Pope Benedict XVI to Resign

[Junior]

 

It seems that many Christians (but not all) determine whether or not to take the bible literally based on the topic at hand.

 

It would seem that many non-Christians (but not all) also pick and choose whether or not to take the Bible literally or even to acknowledge the legitimacy of the document based on the topic at hand. I am highly entertained when people who have claimed no belief in God and have questioned the validity of the Bible, use the Bible to try to support their arguments.

 

That makes no sense. I don't acknowledge legitimacy of the document as a historical record, but I acknowledge the legitimacy of the document as a guide to people who follow the Christian faith. The two are not one in the same.

[Landlord]

 

It seems that many Christians (but not all) determine whether or not to take the bible literally based on the topic at hand.

 

It would seem that many non-Christians (but not all) also pick and choose whether or not to take the Bible literally or even to acknowledge the legitimacy of the document based on the topic at hand. I am highly entertained when people who have claimed no belief in God and have questioned the validity of the Bible, use the Bible to try to support their arguments.

 

That makes no sense. I don't acknowledge legitimacy of the document as a historical record, but I acknowledge the legitimacy of the document as a guide to people who follow the Christian faith. The two are not one in the same.

 

 

You guys are throwing out a lot of terms that have very broad, non-defined intentions. What do you mean, you don't acknowledge it's legitimacy as a historical record? The Bible isn't meant to be a historical record. Even the parts that are historical in genre, are not meant to be scholarly in the same way a history book is. So good, you shouldn't acknowledge it as a historical record because it isn't one.

[Junior]

 

It seems that many Christians (but not all) determine whether or not to take the bible literally based on the topic at hand.

 

It would seem that many non-Christians (but not all) also pick and choose whether or not to take the Bible literally or even to acknowledge the legitimacy of the document based on the topic at hand. I am highly entertained when people who have claimed no belief in God and have questioned the validity of the Bible, use the Bible to try to support their arguments.

 

That makes no sense. I don't acknowledge legitimacy of the document as a historical record, but I acknowledge the legitimacy of the document as a guide to people who follow the Christian faith. The two are not one in the same.

 

 

You guys are throwing out a lot of terms that have very broad, non-defined intentions. What do you mean, you don't acknowledge it's legitimacy as a historical record? The Bible isn't meant to be a historical record. Even the parts that are historical in genre, are not meant to be scholarly in the same way a history book is. So good, you shouldn't acknowledge it as a historical record because it isn't one.

 

Oh good, because I thought we were supposed to actually believe that God's 40 days and nights of rain flooded the entire earth, and that Noah put two animals of every species on the ark to use for re-population. Which, genetically speaking, would have been just an awful idea.

[JJ Husker]

 

You guys are throwing out a lot of terms that have very broad, non-defined intentions. What do you mean, you don't acknowledge it's legitimacy as a historical record? The Bible isn't meant to be a historical record. Even the parts that are historical in genre, are not meant to be scholarly in the same way a history book is. So good, you shouldn't acknowledge it as a historical record because it isn't one.

 

Sorry if I threw around some broad terms but I only basically re-stated what Junior had said and I changed "Christians" to "non-Christians". And then I pointed out my amusement at people who claim that religion, God, and the Bible are a load of bunk but do not hesitate to use these things, that they do not even believe in, to make a point when it is convenient for them. When it gets inconvenient, then they claim we have a brain disorder or might as well worship sky fairies or spaghetti monsters. I kind of get it but I also find it highly entertaining. Maybe it's just me but if I thought religion was a joke, didn't believe in God, thought the Bible had nothing to offer or was simply fabricated by drunken monks, etc., the last place I would frequent would be a "religion forum" on a message board. I mean I'm not out trolling around atheist sites looking to start an argument........or possibly I am and just don't fully realize it yet.

[Junior]

 

You guys are throwing out a lot of terms that have very broad, non-defined intentions. What do you mean, you don't acknowledge it's legitimacy as a historical record? The Bible isn't meant to be a historical record. Even the parts that are historical in genre, are not meant to be scholarly in the same way a history book is. So good, you shouldn't acknowledge it as a historical record because it isn't one.

