.
Opposing the unbiblical, heretical, and idolatrous beliefs concerning Mary is NOT "slander" against her.
If you really think this video makes a good argument, then present what you think is the BEST argument in there, and let's evaluate and debate it.
Doc? What is it that non-Catholics/Orthodox are doing that you believe is "slandering" Mary? Accusing us of slandering someone when we are not is slander in of itself. So give us an example how we are doing that.
Don't get it twisted...you've been slandering me and others repeatedly by insinuating that we're pagan idol worshippers.
Its the reductive, dehumanizing, or historically false rhetoric used to diminish her role in salvation that a big part of the slander. To call the mother of Christ an "incubator" is to reduce a person to a plumbing fixture. In any other context, if you called someone's mother "just a vessel for their birth," it would be a fighting word. It strips away her Fiat (her free-will "Yes" to God) and treats her as an inanimate object rather than the first disciple.
You don't have to believe she was sinless to treat her with the honor that the Bible says 'all generations' would give her (Luke 1:48). When that honor is replaced by a desire to prove how 'ordinary' or 'sinful' she was, it feels less like a Bible study and more like an attack.
Well, if you bow down and pray to images of people, and ascribe to them divine qualities and even credit them for salvation... what else IS there that falls under idol worship? HOW do you not know this, as a professed "Christian"? The pagan origins of these are undeniable. It isn't "slander" when it's what you're actually doing.
SHOW US where the incarnation was contingent upon Mary's free will. SHOW US where she was ASKED. SHOW US where she said "Yes".
You're already elevating Mary to far more than what she was, right there.
Luke 1:38:"And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.'" If God did not value her free will, the Angel wouldn't have waited for her response before the Holy Spirit came upon her.
Go seven verses earlier than Luke 1:38 -
Luke 1:31 - "And behold, YOU WILL conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus."
In verse 38, Mary SUBMITTING to what had already been decided for her. "YOU WILL", not "Will you?" The angel was not "waiting for her response". He had already declared to her what will be done. He never asked.
Why do guys continually have trouble reading what Scripture actually says, in favor of reading it with horseblinders on and through a lens?
You're reading the future tense through Calvinist monergism, where divine declaration = irresistible causation. Everything in your paradigm is hyper Calvinistic. Your importing it into scripture, it's not the plain reading. Now you got yourself into another hole you can't dig your way out of.
On what grammatical or contextual basis does a declarative future announcement eliminate the contingency of the recipient's response? Because if that principle holds, it creates serious problems all over Scripture, not just in Luke 1. God declares through prophets that Israel "will" do various things that Israel then fails to do. Was God wrong, or does declarative future language not actually foreclose contingency?
God declares that Zedekiah's kingdom "will" remain humble and keep the covenant. Zedekiah then breaks the covenant and rebels against Babylon. God says of unfaithful Israel: "I thought, 'After she has done all this she will return to me,' but she did not return." God's own declared expectation was not fulfilled.
Jeremiah 18:7-10 "If at any time I declare concerning a nation that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster I intended to do to it."
Jeremiah 3:7, Ezekiel 24:14 are other examples as well.
Was God wrong, or does declarative future language not actually foreclose contingency
There are "you will" statements from God that are declarative COMMANDS to obey, which people can fail to obey. The angel's statement was not a command, but a declaration of an event that was to happen, in the same way that Jesus told Peter, "You will deny me three times". That didn't require Peter to say, "OK, Jesus, I'll do that". Or when God told his people that they will be captured and dispersed across the nations. It didn't require them to say, "OK, God, we'll let these nations come and capture us".
Reading the anunciation passage so that the "you will" is a command to be obeyed but which also can be rejected makes no sense. You don't "obey" a declaration of an event that God announces will happen. You just submit to it.
God's foreknowledge of an event isn't the same as God's causal determination of it. Peter denied Christ freely, and Christ knew he would.
Does a predictive declaration by God eliminate the contingency of the human act being predicted? You're just reasserting that it does, you're not arguing for it.
Could Mary have said "no"?
Why does Luke record the fiat at all? Your claim of monergism renders verse 38 completely theologically inert. Mary's response adds nothing in your framework. Luke isn't a careless writer.
Your soteriology faces the same structure: you think regeneration precedes faith, that God effectively causes the new birth without the person's cooperation and that the elect cannot ultimately resist.
God DID causally determine the conception of Jesus. The angel even explained it. It's like you don't even know the Scriptural account.
