The Goddess Man Has Made

[aspen]

-- Aspen, saying things like:

"Protestant demands for Catholics:
1. Prove to our satisfaction that Catholicism follows Sola Scriptura - if you cannot you are not Christian" is no less a form of demagogery.

And you ignore Catholic doctrinal threads that have been started by the likes of Neophyte.

Give Axehead a break or live up to what you are asking of him.

Axehead has already made it clear that the Catholic Church is not a Christian Church, Foreigner. Also, is there a Protestant involved in this argument that has not asked Catholics to prove their doctrine from scripture?

The only conclusion is that I belong to and embrace the teaching of a heretical Christian cult, and cannot prove what I believe from scripture. I agree it is inflammatory AND it is a truthful account of the Protestant standards I am being judged by.

 

[Foreigner]

Axehead has already made it clear that the Catholic Church is not a Christian Church, Foreigner. Also, is there a Protestant involved in this argument that has not asked Catholics to prove their doctrine from scripture?

The only conclusion is that I belong to and embrace the teaching of a heretical Christian cult, and cannot prove what I believe from scripture. I agree it is inflammatory AND it is a truthful account of the Protestant standards I am being judged by.

Does any of that justifiy you tarring every single solitary non-Catholic in the world with: "Protestant demands for Catholics:
1. Prove to our satisfaction that Catholicism follows Sola Scriptura - if you cannot you are not Christian"

Especially when you KNOW that is not true.
Many a Catholic will be in heaven. You and I both know that.
Many a Protestant will be in heaven. You and I both know that, as well.
It is the individual and what it is his/her heart. Not the collective.

But your quote shows that at best you are criticizing Axehead for doing exactly what you are.
So if you are going to suggest that he stop........

 

[Axehead]

Does any of that justifiy you tarring every single solitary non-Catholic in the world with: "Protestant demands for Catholics:
1. Prove to our satisfaction that Catholicism follows Sola Scriptura - if you cannot you are not Christian"

Especially when you KNOW that is not true.
Many a Catholic will be in heaven. You and I both know that.
Many a Protestant will be in heaven. You and I both know that, as well.
It is the individual and what it is his/her heart. Not the collective.

But your quote shows that at best you are criticizing Axehead for doing exactly what you are.
So if you are going to suggest that he stop........

It's ok, Foreigner. There is no longer any reason to post in this thread. Unfortunately, there are those who will always take doctrinal discussions (Mariology) to the level of personal recriminations when they cannot support their "doctrine". Kill the messenger is the modus operandi.

This thread is now worthy of leaving since no one can justify Mariology from the Bible and Jesus' own words and it has devolved into recriminations.

I have no interest in the Purgatory thread started by Mungo or any other Catholic threads since I see where they will go when they cannot justify their "doctrine" from the Scriptures.

In this respect, they have succeeded in shutting me up (I never stated the forum was my personal street corner, I said it was a PUBLIC street corner), but I still say, if they want like-minded fellowship, why not go to a Catholic Forum?

In the end, the moderators are in control and I just want to fellowship and dwell in peace. I can easily ignore the Catholics propagating their extra-biblical doctrines.

Axehead

 

[epostle1]

"Co" in co-redeemer, co-Mediatrix, etc. is Collaborator Mary "assisted" in our redemption and she assist in our mediation with Christ.
This context does not give Mary equal status with Christ, or usurp Christ in anyway. She, rather, merely cooperated and collaborated with Christ.
In a sense we, too, are co-mediators every time we pray for someone. We are offering intercession/mediation for our friend when we pray for them. This does not make us God or equal with God, it only means that we are cooperating with the economy of God when he asked us to be a family and pray for each other.

In terms of Mary as co-redeemer, she did in fact, cooperate in the redemption. When she made her fiat to accept God's will for her to bear the Christ Child she was cooperating in the redemption of mankind for it was through her that the Redeemer came into the world.
The solution to problems like this is not suppression but education. "co" just simply does NOT mean "equal to". A "co"-pilot of an airplane is not equal to the captain.

At this time the theory of co-redeemer is not Church dogma, and is not binding for belief by the faithful. I don't think it ever will be because human language is in a state of constant flux, and the popular notion of "co" as evolved to mean equal to, but only recently. But the concept should not wrinkle our shirts if we understand the nature of her role in the incarnation and the original meaning of "co".

