This is a much better response from you than your "bashing" insulting statements of your previous post. Thank you for being more civil. Now to answer your position that you just elucidated here in this post, I will say that Catholics agree with you. Mary is need of a savior no less than the rest of humanity. God saved her. Of that there is no question. Where Catholics believe that you are off is the logical jump that in order to need saving one must be a sinner in action. This is incorrect.
No, not in the context of our discussion it wasn't.
It is true that there is spiritual salvation and physical salvation.
Israel was delivered physically at the Red Sea as the Egyptian Army pursued her, and the waters parted before her, and she walked through on dry land, but the same waters closed in and drowned the entire army of the Egyptians. That is physical deliverance. But we weren't speaking of that. That is a red herring.
Man has sinned (Rom.3:23). All men or mankind (including Mary) has sinned. Mary brought forth a sin offering as I demonstrated to with supporting Scripture. She was a sinner. She needed a Savior. She needed to be saved from her sin. Now you went off from that statement (which you just agreed to) and offered other physical possibilities (drug addiction, mental health, etc.) Why would you do that if it didn't apply to Mary? Did Mary need saving from any of those things? Then why even mention them? She needed spiritual salvation as Christ said:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me." Mary had no other recourse but through Christ.
And as I've pointed out before salvation can be provided in two ways intervention and rehabilitiation. For all of humanity salvation typically in the form of rehabilitation. Thus we are saved out of our sins. Catholics suggest Mary is saved by intervention.
Intervention from what? She was not mentally ill as you seem to be suggesting here.
I.e. saved from sin. And the reason for this is because she was chosen for the specific purpose of bringing Christ into the world. Carrying within her own body the incarnation of the God that created both her and us. That was the point I was making before and so its the point I've making again.
Mary was a vessel used by God for a specific purpose at a specific time. She was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not of Joseph. The sin nature is passed down through the man. Thus the importance of the conception being through the Holy Spirit. Mary did not need to be sinless. She was conceived through the Holy Spirit. Therefore Christ avoided the sin nature via conception through the Holy Spirit.
The RCC logic of the sinlessness of Mary would logically have to apply in a geneaological way to Mary's ancestors--her mother Anne, her grandmother, her great grandmother, and ad infinitum back to Eve. It is a ridiculous position to take. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
To make it clear. I don't have a problem with you refuting something I've said or believe. What I take issue with is the manner in which you do it. My goal is to take common misconseptions of Catholic view and present the genuine Catholic view. Whether you agree with the view I present is really not the point. But I do suggest that you believe that the view I present is the actual view I hold to.
We can do that. Stick with the topic then. The topic was not Mary's physical salvation, but her spiritual salvation. She was not mentally ill but needed spiritual salvation; salvation from her sins. Thus the statement: "I rejoice in God my Savior."
Thus when I say I do not worship Mary as a goddess. That is actually what I believe and practice. You may then say "well some of the things you would do seems to me to indicate that you do indeed treat Mary like a deity." to which I can then answer why it is I believe those actions aren't directed towards a deity, rather than you saying... "NO! YOU WORSHIP MARY AS GOD!" When clearly I believe that I do not.
As a former Catholic I would have responded the same way. As I study the Bible I must look at things through the eyes and lens of the Bible. According to the Bible you do worship Mary. Why? Veneration and worship are the same thing. Because you put a difference between the two words doesn't make them different. Only in your mind they are different, but not in God's mind.
Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
--As a former Catholic I still have some of the prayers of the RCC memorized, especially the "Hail Mary."
The RCC gives glory and honor to Mary. They also give Mary "worth" or tell her that she is worthy.
But all such glory and honor and power is to be directed to God alone.
He alone is worthy to receive it. That is the teaching here. He will not share it with another; not with Mary, not with anyone. Why? He is the one who has created all things. Mary is a created being. She does not deserve the honor and glory ascribed to her. All of that honor and glory goes to God alone. It is called worship.
It is clear you are in this trying to justify your imprudence at refuting my position rudely. I never suggested Mary was a drug addict.
We were talking of spiritual things. Why even suggest it?
I was quoting a person who in speaking to drug addiction made a very obvious point about the nature of the act of "saving a person". Whether it be from drug addiction or sin. Of course my response was directed at sin in general.
Mary needed to be saved from her sin; sin in general. But was it drug addiction? Why even mention it?
In that saving a person can be done in two ways by intervention (before sinning) and by rehabilitation (out of sinning). I find that your protest about the drug addiction curious. I'm not certain but in our earlier discussion over this same topic didn't suggest that Mary was one out of all the women who all could have been equally chosen and that God could have even used a prostitute?
You are twisting my words. I said that God could have chosen any one of a number of
virgins. Prostitutes aren't virgins are they. Check the prophesy in Isaiah 7:14. It doesn't specifically say "Mary." It simply says "a virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son..." There was more than one Godly virgin in Israel at that time. God, in his providence chose Mary. Why? For the same reason that God chose Israel out of all the nations of the world. He doesn't give us that reason. He simply set apart that nation as the object of his love. It was providential. The same is true with Mary. Mary was used of God in a special way, at a certain time in history for a certain purpose. God did not have to choose Mary. But he did.
I find that sentement whether it was yours or someone elses reprehensible. I don't think God haphazardly chose on jewish girl. I believe God created and specially prepared Mary specifically for the purpose of bringing forth the Messiah. Mary wasn't chosen by the "luck of the draw" so to speak.
Your statement betrays your worship of her. She was chosen providentially. God could have chosen another.
I'm not the one who responded to questions by belittling people by making those crass statements. You did. And like I've said I don't have a problem with you refuting a position I hold. I have a problem with how you do it.
You introduced remarkably absurd comments, off topic, which should have never been used.
Maybe this is how you always refute people by insulting them using tactics such as pretending not to undertand a point like I made with saving people and making the ludicrous comment that I called Mary a drug addict.
The discussion was about the salvation (spiritual salvation) --that is the exact statement "I rejoice in God my savior," and you suggest the physical salvation possibility of a drug addict. What else is one to think. It was an abhorrent suggestion by you!
I didn't twist your words. I objected to them. But when you are civil I don't mind answering your questions. Let me prove my point.
You twisted my words inferring that I was the author of those words, wherein it was you that made the suggestion, not me.