 

Sorry if I threw around some broad terms but I only basically re-stated what Junior had said and I changed "Christians" to "non-Christians". And then I pointed out my amusement at people who claim that religion, God, and the Bible are a load of bunk but do not hesitate to use these things, that they do not even believe in, to make a point when it is convenient for them. When it gets inconvenient, then they claim we have a brain disorder or might as well worship sky fairies or spaghetti monsters. I kind of get it but I also find it highly entertaining. Maybe it's just me but if I thought religion was a joke, didn't believe in God, thought the Bible had nothing to offer or was simply fabricated by drunken monks, etc., the last place I would frequent would be a "religion forum" on a message board. I mean I'm not out trolling around atheist sites looking to start an argument........or possibly I am and just don't fully realize it yet.

 

If we are debating a particular point in the Christian religion, such as praying to Mary or any of the other saints, why is it humorous that I can use passages from the bible to make the point that, according to God, praying to Mary would be a damnable sin? Whether or not I regard the book as a "legitimate" document, you do. Thus, you should adhere to it's tenants. Me being able to quote scripture that says you are doing something that is not in accordance with Biblical teaching has no bearing on whether or not I consider myself Christian. Now, is it simply because it would be humorous that we atheists may have a stronger knowledge of the bible than many Christians? Because if that is your point, I would have to agree with you.

[JJ Husker]

Here is a link with some explanation on the Mary issue.

 

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/the_bible_on_the_blessed_virgin_mary.pdf

[Landlord]

Here is a link with some explanation on the Mary issue.

 

http://www.mostholyf...virgin_mary.pdf

 

 

 

 

So much wrong in here just ugh

[Junior]

Here is a link with some explanation on the Mary issue.

 

http://www.mostholyf...virgin_mary.pdf

 

There are some seriously flawed leaps of logic in that article, which I won't even begin to address. But, I will say that based on that link, you are holding Mary to be essentially equivalent to Jesus Christ (She is sinless, like Christ, and "The greatest of all human beings"). You know, the Jesus that is part of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and thereby, actually God himself.

 

To my knowledge, there is no scripture for the assumption that Mary is sinless at all. In fact all scripture that would relate to the topic would indicate the opposite.

 

Romans 3:23: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" -- However, Jesus IS God, and therefore can be without sin.

 

1 John 1:8: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

 

The "evidence" that Mary was without sin, is the presumption that if God could create Eve without sin, he could do it again if he wanted to, which I suppose is true, however, the Bible never indicates that he chose to do this at all. If he can make Mary without sin, what is the point of Jesus?

[JJ Husker]

Here is a link with some explanation on the Mary issue.

 

http://www.mostholyf...virgin_mary.pdf

 

There are some seriously flawed leaps of logic in that article, which I won't even begin to address. But, I will say that based on that link, you are holding Mary to be essentially equivalent to Jesus Christ (She is sinless, like Christ, and "The greatest of all human beings"). You know, the Jesus that is part of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and thereby, actually God himself.

 

To my knowledge, there is no scripture for the assumption that Mary is sinless at all. In fact all scripture that would relate to the topic would indicate the opposite.

 

Romans 3:23: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" -- However, Jesus IS God, and therefore can be without sin.

 

1 John 1:8: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

 

The "evidence" that Mary was without sin, is the presumption that if God could create Eve without sin, he could do it again if he wanted to, which I suppose is true, however, the Bible never indicates that he chose to do this at all. If he can make Mary without sin, what is the point of Jesus?

Please don't attempt to tell me what my beliefs are. When I want you to know what "my" beliefs are I will tell you. I simply posted a link from a Catholic source that tries to explain their position on the subject. And to be clear, I do not hold Mary to be equal to Jesus. In fact, when I read this article last night, most of it was pretty much news to me. I grew up Lutheran with no knowledge about Mary other than the well known on a donkey, no room at the inn, born in a manger, Christmas story.

 

However, I do believe tradition is an important part of understanding the whole deal. I do not believe the Bible alone fully covers some of these issues. You can quote scripture all day long, and you may very well know parts of it better than I do, but there are many things like this that are not covered in the bible (or they are but in a cryptic fashion). Like the linked article points out, many of these issues are not directly addressed in the Bible but I do not feel that makes them any less credible. But it does make them more susceptible to scrutiny. Personally, I thought they laid out a pretty good case for the reasons Catholics hold Mary in higher esteem than other religions. You may feel some leaps of logic were flawed. I guess I don't have enough information to know if they are flawed or even leaps but I do know that you have to accept church tradition and sources other than the Bible to get there. To reiterate; I see no harm in treating Mary at a higher level than other humans but less than God or Jesus. God chose her and she gave birth to and was the mother of Jesus. I have no fear or concern whatsoever that God may feel he is not getting his due because of any special treatment Catholics may give Mary.

