Did Mary Sin

[the]

Right. It's all lies if it doesn't jive with your beliefs. I get it.

You know, I was thinking about something you had wrote in response to a question I had in an old post. I asked if you would be accepting of homosexuality if the bible said it was okay, and you said you would if that was what it stated. And you have clearly stated how much you personally disapprove of homosexuality. Which makes me think: if you were brought up in a household that worshipped Satan, then you most likely would be worshipping Satan right now and preaching his word. No questions asked, his word is bond. It would be all you knew.

Which brings me to my point that people should start thinking for themselves... @the

Question things. That is why your God gave you a brain!

Even if he was raised to be Satanic he'd still be thinking for himself. Just because he accepted a certain doctrine doesnt mean he didnt think about it.

It's all having other people think for you unless you come to my conclusion, Right, I get it.

 

[the]

@the

The problem is that the immaculate conception starts from the premise that if Jesus was sinless, then it must be that his mother would also be sinless, because Jesus could not be born sinless from a sinful female human. And if we follow this logic, also the mother of Mary would have to be sinless, and so on. So its not my logic, its Catholic logic, with complete ignorance of the Scriptures.

I'm not sure they used logic to come to that conclusion. But if you have proof that they did I am interested in reading it, if youd be so kind as to present it. I do acknowledge that you have presented "evidence" of how you imagine the catholics came to that conclusion which might be so for RC but not for EO. As it stands, I disagree with your assertion of where Orthodoxy gets our information from, especially considering that it is from the scriptures (one of the catholic Traditions).

 

[cvp12gh5]

Even if he was raised to be Satanic he'd still be thinking for himself. Just because he accepted a certain doctrine doesnt mean he didnt think about it.

It's all having other people think for you unless you come to my conclusion, Right, I get it.

No, you are wrong. Example: God says/writes: "the sky is brown and has always been and will always be brown", and I looked up and think, "hm, well he is definitely wrong because it is a beautiful blue and that doesn't even make any sense but the sky MUST be brown because god said it is. Boy, he is so wise, that god!"

That is not my own conclusion. That is someone else's. So am I really thinking for myself? NO.

 

[the]

No, you are wrong. Example: God says/writes: "the sky is brown and has always been and will always be brown", and I looked up and think, "hm, well he is definitely wrong because it is a beautiful blue and that doesn't even make any sense but the sky MUST be brown because god said it is. Boy, he is so wise, that god!"

That is not my own conclusion. That is someone else's. So am I really thinking for myself? NO.

So you admit that this person thought for himself. I get it. Right. You're preaching to the choir. This person even looked up to gather more evidence and study further for himself!

 

[cvp12gh5]

So you admit that this person thought for himself. I get it. Right. You're preaching to the choir. This person even looked up to gather more evidence and study further for himself!

But the conclusion was not his own. You know what I meant.

Why ever believe that you could be right, if your god says differently even when obviously wrong? That's just crazy! Unheard of!

 

[LucyJr]

So jesus is a sinner... I disagree with your assertion.

Of course not. Please don't make things as they are not, for I didn't ever implied by what I mean Jesus was a sinner, and neither "my logic" would lead to that.

You said this:

Mary's grandmother would not have to be be sinless for mary to be this way. But if we followed your logic forward in time we would see that because Jesus is born of a woman He would be sinful .Since we know that is not true, we know for certain that things are not as clear as you'd like them to be.

So again, its not my logic. Conform to Catholic thinking, Mary could not be sinful because Jesus would have been sinful. And I took that line of thinking to its logical outcome, that all Jesus's ascendents would have to be sinless, so as to Jesus could be sinless.

And now you imply that by "my own logic", Jesus must be sinful, which was not at all the point I was heading to. And I repet this again, its not my logic. Its how the Traditions of the church reached to the conclusion that Mary "must be sinless".

By contrary, my belief, and I think it is in accordance with Scriptures, is that Jesus sinlessness is a miracle of the Holy Spirit, and it has nothing to do with how sinful or how sinless Mary would be.

 

[LucyJr]

Right. It's all lies if it doesn't jive with your beliefs. I get it.

I don't think you are correct.
To show you the non-sense of yur affirmation, I could as well simply acuse you of not thinking for yourself, because you tend to disagreee with me, and so I can accuse you of being idealistic, and not thinking. Do you think that would be corect?

You know, I was thinking about something you had wrote in response to a question I had in an old post. I asked if you would be accepting of homosexuality if the bible said it was okay, and you said you would if that was what it stated. And you have clearly stated how much you personally disapprove of homosexuality. Which makes me think: if you were brought up in a household that worshipped Satan, then you most likely would be worshipping Satan right now and preaching his word. No questions asked, his word is bond. It would be all you knew.

