To: NYer; Alamo-Girl; Quix; Dr. Eckleburg; xzins; stfassisi
In the fifth century St. Ambrose put it nicely: Mary was the temple of God, not the god of the temple.
Bookmarked for future reference.
Thank you so very much for posting this article, NYer!
posted on 03/14/2010 1:27:52 PM PDT
by betty boop
(Moral law is not rooted in factual laws of nature; they only tell us what happens, not what ought to)
To: betty boop; Amityschild; Brad's Gramma; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; GiovannaNicoletta; Godzilla; ...
I understand the logic of Mary as the ‘temple of God.’
I do NOT find that at all a BIBLICAL label, however.
posted on 03/14/2010 6:36:19 PM PDT
(BLOKES who got us where we R: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
To: betty boop; Quix
Thank you both for sharing your insights, dear sister and brother in Christ!
It seems like many issues involving Mary are "horns of contention" between Catholics and Protestants. And I readily admit that some of the claims (e.g. that Mary was elevated to a certain equality with the Father) are more than a little troubling to me.
But the claim that she or any Christian is a temple is not one of them.
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? - I Corinthians 6:19
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson