Posts by boatbums

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/30/2015 3:25:35 PM PDT · 615 of 616
    boatbums to HossB86

    We should always try to keep in mind that there is a small contingent here who only delights in setting traps, parsing words and senseless badgering, all with the intent to condemn opponents personally so that they can skip having to defend their faulty doctrines and ideas - which they already know are indefensible. One thing they do that we can rely on is they consistently act that way no matter how many times they have been exposed.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/30/2015 3:18:27 PM PDT · 614 of 616
    boatbums to BlueDragon

    I believe you are quite correct. It WILL take an act of God to shake loose the blindness and hypocrisy of some here. Sadly, though, it may not happen until it is too late to remedy their fallen state.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/29/2015 10:52:02 PM PDT · 595 of 616
    boatbums to Steelfish; BlueDragon; RaceBannon
    Your post self-contradicts itself because you claim we have ONE Church, and ONE truth, but its some amorphous “one body of Christ” each with their own interpretations of the Word of God , all through “the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ,’ but with no singular authoritative teaching mandate as given to Peter and his apostles. Go tell that to the Moonies and Rev. Jeremiah Wrights and Jehovah’s Witnesses of this world because they too believe that “their” interpretation of Scripture is the Word of God following from “the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ.”

    If you don't LIKE the term "Spiritual House" to refer to the ONE, TRUE church of Jesus Christ, take it up with St. Peter - HE said it (under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit). You seem to keep forgetting that heresy has ALWAYS been around - there have always been false prophets/ teachers, wolves that seek to devour the sheep. The authoritative teaching mandate we ALL have is to preach the WORD, that if someone does not speak according to the word of God, it is because they have no light in them (Isa. 8:20). How heresy was defeated in the past is no different than today - the rule of faith is the Word of God. The Roman Catholic church declaring it alone was that singular authority certainly didn't prevent her from making errors, twisting Scripture, causing schisms, teaching an accursed gospel and all kinds of perversions of the truth. You err even as a Roman Catholic if you assert everything the RCC did was infallible or that the early church fathers were infallible - that denies the very definition of how RCs ascribe the charisma of infallibility. Isn't it ONLY in play when the Pope speaks ex cathedra (from the chair)? Your own religion doesn't claim to be infallible in everything. In fact, they have left y'all to fend for yourselves on a great deal of Scripture - failing to have ever produced an "infallible" Bible commentary on every verse. You may not know this, but you don't even have guidelines on how to interpret the few "infallible" pronouncements that HAVE been given over the centuries.

    If I were you, I'd cease using the bogus claim that having the "authoritative teaching mandate as given to Peter and his apostles" guarantees every leader that came after them automatically has this authority handed down to them. That God HAD to give it to them simply because they won a popularity contest or bribed their way into the office (as happened more than a few times). The only Apostolic Succession that exists is one of handing down the rule of faith, the gospel, and it is something the Holy Spirit ensures is done throughout the world - He has always had a remnant that has kept the faith pure and undefiled by human traditions. Your repetitive smear against everyone who isn't a Roman Catholic is the true absurdity here as is the constant appeal to all the "smart" people who have poped - as if that should EVER be something that draws the lost to Christ.

    Here are my responses to your faulty logic about my logic:

    1. Discount the infallibility of the Church in authenticating what is the true Word of God when the canonical texts were assembled in AD 382 in the Synod of Rome. This means you must doubt whether the Church wrongly left or included some books as the true written word of God.

    The Roman Catholic church didn't "authenticate" the word of God! God revealed the truth through Holy Spirit inspired prophets. The believers received the writings as from God because they knew the authority of the Apostles - the REAL ones chosen by Jesus Christ, not the pretend ones who imagined they could inherit their mantle. They didn't have to wait for a synod three hundred years later to tell them which of God's word they would obey and which ones they could toss. I'm shocked that you still assert this!

    2. Ignore a broad swath of writings by the early Church Fathers that have made clear that it is the Catholic Church that is the true depository of God’s Word. Here’s just one of them:

    In the year 110 A.D., not even fifteen years after the book of Revelation was written, while on his way to execution St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote: “Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church”. The Church believes that when the bishops speak as teachers, Christ speaks; for he said to them: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Lk 10, 16).

    Nope, by 95 A.D. the entire body of sacred Scripture was complete. NO church father ever held the church had authority OVER God's divine word. Besides, Ignatius wasn't talking about the Pope of Rome - there was no Pope of Rome in his day. There were presbyters/bishops that led local churches and they taught the UNIVERSAL Christian faith. He was the first to use the word "catholic", but it was NOT a proper noun, it wasn't capitalized because it was an adjective describing the universal church of Jesus Christ holding to the one gospel of the grace of God, there was no church called the "Catholic Church".

    3. Ignore the unwritten word of God. John 21:25 telles us that not all what Christ said and did were written down. This is the great oral tradition of the Church that existed BEFORE the written texts were assembled by the Church. You need proof that such a tradition existed. Here’s one: St. Paul in his letters also warns the faithful to hold fast to the tradition they received: “We command you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to avoid any brother who wanders from the straight path and does not follow the tradition you received from us” (2 Th 3, 6).

    NO, John 21:25 does NOT tell us Jesus "said" or taught things that didn't get written down - as if he was giving the church free reign to invent and make up whatever they wanted. John said Jesus DID many things that weren't written - BECAUSE IF THEY HAD BEEN, THE WHOLE WORLD COULD NOT CONTAIN ALL THE BOOKS THAT COULD BE WRITTEN - but that what John DID write down was so that we might believe and have eternal life through Christ:

      Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:20-31)

    4. Dispute the great theologians who have examined Petrine Authority from saints to popes to scholars from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman (a Catholic convert) after whom colleges and universities have been named for the depth of their theological writings.

    We shouldn't get hung up on thinking people smarter than we are MUST be on to something and we should follow them. That's dangerous. God doesn't want us to be enticed away from the truth no matter how attractive the draw may be of the counterfeit:

      Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” (I Cor. 1:26-31)

    5. Dispute the vast array of Protestant and Evangelical theologians who have converted to Catholicism and embraced the full teachings of the Church and Petrine authority.

    I don't have to dispute them. So what? There's a vast array of former Roman Catholics who have embraced and converted to the fullness of the Christian faith in non-RC churches. The supposed "Petrine authority" they once though was found only in Rome have come to realize that there was no longer such a thing. That the authority given to Peter was given to all the Apostles to go out into all the world and preach the gospel, making disciples for Christ and establishing places of worship, learning, discipleship and fellowship for believers. A tradition that continues to this day. The rule of faith today is the same as they used - the word of God.

    6. Dispute the large groups of brilliant lay-people that have converted to Catholicism that include Nobel Laureates, writers, scientists, essayists (and not just Chesterton) including some familiar American names like Justice Thomas, Robert Bork, Robert Novak (a Jewish convert) and Laura Ingraham. These folks are not your typical ACORN dummies.

    Blah, blah, blah...you sure do love that argument! I hope you aren't suggesting that nobody could be brilliant who doesn't "Pope". I can name scores of smart theologians that left Catholicism for Evangelicalism, but, I would hope nobody is foolish enough to follow "smart" people becuase they think they are smarter than they are. Plenty have done that and they followed them into hell! We have a responsibility to ourselves to seek the truth and God is a rewarder of those who DILIGENTLY seek Him. God's not impressed by human wisdom, neither should we be.

    7. Dispute that a long line of saints, martyrs, stigmatists for some eleven centuries since the Synod of Rome in AD 382 as being all misled until the Protestant Reformation of 1517 came along and soon broke off into several offshoots each with its own distinct understanding.

    Nobody has said that but you. Why the straw man? There IS only one, true Gospel and it is found clearly in Scripture. There have always been true belivers and they can be found in many denominations. There's no use in pretending Roman Catholicism has always been the same as it is today - it's not. The Reformation was a necessary movement to happen - even Pope Benedict admitted it. The state of the RCC during that time was deplorable. There was rampant moral and doctrinal church corruption and God used the reformers to combat that, cause repentance and return to the orthodox Christian faith once delivered unto the saints.

    8. Have to acknowledge that without the Church, even such mainline Protestant and Episcopalian denominations that quote Scripture to justify the ordination of married gay and lesbian pastors and “bishops” may claim to be part of the” whole council of God” (whatever you imply from these loosely-goosey terms)

    Saying and doing are two different things. Those who claim to interpret the Scriptures to allow blatant sin are obviously misusing Scripture. In fact, most of these churches have long ago rejected the Bible as their authority because there was no way to rationalize their sinfulness. The Roman Catholic church has also been guilty of misusing Scripture - making the literal allegory or figurative and vice versa to suit their own perversions. Was not one of the key issues of the Reformation the corruption of paying indulgences to free loved ones from Purgatory or the consequences of their own sin?

    9. Affirm that there are many “truths” because each of the multitude of Protestant denominations will all claim that the Word of God has been “illuminated” by the Holy Spirit. (again, whatever, this “illumination” means to you) Who is to tell?

    Another straw man argument! No, there are not "many" truths. There is ONLY one truth of the gospel and Rome screwed that one up fairly quickly. It really doesn't matter what someone "claims" but what the word of God actually says. It's pretty clear for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. The truth of the Christian faith, as spelled out in Scripture, is self-interpreting. Asserting there are as many interpretations as there are denominations is ridiculous on its face. Besides, most "Protestant" denominations differ little from each other on the main tenets of the Christian faith. What separates one from another may only be in areas of church government or methods of leadership and church discipline. I don't think Catholics have much of a leg to stand on in the "unity" department. We all know about liberal Catholic priests and bishops.

    10. Christ established no single teaching authority. But this flies in the face of both specific scriptural passages (referenced below) and more specifically how they were understood by the early followers of Christ.

    Again, nobody has denied Jesus established leadership within the local churches to ensure unity of the faith and the Scriptures were given as the instruction manual for teaching, correcting, instructing in righteousness. We just deny that it was ONLY found with the Roman catholic church seeing as what calls itself that church today barely resembles the one founded in the first centuries. How we know is how it measures up to the rule of faith.

    I've spent more time on this than I wanted. I doubt what I say will make one bit of difference and we'll see the same arguments tossed out again and again as if nobody ever tried to clarify anything. If you want to carry around disgust and hatred for genuine Christian brothers and sister, then that will be your business - its between you and God. I remain confident in my decision to leave Roman Catholicism for the truth of the gospel of the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. I know that I have eternal life and I shall never perish. I truly do pray for that same assurance for all those who come to faith in Christ.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/29/2015 8:19:47 PM PDT · 593 of 616
    boatbums to HossB86
    I seem to recall a few FRoman Catholics on these threads who will INSIST that a source not only be cited BUT linked as well for any kind of statement that we make. They flat out refuse to read a word unless their demand is met. Funny how duplicitous some are, isn't it?
  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/29/2015 4:20:13 PM PDT · 586 of 616
    boatbums to Steelfish; RaceBannon
    Again, quoting swatches of scripture out of context is what shallow Bible Christians do while blissfully ignoring the fact that they are quoting from books put together as the true Word of Christ based on Petrine authority by the early Church fathers in the Synod of Rome in AD 382, ELEVEN centuries before the curse of Protestantism. It is then and now the Church of its illustrious saints and martyrs.