The predictive declaration was of an event of God's doing, NOT of Mary's free choice. God didn't command Mary to "conceive". She can't do that on her own. It had to be done for her. There was NO ACTION on the part of Mary that God was requiring. It was all passive.
There's a reason it's called the "Anunciation" and not the "Proposition". No, Mary did NOT have the free will choice to thwart God's salvation plan. She could not thwart the arrival of Jesus. It was announced to her what was to happen, through her. She, a godly woman, submitted to God's preordained will.
Your view is just an attempt to have all of salvation contingent upon the free will of a human being, so that you can venerate and credit Mary for salvation to the level of Jesus. It's pure heresy and idolatry. The massive problem for your view, is that NOWHERE in Scripture is this concept even hinted at. In fact, Jesus himself downplayed the importance of Mary whenever someone tried to bring it up. I truly believe that God put that in Scripture because he knew that the Devil would use Mary as the means to lure people away from Jesus and towards worship of the pagan mother goddess that was ubiquitous across the pagan world. He gave us Jesus' example so that people won't have the excuse. Notice NOWHERE else in Scripture is Mary even talked about, save for a brief mention in Acts. After that, NOTHING. If Mary was to be venerated and credited for salvation being due to her free will act, then you would think something would have been said about it in Scripture. You would think sometime during the early church, it would have been mentioned. But it doesn't appear until centuries after, when the paganization of Christianity in Rome began, and the pagan mother goddess was recast into the figure of Mary.
You guys really need to understand how the history of all that began. You've been bamboozled. Even if you can't discern that, take Jesus' advice - you know something by its fruit. Look at the fruit of your church's view - it has led to bowing and praying to Mary, regarding her as an intercessor for salvation, and even outright crediting her for salvation in your liturgy:
"She (Mary) is the propitiation of the whole world. She is the restoration of men. She is the forgiveness for many who have stumbled. Through thee our sin is remitted. She is the ship of all who would be saved. She is the gate of salvation. She is the provider of God's mercy. Through thou hast given new birth to those conceived in shame. She is the beginning of the new and spiritual creation. She joinest in union the faithful to the Lord. She taketh away the filth of sin. She is the salvation of my soul. She is the acceptable sacrifice."
- from the Akathist Hymn, Orthodox Church
For God's sake, man, READ THAT. And tell me you can see the problem in all that. That's the fruit of your beliefs. Please, you CAN'T BE this spiritually dull and deceived, can you??
Opposing the unbiblical, heretical, and idolatrous beliefs concerning Mary is NOT "slander" against her.
If you really think this video makes a good argument, then present what you think is the BEST argument in there, and let's evaluate and debate it.
Doc? What is it that non-Catholics/Orthodox are doing that you believe is "slandering" Mary? Accusing us of slandering someone when we are not is slander in of itself. So give us an example how we are doing that.
Don't get it twisted...you've been slandering me and others repeatedly by insinuating that we're pagan idol worshippers.
Its the reductive, dehumanizing, or historically false rhetoric used to diminish her role in salvation that a big part of the slander. To call the mother of Christ an "incubator" is to reduce a person to a plumbing fixture. In any other context, if you called someone's mother "just a vessel for their birth," it would be a fighting word. It strips away her Fiat (her free-will "Yes" to God) and treats her as an inanimate object rather than the first disciple.
You don't have to believe she was sinless to treat her with the honor that the Bible says 'all generations' would give her (Luke 1:48). When that honor is replaced by a desire to prove how 'ordinary' or 'sinful' she was, it feels less like a Bible study and more like an attack.
Well, if you bow down and pray to images of people, and ascribe to them divine qualities and even credit them for salvation... what else IS there that falls under idol worship? HOW do you not know this, as a professed "Christian"? The pagan origins of these are undeniable. It isn't "slander" when it's what you're actually doing.
SHOW US where the incarnation was contingent upon Mary's free will. SHOW US where she was ASKED. SHOW US where she said "Yes".
You're already elevating Mary to far more than what she was, right there.
Luke 1:38:"And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.'" If God did not value her free will, the Angel wouldn't have waited for her response before the Holy Spirit came upon her.
Go seven verses earlier than Luke 1:38 -
Luke 1:31 - "And behold, YOU WILL conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus."
In verse 38, Mary SUBMITTING to what had already been decided for her. "YOU WILL", not "Will you?" The angel was not "waiting for her response". He had already declared to her what will be done. He never asked.
Why do guys continually have trouble reading what Scripture actually says, in favor of reading it with horseblinders on and through a lens?
You're reading the future tense through Calvinist monergism, where divine declaration = irresistible causation. Everything in your paradigm is hyper Calvinistic. Your importing it into scripture, it's not the plain reading. Now you got yourself into another hole you can't dig your way out of.
On what grammatical or contextual basis does a declarative future announcement eliminate the contingency of the recipient's response? Because if that principle holds, it creates serious problems all over Scripture, not just in Luke 1. God declares through prophets that Israel "will" do various things that Israel then fails to do. Was God wrong, or does declarative future language not actually foreclose contingency?
God declares that Zedekiah's kingdom "will" remain humble and keep the covenant. Zedekiah then breaks the covenant and rebels against Babylon. God says of unfaithful Israel: "I thought, 'After she has done all this she will return to me,' but she did not return." God's own declared expectation was not fulfilled.
Jeremiah 18:7-10 "If at any time I declare concerning a nation that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster I intended to do to it."
Jeremiah 3:7, Ezekiel 24:14 are other examples as well.
Was God wrong, or does declarative future language not actually foreclose contingency
There are "you will" statements from God that are declarative COMMANDS to obey, which people can fail to obey. The angel's statement was not a command, but a declaration of an event that was to happen, in the same way that Jesus told Peter, "You will deny me three times". That didn't require Peter to say, "OK, Jesus, I'll do that". Or when God told his people that they will be captured and dispersed across the nations. It didn't require them to say, "OK, God, we'll let these nations come and capture us".
Reading the anunciation passage so that the "you will" is a command to be obeyed but which also can be rejected makes no sense. You don't "obey" a declaration of an event that God announces will happen. You just submit to it.
God's foreknowledge of an event isn't the same as God's causal determination of it. Peter denied Christ freely, and Christ knew he would.
Does a predictive declaration by God eliminate the contingency of the human act being predicted? You're just reasserting that it does, you're not arguing for it.
Could Mary have said "no"?
Why does Luke record the fiat at all? Your claim of monergism renders verse 38 completely theologically inert. Mary's response adds nothing in your framework. Luke isn't a careless writer.
Your soteriology faces the same structure: you think regeneration precedes faith, that God effectively causes the new birth without the person's cooperation and that the elect cannot ultimately resist.
God DID causally determine the conception of Jesus. The angel even explained it. It's like you don't even know the Scriptural account.
The predictive declaration was of an event of God's doing, NOT of Mary's free choice. God didn't command Mary to "conceive". She can't do that on her own. It had to be done for her. There was NO ACTION on the part of Mary that God was requiring. It was all passive.
There's a reason it's called the "Anunciation" and not the "Proposition". No, Mary did NOT have the free will choice to thwart God's salvation plan. She could not thwart the arrival of Jesus. It was announced to her what was to happen, through her. She, a godly woman, submitted to God's preordained will.
Your view is just an attempt to have all of salvation contingent upon the free will of a human being, so that you can venerate and credit Mary for salvation to the level of Jesus. It's pure heresy and idolatry. The massive problem for your view, is that NOWHERE in Scripture is this concept even hinted at. In fact, Jesus himself downplayed the importance of Mary whenever someone tried to bring it up. I truly believe that God put that in Scripture because he knew that the Devil would use Mary as the means to lure people away from Jesus and towards worship of the pagan mother goddess that was ubiquitous across the pagan world. He gave us Jesus' example so that people won't have the excuse. Notice NOWHERE else in Scripture is Mary even talked about, save for a brief mention in Acts. After that, NOTHING. If Mary was to be venerated and credited for salvation being due to her free will act, then you would think something would have been said about it in Scripture. You would think sometime during the early church, it would have been mentioned. But it doesn't appear until centuries after, when the paganization of Christianity in Rome began, and the pagan mother goddess was recast into the figure of Mary.
You guys really need to understand how the history of all that began. You've been bamboozled. Even if you can't discern that, take Jesus' advice - you know something by its fruit. Look at the fruit of your church's view - it has led to bowing and praying to Mary, regarding her as an intercessor for salvation, and even outright crediting her for salvation in your liturgy:
"She (Mary) is the propitiation of the whole world. She is the restoration of men. She is the forgiveness for many who have stumbled. Through thee our sin is remitted. She is the ship of all who would be saved. She is the gate of salvation. She is the provider of God's mercy. Through thou hast given new birth to those conceived in shame. She is the beginning of the new and spiritual creation. She joinest in union the faithful to the Lord. She taketh away the filth of sin. She is the salvation of my soul. She is the acceptable sacrifice."
