Like my friend is christian she says its not OK to have idols of virgin mary cause they can start demonic stuff.

She said you have to believe in god and jesus plus the holy spirit

That's their own personal interpretation, although slightly misguided.

This looks like a 2 point question to me.

While we are not under the Law of the Old Testament, many of the principles embodied in the 10 Commandments are still valid under the New Testament.

One prohibition was against making an idol of anything and worshipping it.

I know that Catholics say they do not worship the statue of Mary, but I think that some DO pray in front of it.

Non-Catholics believe that all images used in worship forms is wrong.

Your second point is about the Godhead, i.e. The Father, The Son (Jesus), and The Holy Ghost.

Keep in mind that "belief" in this Godhead must be much more than a mere intellectual assent that God does exist.

The Devil believes that God exists, but it will not save him from the Lake of Fire.

I probably gave you more information than you asked for.

like my friend is christian she says its not ok to have idols of virgin mary cause they can start demonic stuff.

she said you have to believe in god and jesus plus the holy spirit

It is important to keep your focus on Jesus. He didn't tell us to focus on Mary

Hi, alternap18!

What do you believe concerning Christianity, please? It would be helpful to know about that.

Thanks!

Hi, alternap18!

What do you believe concerning Christianity, please? It would be helpful to know about that.

Thanks!

What's the use of asking someone who is seeking what they feel? Such a person seeks confirmation and the confirmation I give is believe in Jesus and forget religion

It is wrong to have idols of anything that you worship.

Now Christians do have icons and statues of Mary and many other Saints that they use in their worship of God.
Those Christians who use these icons also believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So it sounds like your friend is merely uneducated about the various types of Christians.

Originally Posted by Clough
Hi, alternap18!

What do you believe concerning Christianity, please? It would be helpful to know about that.

Thanks!


What's the use of asking someone who is seeking what they feel? Such a person seeks confirmation and the confirmation I give is believe in Jesus and forget religion

There hasn't been any clarification as to how or why the original poster thinks or feels. I would rather not answer assuming that they feel or think a certain way without knowing more information.

What works for one person might not be what works for the majority in a belief system according to that which a person might be seeking. Don't really know what alternap18 seeking yet.

Thanks!

It is important to keep your focus on Jesus. He didn't tell us to focus on Mary

Actually, we believe that He did that by example. He is the only man who ever had the ability to choose His mom. And He chose Mary. And He submitted to her and was obedient to her.

Therefore, yes, He did tell us to focus on Mary.

Actually, we believe that He did that by example. He is the only man who ever had the ability to choose His mom. And He chose Mary. And He submitted to her and was obedient to her.

Therefore, yes, He did tell us to focus on Mary.

Now that's a stretch!

Actually, we believe that He did that by example. He is the only man who ever had the ability to choose His mom. And He chose Mary. And He submitted to her and was obedient to her.

Therefore, yes, He did tell us to focus on Mary.

Now that's a stretch!:D

What part of it is a "stretch ?

Did God not choose Mary from all women in all time

Was Mary not his mother

Was he not submitted to her and obedient as a child ?

I can not see a "stretch" in any of it, except to not understand why anyone would not believe it

What part of it is a "stretch ?

Did God not choose Mary from all women in all time

Was Mary not his mother

Was he not submitted to her and obedient as a child ?

I can not see a "stretch" in any of it, except to not understand why anyone would not believe it

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.

Yes, God did choose Mary, and yes Jesus submitted Himself to her.

The stretch is to go from these facts to saying that we should focus on Mary.

Let's apply the same reasoning to Joseph.
God chose Joseph to be Jesus' guardian, without whom Jesus could not have survived childhood.
Jesus was subject to Joseph.
Therefore, we should focus on Joseph.

Jesus is the focus not only of the NT but of the OT as well. He is the central and pre-eminent figure of time and eternity, as is the Father.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.

Yes, God did choose Mary, and yes Jesus submitted Himself to her.

