There is Something About Mary

[David Sklansky]

Because it is the one subject where Not Ready is closer to being right than Catholics. But my question is "why does anybody care?" Don't people have enough things to argue about regarding religious things that actually matter?

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Because it is the one subject where Not Ready is closer to being right than Catholics. But my question is "why does anybody care?" Don't people have enough things to argue about regarding religious things that actually matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you are new here so I'll cut you some slack. But you should use the search function as this question has been asked and answered many times.

(I've always wanted to say that to you...now that I'm finished entertaining myselft you can have your thread back)

[jba]

Hi David -

What in the world are you talking about?

[goofball]

ISn't is an example of a miracle?

[sexdrugsmoney]

David are you talking about the status of Mary in Catholicism as opposed to other denominations of Christianity, given the text of the NT only as a guide?

[David Sklansky]

BluffTHIS says Mary is without sin. Not Ready and you say otherwise. Obviously you two are right. But why does it matter? (Even Not Ready says it doesn't)

[RJT]

Jokingly I say:

You do not accept the concept of sin, yet you contend that Mary must have had sin.

You ask why does anyone care, yet you post a questions about it.

Seriously, I say:

Let’s take your point to mean what you obviously meant - that if there is such a thing as sin then Mary must have had it. Secondly, why is Mary so important to Catholics and not so important to other denominations.

Where do I start?


Before I give you my non answer to your post (for now) let me say this: What took you so long to ask? You will probably find that this is going to be one of your strongest arguments against Catholicism. Not because you are correct (or not); but I am confident that you are going to find it one of the most ridiculous things we believe.

I am not going to attempt to answer this at this time - mostly because it is not so easy for me to - but also because Bluff and bigdaddyvo, I am sure, will do a better job at it than I. I will collect my thoughts and get back to you.

Until you hear from them or me, let me state 3 things for the record so we all know some basics about the Catholic Church and Mary.

1) There were two times in the history of the Catholic Church that the pope has spoken infallibly. Both times had to do with Mary. Bidgaddydvo has a post here on 09/17/05 about the first “ex cathedra” (Latin for “from the chair”, refers metaphorically to the chair of St. Peter,the first Pope and the guy of which Jesus said “On this rock, I will build my Church” - Peter means rock) statement in 1854 regarding the Immaculate Conception. The other time the Pope spoke infallibly (in 1950, I believe) had to do with Mary’s Assumption into Heaven - body and soul.

2) Althought these 2 dogmas are infallible teachings, they aren't as important to Christianity, per se, as Jesus, Himself is.

3)We do not worship Mary, we honor her.

[RJT]

This might explain things. Others can confirm or correct me.

The basic disagreement between Catholics and other denominations regarding Mary stems mostly from the following:

Catholic beliefs stem not only from the Bible. We use sources in addition to the
Bible - for example early century Church Fathers (more or less the early theologians) - our doctrine did (does) not stop at the Bible. As you can see from my previous post, it is as recent as 1950 that we had a “major official stamp” on the Doctrine of the Assumption of Mary (this was not a new belief, just formalized so to speak).

Most (all? - don’t really know) Protestants take their doctrine only from the Bible. Different denominations interpret various parts of the Bible differently ( from each other and from Catholics).

Mary is not mentioned in the Bible much.

To answer your question - why does anybody care? I really didn’t know it was such a big issue. I mean of course it is a big difference in opinion and relatively speaking a big difference in Theology. But I don’t think most care that much. I wouldn’t put it at the top of the list of thing to discuss with those not very familiar with Christianity; if that too is what you are asking.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
BluffTHIS says Mary is without sin. Not Ready and you say otherwise. Obviously you two are right. But why does it matter? (Even Not Ready says it doesn't)

[/ QUOTE ]

It is important because truth is important. However you are right because there is a hierarchy of truths in Christianity and some are more important than others. And regarding what is necessary for salvation, the doctrines regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary are less important. However, regarding living a christian life and receiving all the graces possible for help in same and regarding the paradigm for the Kingdom of God, she is very important. She would tell you herself that she doesn't care if she is marginalized, because her only job it to point to her Son.

However for those protestants who don't believe that God allowed Mary to be conceived without the effects of original sin, they should only ask themselves if they were in a hospital immediately after the birth of their child and were offered the choice of two blankets in which to wrap their new child, would they choose a ragged, torn and soiled blanket or a perfect, spotless and clean one? Which would God choose for His Son?

