Evidence for God from Science

Rick: I guess I'd just say, "whatever".

And so, please, NO more on this silly issue!

Philip wrote:

Rick: I guess I'd just say, "whatever".

And so, please, NO more on this silly issue!

I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!!!!

Now you have forced me to post again.

Philip wrote:

Rick: I guess I'd just say, "whatever".

And so, please, NO more on this silly issue!

You may find it silly but evidently others don't.

You may find it silly but evidently others don't.

What I find silly is an argument over semantics. And the reaction to the semantics is mostly due to the CC nonsense that was added to Scripture, and that contradicts it (why Rick reacts to it)! Jac's corrections of the technicalities are correct, but pedantic. So, one thing is silly, the other is very reasonable concern over teachings that can lead to a wrongful focus and understandings.

RickD wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:I deny Mary is the mother of God, yet I don't deny Jesus is one person with two natures. Nor do I deny his divinity.

You, personally, don't deny the unity of Jesus' personhood. Your logic, however, necessarily entails such a denial. In that regard, you are like LS proponents who insist that they think you can have objective assurance of salvation even though their position necessarily denies it. And, hey, better to personally deny a heresy than be logically consistent and affirm a heresy. But better still not to hold a position that logically entails a heresy.

That's fine. Like I said, in the part that you didn't quote me on, my issue may entirely be because I've only heard the term used by Catholics, who worship Mary.

You may be right, but I was addressing what Byblos said, which isn't accurate. But if you want to say I affirm a heresy, just because I won't use the term, "Mother of God", then I guess that's your prerogative. Even though I don't hold to the heresy you're accusing me of holding.

It would be like me saying that I don't like the term "Trinity", yet I believe The Father is God, The Son is God, and The Holy Spirit is God, and you then saying I hold to a heresy.

I guess I'd just say, "whatever".

The heresy isn't your failure to use a word. The heresy is the unavoidable but necessary conclusion that Jesus is two persons, one human and one divine. You rightly deny the heresy, but the logic of your position necessarily entails the heresy. Again, it's just like the Calvinst who insists that assurance of salvation is possible. He rightly denies the impossibility of assurance, and yet the logic of his position requires that conclusion. In logical terms, he's commiting the taxi-cab fallacy. And so are you here. And if we allow ourselves that luxury, if we are not required to accept the logical conclusions of our own positions, then we can literally justify any belief we want, and we cannot argue with anybody for not concluding a rational argument in the necessary way. To use a silly example, it would be like the following conversation:

"Do you believe everything that comes into existence has a cause?"
"Yes
"Do you think the universe came into existence?"
"Yes"
"Then you believe that the universe has a cause."
"No, I don't."

If we can just deny the logically necessary conclusions of arguments, then logic itself is meaningless. That is the problem I have with your position. It entails, necessarily, a heretical conclusion; and because you rightly see the conclusion is heretical, you deny the conclusion, and yet you continue to insist on the arguments. So if you are going to continue to be irrational, then I guess I'd just say, "whatever".

Philip wrote:

You may find it silly but evidently others don't.

What I find silly is an argument over semantics. And the reaction to the semantics is mostly due to the CC nonsense that was added to Scripture, and that contradicts it (why Rick reacts to it)! Jac's corrections of the technicalities are correct, but pedantic. So, one thing is silly, the other is very reasonable concern over teachings that can lead to a wrongful focus and understandings.

You mean wrongful understanding such as Arianism or Nestorianism? Silly us to not discuss heresies concerning the very God we worship that have been around since the dawn of Christianity and are still around today.

What is utterly silly is your reaction. You don't like the topic you don't have to participate in the discussion. Or you can use your powers as moderator or appeal to another to lock the thread, it is certainly your prerogative to do so. Short of that and so long as we're not violating any discussion board rules we can discuss whatever it is we choose.

I think I'll stick to Mary being the Mother of Christ, Mary Mother of our Lord, Theotokos, translated as Christ-bearer, Mary, Mother of God the Son, etc.

If someone wants to vilify me for not saying Mary is the Mother of God, after hearing my reasons, then so be it.

Edit**

Again, I have no problem with this:

Theotokos-
a title of the Virgin Mary as the Mother of the incarnate Son of God.

So, it must simply be the term, "Mother of God" that I have a problem with. "God" without a qualifier, just leaves it too open to misuse, IMO.

So go ahead, call me a heretic. See if I lose any sleep over it.

I don't doubt your comfortable in implying a heresy, Rick, just like LS'ers and Calvinists don't lose any sleep over it, either. If I were in your shoes, I, for one, would be uncomfortable knowing that my position actively and necessarily entails a serious heresy. But that's just me. The point here is that your (dis)comfort with the matter has absolutely no bearing on its truthfulness whatsoever. It's totally up to you, and you alone, how much you are willing to invest to make sure that your statements and beliefs are consistent with reason and divine revelation and how much you are willing to allow your statements and beliefs to contradict them.

edit:

With that said, no one is vilifying you, so please don't act as if you're being subjected to some personal attack. Rhetorical tactics that distract from the truth ought to be beneath you. I am saying that your position is wrong and that your language (both the language you use and the language you don't) necessarily imply heresy. Nothing more and nothing less.

Thanks for your comments, Jac.

And as I always do, I will think about what you said, and will pray that God will show me if I am necessarily promoting heresy. And if it's only the way I have seen the term being used, and not the
term itself, then may God make that clear to me as well.

What is utterly silly is your reaction. You don't like the topic you don't have to participate in the discussion.

Give me a break! EVERYONE here has the right to weigh in on the issue.

Or you can use your powers as moderator or appeal to another to lock the thread, it is certainly your prerogative to do so.

As long as the discussion is civil, why would I do that?

Byblos, you know that I am far from the only non-Catholic that is understandably concerned with the CC teachings and its hyper focus concerning Mary! You also well know that THAT is why people like Rick are uncomfortable with the term in question, because of CC teachings and what some take the term to mean - BEYOND where it is accurate, and even though the term, technically, IS accurate.

How about a better/more accurate terminology in which we should ALL be comfortable with: Mary, was the imperfect but exceptionally faithful human female who was chosen and greatly honored by God by being used as the human vessel by which the Son of God stepped into this world, and of whom we have no Scriptural reason to believe died any different type of death or removal from any other human being, excepting Jesus. And beyond giving birth to the Messiah, she had and has no other role in our salvation or ability to follow Christ. And her prayers for us are no more or less important than those of any other Christian mothers', be they in this world or the next one.

My description makes clear what CC terminology may make murky - at least in the minds of many - AND it is Scripturally accurate!

Philip wrote:Give me a break! EVERYONE here has the right to weigh in on the issue.

Of course you have the right to weigh in, Phil. But how does it advance the conversation when your contribution is to reduce the discussion to an argument over semantics? Moreover, your assertion that "the semantics is mostly due to the CC nonsense that was added to Scripture" is bald. You offer no support for the statement whatsoever. Now, in the more nuanced discussion of the previously linked thread, I distinguished six Marian doctrines, four of which are primarily warranted by the authority of the CC, but the other two being necessarily entailed by Scripture itself. And since we have only talked about one of those two Scripturally entailed doctrines, then why bring up those issues that the CC holds on grounds other than Scripture? Unless, of course, you want to say that Mary being the Mother of God is "added" by the CC, in which case, let me be the first non-Catholic to tell you that you are mistaken on this point.

Now, Phil, I know you would agree that discussions related to the humanity and deity of Christ are very important. I hope you would never say that arguments over Arianism, for instance, are merely arguments about semantics but get at very core issues. And so it is with the Madre Dei. Even though the title is attributed to Mary, it is directly related to, and in fact motivated by and born out of, a proper understanding of the dual natures of Christ.

As long as the discussion is civil, why would I do that?

Byblos, you know that I am far from the only non-Catholic that is understandably concerned with the CC teachings and its hyper focus concerning Mary! You also well know that THAT is why people like Rick are uncomfortable with the term in question, because of CC teachings and what some take the term to mean - BEYOND where it is accurate, and even though the term, technically, IS accurate.

