Pope Benedict XVI to Resign

[JJ Husker]

Before I begin, let me point out that you, Junior, seem to be very good at slightly twisting what a person says to use for your own purposes. I haven't determined yet if you are doing this on purpose or if it's just that you don't fully comprehend or understand me.

 

Mormon- I don't follow it, never read it, don't really know squat about it. And I sort of find, what I do know about it, a little strange. Therefore it should be self explanatory why I don't follow it.

 

I disagree that for Jesus to be sinless that it was necessary for Mary to be sinless and on and on down the line. God is the all powerful creator, if he wishes someone to be sinless, it is done. Period. If Mary was born into sin and God wanted to retroactively change that situation, who am I, or you or Landlord, to say it's impossible? God can override your logic all day long.

 

I don't think you "can't " understand religion. I think you're doing a piss poor job of understanding me and apparently "did it wrong" somewhere along the line or you would still believe. I think the reason you are no longer religious, Christian, or whatever has way more to do with your ideas and approach to religion than to anything else. And yes I find it mildly annoying when someone who has botched it for themselves starts telling me how I should be doing it and what I need to believe.

[Junior]

Before I begin, let me point out that you, Junior, seem to be very good at slightly twisting what a person says to use for your own purposes. I haven't determined yet if you are doing this on purpose or if it's just that you don't fully comprehend or understand me.

 

Mormon- I don't follow it, never read it, don't really know squat about it. And I sort of find, what I do know about it, a little strange. Therefore it should be self explanatory why I don't follow it.

 

I disagree that for Jesus to be sinless that it was necessary for Mary to be sinless and on and on down the line. God is the all powerful creator, if he wishes someone to be sinless, it is done. Period. If Mary was born into sin and God wanted to retroactively change that situation, who am I, or you or Landlord, to say it's impossible? God can override your logic all day long.

 

 

To be quite honest, I don't understand you... and I'm not sure you do either. I don't think you are following the logic of the link that you posted. You posted that link as to why you and other Catholics pray to Mary and revere her. I followed what they were trying to say, but it makes no logical sense. You just right above said that God can create anyone as sinless if he so chooses. Therefore, it follows that if God can create Jesus sinless without a sinless Mary, then he doesn't need Mary to be sinless... And that is the entire point of the link, that Mary HAD to be sinless in order to be the vessel for a truly sinless Christ. And it is because of this sinless nature, at least in part, that she is revered by the Catholic church as the "Greatest Human Being Ever" who apparently has the ear of God because of her "special" relationship with him. Therefore logically, if there was no need for her to be made sinless, and there is no mention in the Bible of her BEING sinless, then it follows that she probably wasn't. So I'm asking you specifically, as a Catholic, why do you pray to Mary (or any of the Saints, for that matter) when the bible specifically says that prayer to anyone other than God is a very bad thing?

 

I'm challenging you to think about what you believe, because you even said that prior to yesterday, you didn't realize WHY you pray to Mary... you just did it. I respect Landlord's beliefs, because the man knows his scripture and understands what he is worshiping (I think he's wrong, but I respect it nonetheless). I can't understand people who blindly claim to be Christian, but don't have the first idea about why they do the things they do. Praying to Mary being just one example.

[JJ Husker]

Junior- I've really got to get outside and do some yardwork but I'll try to address a few things first.

 

1- I did not say I had no idea about why Catholics pray to Mary. I simply said that "much" of that article was news to me. Personally, I do not feel like I "pray to" Mary. Grew up basically ignoring her and to some extent have continued that even while converting to Catholicism. However, I have grown to appreciate Catholics view of her and I would agree substantially with their beliefs about her. When I say the "Hail Mary" it is imploring her help with God the father. The focus is in the right place but I realize I can pray directly to the father and do so in all cases that are not simply joining the crowd to recite the hail Mary. I believe she is more important than all except for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I've already explained why I'm sure that doesn't bother God in the least. If you can't accept it, that is your problem, not mine.