- from the Akathist Hymn, Orthodox Church
For God's sake, man, READ THAT. And tell me you can see the problem in all that. That's the fruit of your beliefs. Please, you CAN'T BE this spiritually dull and deceived, can you??
I'm spirally deceived?!
RC Sproul Jr., son of the Reformed theologian you likely venerate, recently responded to someone who used the rape, torture, and strangulation of a 10-year-old girl named Pamela Butler to challenge his father's theology. Sproul Jr.'s response was that the little girl "received the judgment from God she had earned." When pushed back on this, his partial retraction still maintained that "her suffering was no harsher, from God's perspective, than what she was due from Him."
A tortured, murdered child deserved it?! That is the fruit of your framework applied consistently and honestly. If God causally determines all events for his own glory, and all humans deserve judgment, then the rape and murder of a child becomes reframeable as divine justice being executed. Sproul Jr. said out loud what your system requires…and you can't disagree with it. You have to uphold monergism or your system falls apart.
You make God a monster with your theology.
Now to the Akathist quotes you posted. You read liturgical poetry as if it were a systematic theology textbook, which is a category error that reveals more about your reading method than about Orthodox theology.
Every single title given to Mary in that hymn is derivative and typological, not independent. When the Akathist calls her "the ship of all who would be saved" it is using the same literary mode as Scripture calling Noah's ark a type of salvation, or the Church "the pillar and ground of truth" in 1 Timothy 3:15. Nobody accuses Paul of making the institutional church co-equal with God for that line. When it calls her "the gate of salvation" it is echoing Ezekiel 44's imagery of the gate through which the Lord alone passes. The imagery points through her to Christ, not away from him.
The titles attributed to Mary in that hymn are the same kind of language Scripture uses for the Temple, for the apostles, for the Church itself. In John 20:23 Jesus tells the disciples that whoever's sins they forgive are forgiven. Does that make the apostles co redeemers who usurp Christ? Of course not. The action flows from Christ through his instruments. That is exactly the theological logic of every Marian title in the Akathist.
You selectively quoted without the Christological frame the entire hymn presupposes. The very same hymn contains lines like "Hail, for through thee the creation is renewed" and frames everything in the context of the Incarnation. Mary is honored because God became flesh through her. Diminishing her is not protecting Christ. It is actually weakening the reality of the Incarnation itself.
Opposing the unbiblical, heretical, and idolatrous beliefs concerning Mary is NOT "slander" against her.
If you really think this video makes a good argument, then present what you think is the BEST argument in there, and let's evaluate and debate it.
Doc? What is it that non-Catholics/Orthodox are doing that you believe is "slandering" Mary? Accusing us of slandering someone when we are not is slander in of itself. So give us an example how we are doing that.
Don't get it twisted...you've been slandering me and others repeatedly by insinuating that we're pagan idol worshippers.
Its the reductive, dehumanizing, or historically false rhetoric used to diminish her role in salvation that a big part of the slander. To call the mother of Christ an "incubator" is to reduce a person to a plumbing fixture. In any other context, if you called someone's mother "just a vessel for their birth," it would be a fighting word. It strips away her Fiat (her free-will "Yes" to God) and treats her as an inanimate object rather than the first disciple.
You don't have to believe she was sinless to treat her with the honor that the Bible says 'all generations' would give her (Luke 1:48). When that honor is replaced by a desire to prove how 'ordinary' or 'sinful' she was, it feels less like a Bible study and more like an attack.
Well, if you bow down and pray to images of people, and ascribe to them divine qualities and even credit them for salvation... what else IS there that falls under idol worship? HOW do you not know this, as a professed "Christian"? The pagan origins of these are undeniable. It isn't "slander" when it's what you're actually doing.
SHOW US where the incarnation was contingent upon Mary's free will. SHOW US where she was ASKED. SHOW US where she said "Yes".
You're already elevating Mary to far more than what she was, right there.
Luke 1:38:"And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.'" If God did not value her free will, the Angel wouldn't have waited for her response before the Holy Spirit came upon her.
Go seven verses earlier than Luke 1:38 -
Luke 1:31 - "And behold, YOU WILL conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus."