 

[aspen]

Does any of that justifiy you tarring every single solitary non-Catholic in the world with: "Protestant demands for Catholics:
1. Prove to our satisfaction that Catholicism follows Sola Scriptura - if you cannot you are not Christian"

Especially when you KNOW that is not true.
Many a Catholic will be in heaven. You and I both know that.
Many a Protestant will be in heaven. You and I both know that, as well.
It is the individual and what it is his/her heart. Not the collective.

But your quote shows that at best you are criticizing Axehead for doing exactly what you are.
So if you are going to suggest that he stop........

You simply want to fight - it is obvious. Have a good day, today, Foreigner.

 

[Foreigner]

I am sorry that facts cause you to flee. Have a good day, as well.

 

[epostle1]

From what I have observed in my limited time on this site is that there is not a single person here (or anywhere else, in my experience) who fully and compltely understands 100% of all of God's truths. We had all better count on God being merciful and fogiving of the things we don't quite get right.

Whether Mary was born in a sinless state is not foundational to faith in Christ. It's simply a teaching. I don't agree with it, but nobody is going to be condemned to hell if they put their faith in Christ but misunderstand some truth or nontruth about the mother of Jesus. I'm not sure where this need to condemn everything Catholic comes from. There are plenty of things in each of our sets of beliefs that somebody else could habitually condemn, but what does that accomplish? Does this need to rub Catholics' noses in what we preceive to be their errors come from a place of love? If you truly in your heart believe so, then I suspect some are suffering from self-dishonesty.

The real problem I have is that all this animus prevents me from having thoughtful discourse with Catholic members here. They're all gun-shy from being constantly harangued and having their beliefs attacked needlessly (in my opinion).

Thank you, Br. James. Succinctly put. Catholics are called to a higher standard, and have no business being uncharitable. But we are not professional apologists, and have the same right to righteous indignation as anybody else. I make no excuses for my fellow Catholics who slip sometimes. I tend to lose it too, in the face out outright lies, especially when it comes from so-called Protestant authorities. I will make every effort to be patient and charitable to posters in here, but when a quote comes directly from the likes of Dave Hunt, or Alexander Hyslop, or Jackkk Chickkk or any other liar, I will rip them apart.

Most Catholics are Christians, just as most non-Catholic Christians are Christians. To those who complain about Catholicism being posted in here, you indirectly assert that Catholics are not Christian, which is arrogant, insulting and not Christian in and of itself.

Aspen, Mungo, Neophyte,

If you continue to propagate Catholic doctrine on a Christian forum, you have to expect people to speak up. A forum is a like a street corner in the public square/arena. People are free to speak up. If you really have some questions about Catholic doctrine, might I suggest that you go to forums.catholic.org.

It is plain for all to see that you are not really asking questions or seeking clarity about scriptures but rather you are pushing Catholic doctrine in a Christian forum. That, on it's face is ludicrous at best and agitating at worst. What is your motivation for doing such things? You know ahead of time that what you call "Protestants", in the majority, don't accept these beliefs.

It seems to me that you guys are the Chief antagonists and agitators.

I have no interest in being taken away privately, from your public, anti-scriptural pronouncements.

I am on the public street corner with you and everyone else, and I respectfully disagree with your Mariology as orthodox Christian doctrine.

Axehead

If you object so strongly to a Catholic presence, why did you open up a thread attacking Marian teachings? All Marian teachings are Christocentric, properly understood, so why do you separate Mary from Jesus in all of your arguments? BTW, thank your for concession in the Mary thread you started. That was very mature.

 

[Pelaides]

Why such hostility about such a incredible woman? Hail Mary .

 

[Foreigner]

Why such hostility about such a incredible woman? Hail Mary .

-- The issue isn't about how "incredible" she was.
The issue is the unsupported edicts about her role in our lives today.

 

[Brother James]

There are many beliefs about Mary that cause me to cringe. Greatest among them is the label "Mother of God". I understand how it came about, the heresies that were being put forth about Christ, and so forth that caused this to become an issue. We can debate whether Jesus has two natures or one, two substances or one, and all the other things that have gone on over the centuries until the cows come home. To the ears of a non-catholic that term "Mother of God" seems to elevate Mary to the status of "God creator". Mother of Jesus does not have that same conotation, and yes, Jesus is God. It's a semantic thing, but I cringe when I hear it. I know that Catholics do not believe Mary brought God into existence. I know they do not worship her as a deity. It's just how it hits my (and other non-catholic) ears.