    The absurdity being presented here by Catholic anti-Protestant bigots would have everyone believe that the Divinely-inspired and sacred word of God only has authority because "their" church decided it did! Assembling the books into a volume and calling it The Holy Bible may have happened in Rome's fourth century synod when they officially declared they did it but the recognition of all the inspired books were held LONG before then. Even a cursory read through the writings of eminent (I know you LIKE that word) early Christian leaders demonstrates they recognized the authority of sacred Scripture and from whom they received them - even completely enough that nearly the entire Bible could be reconstructed solely from these writings alone without the manuscript copies they relied upon. The Apostles ensured that the fledgling church received the divinely-inspired writings as the Holy Spirit revealed them and they did not shirk from delivering to them "whole council of God". Nobody waited centuries to be told they had the word of God because the Holy Spirit illuminated the truth and authority these writings contained. How many times does this truth have to be explained?

    We DO have one church, one body of Christ and it is based upon the ONE truth of the gospel of the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, who died for our sins and gifts to us eternal life. However, that ONE church is demonstrably NOT the Roman Catholic church as can be easily discerned from the simple fact that THE church, the bride of Christ, will contain ONLY the redeemed and no tares/lost/unsaved. This Spiritual House of which ALL believers, as living stones, are being built into it (see I Peter 2:5) will be gathered together and clothed with the spotless, washed-in-the-blood of Jesus Christ, wedding garments and will sit down at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. No outsiders will be there. No Christians-in-name-onlys. No pious pretenders. And certainly no one who denies that our salvation is a gift of God that we receive by faith and not by our works.

    Do some RCs qualify? I sure hope so! But your church as no valid basis for the boasts of being THE one true church of Jesus Christ. That is truly absurd!

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/29/2015 1:51:06 PM PDT · 581 of 616
    boatbums to vladimir998
    One more thing...James says we demonstrate our faith by what we do, by our works. "Show me your faith.", is what he says, because that's all anyone can see - not what's in our hearts. That IS how we show the kind of faith we have by what we do, how we act and not just by what we say.

    If I profess I don't worship the Easter Bunny, but my actions sure look like I do, then what good is it to claim I don't? A sure sign that someone worships someone or something is by how much time they spend doing it. If I pray ten times as many prayers to the Easter Bunny than I do to Almighty God, then no matter how much I protest and deny that I don't worship the EB, my actions make me out to be a liar. This is why God forbid His people from DOING the things the pagans did as well as believing in their false gods. He is a jealous God, His glory He will NOT share with another.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/28/2015 10:01:45 PM PDT · 562 of 616
    boatbums to vladimir998

    Not sorry, but you don’t get to decide what I can or cannot say about ANY religion. And, yeah, it WOULD be a cop-out to say anyone who worships Mary isn’t a “true” Catholic.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/28/2015 9:59:07 PM PDT · 561 of 616
    boatbums to vladimir998
    Seeing as nobody can read another person’s mind to know what they really are intending by their outward acts, how is anyone supposed to tell you actually worship God rather than the man standing in front of you in church? Don’t tell me you don’t worship the guy in front of you and that your proof is that you say things about Jesus, post your testimony, etc. After all you’re just living in darkness (you worship the guy in the pew in front of you after all) so you must be deluded or lying, right? Maybe you secretly worship the Easter Bunny. How would I know otherwise? Maybe you are a member of a strange cult that sacrifices chickens to Thor and children to Molech. How would I know otherwise? You know how I know? Basically I take you at your word that you’re a Christian of some kind. Sadly, you won’t extend the same courtesy to us. The reason is obvious too.

    Geez...your answers just seem to grow more and more goofy. When God COMMANDED the Israelites to NOT make and/or bow down before graven images to serve them, worship them, do things for them, sacrifice to them, etc., He was talking about both their actions as well as what was in their hearts. We communicate what we believe by what we do where others can see us.

    If I had a statue of the Easter Bunny in my garden and I planted flowers around it and went there every day, kneeling before it and praying to it, you just MIGHT have reason to believe I worship the Easter Bunny. I can tell you that I'm not, but my actions belie my words. If I pray to the EB to save me, protect me, help me, to comfort me, to rescue me, to bring me to heaven, to intercede with Jesus for me or to give me grace, how is that not worshiping the EB? If I sing songs to EB, recite repetitive prayers every day, built an Easter Bunny cathedral, had EB statuary that I kissed, crawled on my knees in penitential pain as some kind of preparation to come before statues of the Easter Bunny...would you conclude I worshiped the Easter Bunny?