 

As for your last question; "If he can make Mary without sin, what is the point of Jesus?" Really? Did you read the complete article? Ark of the covenant is to the old covenant as Mary is to the new covenant (Jesus). Mary does not redeem of us of sin, Jesus does. Mary was not the son of God, Jesus is. Even non-believers should know the purpose of Jesus. It's not just an issue of a sinless being.

[JJ Husker]

Here is a link with some explanation on the Mary issue.

 

http://www.mostholyf...virgin_mary.pdf

 

 

 

 

So much wrong in here just ugh

 

I am shocked that they did not consult with you on this before going to press with it. I mean with such detailed analysis as "nope, nope, nope" and the absolute statement that there is so much wrong here, what were they thinking leaving a foremost authority out of the loop. I seriously doubt any of those rooms at the vatican contain any information. Probably just a bunch of bingo rooms in that place.

 

Earlier you mentioned tradition and consensus. Where do you come by this traditional information? I won't inquire about consensus because I can already tell that nothing from "them" would ever be good enough.

[carlfense]

[Landlord]

Here is a link with some explanation on the Mary issue.

 

http://www.mostholyf...virgin_mary.pdf

 

 

 

 

So much wrong in here just ugh

 

I am shocked that they did not consult with you on this before going to press with it. I mean with such detailed analysis as "nope, nope, nope" and the absolute statement that there is so much wrong here, what were they thinking leaving a foremost authority out of the loop. I seriously doubt any of those rooms at the vatican contain any information. Probably just a bunch of bingo rooms in that place.

 

Earlier you mentioned tradition and consensus. Where do you come by this traditional information? I won't inquire about consensus because I can already tell that nothing from "them" would ever be good enough.

 

I'm not honestly sure what you're asking.

 

And sorry man, I don't mean to offend. I just get overwhelmed with the idea of actually refuting all that I think could be refuted and the easiest solution is to just.....not do it

[tschu]

popcorn.gif

[JJ Husker]

I will acknowledge that I am sure I have not done as much Bible study or religion research as you apparently have. That was a fairly lengthy answer, with quite a bit of information, as to why the Catholic church views Mary the way they do. I guess I would expect a person to provide a little disputing information of at least a couple significant points rather than simply poo pooing the whole notion.

[Junior]

However, I do believe tradition is an important part of understanding the whole deal. I do not believe the Bible alone fully covers some of these issues. You can quote scripture all day long, and you may very well know parts of it better than I do, but there are many things like this that are not covered in the bible (or they are but in a cryptic fashion). Like the linked article points out, many of these issues are not directly addressed in the Bible but I do not feel that makes them any less credible. But it does make them more susceptible to scrutiny. Personally, I thought they laid out a pretty good case for the reasons Catholics hold Mary in higher esteem than other religions. You may feel some leaps of logic were flawed. I guess I don't have enough information to know if they are flawed or even leaps but I do know that you have to accept church tradition and sources other than the Bible to get there. To reiterate; I see no harm in treating Mary at a higher level than other humans but less than God or Jesus. God chose her and she gave birth to and was the mother of Jesus. I have no fear or concern whatsoever that God may feel he is not getting his due because of any special treatment Catholics may give Mary.

 

 

No. Just no. They laid out reasons for why they hold Mary in high esteem, however, there is no Biblical evidence to support those reasons at all. If it is not in the Bible, it IS less credible. Do you regard the Book of Mormon to be more or less credible than the New Testament? As you say, it is just a church tradition.... Just something that these dudes decided they should do one day. Like the Priests wearing black shirts and white cardboard things in their collars. There's nothing in the Bible that says this is how they should dress, but the church dictates they do this all the same.

 

They make a lot of inferences about Mary being without sin, but NOTHING in the Bible even suggests that this is the case. And all scripture tells us that God is a jealous God, and to bow before another is a damnable offense. Even if you could somehow rationalize this notion of Mary being without sin, there is no getting around that statement.

 

 

 

I simply posted a link from a Catholic source that tries to explain their position on the subject. And to be clear, I do not hold Mary to be equal to Jesus. In fact, when I read this article last night, most of it was pretty much news to me.

 

That says a lot, right there.