Evidence for God from Science

I hope Annette realizes why I am passionate that she understands this issue. And it's not because I'm trying to recruit her to my favorite sports team, or to some pointless understandings that don't really matter. But she had best realize that when it comes to understanding and honoring God, to benefiting from His word, to not being harmed by false beliefs and teachings, that once she jettisons the clear understandings and teachings found in Scripture for obscurities and obfuscations of men she has no idea as to their authority or legitimacy (as studying that issue and the CC and the popes' histories should make that HIGHLY questionable) that blatantly contradict it, or she opts for feelings to validate truth, then she is in very dangerous territory and open for deception. Once she or anyone begins to take the words of a man - of ANY man, from ANY church - over Scripture, she will believe ANYTHING they say.

Again, look at Pope Nicholas I, venerated by the CC with his very own feast day - absolutely incredible: "I am in all and above all, so that God himself, and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory…and I am able to do almost all that God can do…I then, being above all…seem by this reason, to be above all gods." And, again, astoundingly, he wrote: " the vicars of Christ (the popes) are above the judgment of mortals, and that the most powerful sovereigns have no right to punish the crimes of popes, how enormous soever they may be….; for no matter how scandalous or criminal may be the debaucheries of the pontiffs, you should obey them, for they are seated on the chair of St. Peter." Does anyone here actually believe such statements came from the representative of Christ, whom CC doctrine states to be infallible when speaking in his official capacity as head of the church???!!! This is the "Vicar of Christ," whom ordered against the King of Lorraine, to "invade his states, burn his cities, and massacre his people. Are we to believe such popes spoke and acted on Christ's behalf? A man who would say these things - you'd believe new teachings from them? You'd believe the nonsense about purgatory and indulgences, and all manner of making money with new pronouncements. Peter was married. For 1,000 years most priests were as well. Suddenly, it is forbidden. Now you have clueless, life-long bachelors advising married people on marriage and family dynamics. Great! THESE are why I am so against what the CC asserts as truth, because it doesn't add up - not from Scripture ot common sense. And historically, these have been devastating to people and society.

And I do love all here - I don't like stirring up things. And I always avoid that when it is over some pointless and silly disagreements that should only boil down to only personal opinion or preferences. One man believes the earth and universe are many billions of years old; another believes it to all have been built in a week. One says baptize with a sprinkle, the other says go deep in the water - these issues matter not a bit to me. But the authority of Scripture and it's integrity, that God wanted us to clearly understand the essentials - things HE sees as essential. These very definitely matter! Why? Because GOD says they do! And so when men begin making doctrine, just look at the rabble and anguish, war, skirmishes, attacks upon others, all manner of horrors have ensued - and that's just within the very groups where the divisiveness is so apparent. And beyond such groups, the dangers and divisiveness only grows exponentially.

Let me digest this, okay?

I know, absolutely know, that you're passionate because you care. And you're right, this is important, especially as I don't know Scripture.

I do trust Christ though, and there is a reason for all this.

I respect you, a lot, but I respect Byblos and ES too so it's only fair I listen.

I pray about this constantly, so far, He hasnt let me down. I trust the HS. God.

Story: I do trust Christ though, and there is a reason for all this.

I agree.

Story: I respect you, a lot, but I respect Byblos and ES too so it's only fair I listen.

But, of course!

I pray about this constantly, so far, He hasnt let me down. I trust the HS. God.

Fantastic! And if one ever thinks God has let them down, they are mistaken. The problem is likely in their mirror!

Wanna know something?

Before God, I'd see myself, and cringe. I felt ugly. Worthless.

Now, I see beauty, life. I feel alive. Blessed.

For the record, I do not question one iota Philip or Rick's motives and believe with all my heart and mind that their arguments are born out of love and concern. We may disagree vehemently and use different styles to convey our respective beliefs but the motives are never questioned, at least that much should be clear.

Lots to catch up on, be back...

So.. Posting this a little garbled but should be coherent. Answering ST, first.

Storyteller: Felt her presence. Smelt roses. Was praying and caught the scent of roses and kept parying. I felt a presence. Her

Me: From my perepective, I don’t know why she would be present around you and hearing you at that time among the millions who are praying to her at the same time. Honestly it sounds to me like communing in the spirit, the Holy Spirit.

ST: There is no one except God for me but Mary is a pretty good role model of how, as a woman, I can love and serve God.

Why Mary? I think Jesus is the better role model, and all of YHWH. I think people get waaay to hung up on gender.

ST: Do I worship Mary? I wouldn’t say I do but I appreciate her importance.

Do you appreciate her more than your own mother? I guess it depends on the mother, but I appreciate my own mother more than I will ever Mary.

ST: God knows me, my heart. I long for a mother. Maybe I just projected that but maybe, just maybe God is saying I can have a mothers love.

The Holy Spirit is very maternal. Where does gender come from? Gender roles? You don’t need a role model (although one can be helpful). I think you should be thinking of the Holy Spirit as mum, and not Mary. And you can have a relationship with Him now, as I suspect you already feel.