The stretch is to go from these facts to saying that we should focus on Mary.

Let's apply the exact same reasoning to Joseph.
God chose Joseph to be Jesus' guardian, without whom Jesus could not have survived childhood.
Jesus was subject to Joseph.
Therefore, we should focus on Joseph.

Jesus is the focus not only of the NT but of the OT as well. He is the central and pre-eminent figure of time and eternity, as is the Father.

I apologize for my error as well. I did not mean to imply that we should focus on Mary to the exclusion of Jesus. It is because Jesus is our focus that we also focus on Mary and Joseph.

You see, we are so sensitive to every detail on Jesus' life, that all who are His family and friends are our family and friends as well. All whom He loves we love.

Therefore, yes, we also have a very special place in our hearts for St. Joseph. But a far more special place for the woman who bore Jesus Christ in her womb, fed Him at her breast and gave Him to the world.

It is because we focus on Jesus that we love Mary as He did.

Actually, we believe that He did that by example. He is the only man who ever had the ability to choose His mom. And He chose Mary. And He submitted to her and was obedient to her.

Therefore, yes, He did tell us to focus on Mary.

What exactly is meant by "he submitted to her and was obedient to her"? Are we talking about his childhood? I don't see how that is any different from any other childhood. As a child I submitted to my parents, but like Jesus, when I became an adult I went my own way and was no longer under their authority. I don't see anything special about the child Jesus doing the same thing. And after he grew up he became his own person; if anything, he seems to have taken a sort of guardian role with Mary, because on the cross he entrusted her to John's care. Do you have any other examples of times when he "submitted" to her?

Now that's a stretch!

Yes Gal like so much of RCC doctrine it's a stretch, why they just can't stick to the simple truth I do not know

Let me see at the marriage feast, She asked him about running out of wine, and he went ahead turned the water into wine.

I would say his first public miricle had to do with honoring the wishes of his mother

What exactly is meant by "he submitted to her and was obedient to her"?

That He permitted her to run His life.


Are we talking about his childhood?

All the way up to the wedding at Cana. I believe He was an adult by then. It is very possible that He began His ministry at her insistence on that occasion.


I don't see how that is any different from any other childhood.

Then you haven't been around many children.


As a child I submitted to my parents, but like Jesus, when I became an adult I went my own way and was no longer under their authority.

Show me where Scripture says that Jesus did not honor Mary and you will show me where Jesus sinned and contradicted the will of the Father. Is that what you want to prove?


I don't see anything special about the child Jesus doing the same thing. And after he grew up he became his own person; if anything, he seems to have taken a sort of guardian role with Mary, because on the cross he entrusted her to John's care. Do you have any other examples of times when he "submitted" to her?

I only need one. If you can provide the proof that Jesus at any time disowned Mary, then I will also submit to Mary until that time that Jesus did so. But I don't believe that Jesus EVER disowned Mary.
Therefore I will always accept her as my mother as I believe He did.

Yes Gal like so much of RCC doctrine it's a stretch, why they just can't stick to the simple truth I do not know

Give me an example of simple truth. That sounds very much like Islamic doctrine which says that the truth is always simple. But the fact is that there is much truth which is simple and much truth which is complex and much truth which is sublime.

I believe the truth in any of its appearances. Whether it be complex or simple. But I don't believe everything that I am told by Protestants because as Scripture says, I can test everything and keep what is good. Much of what Protestants teach is not good. One of those things which they teach which is not good is this idea that the truth must be simple.

That He permitted her to run His life.

Run that by me again? We know virtually nothing about his childhood except for when he wandered off from the homeward-bound caravan. That hardly constitutes letting her "run his life." And between Cana and the cross, she vanishes from sight. How is she running his life?


All the way up to the wedding at Cana. I believe He was an adult by then. It is very possible that He began His ministry at her insistence on that occasion.

