- Blue Dragon, this may seem a little thing, but it's a priority for me: please don't say I called Mary a "Spirit Mother."
First off, I did not say that you used that term, capitalized, in that manner.
Yet "spiritual mother" is indeed the term which you used, and which would not matter if you had not, for in effect that is what Mary has been made out to be, and yes, even as expressed capitalized.
It has progressed far beyond mere "poetry" for many of the Cult of Mary within the RCC.
- I did say "spiritual" mother, and you might say "What's the difference?" But there is a difference, a big one.
Actually, in end result there is not any real difference other than it be that this Spirit Mother (now, allegedly) in the Sky, is in company of Jesus Christ (God the Son) and God the Father, as those two are known of, and spoken of.
I do understand all the intended Christian context and meaning, perhaps far better than you seem willing to give me credit for.
Yet now the differences between the Christian contexts and the pagan, earthly and sensual excesses, with your focusing upon myself supposedly not noticing or differentiating those and Mary from other alleged-to-be Spirit Mothers, has caused us to be diverted to this small side-bar of consideration, which seems to be all about what I myself allegedly think or *don't think*, or understand, etc.
Yet you started off with me here by accusing me of putting words in your own mouth, when the words were there well enough?
Spirit Mother vs. lower case "spiritual mother".
Is Mary giving birth to persons "spiritually" --- or is she not?
Please bear in mind that when I am using that term "spiritual" in this context I am meaning that truly and literally as being of spirit -- not merely "conceptually" or along lines of how one may speak poetically of a "spirit of an idea" or the spirit of a song.
The Spirit of the Lord is no small thing or mere conceptualization, mood & emotion, thus a spiritual mother also presented to be in something of a literally (not merely "poetically") position of Queen of Heaven frames the context right up very closely next to and in conjunction with God the Father whom Jesus himself spoke of in this manner; God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
To that, and to The Our Father outline of prayer -- given to us by Christ himself is to be added; prayers TO Our "spiritual mother"?
REALLY?
Can you not SEE the problem here, and if not see the problem at least SEE the potential problem?
...but now...Our Father (and lower case just to make it past the censors, cross our fingers and hope to die) our Mother, too. Woops, that "M" became capitalized. DOES THAT MATTER ONE WHIT at this point?
- I did learn something here, which is: don't assume that people will automatically understand what you say in the context of Jesus Christ Our Lord.
Don't assume that I do not "understand" when the preponderance of evidence as shown in my own words would otherwise indicate that I do understand.
I'm just not buying into it lock-stock-and-barrel just because it is spoken of "in context of Jesus Christ Our Lord" anymore than I would need to roll over and play dead when Mormon theologians present their own versions of theology ---while themselves also utilizing wording alluding "context of Jesus Christ Our Lord".
Yet I've got to hand it to you. That was a genuine professional effort at putting all the onus upon me to personally both explain AND defend myself --- while you went otherwise about entirely avoiding the direct question which I presented to you about six ways from Sunday (so there would be no excuse it not be understood, or else simply overlooked).
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, here again is the primary question, concerning your own assertions and the ramifications of those same.
Thank you again for having rather distilled the central-most contradictory theological results of a wide range of RC apologetic (and the theology it ostensibly explains & defends);
I had said to you, quoting yourself in italics
How on earth (and in heaven also) can this;This stuff isn't "partial divinizing": nobody is "partially divinizing" Mary.
square with;"... Mary was therefore predestined to be the spiritual mother of many offspring"
Care to address that, now? Usage of lower case lettering simply does not rectify or remove the cognitive dissonance which the juxtaposition of the two assertions leave in their wake.
How can "Mary" be spiritual mother, and also "Queen of Heaven" of course, at the same time (I already KNOW the excuses for THAT one) yet giving birth to ---- Christians isn't it, and by the spirit too, would that not be, while she herself is said to be in Heaven, reigning there as "Queen", yet herself in some super-secret way also perhaps not(?) Our Spirit Mother..?
Would that mean that you are, in the end, or else deep down inside yourself, otherwise agreeing with me in that we (and I'm assuming here we are speaking only of those whom are born again/born FROM above) really do not have a "spiritual mother", and that mother be Mary and here I will throw a life ring towards you other than only "poetically speaking"? == not truly spiritual in comparison to the realms she is otherwise said to be Queen of, but instead is just poetical emotionalism, spirit of intellectual idea, spirit of outwards face & poise, etc...?
Is God the Father the Father of us when we become born again --- or is that just a figure of speach, in your own understanding?
Think about it, but please address the questions squarely rather than circle 'round dragging it all off into the bushes of yet other additional 'splainin' (that never get's to the genuine core of the issue) mixed up with doses of correcting myself for imaginary offenses...