Byblos:
Why do you keep insisting that God is taking focus off of Himself? … If someone had walked into the room and Story asked them to pray with her, would you have considered that as a distraction from God? You don't get to have it both ways Rick, either intercessory prayers are good (and scripturally they are) or we must abandon them altogether and might as well live in a spiritual bubble, just us as individuals and God. Except that's not the picture scripture paints of the life of a believer. We are a community of believers, we gather in His name to do what, talk about the weather? We gather to honor Him and pray, collectively, as a community. Those who went ahead and are already in heaven are as much a part of our community as we are to one another.

Wanted to respond to this because it hits hard another problem I have against the CC. I see what you said as a strawman. Intercessory prayer is good. What does that have to do with the saints (us alive and dead)? One of the questions I would like answered is: If you are praying the rosary along with millions of other people, who is Mary listening to? And do you see that the CC gives her attributes of divinity such as Omnipresence? What makes you think she is listening to anyone (or can listen to more than one person?). Now the last part you said ‘Those who went ahead and are already in heaven..’ Already in heaven? We are separated from them as we are from Him. What makes you think we can commune with this community? My issue is much more than ‘taking away attention or glory’ from God. Even though I see that as the main end that is practiced. And I will keep saying people are taking Glory due to Him and attributing it elsewhere.

I have other questions but I've been gone and busy so I'll jump back in with this post. Hoping to get a few more questions out tonight.

Edit: Will read that article you sent me and let you know, Byblos.

Byblos wrote: Aside from the adultery/polygamy implications which are very serious and unfitting, we go back to typology. More precisely to Mary's role as the new Eve (just as Christ is the new Adam) and her consecrated life to the Lord. Read this and tell me what you think.

I don't see there being adultery. And polygamy was acceptable by Him. And He is the ultimate polygamist, being married to countless (because we don't know yet) people who are His Bride (to be). She was married to Joseph and he 'knew' her. How is that adultery? I don't see that charge being real in any sense.

I respond to the article you sent me in another post, reading the first paragraph already wants to make me respond. This could be a tiresome read when I post, so if you (and you ES) are not interested in how I'm approaching it let me know.

Mallz wrote:

Byblos wrote: Aside from the adultery/polygamy implications which are very serious and unfitting, we go back to typology. More precisely to Mary's role as the new Eve (just as Christ is the new Adam) and her consecrated life to the Lord. Read this and tell me what you think.

I don't see there being adultery. And polygamy was acceptable by Him. And He is the ultimate polygamist, being married to countless (because we don't know yet) people who are His Bride (to be). She was married to Joseph and he 'knew' her. How is that adultery? I don't see that charge being real in any sense.

I respond to the article you sent me in another post, reading the first paragraph already wants to make me respond. This could be a tiresome read when I post, so if you (and you ES) are not interested in how I'm approaching it let me know.

FYI, the church(singular) is His bride. Definitely not polygamy.

RickD wrote:FYI, the church(singular) is His bride. Definitely not polygamy.

Sure, perhaps polygamy was the wrong word. And if a person that is a part of His bride is also married to someone who is a part of His bride, what then? Again, I don't see the logic behind this train of thought that somehow Mary would be an adulteress if she married Joseph (which she did) and consummated that marriage (which she did).

I'll underline the questions I'd really like answered:
‘…Catholics have a natural affection for Mary…’. Completely untrue. This affection is not natural and is learned. I never had an affection for her or thought much of her (even though my Mom and Aunts do) growing up Roman Catholic. Yes, I used to be Catholic. I’m not anymore, nor am I protestant. And this isn’t something you can dismiss with thoughts of ‘you were too young and didn’t know anything/any better’.

I don’t appreciate his explanation of honor thy father and mother. In the same paragraph he takes one commandment and breaks another to try and make his point (turning honoring your parents into glorifying them). Kabad has many different meanings and I know with Hebrew context is just as important to discern meaning. Here, respect/esteem is a more accurate translation (totally open to be admonished on my Hebrew interpretation). And then equating a humans glory (as if any human actually has that) with the Divine (even though it was given by the divine. This is circular reasoning..?)

The Immaculate Conception: First, the term immaculate is being ascribed to Mary. Why? Where did this come from? There is nothing indicating she was sinless let alone didn't have original sin. And I'm curious to, why is it thought Jesus had no original sin? We have a high priest that can relate to our fallen nature... I think it funny and weird the author thinks that 'God forgives the person's original sin and takes it away' when they are born again? Original sin is ingrained in us and will stay until we are given glorified bodies. Why would one thing differently?

Regarding Mary being sinless: The author takes a passage from Romans 3:10-11 he says protestants use to show she is sinless, which as he points out is a paraphrase from Psalm 14. He does a poor interpretation of that chapter (I obviously disagree with what he is trying to say) and it doesn't matter. I don't need to use it. Regarding the universal sinfulness of mankind, the author either forgot (or didn't want remembered) John 6:44 (for one verse..). And, really, he keeps carrying on from faulty fundamental logic. I could get more specific, but don't want to overdo this post (which has been superficially written to get things started). Also, please show me biblical support of the extra/un(?) biblical backing of Mary being conceived immaculate.