Are you joking? She didn't insist on anything, she merely mentioned that they were out of wine. And his reply is hardly an example of submission. Sure, he made wine from water, but it had virtually nothing to do with her comment. And there was most definitely no "insistence" on her part. For all we know, she was suggesting he run over to the local liquor store and buy more, or merely telling him about the situation. Anything else is reading into the text what isn't there.


Then you haven't been around many children.

Yeah, all I've done is raise three of them. Is this for real?


Show me where Scripture says that Jesus did not honor Mary and you will show me where Jesus sinned and contradicted the will of the Father. Is that what you want to prove?

"Honor" does not equal total or blind obedience. "Honor" simply means giving proper respect. You're redefining a word to suit your theology, and that's not a valid approach to the Scriptures.


I only need one. If you can provide the proof that Jesus at any time disowned Mary, then I will also submit to Mary until that time that Jesus did so. But I don't believe that Jesus EVER disowned Mary.
Therefore I will always accept her as my mother as I believe He did.

So the only options are either blind, total submission throughout his life, or disownment? Are you joking? I honored and respected both my parents right up to the days of their deaths, but once I reached adulthood I followed my own path and they, like good parents, encouraged me to do so. If Mary actually gave Jesus the kind of ultimatum you're suggesting, then she was the worst mother in history. You're not doing your case any good with this kind of either/or mentality.

Run that by me again? We know virtually nothing about his childhood except for when he wandered off from the homeward-bound caravan. That hardly constitutes letting her "run his life."

Have you read that part of Scripture? Especially the part that says:
Luke 2
51And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

52And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.


And between Cana and the cross, she vanishes from sight. How is she running his life?

Does that mean that you believe that Jesus forgot about her or abandoned her?


Are you joking? She didn't insist on anything, she merely mentioned that they were out of wine. And his reply is hardly an example of submission. Sure, he made wine from water, but it had virtually nothing to do with her comment. And there was most definitely no "insistence" on her part.

Your interpretation is an example of that which Scripture condemns:
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

You read Scripture according to the letter alone, whereas we read also the Spirit of the letter.

As such we see that Mary did not insist verbally. But quietly and confidently, confident that her Son would do her will, she turned to the servants and said:
John 2:
5His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

And you are right that Jesus sounded reluctant. It almost sounded as though he didn't want to begin his mission quite yet:
4Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Therefore it is because she requested this miracle that he began his ministry.


For all we know, she was suggesting he run over to the local liquor store and buy more, or merely telling him about the situation. Anything else is reading into the text what isn't there.

You are under the impression that Mary didn't know that her Son is God?


Yeah, all I've done is raise three of them. Is this for real?

So? I've raised four. But I'm not talking about yours or mine. I'm talking about children who don't obey their moms and dads. There are a great many of them. And if you didn't know that, then you've only been around your own children and generalizing from them to the world. But all you have to do is go to a Public School in your area ANY TIME and odds are that you will find many unruly and disobedient children. Why do you think that children have to be scanned for weapons when they enter the school buildings?


"Honor" does not equal total or blind obedience.

Did I say it did?


"Honor" simply means giving proper respect. You're redefining a word to suit your theology, and that's not a valid approach to the Scriptures.

You're accusing me of doing something that I didn't do in order to make believe that you are making a valid argument. But what you are doing is using a logical fallacy. In this case, it is the straw man logical fallacy wherein you create a straw man argument which you can knock down and at the same time avoid engaging my real argument.


So the only options are either blind, total submission throughout his life, or disownment? Are you joking?

Are you? Because I never said that, so prove that I suggested any such notion or recant.


I honored and respected both my parents right up to the days of their deaths, but once I reached adulthood I followed my own path and they, like good parents, encouraged me to do so. If Mary actually gave Jesus the kind of ultimatum you're suggesting, then she was the worst mother in history. You're not doing your case any good with this kind of either/or mentality.

It is you who is not doing your case any good by making these fallacious arguments. First prove that I said any such thing and then I will address your error.

As for Jesus obeying Mary and making the first public miracle of his mission at her request, it is a matter of record. Read John 2.