    OH, but you might say, the Easter Bunny isn't real! But neither is the Mary of Catholicism. You can declare all you want that "worship" of Mary is not official Roman catholic teaching, but you cannot claim to know the motives of all the Catholics who really DO worship Mary. At best you can say the people you know don't - and even that is questionable - but you cannot truthfully declare no Catholic does. You aren't God. He, however, does know the hearts of men and is why He commanded us to have no other gods before Him, to make NO graven images to bow down before them and to serve HIM alone. I don't claim to know who is a Christian or who isn't a Christian because I can't see someone's heart. But what we all can do is know whether someone is professing the truth because we have God's rule of faith for measuring what is the truth - His sacred word - and He gives us the Holy Spirit to illuminate His truth to our hearts. We witness what we believe by what we do. If people can look at what we do and it looks like we are worshiping someone/thing other than Almighty God, then we are doing it wrong.

      Remember: Actions speak louder than words.
  • Did Jesus Have Fleshly Half-Brothers?

    03/28/2015 9:09:19 PM PDT · 277 of 297
    boatbums to cuban leaf; Elsie
    Support can be found through the Holy Scriptures to back up the case for eternal torture as well as the case for annihilation in Hell. In coming to a conclusion, therefore, one must take this to heart and study all of God’s Word to find which model fits best with the overall thrust of Scripture.

    I think there is a far better case for hell being a place of eternal torment than there is for what is called "annihilation". If the lost have only eternal nothingness to look forward to, I don't see how that could be something for them to fear and propel them to saving faith in Christ. Atheists, for example, have said they can think of nothing BETTER than to cease to exist rather than be "tortured" with having to praise Almighty God for eternity. Hell is called a place of torment, a final judgment, something that cannot be escaped, that is unceasing. People who believe in ultimate annihilation for the condemned will NOT have the sense of urgency to rescue the perishing through evangelization. They will not be compelled to preach the gospel as we are commanded to do. Jesus warned - and we should not think he was kidding:

      And whoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if your hand offend you, cut it off: it is better for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. And if your foot offend you, cut it off: it is better for you to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. And if your eye offend you, pluck it out: it is better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. (Mark 9:42-48)
  • Did Jesus Have Fleshly Half-Brothers?

    03/28/2015 8:48:06 PM PDT · 276 of 297
    boatbums to Rides_A_Red_Horse; Elsie; CynicalBear; metmom
    Are you saying Salvation is not possible without Mary?

    Catholic writings have said exactly that - that ALL graces come through Mary, that she is the "Dispenser of all graces". So, if we don't go to Mary, that must mean we can't have saving grace. You can see why such beliefs were not universally held and only became "official" Roman Catholic dogma within the last few centuries.

  • Four reasons why the Bread of Life Discourse cannot be a metaphor

    03/28/2015 8:25:43 PM PDT · 16 of 107
    boatbums to NKP_Vet
    The ONE reason why the Bread of Life Discourse HAD to be metaphor:

    The bread didn't change into human flesh and the wine didn't change into human blood.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/27/2015 9:59:58 PM PDT · 443 of 616
    boatbums to vladimir998; Elsie; All
    Apparently - even though I have pointed this out to you before - you can’t tell the difference between the fact that you posted quotes about what Mary does for us rather than any evidence of anyone actually worshiping Mary.

    Let me ask this of any Roman Catholic Freeper...how would anyone be able to tell the difference between "worship" of Mary - which you claim there is never any evidence of anyone actually worshiping Mary - and the kind of "reverence" that IS officially approved? Seeing as nobody can read another person's mind to know what they really are intending by their outward acts, how is anyone supposed to tell the difference?

    God certainly forbid the Jews from following after strange gods and pagan idols and He also forbid them from mimicking the same acts that these pagans did before their false gods such as making graven images of them, bowing down before them, making offerings to them, sacrificing their children and other things. I'd just like to know how any Catholic can make such a blanket statement that NO Catholic actually worships Mary when they cannot know what is in someone's heart, what their intent is or what they think they are doing in their dedication to her. I don't think it can be honestly claimed that nobody worships Mary in Catholicism.

    BTW...if the answer is that anyone who actually DOES worship Mary isn't a "true" Catholic, then save it. That's a cop-out.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/27/2015 8:48:40 PM PDT · 434 of 616
    boatbums to vladimir998; Springfield Reformer; Boogieman; HossB86; metmom; CynicalBear
    It does matter. It also matters what they PROFESS to believe. If they profess to believe in Jesus I am not going to say they don’t profess to believe in Jesus.

    All this back and forth over the word "profess" is completely missing the point made back over two hundred posts ago. Yes, Muslims "profess" to believe in the God of Abraham - no one has denied that - but the real problem in agreeing with the Roman Catholic Catechism's statement is not that part but the phrase, "Together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.".

    The Catechism goes on to say, "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God."

    The objection all along has NOT been about who Muslims "profess" to believe in but that the RCC regards Muslims with "esteem" and agrees that Catholics worship the same god as they do. Until this error is dealt with, we could continue to play semantic games and NEVER get to the point. Christians DO NOT worship the same god as Muslims, no matter who they profess him to be. The false god, Allah, is NOT Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the only true God.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/27/2015 7:46:10 PM PDT · 429 of 616
    boatbums to af_vet_1981; Iscool
    The scriptures are clear. We do not look for another young woman who is a virgin to conceive and call her son Immanuel. Miriam/Mary is the mother of Immanuel. Thus Miriam/Mary is the mother of "God with us" and it is thus according to the scriptures.