Perhaps you would do better by recognizing your Catholophobia and instead asking whether or not the arguments they put forward are correct. Because their arguments about Mary as Co-Redemptrix and the Mother of God are correct. The fact that you don't want to use those titles because Catholics use (and abuse) them is a problem with you, not with them. Your own theology necessitates that, if you want to be consistent with your beliefs about Scripture, you adopt either that terminology expressly or terminology that states the same things.

How about a better/more accurate terminology in which we should ALL be comfortable with: Mary, was the imperfect but exceptionally faithful human female who was chosen and greatly honored by God by being used as the human vessel by which the Son of God stepped into this world, and of whom we have no Scriptural reason to believe died any different type of death or removal from any other human being, excepting Jesus. And beyond giving birth to the Messiah, she had and has no other role in our salvation or ability to follow Christ. And her prayers for us are no more or less important than those of any other Christian mothers', be they in this world or the next one.

But this is not better or more accurate. In the first place, you are mistaken to say that there is "no Scriptural reason to believe [Mary] died any different type of death or removal from any other human being." As a point of fact, there are other human beings who did not die--Elijah and Enoch. And, depending on how you read the force of it, Moses could be added to that list as well. I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but the Assumption of Mary does not require the belief that she was taken while alive. One could be a faithful Catholic and believe that her body was taken directly to heaven after death.

I also don't think it is fair to say that "[Mary] had and has no other role in our salvation or ability to follow Christ. And her prayers for us are no more or less important than those of any other Christian mothers'." If you grant the efficacy of intercessory prayer, then at a minumum your first sentence is false. The only way it is true is to take "role" to refer to the direct salvific act itself. But on that interpretation, you are attacking a strawman, because Catholics (and the Orthodox and others) do not think that Mary directly contributes to the salvation of anyone, but rather that she contributes in the same way you and I contribute to the salvation of others: through our intercessions. Moreover, you recognize that very truth in your second sentence, for I take "important" to mean that you believe God actually answers the prayers of His children. Therefore, you do believe that mothers have a role in the salvation of their children and their ability to follow Christ--unless, again, you wish to claim that prayer is ineffective, which I know you do not. Then the only issue that remains is whether or not God pays any special attention to the prayers of Mary, His mother. And the obvious answer is, of course He does! First, Scripture clearly teaches that "the prayers of the righteous accomplishes much." Do you not think Mary is righteous? Of course she is. Therefore, just on the face of your statements, you are besmirching the righteousness of a woman by saying that her prayers are no more effective than any other mothers', for while a great many mothers are righteous, a great many are not. At a bare minimum, you should say that her prayers are as effective as that of the righteous saints, which would make her prayers pretty darned effective! But still further, I would remind you of the commandment to honor your mother. Do you not honor yours? I'm sure you do. I hope you do. I would argue you do so not just because God says to do so, but because it is simply good to do so. Human beings, by nature, are supposed to honor their parents, and mothers rightly hold a special place to us--certainly more special than that of, say, a neighbor. This, too, is Scriptural: "if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim 5:8). It is absurd to think that Jesus would simply ignore His own mother. Would you ignore yours? Or would you honor her precisely because she is your mother? I would hope you would honor her as I honor mine.

So the conclusion is necessary and inescapable. Jesus will honor His mother in a special way, and since she is righteous, her prayers will be effective, and particularly effective because of her relationship with her Son. Lastly, bear in mind that Jesus came to the world through Mary. You take her out of the picture, you take Jesus out of the picture. It was through her that Jesus was fully man. You may say, "Fine, but if you take away any number of things then Jesus wouldn't have been here." All true, but of all those other things, none of them were His mother.

And that is what strikes me as so viscious of the denial on this point. Some non-Catholics are so anti-Catholic that they end up actually defaming Mary, and that is just sad. And in the process, they end up proclaiming heresy, entailing such notions as Jesus being two persons rather than one, that intercessory prayer is ineffective, etc.