Catholic friends, let me describe a scene for you and tell me how it strikes you. Let's say I invite you to the little country church I attend and you accept my invitation as a gesture of good neighborliness. When you arrive, you are alarmed to see at the front of my church a large golden calf. You are horrified when everyone in the church gathers around the calf and begins to pray and worship. Later on, you wonder how in the world we could engage in a clear act of idolitry. Then I explain to you what the calf represents and what we were praying. Our prayer is, "Oh Lord our God, our forefathers created idols to worship and so offended you. Keep us from the worship of idols. Let this golden calf remind us of the sins of our forefathers so that we never fail to recognize and worship you, our Lord and Creator, in Jesus' Name". I explain that the calf is not an object of our worship, but a reminder that idolitry is offensive to God. The calf keeps this in the forefront of our thinking.

Now, that might strike you as bizzarre, but would it give you a different view of my church than your initial impression? See, praying to saints and to Mary and all the statues and all the rest is just as shocking to non-catholics. That's why you get the horrified responses.

 

[epostle1]

There are many beliefs about Mary that cause me to cringe. Greatest among them is the label "Mother of God". I understand how it came about, the heresies that were being put forth about Christ, and so forth that caused this to become an issue. We can debate whether Jesus has two natures or one, two substances or one, and all the other things that have gone on over the centuries until the cows come home. To the ears of a non-catholic that term "Mother of God" seems to elevate Mary to the status of "God creator". Mother of Jesus does not have that same conotation, and yes, Jesus is God. It's a semantic thing, but I cringe when I hear it. I know that Catholics do not believe Mary brought God into existence. I know they do not worship her as a deity. It's just how it hits my (and other non-catholic) ears.

I can understand that. "Mother of God" in the Greek, as used in the Council of Ephesus, is "Theotokos" or God-bearer. Mother of God is simply a sloppy English translation. Either Mary bore Jesus, who is God, in her womb, or Jesus arrived via space ship.

Catholic friends, let me describe a scene for you and tell me how it strikes you. Let's say I invite you to the little country church I attend and you accept my invitation as a gesture of good neighborliness. When you arrive, you are alarmed to see at the front of my church a large golden calf. You are horrified when everyone in the church gathers around the calf and begins to pray and worship. Later on, you wonder how in the world we could engage in a clear act of idolitry. Then I explain to you what the calf represents and what we were praying. Our prayer is, "Oh Lord our God, our forefathers created idols to worship and so offended you. Keep us from the worship of idols. Let this golden calf remind us of the sins of our forefathers so that we never fail to recognize and worship you, our Lord and Creator, in Jesus' Name". I explain that the calf is not an object of our worship, but a reminder that idolitry is offensive to God. The calf keeps this in the forefront of our thinking.

Now, that might strike you as bizzarre, but would it give you a different view of my church than your initial impression? See, praying to saints and to Mary and all the statues and all the rest is just as shocking to non-catholics. That's why you get the horrified responses.

Why the knee jerk paranoia over an image that goes from two dimensions to three? Would you call a picture of your mother an idol? What about all the Christian music discs. What "image" do you see on the CD cover? Is a pic of the artist an idol? Are the 4 presidents at Mount Rushmore false idols? What about God's command to make the image of the cherubim? Exodus 25:18-22; 26:1,31 1 Chron. 28:18-19
What about the images in Solomon's temple? I Kings 6:23-36; 7:27-39; 8:6-67
What about the image of the snake? Num. 21:8-9
God does not forbid the proper use of religious statuary, it is when the object itself is worshipped, as we see in 2 Kings 18:4.
Col. 1:15 - the only image of God that Catholics worship is Jesus Christ, who is the "image" (Greek "eikon") of the invisible God.

How many hundreds of times has this same argument been presented to you?

Do you honestly believe that statues of Jesus and Mary are to remind us of the golden calf? Do you honestly believe that Catholics worship pieces of plaster or wood, or that prayer stops there? Do you think that a billion people can all be that stupid?