Have you read that part of Scripture? Especially the part that says:
Luke 2
51And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

52And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Yes, I have. What part of "he was a child" doesn't register? As a human child, of course he was subject to his PARENTS, not just his mother. But even that had its limits, as shown by the previous verses:


After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”


Clearly they considered this an act of disobedience, or at least negligent. So even being "obedient" had limits for him. What do you do with that fact?


Does that mean that you believe that Jesus forgot about her or abandoned her?

Where did I ever even imply such a thing? You're pulling stuff out of the ether. What I said, if you had bothered to read it, is that when he grew up he moved away from his parents and started his own life, like all children who grow up should do. We know he didn't forget her, duh, because I already mentioned his placing her in John's care when he was on the cross. So this is a red herring at best.


Your interpretation is an example of that which Scripture condemns:
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

You read Scripture according to the letter alone, whereas we read also the Spirit of the letter.

Don't make me laugh. First, that quote is so out of context it's ridiculous. Look at the surrounding text and see what Paul was really talking about before making such a ludicrous accusation. Second, even the spirit of the text has to be elicited from the actual words. In this case, the actual words simply aren't there.


As such we see that Mary did not insist verbally. But quietly and confidently, confident that her Son would do her will, she turned to the servants and said:
John 2:
5His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

And you are right that Jesus sounded reluctant. It almost sounded as though he didn't want to begin his mission quite yet:
4Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Therefore it is because she requested this miracle that he began his ministry.

She didn't "request" anything. She suspected he might do something, according to her actual words. You keep reading more into the text than it will bear, and you justify such misuse of it with that artificial "spirit of the law" bit. It doesn't work. He performed his first miracle here because he chose to, not because of anything she said or did. Who knows? Maybe he gave her a knowing little smile when he said "my hour has not yet come," and that's why she told the servants to do whatever he told them. We don't know. But to try and claim, as you and some others have done, that this was an act of obedience to her, is pushing the limits of both the "letter" and the "spirit" beyond what each can hold. It's just not there. Get over it.


You are under the impression that Mary didn't know that her Son is God?

I never said such a thing, and really it has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. Yet another smokescreen.


So? I've raised four. But I'm not talking about yours or mine. I'm talking about children who don't obey their moms and dads. There are a great many of them. And if you didn't know that, then you've only been around your own children and generalizing from them to the world. But all you have to do is go to a Public School in your area ANY TIME and odds are that you will find many unruly and disobedient children. Why do you think that children have to be scanned for weapons when they enter the school buildings?

So, because some kids today are rebellious, that negates the entire principle that children obey their parents for all of human history. This is getting downright laughable. There were no metal scanners in first-century Judea, and the vast majority of kids then did obey their parents until they grew to adulthood and struck out on their own. This makes three blatant deflection attempts, and none of them work. Let's stick to the topic, shall we?





"Honor" does not equal total or blind obedience.
Did I say it did?


Yes, you did.





As a child I submitted to my parents, but like Jesus, when I became an adult I went my own way and was no longer under their authority.
Show me where Scripture says that Jesus did not honor Mary and you will show me where Jesus sinned and contradicted the will of the Father. Is that what you want to prove?

In so many words you said that if Jesus didn't submit to her authority and obey her throughout his entire life, he "did not honor" her and sinned. Do you want to retract that statement now?


You're accusing me of doing something that I didn't do in order to make believe that you are making a valid argument. But what you are doing is using a logical fallacy. In this case, it is the straw man logical fallacy wherein you create a straw man argument which you can knock down and at the same time avoid engaging my real argument.

No, I'm taking your words at face value. You, on the other hand, keep dragging irrelevant items out of left field and trying to deflect attention from the fact that your argument doesn't hold up. You said, in so many words, that either Jesus "permitted her to run His life" or he dishonored - and later you said "disowned" - her and committed a sin. That's not a straw man. That's your words.


So the only options are either blind, total submission throughout his life, or disownment? Are you joking?