In one sense, you are right. In another one, you are completly wrong.
I might as well accuse you being "brought up" to think for yourself, and thus everythink you say, is in conformity to your pre-made idealistic approach of thinking for yourself.

 

[sprinkles]

So you admit that this person thought for himself. I get it. Right. You're preaching to the choir. This person even looked up to gather more evidence and study further for himself!

A person who truly thinks for their self is able to show evidence of the process and valid reasoning, and be willing to accept new information and examine points for what they are.

So in the brown sky example, the person who has new information and throws it away because it goes against something said prior is really not thinking.

This is the difference between the two. Both sides may claim that the other side is not thinking for their self, but the one who is actually thinking is clearly evidenced by the way they handle new and controversial information.

Everybody thinks that they think but only some really do.

 

[SovereignGrace]

A person who truly thinks for their self is able to show evidence of the process and valid reasoning, and be willing to accept new information and examine points for what they are.

So in the brown sky example, the person who has new information and throws it away because it goes against something said prior is really not thinking.

This is the difference between the two. Both sides may claim that the other side is not thinking for their self, but the one who is actually thinking is clearly evidenced by the way they handle new and controversial information.

Everybody thinks that they think but only some really do.

The fact is, whether people think for themselves or not is irrelevant.

All people are blind and ignorant and lost and in darkness, unless God enlightens their minds to the truth.

If you don't have truth, then whether you're a genius or a simpleton, a free-thinker or a thoughtless person, you are still lost in the darkness of sin.

To be your own person, to think for yourself, all of this is meaningless when you're under God's wrath.

Better to be a simple, uneducated person who knows God, than a brilliant, educated person without God.

Intelligence and independence are way overrated.

Faith in Christ is what you need.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=11142]SovereignGrace[/MENTION]
Be that as it may, haven't you noticed the trail of destruction you've been leaving behind you?

Every thread you've touched lately looks pretty much like this:

 

[dudemanbro]

Why does the thought of humans collectively being GOD seem so nonsensical to some? Oh, I forgot. Because believing that some invisible supreme being created the human race one sunny day for whatever reason and then decided to set up a laundry list of oppressive rules, that if broken would be met with horrible punishment, makes so much more sense. Right.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold up now! You're saying humans are God? What makes humans so special? What about the greatly intelligent dolphins, or the highly evolved burxullecsionecians from the constellation Sirius? What makes you humans so damn special?

Humanoid supremacy at it's finest! Ugh, heathens like you make me sick!

 

[SovereignGrace]

[MENTION=11142]SovereignGrace[/MENTION]
Be that as it may, haven't you noticed the trail of destruction you've been leaving behind you?

Every thread you've touched lately looks pretty much like this:

Well, that's nothing compared to the destruction coming upon all whose names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Revelation 6:12-17 :

I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood.
And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind.

Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place.

And the kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men,
every slave and every free man,
hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks,
“Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”

Revelation 20:14-15 :

Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

ALSO the WORDS of JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF:

Luke 17:24-30 :

24 For as the lightning that flashes out of one part under heaven shines to the other part under heaven, so also the Son of Man will be in His day.

25 But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.

26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:

27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;

29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.

30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

 

[cvp12gh5]

I don't think you are correct.
To show you the non-sense of yur affirmation, I could as well simply acuse you of not thinking for yourself, because you tend to disagreee with me, and so I can accuse you of being idealistic, and not thinking. Do you think that would be corect?



In one sense, you are right. In another one, you are completly wrong.
I might as well accuse you being "brought up" to think for yourself, and thus everythink you say, is in conformity to your pre-made idealistic approach of thinking for yourself.

I was never brought up to think for myself. Quite the opposite.

My conclusions and decisions have always been my own and they are never tainted by someone else's thoughts or words. I was given a mind that is very capable of thinking for itself...why would I ever let it go to waste by letting another make my decisions for me without questioning them?

No thank you. I'll leave that for the weak-minded.

 

[cvp12gh5]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold up now! You're saying humans are God? What makes humans so special? What about the greatly intelligent dolphins, or the highly evolved burxullecsionecians from the constellation Sirius? What makes you humans so damn special?

Humanoid supremacy at it's finest! Ugh, heathens like you make me sick!

Haha! . I see what you are saying, and you are right. Every living thing is God. I just figured I would stick with the human example for now...don't want to upset anyone even more by bringing animals and everything else into the mix just yet...one thing at a time.

 

[LucyJr]

I was never brought up to think for myself. Quite the opposite.

My conclusions and decisions have always been my own and they are never tainted by someone else's thoughts or words. I was given a mind that is very capable of thinking for itself...why would I ever let it go to waste by letting another make my decisions for me without questioning them?