 

I feel probably one of the most prevalent problems with Christians is reading one Bible verse and BAM, that is absolutely the way things are, for everybody, in all circumstances. I'm not built that way. First and foremost I trust God to do the right thing. He is our judge, not other men. If I'm happy with it and believe God is happy with it, that is how I'm going to roll.

[Landlord]

When I say the "Hail Mary" it is imploring her help with God the father. The focus is in the right place but I realize I can pray directly to the father and do so in all cases that are not simply joining the crowd to recite the hail Mary. I believe she is more important than all except for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I've already explained why I'm sure that doesn't bother God in the least. If you can't accept it, that is your problem, not mine.

 

I'm simultaneously glad that you choose not to pray to Mary, but also confused and troubled that you still recite Hail Mary's period and find her more important. I mean you get it - you don't need to pray to her. If I need to get a sandwich from you, and I am standing face to face with you, I'm going to say "JJ, can I get that sandwich?" I'm not going to turn to someone next to you and ask, "Can you please ask JJ if I can have that sandwich?" It's ludicrous and redundant.

 

The fact will still always remain that Scripture teaches all over that every single person in existence, sans Jesus, is born in sin.

 

Romans 3:23 - "For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard."

 

Isaiah 64: - "We are all infected and impure with sin. When we display our righteous deeds, they are nothing but filthy rags."

 

1 John 1:8 - "If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth."

 

Romans 5:12 - "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—"

 

Genesis 8:21 - "And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. "

 

Ecclesiastes 7:20 - "Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins."

 

Job 15:14 - "What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?"

 

 

 

 

Mormon- I don't follow it, never read it, don't really know squat about it. And I sort of find, what I do know about it, a little strange. Therefore it should be self explanatory why I don't follow it.

 

I disagree that for Jesus to be sinless that it was necessary for Mary to be sinless and on and on down the line. God is the all powerful creator, if he wishes someone to be sinless, it is done. Period. If Mary was born into sin and God wanted to retroactively change that situation, who am I, or you or Landlord, to say it's impossible? God can override your logic all day long.

 

 

The Book of Mormonism and Catholicism are essentially the same in such a way that both rely on external influences outside of Scripture to be authoritative and inspired.

 

As to your second point - do you claim to be in disagreement with the Catholic teaching on Mary, then? And in disagreement with the article you linked? Because one of the main pillars of argument was that Mary needed to be sinless in order to give birth to the sinless God-man. Also, you have a very poor understanding of holiness if you think God can just wish someone to be sinless. That's not accurate. If that was accurate, then why did Jesus have to die? Becaues God is a just judge, not by choice but by His very intrinsic nature. And we were found guilty. There needed to be a punishment. If God could just decide to make people not sinless, you have rendered Christ's resurrection worthless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

tschu- I think they try to create an ambience that makes it obvious that you aren't just at the local walmart or ball game.

 

---------------------

 

I look at it this way; You're in God's house, it should be a special occasion and not treated like a pregame bar crawl.

 

 

I would not say that this area of more ritualized religion, of which Catholicism is an example, is wrong par se, but I do think it's misguided. Here's why:

 

The church is not a place. It's not a building. It's also not an event. You don't "go to" church; you are the church. You do church. If the first generation church is to be our model, and it should be, then church should happen communally in every area of our lives. But we still treat it the way the Jews did before Christ.

 

See, before Jesus, people didn't have direct access to God. That was what the temple and the priests were for. To reach God in His dwelling place. When Jesus called God his Father, that was unheard of and blasphemous and why they wanted to kill him. But now that he is our representative, we have intimate relations with our Father through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit made possible in Christ. Yet, the way many denominations do church doesn't reflect this well.

 

I might submit that this way of doing things detracts from the gospel. It invites people into a system which implicitly supports the idea that God is somehow more present in a building; that He is somehow more present when we wear certain clothes, complete certain rituals or what have you. This in turn leads us to believe He is less present outside of those environments, and results in a lack of Christlike living, reflection and obedience outside of Sunday mornings.