The "horrified responses" are the result of extreme iconoclasm of the reformers. Some of them went so far as to think the cross was an idol, so they took down the cross from their steeples and replaced it with a weather vane, which can be seen to this day. There is never any mention of the idolatry of the ego, flag worship, movie stars, sports stars, the olympic gold medal, etc.

Then there are Christian T-shirts, Christian jewelry, pics in children's Bibles, CD's, etc. Looks like a double standard to me.

 

[Brother James]

I illustrated how misunderstanding the symbols of others can cause distress. In what way is that "knee jerk paranoia"? As I compare what I wrote with your reaction to it, I get quite lost. And I cannot for the life of me figure out how my mother or her picture got into the conversation.

I suspect I've horribly miscommunicated, because you did not get the point I intended at all!

Do you not see how a Catholic might be horrified in the scenario I invented, not understanding what the symbology means to the others, with whom he is not aquainted. Can you not see how such a similar misunderstanding might be arrived at by non-catholics who have not been exposed to Catholic symbols? I honestly don't think I'm the one who expressed a knee-jerk reaction here. If you'll reconsider what I wrote, you may come to the same conclusion.

 

[Mungo]

Aspen, Mungo, Neophyte,

If you continue to propagate Catholic doctrine on a Christian forum, you have to expect people to speak up. A forum is a like a street corner in the public square/arena. People are free to speak up. If you really have some questions about Catholic doctrine, might I suggest that you go to forums.catholic.org.

It is plain for all to see that you are not really asking questions or seeking clarity about scriptures but rather you are pushing Catholic doctrine in a Christian forum. That, on it's face is ludicrous at best and agitating at worst. What is your motivation for doing such things? You know ahead of time that what you call "Protestants", in the majority, don't accept these beliefs.

It seems to me that you guys are the Chief antagonists and agitators.

Axehead

Axehead,

Can I remind you that you started this thread entitled
The Goddess Man Has Made


And now you accuse Catholics of "It seems to me that you guys are the Chief antagonists and agitators"


I too am done with this thread.

 

[epostle1]

I illustrated how misunderstanding the symbols of others can cause distress. In what way is that "knee jerk paranoia"? As I compare what I wrote with your reaction to it, I get quite lost. And I cannot for the life of me figure out how my mother or her picture got into the conversation.

I suspect I've horribly miscommunicated, because you did not get the point I intended at all!

Do you not see how a Catholic might be horrified in the scenario I invented, not understanding what the symbology means to the others, with whom he is not aquainted. Can you not see how such a similar misunderstanding might be arrived at by non-catholics who have not been exposed to Catholic symbols? I honestly don't think I'm the one who expressed a knee-jerk reaction here. If you'll reconsider what I wrote, you may come to the same conclusion.

Your scenario is absurd. Does it represent a misunderstanding? More than that, the iconoclasm of some Protestants has to do with indoctrination, that NO artistic expression of a person can ascend the mind to God, that art has no place in presenting the Gospel (in part). What about the the Paleo-Christian art of the Roman catacombs? Or did paganism set in during the first three centuries when the Catholics were being martyred and buried there?

What is the difference between “creator” and “craftsman”? The one who creates bestows being itself, he brings something out of nothing—ex nihilo sui et subiecti, as the Latin puts it—and this, in the strict sense, is a mode of operation which belongs to the Almighty alone. The craftsman, by contrast, uses something that already exists, to which he gives form and meaning. This is the mode of operation peculiar to man as made in the image of God. In fact, after saying that God created man and woman “in his image” (cf. Gn 1:27), the Bible adds that he entrusted to them the task of dominating the earth (cf. Gn 1:28). This was the last day of creation (cf. Gn 1:28-31). On the previous days, marking as it were the rhythm of the birth of the cosmos, Yahweh had created the universe. Finally he created the human being, the noblest fruit of his design, to whom he subjected the visible world as a vast field in which human inventiveness might assert itself.