    Glad to see you agree that the title belonging SOLELY to Mary is "the Mother of God With Us". That has a much clearer meaning than calling her Mother of God and it eliminates the need to clarify that she isn't the mother of the Father or the Holy Spirit that the title Mother of God provokes.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/27/2015 3:02:46 PM PDT · 414 of 616
    boatbums to vladimir998

    Yes, it is absolutely true that it is his opinion. It doesn’t make what he wrote absolutely true.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/27/2015 2:44:02 PM PDT · 408 of 616
    boatbums to knarf; Iscool
    Mary who came into being without Original Sin, had the same spiritual status as Eve, who came into being without Original Sin. Sh could have subsequently sinned of her own volition, just as Eve ended up doing. But she chose not to sin. She chose to cooperate with God in all things.

    Since I was requested to NOT ping the person "answering" my question, I won't. However, the response did NOT really answer my question...it was avoided.

    My question was how Roman Catholics square the dogma of the Immaculate Conception - the idea that Mary was born without a sin nature and remained sinless throughout her life - if she could have refused the angel's announcement that she was to be the mother of the Messiah, God incarnate. IF Mary could have refused, then her supposed sinless conception would have been unnecessary and God would have wasted the exception He made for Mary alone, His plan would have to be revised, her replacement sought out by causing another girl baby to be born "immaculately" with the same heritage and bloodline to fulfill Messianic prophecies - a Plan B. In other words, God's foreknowledge and omniscience would have been foiled. I cannot see how anyone could believe this because it would prove God is NOT who He said He was and we would not be following the true God.

    I think we should be able to discuss this topic without causing some to hyperventilate over it. That it was Catholic Freepers who initiated the "rape" rabbit hole seems to have been missed. I know I certainly don't and wouldn't even think of that as the reason why Mary was not asked her permission but instead was announced to her of God's plan. There is no reason in the first place for the mother of the incarnate God to be sinless, only that she was a virgin and of the lineage of David. God knew from before the world began that this would be how the salvation of mankind would proceed. God doesn't make mistakes.

  • Did Jesus Have Fleshly Half-Brothers?

    03/26/2015 10:46:51 PM PDT · 126 of 297
    boatbums to mlizzy

    How does discussing doctrines and dogmas tied to Christianity automatically make them “anti-Catholic” or disdaining of Mary? Do Catholics have such thin skin that they cannot defend their church’s teachings without attributing ulterior motives and persecution to those who disagree? I’d suggest staying OFF of open RF threads if that is the case.

  • Did Jesus Have Fleshly Half-Brothers?

    03/26/2015 10:37:46 PM PDT · 125 of 297
    boatbums to terycarl; RnMomof7
    Only if they were sons of Joseph by an earlier marriage.

    If Joseph had other children, then why weren't they WITH him and Mary on the trip to Bethlehem for the mandated census? Seeing as Jesus was the eldest son and NONE of his younger brothers were there at His crucifixion, it was only right that He entrusted the care of His mother to the ONLY Apostle there, John. His brothers James and Jude eventually came to saving faith in Jesus as Messiah. They were younger than Him, not older, which would show that they were NOT children of Joseph from before his marriage to Mary.

    What's the big deal about Mary having a normal marriage and children with her husband? It had NOTHING to do with the virgin birth of the incarnation since Jesus was the firstborn son of Mary and Joseph. Placing her on a pedestal as an icon to perpetual virginity doesn't honor her or Christ.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/26/2015 9:53:16 PM PDT · 214 of 616
    boatbums to Iscool

    I haven’t yet in all the times I’ve ask it. I guess when someone does it will probably be, “It’s a mystery.”. ;o)

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/26/2015 9:34:14 PM PDT · 211 of 616
    boatbums to vladimir998

    It’s truly HIS opinion...nothing more.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/26/2015 9:31:26 PM PDT · 210 of 616
    boatbums to Steelfish
  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/26/2015 9:25:32 PM PDT · 208 of 616
    boatbums to Steelfish
  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/26/2015 9:21:03 PM PDT · 206 of 616
    boatbums to Steelfish
    There's that broken record once again! Like clockwork. What's funny is I didn't even say anything BUT good things about Mary, yet you still find something to set you off on your tirade condemning everyone who isn't "smart" enough to be an RC.

    Do you ever bother to read the refutations supplied to you on all those points you seem to be so stuck on? If you won't read them, then you have nobody but yourself to blame for the wrongheaded and false delusions you promote.

    When you stand before the judgment seat, don't look around for all those esteemed, eminent theologians you follow to stand there with you. They will be dealing with God on their own, too. The test WON'T be what church you attended.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/26/2015 8:31:29 PM PDT · 198 of 616
    boatbums to vladimir998

    His OPINION, nothing more. Deal with it.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/26/2015 8:29:04 PM PDT · 196 of 616
    boatbums to vladimir998; Boogieman
    Jesus is there. Jesus is God. Jesus is in Mary’s womb - Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

    Mary may have been symbolically the Ark of the Covenant FOR NINE MONTHS, but after she delivered the incarnate Son of God, she ceased even being that.

    Besides, IF Mary is the NEW Ark of the Covenant, then are you asserting it is she of whom Revelation 11 speaks?

      "And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth." And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm. (Revelation 11:18,19)

    Now, I know Revelation 12 comes right after that particular passage and it speaks of the sign in heaven of the woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Is this where Catholicism comes up with the idea that Mary will ALWAYS be the New Ark of the Covenant and do they contend it is SHE that will bring judgment down?

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/26/2015 8:07:24 PM PDT · 193 of 616
    boatbums to Mrs. Don-o; knarf
    Mary, like all of us, had a free will. If she had not consented, God would not have forced her.

    How do Catholic square the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception" with the concept that Mary could have said "no"?