To be clear, I do not hold to those four doctrines regarding Mary that are primarily warranted by the authority of the CC (the assumption, the perpetual virginity, the sinlessness, and immaculate conception). But I don't reject them because they are anti-biblical. All four are consistent with Scripture. I reject them simply because I don't see any positive reason to believe them, as I don't find the teaching authority of the magisterium to be persuasive, and I can't find any reference to it in oral tradition prior to the fourth century, which is too late to make a historical argument from. But to claim that they are anti-biblical? No, that's not true. They aren't. This isn't an issue that should divide believers. On the issue Mary as the Mother of God, all should affirm it. On the issue of Mary as Co-Redemptrix, all should affirm it on the granted assumption that departed saints still can and do intercede for the living (which seems reasonable to me). On the other four, charity in difference of opinion should be granted, with neither side condemning the other.

My description makes clear what CC terminology may make murky - at least in the minds of many - AND it is Scripturally accurate!

No, your description strongly implies a Catholophobia is driving your argument rather than a sound understanding of the doctrines you are trying (poorly, in my assessment) to critique.

Jac, you are hyper dissecting my meaning - which is in reality a criticism of CC dogma compared to Scripture - which you yourself do not support.

Jac: But this is not better or more accurate. In the first place, you are mistaken to say that there is "no Scriptural reason to believe [Mary] died any different type of death or removal from any other human being." As a point of fact, there are other human beings who did not die--Elijah and Enoch. And, depending on how you read the force of it, Moses could be added to that list as well.

WELL aware of these other situations. But I said DIE, Jac, not "taken away." If you can show me where Scripture states such about Mary's end as taught - or insinuated, then show it! Again, these many things are put forth to put a focus upon Mary's importance that is not supported in Scripture, and YOU know it! That is why I find the whole debate a sideshow of semantics over who Mary Scripturally is shown to be. I get it - technically, she is the Mother of Jesus, Who ALSO is God. I don't get the firestorm over that. But I do know the wariness of teachings that feed it.

Jac: I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but the Assumption of Mary does not require the belief that she was taken while alive. One could be a faithful Catholic and believe that her body was taken directly to heaven after death.

Jac, I could care less what CATHOLIC teachings allow or don't allow for, if they are unsubstantiated by Scripture - other than, some are less harmful than others. Some are dangerous - at least as interpreted and practiced by millions. The CC has a very long history of making stuff up from very strained interpretations and outright inventions. And the extreme focus upon Mary is very unhealthy. Period! I've spent enough time around Catholics to know this. My wife grew up Catholic. If you want to call that Catholic-phobic, so be it! I call it being wary of stuff not found in Scripture. And SPECULATION based upon strained interpretations of unclear passages doesn't cut it with me! And if such CC teachings supposedly was so inline with Scripture, one must wonder why millions of Catholics, who KNOW their doctrine, so skew them. Seems to me, Jac, that you trust the CC a lot more than I would think, given its history.

And my last statement shows your inconsistency about the issue.

Jac: To be clear, I do not hold to those four doctrines regarding Mary that are primarily warranted by the authority of the CC (the assumption, the perpetual virginity, the sinlessness, and immaculate conception). But I don't reject them because they are anti-biblical. All four are consistent with Scripture. I reject them simply because I don't see any positive reason to believe them, as I don't find the teaching authority of the magisterium to be persuasive, and I can't find any reference to it in oral tradition prior to the fourth century, which is too late to make a historical argument from. But to claim that they are anti-biblical? No, that's not true.

Yes, and I could make up many unfactual things that are consistent with Scripture, but that it doesn't specifically say - making them just another teaching of man. Basically, what I bolded from you shows that you share my concerns, but you don't feel comfortable condemning teachings that can't be confirmed by Scripture, apparently because, TECHNICALLY, they don't blatantly contradict what Scripture says, and so such things fit the parameters. And that is dangerous! If you ADD to Scripture, I find that anti-Biblical! And that is just what the CC has done - it's historic fact! Of course, they are not the only Christian denomination to have done so.

I do not want to get into a gun battle over this. My only concern is that the hyper Mary focus and teachings about her role are huge problems that the CC has created and perpetuated, AND that are not found nor emphasized in Scripture. You don't agree, fine.

Philip wrote:Jac, I could care less what CATHOLIC teachings allow or don't allow for, if they are unsubstantiated by Scripture - other than, some are less harmful than others.

