Posted on 11/30/2010 5:36:59 AM PST by kindred
If you even bothered to investigate the prayer “Hail Mary”, you would know that it is very very biblical....not just 2 words as you seem to think. “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women” (Luke 1:28) “and blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Luke 1:42) The rest is simply asking her to pray for us. “Holy Mary, Mother of God (being she is the mother of Jesus...she is the mother of God is she not?) pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.”
You do believe in intercessory prayer yes? Asking people to prayer for us is a good thing. You believe in life after death yes? in the spirit world? So there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking someone who is among the community of saints to pray for us. And who better than the one who gave birth to Jesus.
But at least I am responsible for my own mistakes.
True, but I think it's better to avoid them, particularly the easily-avoidable ones, and most particularly the most important, easily-avoidable one.
:)
I don't think I would go that far, it assumes that they actually have an A team and I've seen no evidence of that.
Like team one, team two, team three depending on the number of groups. It’s not a rating system. :-)
“Where did I claim that that was the case? Way to make up a strawman, PM!”
Here...
“Now I realize that that attitude is just part of the mental illness that is anti-Catholicism.”
“Mary’s flesh became Jesus’ flesh. The two were one flesh.”
...
“The YOPIOS crowd continues to damn itself by embracing Arian and Nestorian heresies.”
++++++++++
The OT & Jewish theology indicate that the guilt of sin was passed through only the father... not the mother.
This is evidenced by the fact that no one in the Bible is ever held accountable for the sins of their mother - but their are regularly held accountable for the sins of the father, even for many generations.
You wrote:
“Here...”
In reply to this question:
“Where did I claim that that was the case?”
Then you posted my own words which were:
“Now I realize that that attitude is just part of the mental illness that is anti-Catholicism.”
So, anti-Catholicism is a mental illness. I ask you again, where did I EVER SAY “everyone who disagrees with [me] is “mentally ill””?
Where did I ever say that? You are asserting two entirely different comments are the same thing. To say that an attitude is part of a mental illness is not the same thing as saying that everyone who disagrees with me is mentally ill.
Just as I knew would happen, you failed. I knew I had never, EVER, said what you falsely claimed. I think you knew it too.
“Where did I ever say that? You are asserting two entirely different comments are the same thing. To say that an attitude is part of a mental illness is not the same thing as saying that everyone who disagrees with me is mentally ill.”
Within the context of the conversation...
you wrote:
“Within the context of the conversation...”
False. There is no such context.
“’False. There is no such context.”
Of course there is. The context is this thread, and the context is your posts.
Incidentally, how do you determine if someone is “anti-catholic”?
You wrote:
“Of course there is. The context is this thread, and the context is your posts.”
False. Nothing in what I said could possibly lead to what you falsely asserted. You cannot show any such “context”.
“Incidentally, how do you determine if someone is “anti-catholic”?”
I might consider responding to your question when you have proved what you claimed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.