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/26/2015 3:00:30 PM PDT · 126 of 616
    boatbums to vladimir998; RaceBannon
    No less a Protestant authority on art than the Protestant Ralph Adams Cram once wrote:

    You've tried this canard before. Mr. Cram is NOT a "Protestant" authority about anything theologically "Protestant". According to his biography, he was a prolific and influential American architect of collegiate and ecclesiastical buildings, often in the Gothic Revival style. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Adams_Cram). It was when he left for Rome at the age of 23 to study classical architecture, that during an 1887 Christmas Eve mass in Rome, he had a dramatic conversion experience. For the rest of his life, he practiced as a fervent Anglo-Catholic who identified as High Church Anglican.

    His OPINION about "art" doesn't mean they are facts. To condemn ALL non-Catholic Christians over what could have been an overreaction to icon and idol worship rampant with Catholicism during and shortly after the Reformation hardly means ALL beauty of Divine and human artistry was abandoned. That's nothing more than propaganda. Cram asserted that if what he called beauty could be restored to the "offices of religion" it would automatically drive everyone back to Roman Catholicism only showed what a shallow and erroneous gospel he believed in the first place. Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is not dependent upon the works of men's hands - it is the work of the Holy Spirit to illuminate the truth to those whose hearts are seeking Him.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/26/2015 2:10:17 PM PDT · 108 of 616
    boatbums to Steelfish

    I respect and admire Mary for the example she gave for ALL Christians of being humble and submissive to the will of Almighty God. Unlike Moses, for example, she didn’t doubt or try to argue with God about how He would use her to further the salvation of the entire world. I think we can properly honor her by remembering these truths without going beyond what is written to exalt her above what we are told in God’s word. To GOD be the glory now and forevermore.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/26/2015 1:55:01 PM PDT · 107 of 616
    boatbums to metmom
    Only if they had sex. But if it’s considered rape because God didn’t ask permission, then if God did ask permission, and Mary, being betrothed to Joseph, gave assent to consensual relations with someone other than her husband, than that makes her an adulterous.

    Well, yeah...there IS that.

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/26/2015 11:38:30 AM PDT · 335 of 336
    boatbums to verga

    You “see” nothing of the kind. Stop making it personal for a change and discuss the subject of the thread. This lying in wait for a chance to toss condescending and patronizing “zingers” is unbecoming of one who claims to be a Christian.

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/26/2015 11:34:43 AM PDT · 334 of 336
    boatbums to metmom

    I can’t see any other legitimate reason.

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/26/2015 11:28:44 AM PDT · 332 of 336
    boatbums to verga
    The voice you are "hearing" is saying: Did God really say.... I will continue to pray for you, and pity you.

    And how could you possibly know what I'm hearing or thinking? Attempting the parlor trick of mind reading once again? Save your prayers and "pity"...I don't need or want them. They would be better spent on yourself to clear out the cobwebs in your ears and the beams in your eyes.

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/25/2015 7:50:35 PM PDT · 326 of 336
    boatbums to verga
    There is no "lie" that I am IN to come out OF. In fact, I came out of the lie of Roman Catholicism going on forty-six years ago now and God has seen fit to KEEP me from backsliding. Every day that goes by, He continues to assure me of the right decision and helps me to grow in His grace by a life of faith. Maybe you should try it!
  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/25/2015 5:02:11 PM PDT · 322 of 336
    boatbums to Mrs. Don-o; DungeonMaster
    Jesus absolutely affirms that these who have gone on before --- Moses and Elijah, like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob --- are alive in Him. Do you actually think that Moses and Elijah are "dead"? Jesus says (Mark 12:24-27) "You know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God... You are very much mistaken."

    Jesus was speaking to the Sadducees - the Jewish sect that rejected the resurrection of the righteous. It that particular passage, Jesus was correcting their attempt to trick him by asking about marriage in the afterlife (something they didn't believe existed and I don't doubt they had used successfully against their rivals the Pharisees):

      Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?” Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!" (Mark 12:18-27)

    So, rather than Jesus somehow okaying praying to the dead, he was instead asserting that ALL are alive TO God - even when they have passed from this life into the next - and there is no "marriage" in heaven.

    The Jewish king Saul died because:

      Saul died because he was unfaithful to the Lord; he did not keep the word of the Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the Lord. So the Lord put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse. (I Chronicles 10:13-14)

    The Prophet Isaiah warned:

      When they say to you, "Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter," should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa. 8:19-20)

    It really doesn't matter what others in the past have done - even those who claim to be Christians - there is not one place in the New Testament that people pray to Mary or saints in the early church. The apostles never wrote of it in the book of Acts or any of the epistles. There is no Old Testament or New Testament teaching of praying to the dead. and while they may be very much alive in heaven the Bible categorizes them as dead because they are no longer with us here on earth after their body is put to the ground.

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/25/2015 3:06:35 PM PDT · 321 of 336
    boatbums to St_Thomas_Aquinas; RnMomof7
    Protestants sometimes object to the term, “Protestant,” preferring the label, “Christian,” instead. But their Christianity seems to consist almost entirely of protesting against Catholic doctrines and practices. Perhaps it’s because “we’re not Catholic!” is the only doctrine all Protestants agree on, except for “Sola Scriptura.”

    On the contrary, I'd say the vast majority of "Protestants" never give Roman Catholicism a second thought. Perhaps four or five centuries ago it was not necessarily so, but no one defines their faith by what they don't believe. I think that is more a propaganda or pretended persecution tactic of argumentative RCs - especially so on these RF threads, it seems.