[JJ Husker]

Landlord- I would not say I am in disagreement with the church per se. To be honest I just don't delve as deep into the subject as that article does. Was it necessary for Mary to be sinless? I don't think it was necessary. Was she sinless as explained in the article? I think it possible and maybe even likely. I seem some very good points with scriptural basis in that article. I believe there is more of a message in the Bible than simple direct interpretation. It makes sense to me to compare her to the ark of the covenant and to therefore look at similar language used in scripture pertaining to Mary and the ark, and then to surmise and reach the conclusion they did. But look, I also don't think it's any kind of deal breaker one way or the other. The thing I know in my heart is that ahe was special. God chose her among all other women and she gave birth to Jesus our savior. If that doesn't make her special in your book, you might need to adjust your book. You act like this is some big point of contention. Why? She is not infringing upon my relationship with Jesus or God the father one iota.

 

I understand and agree with your point about the church not being a building. I am not good quoting scripture but there is one that goes kind of like; "where one or two are gathered in my name, there I am also" Now I agree that the "church" can be anywhere and should not just be the place you go Sunday morning, but I hardly think God faults us for gathering to worship him. It seems you are taking many of these issues in a microcosm and villifying them when they are just more pieces of the overall puzzle. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because it covers such wide terrain that the most important issues are getting ignored. Have you attended multiple masses in the Catholic church? You might be surprised at how very similar the message is. I know I could hardly tell a difference from my Missouri synod Lutheran upbringing other than it was generally longer, a little more reserved, and a lot more up-down-kneel going on. That and the last half hour for celebrating the Eucharist is always almost exactly the same.

 

What concerns me the most is that you treat the Catholic faith like I would view some whacky cult. Trust me, it is Christ centered. There may be a little more there than you are used to and there may be a few things I simply don't agree with but they aren't leading people down the wrong path. Possibly you could look at like they're taking the scenic route and not just the most direct A to B path.

[JJ Husker]

Landlord- I am still curious if you think people in old testament times actually lived for hundreds of years. That is what scripture says, is it not?

 

Your logic that if Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless, then Mary's mother and so forth had to be sinless, doesn't hold water from a person who disputes the whole notion. You believe Jesus was sinless without Mary being sinless so, why couldn't Mary also be sinless without her ancestors being? I'm not looking for a Bible verse claiming all are with sin. I'm only looking for pure logic.

[Notre Dame Joe]

 

 

The Book of Mormonism and Catholicism are essentially the same in such a way that both rely on external influences outside of Scripture to be authoritative and inspired.

 

 

No they are essentially different. The Catholic Church collects religious truth from a multitude of sources, some pagan, some Biblical, some Christian, maybe some secularist too. All are examined and interpreted to find if and what truth or fallacy they have. Mormonism, to the degree that it is different from other sects of Christianity, is centered around one man and his book. That's hardly the same as pouring ancient writings of Tertullian vs Marcion.

 

As to your second point - do you claim to be in disagreement with the Catholic teaching on Mary, then? And in disagreement with the article you linked? Because one of the main pillars of argument was that Mary needed to be sinless in order to give birth to the sinless God-man. Also, you have a very poor understanding of holiness if you think God can just wish someone to be sinless. That's not accurate. If that was accurate, then why did Jesus have to die? Becaues God is a just judge, not by choice but by His very intrinsic nature. And we were found guilty. There needed to be a punishment. If God could just decide to make people not sinless, you have rendered Christ's resurrection worthless.

 

It sure sounds like the same argument to me. If it was necessary that Mary be sinless, she was. Just as if the crucifixtion had to happen, therefore it did.

 

 

 

I might submit that this way of doing things detracts from the gospel. It invites people into a system which implicitly supports the idea that God is somehow more present in a building; that He is somehow more present when we wear certain clothes, complete certain rituals or what have you. This in turn leads us to believe He is less present outside of those environments, and results in a lack of Christlike living, reflection and obedience outside of Sunday mornings.

 

This one I didn't think was controversial. God's light shines throughout the world, in some places more and some less.

[Junior]

Landlord- I am still curious if you think people in old testament times actually lived for hundreds of years. That is what scripture says, is it not?

 

Your logic that if Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless, then Mary's mother and so forth had to be sinless, doesn't hold water from a person who disputes the whole notion. You believe Jesus was sinless without Mary being sinless so, why couldn't Mary also be sinless without her ancestors being? I'm not looking for a Bible verse claiming all are with sin. I'm only looking for pure logic.

 

Pure logic says that if Mary had to be born without sin in order for Jesus to be truly born without sin, then Mary's mother would have had to be sinless for Mary to be sinless. That's it. Ignore what I or Landlord believe, and just follow the logical thread.

[JJ Husker]

 

Pure logic says that if Mary had to be born without sin in order for Jesus to be truly born without sin, then Mary's mother would have had to be sinless for Mary to be sinless. That's it. Ignore what I or Landlord believe, and just follow the logical thread.

 

Sorry but with logic you don't get to pick when and when not to apply the same rules. If you claim Jesus was born without sin to a sinful mother then it stands to reason that Mary, if sinless, could've been born of a mother with sin. This directly refutes the argument that Mary's mother had to be free of sin. It simply amazes me when people try to make the rules instead of realizing anything is possible if God so chooses. Thinking like that leads a person to tell another person they are worshipping other gods even though the only one qualified to make that judgement is God himself. How long were you able to hang in there with this religion thing? I'm guessing not much past when you started applying your own brand of thinking to the subject. It doesn't work to well if you don't believe God is all powerful and your only source is the Bible. There is more to it whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

[Landlord]

Landlord- I am still curious if you think people in old testament times actually lived for hundreds of years. That is what scripture says, is it not?

 

Your logic that if Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless, then Mary's mother and so forth had to be sinless, doesn't hold water from a person who disputes the whole notion. You believe Jesus was sinless without Mary being sinless so, why couldn't Mary also be sinless without her ancestors being? I'm not looking for a Bible verse claiming all are with sin. I'm only looking for pure logic.

 

 

Jesus was born sinless because he was God, and conceived supernaturally via the Holy Spirit. Mary couldn't be sinless because both of her parents are human beings.

 

As far as long-aged OT characters, I don't know. But there are two solutions I think hold merit and could make sense.

 

A. The wages of sin is death. Without sin, there is no death; it's the direct and inevitable outcome of sin. So, when sin first entered the world, which until that time was perfect and complete, the process of disease and decay started, but it's been in process slowly since the moment of the Fall. Therefore, the first humans, from Adam and Eve, while sinful, experienced the effects of sin at a much less dramatic level, and the disease had not permeated the world nearly as fully, resulting in longer life that diminished over time.

 

B. The traditions of genealogies aren't exactly meant to be entirely historical - but representative. It's just as likely if not more so that the ages listed for what we perceive to be individual people weren't individuals at all, but families, generations, etc.

[JJ Husker]

I'm good with that. But to reiterate, so even though the old testament says x person lived to be 936 years old, they may in fact have not lived anywhere near that long. Or they may have.

 

I don't want to dwell on this Mary thing because I don't think it is a critical component. I'm happy where I'm at with it and you're happy where you're at with it. The only issue seems to be that you seem to be absolutely sure that Catholics have it wrong. On the other hand, I think there is a small, outside, chance they've got it wrong. I am not holding an absolute rigid positio but going with what I , and many religious scholars, have determined to be likely. You posted about 8 verses that, on the surface, would seem to contradict the position. I would simply add that exempting Mary from those verses would not materially change things. God chose her above all other women and she gave birth to our savior. Why not a one time exemption? It's not a very big stretch at all and would not need to have any wider repercussions. All those verses sure would sound a little funny if they had to add the disclaimer; except Jesus or except Jesus and his mother Mary.

[Junior]

 

Pure logic says that if Mary had to be born without sin in order for Jesus to be truly born without sin, then Mary's mother would have had to be sinless for Mary to be sinless. That's it. Ignore what I or Landlord believe, and just follow the logical thread.

 

Sorry but with logic you don't get to pick when and when not to apply the same rules. If you claim Jesus was born without sin to a sinful mother then it stands to reason that Mary, if sinless, could've been born of a mother with sin. This directly refutes the argument that Mary's mother had to be free of sin. It simply amazes me when people try to make the rules instead of realizing anything is possible if God so chooses. Thinking like that leads a person to tell another person they are worshipping other gods even though the only one qualified to make that judgement is God himself. How long were you able to hang in there with this religion thing? I'm guessing not much past when you started applying your own brand of thinking to the subject. It doesn't work to well if you don't believe God is all powerful and your only source is the Bible. There is more to it whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

 

But Jesus is God. God is Jesus. This is how he was able to be without sin. Mary is not God. God is not Mary. The two situations are really not comparable. Your logic is flawed and falls short. Read your own statement: "instead of realizing anything is possible if God so chooses". 1) If God can do anything he so chooses, and he can make Mary without sin, despite the fact that she was born to a sinful mother, then he can certainly make Jesus (himself) without sin despite being born to a sinful mother. Therefore, it follows that there was no need to make Mary be without sin. 2) If God can create man to be without sin (Mary), how come Adam and Eve, who were created sinless, failed and were sinful humans? By the actual word of the Bible, man cannot be without sin. We are born into it. Jesus can be without sin because he is God and not man!

 

As far as how long I was able to "hang in there" with the religion thing... Yea, you're right, not much past when I started applying thought to the subject.

[JJ Husker]

Junior- I accept that Jesus is God, God is Jesus and that Mary isn't God. Couldn't agree more.

 

My point about your struggle to maintain faith or believe was expressed because I feel you take too many absolute positions on things that we really are incapable of understanding 100%. Assume for a moment that there is an all powerful creator and that we are merely humans with a fraction of God's knowledge and power. Also assume that the Bible is his inspired word. Do you really think mere men should be so absolute in their interpretation of scripture or would it not be more wise to trust and have faith in God? Sure, there are some deal breakers that have to be considered absolutes but why create more on the basis of incomplete or human interpreteted information? I think it is just asking for problems. Be happy, worship the lord, and have faith that he will always do the right thing. Most everything else is not that important.

[carlfense]

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.

Would you be equally entertained by a capitalist referencing the words of Karl Marx when debating a Marxist?

[Junior]

Junior- I accept that Jesus is God, God is Jesus and that Mary isn't God. Couldn't agree more.

 

My point about your struggle to maintain faith or believe was expressed because I feel you take too many absolute positions on things that we really are incapable of understanding 100%. Assume for a moment that there is an all powerful creator and that we are merely humans with a fraction of God's knowledge and power. Also assume that the Bible is his inspired word. Do you really think mere men should be so absolute in their interpretation of scripture or would it not be more wise to trust and have faith in God? Sure, there are some deal breakers that have to be considered absolutes but why create more on the basis of incomplete or human interpreteted information? I think it is just asking for problems. Be happy, worship the lord, and have faith that he will always do the right thing. Most everything else is not that important.

 

Yes, I think you should be absolute in your interpretation of the scriptures. You shouldn't pick and choose parts of the Bible to follow and to ignore based on convenience or interpretations. Like eating shellfish. Clearly regarded by the Bible as an "abhorent", yet most Christians still do it.

 

You can (and should if you believe in this sort of thing) have faith in God and not church figureheads. You fault me for my "interpretation" of the scripture, however, you seem to be putting your faith in man, and their interpretations of the Bible rather than the word of God himself. My stance is based on an absolute reading of the scriptures, which I do know a fair bit about, and yours is based on Catholic tradition.