Are you? Because I never said that, so prove that I suggested any such notion or recant.

See above. That's exactly what you said. Make up your mind.


It is you who is not doing your case any good by making these fallacious arguments. First prove that I said any such thing and then I will address your error.

I already did.


As for Jesus obeying Mary and making the first public miracle of his mission at her request, it is a matter of record. Read John 2.

I have read it, apparently in a lot more detail than you have. Once again, there is no act of obedience to anybody except his Father. You're welcome to read as much as you want to into the text, but that's not what it says. He chose when and where to do his miracles, and it had nothing to do with her. In fact, he gave her a gentle rebuke (the "woman" part was an address of respect that he used on several occasions with several women). You keep mangling the text with your pretexts, and then try to call it "the spirit" of the text. It still doesn't work.

Maybe more to the point of the original question, another question.

Why does a Christian need an image or any other physical item to "enhance" his/her worship?

Is not the Holy Spirit adequate all by Himself?

Maybe more to the point of the original question, another question.

Why does a Christian need an image or any other physical item to "enhance" his/her worship?

Is not the Holy Spirit adequate all by Himself?


Good question Gal. From my point of view I blame Plato. Naturally, Plato predates Christianity but he has left us with many unanswered questions in relation to universals. Today it is nearly always referred to as,'the problem of universals'



In a dialogue discussion an argument is put forward between Socrates and a priest of Athens named Euthyphro. Socrates asks Euthyphro where he is going? The reply comes that he is off to the courthouse to give evidence against his father who is being tried for murder.

Socrates asks for the fully story and both he and Euthyphro come to the conclusion that the case is weak. Euthyphro says that he already knows this but he is still going to give evidence against his father. Naturally Socrates asks, why?

Euthyphro explains that it is the holy thing to do. Socrates subjects Euthyphro to some close questioning about the nature of holiness. Whenever, Euthyphro comes up with a definition of holiness Socrates shows him that his definition is inadequate.

In the end, Euthyphro gives up and claims that every time he puts words down, they get up and walk away.

One thing Plato is doing is highlighting the relationship between appearances and reality.
I guess we could generalize and say we need a' physical thing' or 'an image', not so much 'to enhance' our worship but to know that appearances and reality are closely linked in some way. The big problem is how are they linked?

Plato is not denying there is such a thing as holiness but is showing that 'physical' holiness is not the same as 'actual' holiness. Plato believes that there needs to be a mediating entity to link appearances to reality.

If Plato were alive today and he wanted to answer Galverston's question.. " Is not the Holy Spirit adequate all by Himself?' He might say, no- because the Holy Spirit provides us with a way of making sense of God and the physical world.

In John 14:16 I understand the Holy Spirit to have the role of our Counselor or "Mediator" in our lives.




Regards

Tut

Maybe more to the point of the original question, another question.

Why does a Christian need an image or any other physical item to "enhance" his/her worship?

Is not the Holy Spirit adequate all by Himself?

Gal this assumes you are born again and spirit filled, that you know the Holy Spirit and are guided by him. It is a whole can of worms to open that up with a Catholic because as much as they may believe in Jesus they also believe in their religion..

It does us no good to argue around these areas of Catholic expression, Mary, statues, candles, prayer to the saints and other unscriptural expressions, they have a whole lot of twisted logic that justifies their position

Yes, I have. What part of "he was a child" doesn't register?

I understand that He was a child then. Was He also a child at the wedding of Cana?


As a human child, of course he was subject to his PARENTS, not just his mother.

Did He submit and obey His Mother at the wedding of Cana? Was He an adult at that point or a child?


But even that had its limits, as shown by the previous verses:

You posted a verse but not a limitation. What limitation are you talking about? Show me specifically. Highlight it in the verse.


Clearly they considered this an act of disobedience, or at least negligent. So even being "obedient" had limits for him.

Who? Where does it say that they considered it disobedience? Where does it say that He was disobedient?


What do you do with that fact?

