Is this blasphemous enough for you?

[Dr. Walter]

So then why do not all reborn Christians submit in the same way?

Are we not called to obedience too?

But do we not submit in that we continue to sin?

If God had made a request to Mary, your point might have some validity. However, God made no such request. He did not ask for permission. He made a declaration of what will occur. Mary realized it was a COMMAND not a REQUEST as she did not use the word "logos" which refers merely to a revelation but she used the term "rhema" or word of command that has the power of God behind it. Therefore, she did not understand it as a request but the Sovereign will of God that would take place.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Get Serious! I never inferred that I regarded Mary married to God. I made the direct opposite conclusion - she is not married to God. It was your line of argument of "rape" that led to a relationship between Mary and God.

So Mary is to be considered not married to God when I agree with you and Marry to God when we must consider that mary had no choice in the matter she then is married? kind of Hypocritical don't you think?

Second, God is the One who wrought conception in the womb NOT THE HUSBAND!!!!

No one disputes a virgin birth but whether Mary had a choice or not.

When a husband and wife both consent to resisting conception by taking operative measures and pills to prevent it and yet GOD GIVES CONCEPTION ANYWAY does that constititue RAPE and FORCE upon that woman by God? According to your logic it does! Or has God the right to give conception regardless if both are willing or not to have conception?

No because of the laws of probability. If the woman never had sex with her husband and then became pregnant then you would have a point.

God has as much right to give these UNWILLING married partners conception as He has the right to do so with Mary!

No the analogy doesn't work. Mary had no cause or probability to be pregnant.

She didn't give permission "Be it according to thy REQUEST"

Mary wouldn't have said that in either way because the Lord told her this is my plan and she consented to it. Which is different then God saying "Ain't a thing for you to do but be knocked up" However we agree that Mary

submitted to His Sovereign declared word "Be it according to THY WORD".

Which shows her will was in use.

 

[Dr. Walter]

So Mary is to be considered not married to God when I agree with you and Marry to God when we must consider that mary had no choice in the matter she then is married? kind of Hypocritical don't you think?

How twisted! You are the one that inferred an improper sexual relationship between Mary and God not I. I simply pointed out that such a sexual relationship between a human and God is not possible and therefore the charge of force or rape is invalid reasoning! Hence, marriage, adultery, fornication, incest, etc. has no bearing on this issue whatever because it is an absurd line of reasoning and that is exactly the line of reasoning you have taken up when you charge God with RAPE or FORCE instead of consential and legal (MARRIAGE). Marriage is the only LEGAL realm for CONCEPTION of a child and therefore you just as well as charge God with being a FORNICATOR as being a RAPTIST. This is your absurd line of logic not mine!

No one disputes a virgin birth but whether Mary had a choice or not.

Where does God offer her a choice? Where does God ask her permission? Nowhere that is where!

Mary did not recognize what God said as a request but recognized it as a Sovereign choice already made as she never responded:

"Be it according to THY REQUEST"

Mary did not recognize it as simply revelation of His revealed will ("logos") but rather an empowered command ("rhema").

"Be it according to THY WORD ("rhema")

No because of the laws of probability. If the woman never had sex with her husband and then became pregnant then you would have a point.

Marriage is the only LEGAL place God has designated that CONCEPTION is permitted in the human realm. Only the marriage bed is undefiled. God has reserved conception within marriage. Hence, if God RAPED Mary by not asking permission then He also FORNICATED Mary and violated His own Law by giving conception outside of marriage. My point? Your whole line of "rape" and "forced" is invalid as it demands LEGALITY of action. If LEGALITY of action is essential to avoid RAPE and FORCE for conception then so is MARRAGE. You cannot pick and choose. The truth is, your whole line of argument is based upon MORAL LEGALITY not laws of probabilty.

So what are you going to do? Are you going to argue from the laws of probability or the laws of morality? If you are going to argue on the basis of RAPE and FORCE then you are forced to argue for MARRIAGE as well as that is the only MORAL relam designated by God for conception of children.