    What I find bemusing is when a non-Catholic posts a thread discussing what IS believed on certain topics, little time elapses before some Roman Catholic joins in to assert whatever was stated in the article is wrong/in error and had to have been posted for polemical purposes and is anti-Catholic. Heavens forbid if it is a former Catholic testifying to why he/she left Catholicism for a non-Catholic denomination!

    And while we are on THAT subject...explain why FRoman Catholics feel perfectly justified in posting threads explaining all the things Protestants get wrong and how Catholicism is the superior and "full" Christian faith or threads that boast of former Protestants who came "home" to Rome, and then pitch a fit if a non-Catholic dares express disagreement? A few have even astoundingly asserted there NEVER is or have been threads that are anti-Protestant! Irony indeed!

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/25/2015 1:18:03 PM PDT · 316 of 336
    boatbums to verga
    Nope...you "fixed" nothing - not even close. It is curious how many times the SAME false opinions - disguised as "truth" - are disputed by genuine facts yet some continue to spout them as if they were oblivious to it all and don't have a clue about WHY they are wrong. Perhaps the reason is they cannot bring themselves to admit their "church" is fallible about anything so they simply have to continue to defend them no matter how stupid it makes them look to others. We continue to pray for them, though.
  • US Declassifies Document Revealing Israel's Nuclear Program

    03/25/2015 1:09:25 PM PDT · 44 of 62
    boatbums to Dave346
    Obama - the petulant man-child WILL have his revenge!
  • Christian Answers to Two Roman Catholic Questions on “Catholic Answers”

    03/24/2015 11:05:48 PM PDT · 81 of 99
    boatbums to Gamecock

    ping for later

  • Prayer Request for cva66snipe's wife

    03/24/2015 11:03:01 PM PDT · 96 of 102
    boatbums to cva66snipe

    Your dear wife, you and your family will continue to be in my prayers. God is good.

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/24/2015 10:48:04 PM PDT · 283 of 336
    boatbums to ealgeone; DungeonMaster
    Ever Read DeMontfort? He gets really worshipful on the subject of Mary.

    Yes I have....catholics run from like roaches when the light is turned on.

    Yet that work has an Imprimatur and nihil obstat - terms that mean:

      In the Catholic Church an imprimatur is an official declaration by a Church authority that a book or other printed work may be published; it is usually only applied for and granted to books on religious topics from a Catholic perspective.

      The grant of imprimatur is normally preceded by a favourable declaration (known as a nihil obstat) by a person who has the knowledge, orthodoxy and prudence necessary for passing a judgement about the absence from the publication of anything that would "harm correct faith or good morals". In canon law such a person is known as a censor or sometimes as a censor librorum (Latin for "censor of books"). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur)

    I haven't seen anything "official" that removes that designation to the work.

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/24/2015 10:10:16 PM PDT · 282 of 336
    boatbums to Mrs. Don-o; Iscool
    This is the governing reality of it, this Mystical Body of Christ, this blessed Communion of Saints. There is a constant sharing of spiritual goods; as cells, tissues, organs, systems, limbs and senses we are all joined in the Body of Christ; at no point can we say "I have no connection with you; we don't communicate; I don't need you." And a person doesn't lose the ability to intercede, or cease to be a member of the Communion of Saints once they enter heaven!

    Just consider this for a moment...when we ask other believers to pray for us or our loved ones (as many of us did for you when you were in need recently), we are really asking them to not only join us in our beseeching of our Lord, we are enjoining them to the blessings that come from answered prayer. Such participation with each other and our common needs help to build that communion of the saints (each and every believer). However, asking the dead saints to intercede for us must presuppose two things - that they are somehow cognizant of what we are each going through in this time and place and that they are able to take these requests before the throne of grace and know what is God's perfect will for each and every one of us and each and every one of our requests. We have to assume they have heard us and delivered our request - without ever having heard, seen, touched or experienced their existence.

    I can see quite clearly the purpose God has for why He encourages us to pray for one another IN THIS LIFE. We are part of each other's lives and ministries and share in the joys and sorrows as we walk together in fellowship with other believers and our Lord and Savior. Our faith is strengthened and grows as we see answered prayer and our lives interchange as we grow together in faith. But...praying to the dead gives us no such encouragement or fellowship. We don't see, hear or touch those who have died - we can only HOPE they can do these things - and we have to presume they hear us and can intercede for us with no feedback from which to know we have gotten through. I don't see how that encourages us or builds our faith - especially when such prayers are NOT answered in the way we request.

    Since we all agree it is Almighty God who ultimately answers our prayers - and His power IS omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent - how is invoking the dead in Christ and involving them in this process any more desirable or necessary than asking the living in Christ for the same need? Do they communicate with us and let us know our request has been heard? Do they have some special "IN" or influence before God that our brothers and sisters in Christ don't have? Is God a respecter of persons even though He says He is not?

    To me, what this boils down to is the benefit of prayer and who it is that truly deserves ALL the glory and praise. It cannot be humans - dead or living - but God alone who is worthy of praise. We must obey Him and follow His commands regarding how and to whom we are to pray. We have His sacred word to guide us and Jesus' example was that we pray to our Father in heaven and not to any other. It is to Him that we entrust all our hopes, needs and desires because He knows our needs before we even ask. Having fellow believers join with us in specific prayer requests joins us in faith and love for one another in this life and we rejoice as we see our God working in our lives to conform us ever closer to the image of Christ.