What fact? Are you trying to establish that Jesus was disobedient to His earthly parents? If so, then how is that NOT a sin against the Fourth Commandment to honor one's father and mother? And if Jesus sinned against that Commandment, how is it that He is like us in every way except sin?


Where did I ever even imply such a thing? You're pulling stuff out of the ether. What I said, if you had bothered to read it, is that when he grew up he moved away from his parents and started his own life, like all children who grow up should do. We know he didn't forget her, duh, because I already mentioned his placing her in John's care when he was on the cross. So this is a red herring at best.

On the contrary, you said:
And between Cana and the cross, she vanishes from sight.

Implying that since she was out of sight, she must be out of mind. That is, that since He couldn't see her, He didn't think about her.

You also asked:

How is she running his life?

This is your red herring. Because I didn't say that she ran His life after Cana, but that she ran his life up to Cana. And in fact, began His ministry at her bequest at the Wedding at Cana.


Don't make me laugh. First, that quote is so out of context it's ridiculous. Look at the surrounding text and see what Paul was really talking about before making such a ludicrous accusation.

You claim that my statement is false but you provide no actual support for your claim. You simply say it makes you laugh. That is a form of logical fallacy known as Appeal to the People or Argument by emotion. You never really address the argument. You just claim it is beneath your dignity and laugh it off.

The problem is this, the quote I provided is explicitly condemning your literal method of interpretation of the New Testament:
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.


Second, even the spirit of the text has to be elicited from the actual words. In this case, the actual words simply aren't there.

So, from the text of the Wedding at Cana, you don't understand that Jesus obeyed His Mother and brought about His first supernatural sign, miraculously making wine from water? What actual word is missing?


She didn't "request" anything.

I agree. She commanded in a very confident manner. She even walked away, confident that her son would do her will.


She suspected he might do something, according to her actual words. You keep reading more into the text than it will bear,

You do. Because nowhere does the text say "she suspected he might do something".


and you justify such misuse of it with that artificial "spirit of the law" bit.

You do. And you justify your misuse of it by setting aside a portion of Scripture which instructs you how to interpret Scripture.


It doesn't work.

True. Your method doesn't work.


He performed his first miracle here because he chose to, not because of anything she said or did.

Just so happens that He did exactly what she said He should.



Who knows?

Those who read Scripture and understand the spirit of the letter.


Maybe he gave her a knowing little smile when he said "my hour has not yet come," and that's why she told the servants to do whatever he told them. We don't know. But to try and claim, as you and some others have done, that this was an act of obedience to her, is pushing the limits of both the "letter" and the "spirit" beyond what each can hold. It's just not there. Get over it.

On the contrary, anyone who reads this without a prejudice against Mary will see that He was being perfectly obedient to His Mother.


I never said such a thing, and really it has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. Yet another smokescreen.

Why then would you believe that she was sending Him to the liquor store?


So, because some kids today are rebellious, that negates the entire principle that children obey their parents for all of human history.

More fallacious argument. Did I say that the principle of children obeying their parents was negated for all of human history? Or did I not admit that you and I raised obedient children?

Therefore, the point is that NOT ALL CHILDREN ARE OBEDIENT. Because you said:


Quote:
I don't see how that is any different from any other childhood.

Implying that all children are obedient.


This is getting downright laughable. There were no metal scanners in first-century Judea, and the vast majority of kids then did obey their parents until they grew to adulthood and struck out on their own.

Really? You took a poll? Or is it mentioned in Scripture somewhere? Please provide the source for this opinion of yours.


This makes three blatant deflection attempts, and none of them work.

All of them from you.


Let's stick to the topic, shall we?

Be my guest. I've been on topic throughout. It is you who are squirming under the weight of your fallacious arguments.


Yes, you did.

Then you should be able to quote me.


In so many words you said that if Jesus didn't submit to her authority and obey her throughout his entire life, he "did not honor" her and sinned. Do you want to retract that statement now?