On the other hand, if you are going to argue on the law of probability than Mary has more probability for conception than any married consenting partners as God has soverignly delared she will become pregnant but consenting partners have no guarantee of that.

 

[lori4dogs]

Sure there is. They can't hear you.

"Revelation 18:17-20 - And all shipmasters and seafaring men, sailors and all whose trade is on the sea, stood far off and cried out as they saw the smoke of her burning, "What city was like the great city?" And they threw dust on their heads, as they wept and mourned, crying out, "Alas, alas, for the great city where all who had ships at sea grew rich by her wealth! In one hour she has been laid waste. Rejoice over her, O heaven, O saints and apostles and prophets, for God has given judgment for you against her!"

 

[lori4dogs]

So all of the dead are represented by the 24 elders?? Where do you find that in Scripture?

I believe this passage implies that the angels and elders (holy Christian leaders now in heaven) hear the prayers of every Christian on earth, and join their prayer now with ours.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How twisted! You are the one that inferred an improper sexual relationship between Mary and God not I.

You suggested God did what he wanted despite Mary's position on the matter. If she was not ameniable logically then he would have forced himself upon her. Which is rape. Rape does not have to just connotate sex but -

an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation

or the more ancient term

the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

To force a will upon another is a violation.

Where does God offer her a choice? Where does God ask her permission? Nowhere that is where!

When he tells her his plan. What do you think he would have done had she said no? Continue with the incarnation through Mary and if so how would that not connotate rape?

Mary did not recognize what God said as a request but recognized it as a Sovereign choice already made as she never responded:
"Be it according to THY REQUEST"

Already dealt with this

Mary did not recognize it as simply revelation of His revealed will ("logos") but rather an empowered command ("rhema").

Irrelevant rehma has the connotation of breath or utterance. Not necissarily command.

Your whole line of "rape" and "forced" is invalid as it demands LEGALITY of action.

its is also on moral grounds.

If LEGALITY of action is essential to avoid RAPE and FORCE for conception then so is MARRAGE.

WOW I hope your wife doesn't know you think this. Marriage does not permit you to force yourself onto your wife. Its immoral to force your self and your will onto another weaker person.

So what are you going to do? Are you going to argue from the laws of probability or the laws of morality?

If you rob a store the probability of getting caught changes depending on precautions. If however you get caught the consequences are still in play. You go to jail. It may be against your will but if the activity is one that the consequence is such then you "take the chance". Simple consept. Don't have sex you won't get pregnant and that is a guarantee.

 

[annsni]

I believe this passage implies that the angels and elders (holy Christian leaders now in heaven) hear the prayers of every Christian on earth, and join their prayer now with ours.

Where does it say that?

 

[annsni]

"Revelation 18:17-20 - And all shipmasters and seafaring men, sailors and all whose trade is on the sea, stood far off and cried out as they saw the smoke of her burning, "What city was like the great city?" And they threw dust on their heads, as they wept and mourned, crying out, "Alas, alas, for the great city where all who had ships at sea grew rich by her wealth! In one hour she has been laid waste. Rejoice over her, O heaven, O saints and apostles and prophets, for God has given judgment for you against her!"

Where does this say that those in heaven hear the prayers of the people on earth?

 

[targus]

If God had made a request to Mary, your point might have some validity. However, God made no such request. He did not ask for permission. He made a declaration of what will occur. Mary realized it was a COMMAND not a REQUEST as she did not use the word "logos" which refers merely to a revelation but she used the term "rhema" or word of command that has the power of God behind it. Therefore, she did not understand it as a request but the Sovereign will of God that would take place.

They aren't called theTen Requests.

They are the Ten Commandments - and born again Christians say "no" to God's commands every day.

 

[lori4dogs]

Where does this say that those in heaven hear the prayers of the people on earth?

Why address them if they can't hear?

 

[matt wade]

Why address them if they can't hear?

Does "heaven" hear? It is addressed in the same fashion in that verse.

 

[annsni]

Why address them if they can't hear?

We don't.
....

 

[lori4dogs]

Where does it say that?