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/24/2015 8:54:49 PM PDT · 281 of 336
    boatbums to verga; CynicalBear
    I'll stay with Paul's admonition to consider anyone who teaches something they didn't to be accursed.

    You mean like Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, OSAS? Because no one ever taught that until the 16th or 17th Century.

    Wrong on all three counts. You have been told the truth repeatedly - there have been numerous RECENT threads showing the Early Church Fathers' teachings - and reject it at your own risk. Have a good day

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/24/2015 3:09:03 PM PDT · 263 of 336
    boatbums to imardmd1; RnMomof7
    >> Mariology <<
    More like Mariolatry than just Mariology, IMHO.

    Some people's Mariology IS Mariolatry- they just can't/won't admit it.

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/24/2015 2:40:14 PM PDT · 252 of 336
    boatbums to moonhawk; Old Yeller
    And as a former ex-Catholic, I am praying for your return.

    And just what is it that ex-Catholics need to return to? When I was a Roman Catholic, I didn't KNOW Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord. I didn't KNOW that I have eternal life through faith in Him - that all those who come to Him in faith are His sheep and we shall NEVER perish nor be plucked from His hands (John 10:27-30). I didn't KNOW that I could live in freedom from sin and its control over everything in my life. I didn't KNOW that it is by the grace of God THROUGH faith and not by my works of righteousness that I was saved. I didn't KNOW that the Holy Spirit indwells ALL those who are born again through faith and that He will never leave or forsake us. I didn't KNOW that I walk by faith and not by sight and the GOSPEL is the power of God unto salvation to all those who believe.

    I DO know those things now. So, what exactly does going back to the Roman Catholic church do for me that Jesus has not already done? Does returning mean I must just accept all the dogmas and doctrines devised by men in that church over the centuries that have no basis in God's word? Will I find rest for my soul that is better than the rest I ALREADY know? Will I have any greater assurance of my salvation than that I have now or will that be something I have to give up since Catholics tell me such assurance is a "sin of presumption"? Sorry, I don't see any reason why anyone would want to return to such uncertainty - especially not when some of the FRoman Catholic representatives that show up on these threads exhibit such visceral hatred and contempt for others who won't, and don't, buy into their religious beliefs. We are supposed to speak the truth in love, gentleness and respect. THAT will be how other know we are Christ's disciples.

    I will not be returning seeing as it was God who led me out and into the light of the glorious gospel.

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/24/2015 12:55:09 PM PDT · 228 of 336
    boatbums to Elsie
    And what does it make Joe?

    Ummm...Step King of Heaven? ;o)

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/24/2015 12:00:34 PM PDT · 216 of 336
    boatbums to Boogieman; paladinan
    If you want to make the argument that the woman is a symbol for Mary, then you are going to have to be consistent about it. Demonstrate how the symbol represents Mary instead of other candidates, and then demonstrate how you can interpret the entire vision in the context of that symbol meaning Mary without creating contradictions and inconsistencies. Such an exercise can only serve to underline the flaw in trying to identify Mary with “the woman”.

    Excellent points! I find it curious how many will insist that passage is speaking specifically of Mary yet will deny that she "cried out in pain as she was about to give birth." (Rev. 12:2). It was because of Eve's sin that God decreed of women “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children." (Gen. 3:16). Some theologians have even declared Mary did not have a normal painful delivery -going so far as to say she remained a physical virgin (which would have been physically impossible).

    I agree with your points that there is a blatant inconsistency in asserting Revelation 12's "woman" is Mary. If people are being honest, they will have to admit this as well.

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/24/2015 11:22:50 AM PDT · 212 of 336
    boatbums to RnMomof7
    I think it is helpful to explain the reasons why many Christians do not believe the same things about Mary as Roman Catholics and others do. It should be respected and not taken as an insult to or degradation of her as so often is claimed on these threads. I personally think Rome made a huge blunder in permitting and encouraging the unscriptural adoration of this humble woman and the “going beyond what is written” to establishing the dogmas about her which has led to her exaltation and the diminishing of Jesus Christ. I can't see how this was anything that Almighty God wanted to happen.
  • Why Do So Many Evangelicals So Strongly Support Israel?

    03/23/2015 2:52:42 PM PDT · 30 of 31
    boatbums to SeekAndFind
    I believe, as an Evangelical Christian, that the Jewish return to their current homeland in the twentieth century was, and is, a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. I also believe that the twentieth century furnishes vivid and instructive illustration of the truth that God blesses those who bless the Jews and vice versa.

    I don't see how it could be anything else! God will ALWAYS keep His promises. He is faithful even we are not.

  • What I Wish I’d Known About Catholics (And Why I’m Becoming One Now That I Do)

    03/21/2015 8:06:59 PM PDT · 172 of 240
    boatbums to verga
    For that smeared mirror:

  • What I Wish I’d Known About Catholics (And Why I’m Becoming One Now That I Do)

    03/21/2015 8:02:57 PM PDT · 171 of 240
    boatbums to MHGinTN; EagleOne
    Jesus left the tomb without rolling away the stone and appeared in the Upper room without opening a door or window. God With Us may have entered and left Mary’s womb in like fashion.

    When Jesus arose as well as when he appeared within a closed room, he was in his glorified body. When he was born as a HUMAN baby, on the other hand, he was NOT in a glorified body but one of flesh and blood - flesh that would be broken and blood that would be shed for the redemption of our souls. He was born like any other human baby is born - that was the point of the incarnation.