To be deep in history is to cease to be a protestant.
-John Henry Newman, cardinal bishop and anglican convert to catholicism

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
... after the birth of their child and were offered the choice of two blankets in which to wrap their new child, would they choose a ragged, torn and soiled blanket or a perfect, spotless and clean one? Which would God choose for His Son?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this.

[BluffTHIS!]

I know you don't. Because it requires a deeper theological understanding than can be gleaned from a quick net search to find new blurbs to cut and paste in a post.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I know you don't. Because it requires a deeper theological understanding than can be gleaned from a quick net search to find new blurbs to cut and paste in a post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe you hold fast to this view of me, when time and time again I have said you are wrong about me.

Can you not accept that your mental image of me may be incorrect?

[BluffTHIS!]

I have already challenged you to prove me wrong and state your views and religious affiliation and practice but you have declined on the excuse that you don't wish to be pigeon-holed. The mere fact that you engage in debate on religious matters with a certain knowledge of same is not suffcient to make me think otherwise, especially in light of a great number of frivolous comments. I could discuss various aspects of Buddhism with a great degree of accuracy and understanding, but that doesn't make me a buddhist.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I could discuss various aspects of Buddhism with a great degree of accuracy and understanding, but that doesn't make me a buddhist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe I discuss various aspects of Christianity with a great degree of accuracy and understanding, but am not a Christian?

[Peter666]

There is a direct link between receiving the arbitrary grace of Faith and the Mother of God, as well as one's strength of Faith and other graces. The more one is connected with Mary, the closer they are to God.

[ QUOTE ]
There is a direct link between receiving the arbitrary grace of Faith and the Mother of God, as well as one's strength of Faith and other graces. The more one is connected with Mary, the closer they are to God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter666 just joined the flying saucer squad.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe I discuss various aspects of Christianity with a great degree of accuracy and understanding

[/ QUOTE ]

Not particularly although you are good at quoting.

[ QUOTE ]
but am not a Christian?

[/ QUOTE ]

The frivolous mannter in which you sometimes respond on religion makes this seem a possibility. If this is wrong then just state what your religious belief and practice is to settle it. No other religious or non-religious poster here except you has had a problem doing this. And don't ask me any more questions about what I am saying here if you won't do it explicitly.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a direct link between receiving the arbitrary grace of Faith and the Mother of God, as well as one's strength of Faith and other graces. The more one is connected with Mary, the closer they are to God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter666 just joined the flying saucer squad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you deny the truth of Christianity or religion in general, why comment on any specifics of same since it follows you wouldn't believe in them either?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a direct link between receiving the arbitrary grace of Faith and the Mother of God, as well as one's strength of Faith and other graces. The more one is connected with Mary, the closer they are to God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter666 just joined the flying saucer squad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you deny the truth of Christianity or religion in general, why comment on any specifics of same since it follows you wouldn't believe in them either?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it really getting to be where every nonsensical piece of drivel must be respected on here, and the Christian crowd sits tight-lipped as other Christians post such silliness on a sci/math/philo forum? Why don't we just rename it the Flying Saucer/Unicorn/and other make-believe sh!t forum and be done with it.

[BluffTHIS!]

Consider it done. Now you can devote your full efforts to OOT.

[ QUOTE ]
Consider it done. Now you can devote your full efforts to OOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

never been in that forum, are they even dumber than these folks?

In all seriousness, leaving this forum isn't a bad idea. There clearly is a lack of objective reasoning but rather just a bunch of Christians and atheists spewing their "beliefs" which for the most part have nothing to do with Sci/Math/Philo and do not stand up to the microscope of logic or reason. Thus, it makes no sense attempt reasonable discussion with those who have already demonstrated that they do not value reason as a basis for their beliefs. It's starting to resemble the Politics forum where 2 sides just mark their territory and neither dares criticize the silliness of any rhetoric coming from "their guys", and thus discussion is pointless as it becomes a propaganda exchange (see Politics forum for an example of the natural evolution of such debate).

[ QUOTE ]
Since you deny the truth of Christianity or religion in general, why comment on any specifics of same since it follows you wouldn't believe in them either?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluffthis's position is hilarious. Since you're not Christian, you can't comment on any specifics of Christianity or enter any debates that assume a belief in God. By this logic:

- Creationists can't comment on the specifics of macro evolution
- Scientists can't comment on the specifics of ESP research
- Scholars can't comment on the specifics of another's theory, if they deny the basic premises of that theory.
- Bluffthis can't comment on the specifics or implications of atheist philosophy, since he/she denies the truth of atheism completely.
- Debating teams have to find absolute believers for the positive or affirmative side before they can debate.