In verse 38, Mary SUBMITTING to what had already been decided for her. "YOU WILL", not "Will you?" The angel was not "waiting for her response". He had already declared to her what will be done. He never asked.
Why do guys continually have trouble reading what Scripture actually says, in favor of reading it with horseblinders on and through a lens?
You're reading the future tense through Calvinist monergism, where divine declaration = irresistible causation. Everything in your paradigm is hyper Calvinistic. Your importing it into scripture, it's not the plain reading. Now you got yourself into another hole you can't dig your way out of.
On what grammatical or contextual basis does a declarative future announcement eliminate the contingency of the recipient's response? Because if that principle holds, it creates serious problems all over Scripture, not just in Luke 1. God declares through prophets that Israel "will" do various things that Israel then fails to do. Was God wrong, or does declarative future language not actually foreclose contingency?
God declares that Zedekiah's kingdom "will" remain humble and keep the covenant. Zedekiah then breaks the covenant and rebels against Babylon. God says of unfaithful Israel: "I thought, 'After she has done all this she will return to me,' but she did not return." God's own declared expectation was not fulfilled.
Jeremiah 18:7-10 "If at any time I declare concerning a nation that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster I intended to do to it."
Jeremiah 3:7, Ezekiel 24:14 are other examples as well.
Was God wrong, or does declarative future language not actually foreclose contingency
There are "you will" statements from God that are declarative COMMANDS to obey, which people can fail to obey. The angel's statement was not a command, but a declaration of an event that was to happen, in the same way that Jesus told Peter, "You will deny me three times". That didn't require Peter to say, "OK, Jesus, I'll do that". Or when God told his people that they will be captured and dispersed across the nations. It didn't require them to say, "OK, God, we'll let these nations come and capture us".
Reading the anunciation passage so that the "you will" is a command to be obeyed but which also can be rejected makes no sense. You don't "obey" a declaration of an event that God announces will happen. You just submit to it.
God's foreknowledge of an event isn't the same as God's causal determination of it. Peter denied Christ freely, and Christ knew he would.
Does a predictive declaration by God eliminate the contingency of the human act being predicted? You're just reasserting that it does, you're not arguing for it.
Could Mary have said "no"?
Why does Luke record the fiat at all? Your claim of monergism renders verse 38 completely theologically inert. Mary's response adds nothing in your framework. Luke isn't a careless writer.
Your soteriology faces the same structure: you think regeneration precedes faith, that God effectively causes the new birth without the person's cooperation and that the elect cannot ultimately resist.
God DID causally determine the conception of Jesus. The angel even explained it. It's like you don't even know the Scriptural account.
The predictive declaration was of an event of God's doing, NOT of Mary's free choice. God didn't command Mary to "conceive". She can't do that on her own. It had to be done for her. There was NO ACTION on the part of Mary that God was requiring. It was all passive.
There's a reason it's called the "Anunciation" and not the "Proposition". No, Mary did NOT have the free will choice to thwart God's salvation plan. She could not thwart the arrival of Jesus. It was announced to her what was to happen, through her. She, a godly woman, submitted to God's preordained will.
Your view is just an attempt to have all of salvation contingent upon the free will of a human being, so that you can venerate and credit Mary for salvation to the level of Jesus. It's pure heresy and idolatry. The massive problem for your view, is that NOWHERE in Scripture is this concept even hinted at. In fact, Jesus himself downplayed the importance of Mary whenever someone tried to bring it up. I truly believe that God put that in Scripture because he knew that the Devil would use Mary as the means to lure people away from Jesus and towards worship of the pagan mother goddess that was ubiquitous across the pagan world. He gave us Jesus' example so that people won't have the excuse. Notice NOWHERE else in Scripture is Mary even talked about, save for a brief mention in Acts. After that, NOTHING. If Mary was to be venerated and credited for salvation being due to her free will act, then you would think something would have been said about it in Scripture. You would think sometime during the early church, it would have been mentioned. But it doesn't appear until centuries after, when the paganization of Christianity in Rome began, and the pagan mother goddess was recast into the figure of Mary.
You guys really need to understand how the history of all that began. You've been bamboozled. Even if you can't discern that, take Jesus' advice - you know something by its fruit. Look at the fruit of your church's view - it has led to bowing and praying to Mary, regarding her as an intercessor for salvation, and even outright crediting her for salvation in your liturgy:
"She (Mary) is the propitiation of the whole world. She is the restoration of men. She is the forgiveness for many who have stumbled. Through thee our sin is remitted. She is the ship of all who would be saved. She is the gate of salvation. She is the provider of God's mercy. Through thou hast given new birth to those conceived in shame. She is the beginning of the new and spiritual creation. She joinest in union the faithful to the Lord. She taketh away the filth of sin. She is the salvation of my soul. She is the acceptable sacrifice."