God therefore called man into existence, committing to him the craftsman's task. Through his “artistic creativity” man appears more than ever “in the image of God”, and he accomplishes this task above all in shaping the wondrous “material” of his own humanity and then exercising creative dominion over the universe which surrounds him. With loving regard, the divine Artist passes on to the human artist a spark of his own surpassing wisdom, calling him to share in his creative power. Obviously, this is a sharing which leaves intact the infinite distance between the Creator and the creature, as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa made clear: “Creative art, which it is the soul's good fortune to entertain, is not to be identified with that essential art which is God himself, but is only a communication of it and a share in it”.(1)

That is why artists, the more conscious they are of their “gift”, are led all the more to see themselves and the whole of creation with eyes able to contemplate and give thanks, and to raise to God a hymn of praise. This is the only way for them to come to a full understanding of themselves, their vocation and their mission.

The special vocation of the artist
2. Not all are called to be artists in the specific sense of the term. Yet, as Genesis has it, all men and women are entrusted with the task of crafting their own life: in a certain sense, they are to make of it a work of art, a masterpiece.

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II TO ARTISTS

 

[dragonfly]

Hello aspen,

The only conclusion is that I belong to and embrace the teaching of a heretical Christian cult, and cannot prove what I believe from scripture.

Doesn't it bother you, seriously, that you seem to have accepted a mountain of doctrine which is insupportable from scripture, when right at the end of a passage where Jesus has been speaking for the whole chapter, He states how important it is for the individual to build their lives on His word? He doesn't accommodate any other object on which we are to build our lives - only His word (logos).


Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it.

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24 Therefore whosoever hears these sayings of mine, and does them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that hears these sayings of mine, and does them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine.
29 For he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes.

I agree it is inflammatory

The truth has always been inflammatory. Matt 11:6

it is a truthful account of the Protestant standards I am being judged by.

Dear friend, and I mean that genuinely, there is only one standard - God's.

I know you count Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord, but the Holy Spirit is indispensible for explaining truth. There is no other way to be confident in discerning between truth and falsehood, than by the Holy Spirit's leading.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] to you. 15 All things that the Father has are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] to you.

John 12:48 He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him:

the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.​

 

[epostle1]

Thank you for your comment Mungo, but I think you would agree with me - considering that we are on the internet right now - that the New Jerusalem Bible not being aavailable online is a remarkable oversight by such a large organisation, if it values its members being scripture-literate.

Try this:
New Jerusalem Bible

but my preference is the New American Standard. In this forum, I will lean towards the New King James Version in most of my discussions.

Hello aspen,

The only conclusion is that I belong to and embrace the teaching of a heretical Christian cult, and cannot prove what I believe from scripture.

Doesn't it bother you, seriously, that you seem to have accepted a mountain of doctrine which is insupportable from scripture, when right at the end of a passage where Jesus has been speaking for the whole chapter, He states how important it is for the individual to build their lives on His word? He doesn't accommodate any other object on which we are to build our lives - only His word (logos).

Aspen was referring to the conclusion of others, not his. You missed the sarcasm. All Catholic doctrine is supported by scripture, either directly or indirectly. In fact, scripture is the primary source for Catholic doctrine, but there is nothing in scripture (or in the principle of sola scriptura) that states that all truth is confined to scripture.

Jesus states how important it is for whosever to build their lives on His word, but notice that He says "Not every one that saith unto me...." Jesus speaks positively in the communal sense (whosoever) and negatively in the individual sense (not every one). Jesus says "whosoever hears..."
He does not say, "whosoever reads".

Furthermore, where in scripture does "word of God" refer to the written word only? the answer is nowhere. That is a man made tradition that you rigidly adhere to. I'll make it easy for you. Here is a search result from biblegateway.com for "word of God":
201 Results (NKJV)
brows around. You will not find one one instance where "word of God" refers only to the written word.

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it.

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24 Therefore whosoever hears these sayings of mine, and does them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that hears these sayings of mine, and does them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine.
29 For he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes.

The truth has always been inflammatory. Matt 11:6

Dear friend, and I mean that genuinely, there is only one standard - God's.

For all I know, you are a good Christian and follow the will of God as best you can. But how can you prove that your standard is one with the Baptists, or one with the Pentacostals, or the evangelicals, or the Calvinists, etc., etc. God's standard indeed, but you can't prove that your understanding of "God's standard" is superior to the thousands of opposing "standards" in Protestantism.

I know you count Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord, but the Holy Spirit is indispensible for explaining truth. There is no other way to be confident in discerning between truth and falsehood, than by the Holy Spirit's leading.