And don't bother responding Bluffthis, since you are done with me. /images/graemlins/grin.gif If you wish to, however, you can respond for 'the benefits of others'.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe I discuss various aspects of Christianity with a great degree of accuracy and understanding

[/ QUOTE ]

Not particularly

[/ QUOTE ]

Then what did you mean by your Buddhism remark?

[ QUOTE ]
although you are good at quoting.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean quotes from sources (as opposed to quotes from posters), I'd say in most of my posts quotes don't even equal 50% I'd guess. (and that is being generous)

+ With large issues like religion, philosophy, law and science etc, one's words alone aren't sufficient to prove a point most of the time, precedent is needed. (Ever read the early chruch fathers and see how much they quote at times to make their points?)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but am not a Christian?

[/ QUOTE ]

The frivolous mannter in which you sometimes respond on religion makes this seem a possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I'm particularly frivolous about religion, I assume you are refering to the original discourse we had which was ended by description of a sin which you found to be insincere?

[ QUOTE ]

If this is wrong then just state what your religious belief and practice is to settle it. No other religious or non-religious poster here except you has had a problem doing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have not asked any other poster to state:

- Their views
- Religious Affiliation(s)
- Practices

And disagreed to discourse with them without that information.

Why is it so necessary for you?

[ QUOTE ]
And don't ask me any more questions about what I am saying here if you won't do it explicitly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do what explicitly? (you must admit to your vagueness on this last line, I cannot interpret what the it is - ie- more detailed questioning or statement of creed)

Cheers,
SDM

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
However for those protestants who don't believe that God allowed Mary to be conceived without the effects of original sin, they should only ask themselves if they were in a hospital immediately after the birth of their child and were offered the choice of two blankets in which to wrap their new child, would they choose a ragged, torn and soiled blanket or a perfect, spotless and clean one? Which would God choose for His Son?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is gold.

A corrolary to Protestants who can't believe that Mary had no sin...consider this. If God is capable of having Jesus conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit (virgin birth everyone), then why is it not possible for Mary to be without sin?

The former certainly seems more impressive than the latter, yet many continue to argrue the latter's impossibility.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However for those protestants who don't believe that God allowed Mary to be conceived without the effects of original sin, they should only ask themselves if they were in a hospital immediately after the birth of their child and were offered the choice of two blankets in which to wrap their new child, would they choose a ragged, torn and soiled blanket or a perfect, spotless and clean one? Which would God choose for His Son?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is gold.

A corrolary to Protestants who can't believe that Mary had no sin...consider this. If God is capable of having Jesus conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit (virgin birth everyone), then why is it not possible for Mary to be without sin?

The former certainly seems more impressive than the latter, yet many continue to argrue the latter's impossibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not gold at all, except maybe fool's gold. If Jesus was the son of God, then he already was born in a lowly manger to a relatively lowly couple, so why must God have wanted "a clean spotless blanket" for his son? Anf if Mary was without sin, then it proves that a human can live without sin and thus there is no need for Jesus to begin with -- let Mary and any other sin-free go to heaven. Because the concept of a sin-free Mary sounds appropriate and "worthy" of the son of God, does not make it so. The bible doesn't claim she is sin-free. There is no need for her to be sin-free to validate Christian doctrine. So why "invent" such a condition? And if such a condition is so easily invented and accepted, what does that say about the rest of the Christian doctrine? It merely supports how people "want" something to be true and thus believe it to be true. Faith in a nutshell. You couldn't have demonstrated how silly beliefs get spread and accepted any better if you tried -- "the former seems more impressive than the latter" (this is a reasoned argument?)

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
If Jesus was the son of God, then he already was born in a lowly manger to a relatively lowly couple, so why must God have wanted "a clean spotless blanket" for his son?

[/ QUOTE ]


Please reference the Gospel where Jesus taught that internal purity (sinlessness) is more important than physical or ritual cleanliness (Mark 7:1-7:7). You could then see how the state of Mary's soul is of utmost importance if she was to carry the savior of the world.

[ QUOTE ]
Anf if Mary was without sin, then it proves that a human can live without sin and thus there is no need for Jesus to begin with

[/ QUOTE ]

I, nor the Church, has ever said Mary had no need for Jesus. Mary's salvation also depends upon her Son's sacrifice on the Cross. Because God is not limited by time and space, he was able to secure the graces necessary from Christ's crucifixion and apply them to Mary at the moment of her conception, her Immaculate Conception, and allowed her to remain sinless. Please see my earlier post on the topic.