- from the Akathist Hymn, Orthodox Church
For God's sake, man, READ THAT. And tell me you can see the problem in all that. That's the fruit of your beliefs. Please, you CAN'T BE this spiritually dull and deceived, can you??
I'm spirally deceived?!
RC Sproul Jr., son of the Reformed theologian you likely venerate, recently responded to someone who used the rape, torture, and strangulation of a 10-year-old girl named Pamela Butler to challenge his father's theology. Sproul Jr.'s response was that the little girl "received the judgment from God she had earned." When pushed back on this, his partial retraction still maintained that "her suffering was no harsher, from God's perspective, than what she was due from Him."
A tortured, murdered child deserved it?! That is the fruit of your framework applied consistently and honestly. If God causally determines all events for his own glory, and all humans deserve judgment, then the rape and murder of a child becomes reframeable as divine justice being executed. Sproul Jr. said out loud what your system requires…and you can't disagree with it. You have to uphold monergism or your system falls apart.
You make God a monster with your theology.
Now to the Akathist quotes you posted. You read liturgical poetry as if it were a systematic theology textbook, which is a category error that reveals more about your reading method than about Orthodox theology.
Every single title given to Mary in that hymn is derivative and typological, not independent. When the Akathist calls her "the ship of all who would be saved" it is using the same literary mode as Scripture calling Noah's ark a type of salvation, or the Church "the pillar and ground of truth" in 1 Timothy 3:15. Nobody accuses Paul of making the institutional church co-equal with God for that line. When it calls her "the gate of salvation" it is echoing Ezekiel 44's imagery of the gate through which the Lord alone passes. The imagery points through her to Christ, not away from him.
The titles attributed to Mary in that hymn are the same kind of language Scripture uses for the Temple, for the apostles, for the Church itself. In John 20:23 Jesus tells the disciples that whoever's sins they forgive are forgiven. Does that make the apostles co redeemers who usurp Christ? Of course not. The action flows from Christ through his instruments. That is exactly the theological logic of every Marian title in the Akathist.
You selectively quoted without the Christological frame the entire hymn presupposes. The very same hymn contains lines like "Hail, for through thee the creation is renewed" and frames everything in the context of the Incarnation. Mary is honored because God became flesh through her. Diminishing her is not protecting Christ. It is actually weakening the reality of the Incarnation itself.
Wow. I quote you your church's official liturgy, which your church holds as infallible, and you hold me to what one single protestant said?
Simply....wow.
And you really don't see the problem in that Akathist hymn. Wow. SHE is the propitiation of the whole world. THROUGH HER our sin is remitted. SHE IS THE SALVATION OF MY SOUL. SHE is the "gate".... even when our Lord Jesus himself said that HE is the gate.
Just....no words. You really are in total darkness.
Folks, see what happens when someone MUST believe their church can NOT err? They are forced to defend the completely indefensible.
1) They refuse to say that "building a church in Mary's honor" and the command to "spread world-wide devotion to MARY'S "Immaculate Heart" for the salvation of souls" did not come from God.
2) They actually feel it is defensible for a Christian to utter these words:
"She (MARY) is the propitiation of the whole world."
"She taketh away sin."
"She is the salvation of my soul."
"She is the acceptable sacrifice."
Folks, WHO is that supposed to be describing?
If you don't see the (HUGE) problem with this, then you are not a Christian. It's really that simple. And if you are a Christian who DOES know it's wrong and evil, but are too cowardly to at least affirm that, then something is really, really wrong.
Lmao. Came Across some posts about how satan was at Fatima ostensibly or that satan created our lady of Guadalupe. What a world view wow
Was the Shroud of Turin created by satan?
I bet there were some single digit % of people fleeing Egypt that claimed satan parted the Red Sea
And there are people that claim weve not set foot on the moon and that artemis etc won't actually go to the moon
Satan created Islam, why not infect the catholic church with false teachings as well?
We are seeing the infection in multiple protestant denominations as well. Any time there is a comprimise to the scripture, it is by the king of this world and his influence.