Mary and the second Eve. I agree she is the fulfillment of the prophecy laid out in Genesis. Beyond that, everything is taken too far and without context or scriptural backing. Still don't know why people consider her the second Eve beyond how John the Baptist was considered Elijah.

The perpetual Virginity. I'm not quite sure how to respond. The author uses no biblical verses to express this is truth. Would you mind if I got my dogma from Enoch??

The Assumption:
Not sure why the author is comparing Mary to those taken up (not sure if I would consider Moses in with Enoch and Elijah). And you'd think (using this guys same logic) that if Mary were taken, it would have been recorded. Since she is obviously more important than Enoch or Elijah or Moses (is she? Don't remember her having much scripture dedicated to her, and comparably. Maybe as much as Enoch! But he had a book and is known to be taken...). And he keeps comparing her to Christ (as if), and it looks like most of his argument stems from other such Marian doctrines (such as her supposed impeccability [which btw, Enoch, Elijah and Moses didn't have and all? were taken]).

Queen of Heaven:
Really? He's going to say she's the queen of heaven because the second adam, Jesus, is the King of heaven...? I don't see the Revelation passage the same way the author does, either. And he obviously contradicts his own reasoning as in Revelation 12 it says ' And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.' And claims earlier her birthing of Jesus was painless...?? He didn't really do a good defense here, so nothing more to comment on.

Our mother:
He makes an argument here that if Jesus had brothers and sisters they would be caring for Mary instead. BTW, even if they were half-siblings, the care would fall to them anyway. The man whom jesus loved, John, was chosen to take care of her. Perhaps he knew how John would honor and love her and was the best choice. Obviously that's a guess, but an educated one based off of circumstantial evidence at least. Unlike the other theory (I could just say his brothers and sisters died, it didn't mention Josephs death. So why not?) But there's no more reason to say that than the authors speculation. And talk about unjust equation with saying 'is made a symbol for every disciple, for every Christian, and that as a result every Christian is to regard Mary as his mother'. If you'd like, I could slam dunk this thinking by using other scriptures showing how weird this is to be grabbed from that verse and believed. Last thing. In Revelation 12, the dragon goes after her other seed. We were not born of Mary, Christianity that is (I can get into what I see behind Revelation 12 and Genesis 3:15, if you care). And she is definitely not our spiritual mother, as Jesus states: Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

So, that sums up my response to the Author's article. I could elaborate on all points and figured this was a good starting point if you truly are interested in hashing out my issues. Seems like you could be giving me thicker meat, though. Sorry if I came off offensive or like a downright donkey pooping hole.

Food for thought there Mallz

Question, or an idea for you, could Christ be using His mother to drafw me closer to Him? I yearn for a mothers love, my relationship with my mum is non exsistent. She never showed me love or affection. So yeah, I probbly think more of, and relate better to, Mary.
Could it have been the HS? Sure, but it felt different. I have had three, shall I say, spiritual encounters now. Each felt different.
I absolutely feel the HS working within and I am learning to understand it all.

As for the gender thing, I know God isn't about gender, its about spirit and wholeness. I think all of human relationships are so we can learn about love, about relationships. I think we are born yearning to return to our original state, united with God. Our earthly lives give us a chance to experience a glimpse of what that love is like.

Christ is a better role model, yes, but for me, I just can't "connect" with Him, not as Christ, not yet. No idea why but I do connect with the HS. Maybe my path to Christ is through His mother.
I am praying, reading, and trusting.

Mallz wrote:

RickD wrote:FYI, the church(singular) is His bride. Definitely not polygamy.

Sure, perhaps polygamy was the wrong word. And if a person that is a part of His bride is also married to someone who is a part of His bride, what then? Again, I don't see the logic behind this train of thought that somehow Mary would be an adulteress if she married Joseph (which she did) and consummated that marriage (which she did).

I don't see it either.

Maltz: I'm curious to, why is it thought Jesus had no original sin? We have a high priest that can relate to our fallen nature...

NO human inherits Adam's sin, but ONLY his sin NATURE, due to the Fall. Humans are not born sinning, but born with the inevitability that they will, at some early point, begin to sin. Their inherited sin nature 1) makes them vulnerable to temptatation and 2), insures THAT THEY will desire to sin, and 3) definitely WILL sin. Jesus, in his cloak of humanity was also tempted, but also always also having been FULLY God, was able to perfectly and completely resist ALL SIN!

So Jesus was born with a propensity to sin like all of us?
The significance of temptation fails if the possibility was not present.
The human side of Jesus was subjected to the possibility of sin but He resisted perfectly due to His Divinity.
I think the duality of Jesus' humanity and Divinity is illustrated in the garden of Gethsemane. Where He struggled with what was to come (His humanity), but never deviated from His purpose (His Divinity).
He was overcome by emotion and wept when he witnessed the sorrow of His friends' sisters at the death of Lazurus. He mourned with them.
He totally understands our fallen state. He lowered Himself to become one of us. To be the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. Not only our Saviour but our friend and intercessor.