[ QUOTE ]
The bible doesn't claim she is sin-free. There is no need for her to be sin-free to validate Christian doctrine. So why "invent" such a condition?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible doesn't have to say something for it to be true. Remember, the CATHOLIC CHURCH determined which books would constitute the Bible in the 4th Century. If the Church's teaching on which books constitute the Bible are valid, why are its teachings on the sinlessness of Mary any less so?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Jesus was the son of God, then he already was born in a lowly manger to a relatively lowly couple, so why must God have wanted "a clean spotless blanket" for his son?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please reference the Gospel where Jesus taught that internal purity (sinlessness) is more important than physical or ritual cleanliness (Mark 7:1-7:7). You could then see how the state of Mary's soul is of utmost importance if she was to carry the savior of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but that is not enough to support your claim. Where does it say that the son of god must be born by a sinless mother? Nowhere. The state of Mary's soul is not of "utmost importance" to anything related to the story of Jesus. If you believe in Jesus and the Bible, there is nothing in the story that would be any different even if he was born to a prostitute. In fact, such conditions might be even more demonstrative of the humility of the savior.

You can make any argument you want about how it is more "appropriate" or "important", but that is merely based on conjecture. Surely, you are not claiming to know better than God what is appropriate for his son?

Your line of thinking is so .... catholic -- rigourous adherance to unfounded beliefs/doctrine which are not relevant to the real teachings of Jesus (assuming they exist and are true).

[BluffTHIS!]

kid your lack of understanding of christian doctrine shows. And it is comical to charge someone else with not stateing a reasoned arguement when your last post is full of factual errors and logical fallacies, to wit:

[ QUOTE ]
If Jesus was the son of God, then he already was born in a lowly manger to a relatively lowly couple, so why must God have wanted "a clean spotless blanket" for his son?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confusing humbleness of the circumstances of Jesus' birth with the theological implications of what type of mother He should have.

[ QUOTE ]
Anf if Mary was without sin, then it proves that a human can live without sin and thus there is no need for Jesus to begin with -- let Mary and any other sin-free go to heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

You lack the theological understanding of the doctrine of original sin and its implications for how easy or hard it is to live a sinless life with or without it.

[ QUOTE ]
Because the concept of a sin-free Mary sounds appropriate and "worthy" of the son of God, does not make it so. The bible doesn't claim she is sin-free. There is no need for her to be sin-free to validate Christian doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]

The angel Gabriel at her annunciation saluted her as full of grace. Her sinlessness isn't needed to validate christian doctrine, but rather is a consequence of it.

[ QUOTE ]
So why "invent" such a condition? And if such a condition is so easily invented and accepted, what does that say about the rest of the Christian doctrine? It merely supports how people "want" something to be true and thus believe it to be true. Faith in a nutshell. You couldn't have demonstrated how silly beliefs get spread and accepted any better if you tried -- "the former seems more impressive than the latter" (this is a reasoned argument?)

[/ QUOTE ]

And here you have assumed this doctrine proven to be invented and then derived a conclusion from that assumption.

[ QUOTE ]
You are confusing humbleness of the circumstances of Jesus' birth with the theological implications of what type of mother He should have.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you are confusing the type of mother he has with the theological implications of his humbleness of the circumstances of his birth.

[ QUOTE ]

You lack the theological understanding of the doctrine of original sin and its implications for how easy or hard it is to live a sinless life with or without it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am merely stating that if Mary as a mortal was sinless, than a sin-free life is not impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
The angel Gabriel at her annunciation saluted her as full of grace.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a jump to say that this equates to her being "sinless" in her life. If you mean "sinless" to state that her sins were forgiven, then whoopdeedoo, because all Christians who accept the faith supposedly have this attribute.


And regardless of all this, the post I replied to was silly in stating that the concept was probable merely because it sounded more impressive or he reasoned that god would want it that way because its like a clean blanket.

[Peter666]

The intelligent response would have been: Since Catholics claim an arbitrary grace of Faith that I do not have, I cannot pursue an argument in this matter, and a debate is futile.

But because you either do not know the meaning of arbitrary, lack intelligence, or both, you did not respond in the above manner.

[Peter666]

It was made clear that responding to the specifics of the said religion is futile for a person lacking the prerequisite knowledge that comes from those who have a strong theological background which practically entails the belief in the same religion.

However, if you have examples of those who truly know Catholic theology and do not have the same Faith, I would like to see examples.

[pokerdirty]

http://images.tvnz.co.nz/tvnz_images/tv2/movies/wk30_theres_something_c.jpg

Great movie.

[KidPokerX]

Some do and some don't, david...

[KidPokerX]

WIll you quit it with this one? There is nothing special about Mary.