Shroud of Turin is the real deal. Jesus was real, Jesus really died on the cross as proven by the blood and water from tbe spear(ask any MD to explain what happens in the body cavity when we die), no way the Romans would have lost the body and the soldiers would have been punished, no way the Jews wanted the body removed from that tomb as they wanted to stifle the gospel of the coming of the Messiah, the apostles had all fled and would not have been able to get past the roman guards, the stone was rolled away for the witnesses, Jesus didnt walk out like Lazarus. He departed the only way the son of God
Lmao. Came Across some posts about how satan was at Fatima ostensibly or that satan created our lady of Guadalupe. What a world view wow
Was the Shroud of Turin created by satan?
I bet there were some single digit % of people fleeing Egypt that claimed satan parted the Red Sea
And there are people that claim weve not set foot on the moon and that artemis etc won't actually go to the moon
If commanding believers to spread world-wide devotion to MARY'S "Immaculate Heart" for the salvation of souls, isn't from Satan, then I would really hate to see what you think IS from Satan.
Lmao. Came Across some posts about how satan was at Fatima ostensibly or that satan created our lady of Guadalupe. What a world view wow
Was the Shroud of Turin created by satan?
I bet there were some single digit % of people fleeing Egypt that claimed satan parted the Red Sea
And there are people that claim weve not set foot on the moon and that artemis etc won't actually go to the moon
Satan created Islam, why not infect the catholic church with false teachings as well?
We are seeing the infection in multiple protestant denominations as well. Any time there is a comprimise to the scripture, it is by the king of this world and his influence.
Shroud of Turin is the real deal. Jesus was real, Jesus really died on the cross as proven by the blood and water from tbe spear(ask any MD to explain what happens in the body cavity when we die), no way the Romans would have lost the body and the soldiers would have been punished, no way the Jews wanted the body removed from that tomb as they wanted to stifle the gospel of the coming of the Messiah, the apostles had all fled and would not have been able to get past the roman guards, the stone was rolled away for the witnesses, Jesus didnt walk out like Lazarus. He departed the only way the son of God
The Gospels tell us that Jesus was wrapped in "strips" of linen cloth, and a separate cloth for his head - NOT a single cloth like the Shroud. Scripture does not support the Shroud being authentic. Plus, all the "scientific" evidence is problematic, and is at best inconclusive. Christians should not assume it is real. There is, after all, a reason that God did not give us a physical description of Jesus anywhere in Scripture. It would tempt Christians to worship the image, rather than the real, living Jesus. And it would also give Satan an opportunity to create an impostor that looks like the image, and thus many people who have totally bought into the shroud being real might be deceived.
Lmao. Came Across some posts about how satan was at Fatima ostensibly or that satan created our lady of Guadalupe. What a world view wow
Was the Shroud of Turin created by satan?
I bet there were some single digit % of people fleeing Egypt that claimed satan parted the Red Sea
And there are people that claim weve not set foot on the moon and that artemis etc won't actually go to the moon
Satan created Islam, why not infect the catholic church with false teachings as well?
We are seeing the infection in multiple protestant denominations as well. Any time there is a comprimise to the scripture, it is by the king of this world and his influence.
Shroud of Turin is the real deal. Jesus was real, Jesus really died on the cross as proven by the blood and water from tbe spear(ask any MD to explain what happens in the body cavity when we die), no way the Romans would have lost the body and the soldiers would have been punished, no way the Jews wanted the body removed from that tomb as they wanted to stifle the gospel of the coming of the Messiah, the apostles had all fled and would not have been able to get past the roman guards, the stone was rolled away for the witnesses, Jesus didnt walk out like Lazarus. He departed the only way the son of God
The Gospels tell us that Jesus was wrapped in "strips" of linen cloth, and a separate cloth for his head - NOT a single cloth like the Shroud. Scripture does not support the Shroud being authentic. Plus, all the "scientific" evidence is problematic, and is at best inconclusive. Christians should not assume it is real. There is, after all, a reason that God did not give us a physical description of Jesus anywhere in Scripture. It would tempt Christians to worship the image, rather than the real, living Jesus. And it would also give Satan an opportunity to create an impostor that looks like the image, and thus many people who have totally bought into the shroud being real might be deceived.
there is a difference in text description between john and the others describing the wrappings.
For me, it doesnt matter. It doesnt effect my faith and I dont worship artifacts/relics. If it is, it is. If its not, it isnt.
Either way, Jesus was still real, he still died, and he still rose again and is alive eternally.