The writer to the Hebrews says that 'we are surrounded by the cloud of witnesses. Who are those witnesses?

Vs. 8 in the passage from Revelation makes it clear that the bowl of incense represents the 'prayers of the saints'. I believe you disagree with me about who those saints are. I believe they are inclusive of the faithful departed. I think this passage indicates they are aware of us and are praying.

 

[Zenas]

Where does this say that those in heaven hear the prayers of the people on earth?

Luke 15:10.

 

[annsni]

Luke 15:10.

They are angels. I'm speaking about those who once lived on earth.

 

[annsni]

The writer to the Hebrews says that 'we are surrounded by the cloud of witnesses. Who are those witnesses?

The faith of those mentioned in the Faith Hall of Fame.

Vs. 8 in the passage from Revelation makes it clear that the bowl of incense represents the 'prayers of the saints'. I believe you disagree with me about who those saints are. I believe they are inclusive of the faithful departed. I think this passage indicates they are aware of us and are praying.

No, the ELDERS have the prayers of the saints in a bowl. They are not communicating the prayers themselves nor have they added their own prayers. It would be reading entirely too much into it to say that they are praying prayers on behalf of the people on earth.

 

[lori4dogs]

The faith of those mentioned in the Faith Hall of Fame.



No, the ELDERS have the prayers of the saints in a bowl. They are not communicating the prayers themselves nor have they added their own prayers. It would be reading entirely too much into it to say that they are praying prayers on behalf of the people on earth.

I don't see the passage saying that at all. Bet that idea didn't come around until about the sixteenth century.

Here is the way I understand this passage and the way the ancient Church has always understood this passage. John says that the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are saints prayers". How can they be offering our prayers to God if they are not aware of them. It seems clear to me that they are aware of our petitions and present them to the Lord.

 

[annsni]

I don't see the passage saying that at all. Bet that idea didn't come around until about the sixteenth century.

Here is the way I understand this passage and the way the ancient Church has always understood this passage. John says that the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are saints prayers". How can they be offering our prayers to God if they are not aware of them. It seems clear to me that they are aware of our petitions and present them to the Lord.

Where does the text say that the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God?

 

[lori4dogs]

Where does the text say that the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God?

Who else would be in need of intercession? God can do all things. I have no doubt that He makes it possible for both the saints and angels to hear us. Have you looked at Luke 16: 19-23? Here it is Jesus who gives us an example of the rich man in Hades calling on Abraham (who is in Heaven) to tell his brothers to start living right. Does Abraham hear him? He certainly does!

I may be wrong but wasn't it you who once said that angels couldn't hear us unless they are in the same room with us? If it was you, do you have any scriptural support of this?

 

[HankD]

24 pages!

As a former Catholic as a child I was taught to kneel before the image of Mary, Make the sign of the cross, make my prayer and petition, thank her in advance and after the request was granted.

Same procedure before the Crucifix or image of Christ.

No one told me the difference between the one prayer and the other.
Perhaps they should have. Perhaps they did and I don't remember.
But it certainly was not impressed upon me as a child.

So what is the difference, well in the mind of Catholic theologians its a difference in what you name the different events.

One is latria the other is hyper dulia.
One is veneration the other is worship.
The form and ritual are the same.

Later when I left the RCC, I was told the difference in order to keep me from leaving. Too little too late.

Personally I couldn't accept all the mental gymnastics anyway.

Another example of what I call Magesterium Doublethink is that Catholic theologians say the Eucharist (consecrated bread and wine) is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, then in the next breath (or on the next page) they call the mass an unbloody sacrifice.

It's one or the other. It can't be both.

But to me the most offensive doctrines are the Marian Doctrines, namely that Mary is the co-redemptrix with Christ and the mediatrix of all God's graces. Google the phrases if you don't believe me.

Personally I blame the hierarchy and their theologians for this abuse, the grunts are held in the bondage of fear.

There is no other human being on earth who has been priviledged as Mary has and I love her.

But I don't/can't worship her or pray to her (latria or dulia).

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.​

HankD