If you don't care then you ought not be critiquing. And if you do care to critique, then you ought to care enough to critique the idea as it is actually held. As it stands, you aren't doing that. Your criticisms of the Marian doctrines are simply not accurate.

Some are dangerous - at least as interpreted and practiced by millions.

And this is what *I* don't care about. The abuse and misunderstanding of a doctrine is not the fault of a doctrine, and for us to criticize a doctrine, or any idea for that matter, based on its abuse is ridiculous. You wouldn't allow non-Christians to criticize Christianity based on a popular perversion of some idea, and you shouldn't engage in such dishonest behavior yourself.

the extreme focus upon Mary is very unhealthy. Period!

Putting "Period!" at the end of a sentence doesn't prove your point. And in any case, you are begging the question. If they are right about their Marian doctrines, then the focus is not unhealthy after all. In fact, the evangelical relegation of her to the sideline would be the unhealthy position. So you just aren't arguing honestly here. More to the point, though, to to the discussion we're having is that "unhealthy" isn't the same as "unbiblical." So now you're lowering the bar so that you can obfuscate your arguments, and that is, again, dishonest at worst and sloppy thinking at best.

I've spent enough time around Catholics to know this. My wife grew up Catholic. If you want to call that Catholic-phobic, so be it! I call it being wary of stuff not found in Scripture. And SPECULATION based upon strained interpretations of unclear passages doesn't cut it with me! And if such CC teachings supposedly was so inline with Scripture, one must wonder why millions of Catholics, who KNOW their doctrine, so skew them. Seems to me, Jac, that you trust the CC a lot more than I would think, given its history.

All of this is completely irrelevant. Again, you wouldn't permit this style of argument from others. It ought to be beneath you.

Yes, and I could make up many unfactual things that are consistent with Scripture, but that it doesn't specifically say - making them just another teaching of man. Basically, what I bolded from you shows that you share my concerns, but you don't feel comfortable condemning teachings that can't be confirmed by Scripture, apparently because, TECHNICALLY, they don't blatantly contradict what Scripture says, and so such things fit the parameters. And that is dangerous! If you ADD to Scripture, I find that anti-Biblical! And that is just what the CC has done - it's historic fact! Of course, they are not the only Christian denomination to have done so.

And that's just where you and I have a fundamental disagreement. I don't even think you believe it yourself. You use all sorts of arguments rooted in reason that are not found in Scripture. Yet they are consistent with Scripture, so you are okay with them. So, again, I just don't think you're being honest with yourself. I also think you are, frankly, uneducated as to what the Marian doctrines actually are. I don't accept them, but it's not for the reasons you don't. I get the distinct impression that you don't know the Scriptural motivation behind them (speaking here of the four that are primarily warranted by Scripture). And that's a shame.

I do not want to get into a gun battle over this. My only concern is that the hyper Mary focus and teachings about her role are huge problems that the CC has created and perpetuated, AND that are not found nor emphasized in Scripture. You don't agree, fine.

You're right, I don't agree. And I don't expect you'd want to get into a nuanced discussion over it because you don't understand the argument you are critiquing. You're more comfortable being Catholophobic. That's your prerogative, but I think any argument or position rooted in that sort of lack of charity ought to be beneath any Christian whatsoever, and that you only debase yourself in so taking that stance.

If Mary is the mother of God, who is the father of God?


Show me where this fails, anyone.

1) Jesus is God

2) Mary is the mother of Jesus

3) Mary is the mother of God


So

1) Jesus is God

2) God is the father of Jesus

3) God is the father of God

Anyone?


Or, if this is true:
"Mary is the Mother of God precisely because Jesus Christ, her Son, is God. And when Mary gave birth, she did not give birth to a nature, or even two natures; she gave birth to one, divine Person."

Must this also be true:
"The Holy Spirit is the Father of God precisely because Jesus Christ, his Son, is God. And when The Holy Spirit came unto Mary, He did not conceive a nature, or even two natures; He conceived one, divine Person."

Rick, what precisely bothers you about the term, "Mother of God?" Is it not false connotations that a mortal somehow birthed a God - as in, Jesus ORIGINATED with Mary - and not just his human portion/form?