True, but who in scripture does the holy Spirit lead to teach all things? The individual apart from the Church? Chapter and verse please. Truth is objective, while your determination of who and what the Spirit leads is subjective. Once again, it is another doctrine of yours that is not supported in scripture. The Holy Spirit guides "approved men" to teach, not any individual bible reader to teach.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] to you. 15 All things that the Father has are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] to you.

John 12:48 He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him:

the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.​

John 16:12 - Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn't bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church's infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God's Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.

John 16:13 - Jesus promises that the Spirit will "guide" the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time.

John 12:48 the word that I have spoken, not only the word that you will write down and read decades from now. The mechanism of preserving the truths of Jesus' spoken word for so long after He said them did not expire by the presence of the Bible.

John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

 

[Brother James]

I too am done with this thread.

Me too. Shake it off! Move on!

 

[epostle1]

I illustrated how misunderstanding the symbols of others can cause distress. In what way is that "knee jerk paranoia"? As I compare what I wrote with your reaction to it, I get quite lost. And I cannot for the life of me figure out how my mother or her picture got into the conversation.

I suspect I've horribly miscommunicated, because you did not get the point I intended at all!

Do you not see how a Catholic might be horrified in the scenario I invented, not understanding what the symbology means to the others, with whom he is not aquainted. Can you not see how such a similar misunderstanding might be arrived at by non-catholics who have not been exposed to Catholic symbols? I honestly don't think I'm the one who expressed a knee-jerk reaction here. If you'll reconsider what I wrote, you may come to the same conclusion.

You can't make an analogy based on an untruth. It just won't work.

Axehead, you make very valid points.
That will not, however, sway those that have chosen to believe it even though there is nothing to indicate it is true.

You are 100% correct when you point out that Thomas Aquinas agrees that Mary was born with original sin like the rest of us.
Poor Thomas is sited frequently by Catholics when he agrees, but when he disagrees he is conveniently forgotten, his opinion suddenly irrelevant.

I'll show you my sources, if you and Axehead show me yours.

It was the prevailing belief that Mary was "saved" and thereafter preserved from sin from the moment of her birth (not her conception). This is what St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) and St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued for when they disagreed with the Immaculate Conception. Yet, neither these two medieval fathers, nor any of the ancients, ever questioned Mary's sinlessness. Rather, Mary's sinlessness was a given; and all Christians until relatively recent times, including Martin Luther himself, maintained that Mary's sinlessness is taught in the Bible. Would you accept documented quotes from Martin Luther? John Calvin?? How about Aquinas himself? At what point in history did the reforming reformists reform the former reformists? :blink:

I guess my point is that if someone is going to choose to believe something that has absolutely no supporting evidence, there is little you are going to be able to say to dissuade them.

Like I said, I'll show you my supporting evidence if you show me yours. Unless you are willing to look at the evidence without prejudice, there is little I am going to be able to say, quote, document or prove to dissuade your myth making. I'll even go first, but not if it is going to be a waste of my time. Are you willing to grapple with the evidence, or just dismiss it out of hand because it's coming from a Catholic?

 

[Brother James]

I have a good Catholic friend from another discussion board who found my analogy very enlightening. He said it helped him consider what things look like from the point of view of another person. We had many fruitful discussions. I learned a lot about Catholicism from him.

Some people are not interested in such things, and that's entirely up to them. Some people enjoy the fight. I'm only responsible for my side of the street. I can't take responsibility for what goes on between the two ears of another person.

 

[epostle1]

I have a good Catholic friend from another discussion board who found my analogy very enlightening. He said it helped him consider what things look like from the point of view of another person. We had many fruitful discussions. I learned a lot about Catholicism from him.

How about you tell me what thread you are talking about, maybe I can learn something from him too.

Some people are not interested in such things, and that's entirely up to them. Some people enjoy the fight. I'm only responsible for my side of the street. I can't take responsibility for what goes on between the two ears of another person.

good. They you will agree to stop throwing rocks on my side of the street. You will agree to stop propagating lies about Catholicism after they have been patiently refuted over and over again. How a three dimensional artistic depiction of Jesus or Mary has to do with the golden calf incident is just a good example of preconceived notions and prejudice, not reason, which I can't take responsibility for either.