No thank you. I'll leave that for the weak-minded.

But sadly you side-tracked the whole discussion to something irrelevant in this context, which is that you think for yourself.
And for the record, I am convinced about that. I don't question wether you think for yourself or not, and is not my job to think so.

By my answers I tried to tell you something else... which is that one's own worldview and clinginess, idealisation of it, does NOT say anything about the truthiness of that worldview. This is a very frecvent logical fallacy people make in their thinking when discussing religious matter.

So you by accusing me of being stuborn for my belief, it shows that you don't consider the true issue, which is not me and my stuborness and dogmatism...but wether the Bible is right or not. Think about that, not about wether I can think for myself or not.
With all dues respect

 

[Flavus Aquila]

While the subject is going around, where does it say that the Bible is the only source of doctrine?

Doesn't St Paul explicitly instruct believers to follow the teachings and example of the bishops he appointed in the cities he had visited?

Additionally, the various epistles and gospels were not gathered together until at least 100 years after the apostles. Where did the early Christians get their doctrine?

Isn't the whole "sola scriptura" a 16th Century invention of a man who couldn't reconcile his faith with his urges, so he chopped books out of the Bible and invented a new religion which told him and his followers they just had to convince themselves that they were going to heaven, no matter what sins they commit?
[MENTION=11142]SovereignGrace[/MENTION] and others

 

[dudemanbro]

Haha! . I see what you are saying, and you are right. Every living thing is God. I just figured I would stick with the human example for now...don't want to upset anyone even more by bringing animals and everything else into the mix just yet...one thing at a time.

I know that we are way off topic now, but I always thought it interesting to contemplate the duality between Creation (the sum total of everything in the universe and all possibilities from begging to end, not YOU, you egotist! ) and Creator (the eternal Truth that transcends any imaginable barriers - even existence itself, which everyone has to have a personal relationship with in order to really understand, kinda).

... and uh, I guess I just wanted to say that. I find it interesting as heck.

Jesus Christ is a beautiful story because it's about a person who walked the Tao with all his heart, and then we fuckin' killed him! But he was so full of love, that it transcended death itself.

And Mary? Well, it must have been an honour to have such an amazing son. Who cares if she sinned or not? Jesus saw the best in everyone, so why can't we follow his example?

I . . . I love all y'all! <3

 

[Barnabas]

While the subject is going around, where does it say that the Bible is the only source of doctrine?

Doesn't St Paul explicitly instruct believers to follow the teachings and example of the bishops he appointed in the cities he had visited?

Additionally, the various epistles and gospels were not gathered together until at least 100 years after the apostles. Where did the early Christians get their doctrine?

Isn't the whole "sola scriptura" a 16th Century invention of a man who couldn't reconcile his faith with his urges, so he chopped books out of the Bible and invented a new religion which told him and his followers they just had to convince themselves that they were going to heaven, no matter what sins they commit?
@SovereignGrace and others

Yeah but those bishops are to be appointed upon the grounds given by scripture combine that with the notion that Peter related that early church was already using Paul's letter's as scripture during his life. On ttop of that were given the instruction that any other Gospel brought for other then whats spoken of is false the people who speak are to be cursed.

Also isn't one of your saints a Manichean philosopher who is quoted to prayed for countenance and chastity "but not yet."

 

[Lark]

Well, that's nothing compared to the destruction coming upon all whose names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Revelation 6:12-17 :


Revelation 20:14-15 :




ALSO the WORDS of JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF:

Luke 17:24-30 :

Thanks for responding to that in the way I thought you would, and thanks to the poster who posted the original pic.

To be brutally honest I think that if the first Christians had professed an ideology like the one here then they'd not have seen out the year and probably would have perished like the Essenes or others like them.

This sort of thing is what permits conclusions to be drawn about the new testament being pessimistic and the old testament in contrast being optimistic.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Yeah but those bishops are to be appointed upon the grounds given by scripture combine that with the notion that Peter related that early church was already using Paul's letter's as scripture during his life. On ttop of that were given the instruction that any other Gospel brought for other then whats spoken of is false the people who speak are to be cursed.

Also isn't one of your saints a Manichean philosopher who is quoted to prayed for countenance and chastity "but not yet."

The Gospel is what they preached. The books are named after the message; not the other way around.

And yes, excommunication has been a feature of the Church since the earliest days.

I think the saint you mention may have been St Augustine writing in lament about his life as a manichean heretic before he converted - I think he was living in a defacto relationship before he met St Ambrose, who instructed him in the faith. He also writes at length about the tears of St Monica, his mother who prayed for his conversion. Obviously he is not a saint on account of his sinful life and heresy before his conversion, but because of his fidelity in thought, word and deed after it.