In so many words? In other words, you read that into my statements. And besides, you have now changed your own accusation, from "Honor" does not equal total or blind obedience. to submit to her authority and obey her throughout his life.

So far, I have nothing to retract. It is you who is retracting your statements accompanied by a whole lot of bullia and smoke screens.


No, I'm taking your words at face value. You, on the other hand, keep dragging irrelevant items out of left field and trying to deflect attention from the fact that your argument doesn't hold up. You said, in so many words, that either Jesus "permitted her to run His life" or he dishonored - and later you said "disowned" - her and committed a sin. That's not a straw man. That's your words.

Again, you keep using the phrase, "in so many words". Essentially admitting that I never said what you accused me of saying. All you are doing is pulling words out of context and adding to them your false impressions.

My argument holds up. That is why you won't address it.


See above. That's exactly what you said. Make up your mind.

I did. And I proved that you are avoiding the argument.


I already did.

Neh.


I have read it, apparently in a lot more detail than you have. Once again, there is no act of obedience to anybody except his Father. You're welcome to read as much as you want to into the text, but that's not what it says. He chose when and where to do his miracles, and it had nothing to do with her. In fact, he gave her a gentle rebuke (the "woman" part was an address of respect that he used on several occasions with several women). You keep mangling the text with your pretexts, and then try to call it "the spirit" of the text. It still doesn't work.

He did what she wanted. That's obedience in anybody's book.

Maybe more to the point of the original question, another question.

Why does a Christian need an image or any other physical item to "enhance" his/her worship?

I don't know. But I know it helps me. I also carry pictures of my mom and my family. The pictures help me to remember them and to focus on them when I'm far away.

In the same way, the icons and statuary of Jesus and the Saints helps me to focus on them.

I'm human. Go figger.


Is not the Holy Spirit adequate all by Himself?

I think He is. I believe it is He who inspires me to keep icons and statuary to remind me of my spiritual family. And I believe it is He who reminds me to keep pictures which remind me of my physical family.

Why would the existence of pictures and statuary make the Holy Spirit inadequate? Did not God the Father command the making of cherubim statues? Do you think He considered the Holy Spirit inadequate?

Gal this assumes you are born again and spirit filled, that you know the Holy Spirit and are guided by him. It is a whole can of worms to open that up with a Catholic because as much as they may believe in Jesus they also believe in their religion..

It does us no good to argue around these areas of Catholic expression, Mary, statues, candles, prayer to the saints and other unscriptural expressions, they have a whole lot of twisted logic that justifies their position

It is quite the opposite. It is Protestants who have unbiblical and twisted logic to justify their position. Lets take a very simple example and the foundation of your religion. Scripture alone. Where do you find that doctrine in Scripture? It is not there.

Scripture teaches that one must keep Scripture and Tradition and that one must obey the Church. Yet, Protestants keep disobeying Scripture in the name of Scripture. Quite illogical.

Here's an even clearer example. Faith alone. Scripture says:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Now, being the unreasonable sort that I am, I interpret "not by faith only" to mean "not by faith alone". Yet Protestants insist that justification is by faith only. Go figger. It is a blatant contradiction of Scripture.

Now, being the unreasonable sort that I am, I interpret "not by faith only" to mean "not by faith alone". Yet Protestants insist that justification is by faith only. Go figger. It is a blatant contradiction of Scripture.

Instead of being argumentative you would have much more chance of convincing me if you testified to the influence of the Holy Spirit in your life.

Mark 16:20
And they went forth, and preached every where, the lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Your arguments would carry a lot more weght if you could back them up with some works as per this Scripture.

Unfortunately, all of De Maria's supposed answers to my post take the form of "is not is not is not!" There is no substance at all. I demonstrated, from the actual text of John 2, that Jesus performed his miracle because he chose to, not because his mother or anybody else told him to. Any kind of command, or request, or directive, or anything else, from her, simply isn't there. De Maria chooses to gloss over that simple truth and continue as though there's universal agreement. This kind of cop-out reflects badly on one who claims to know the "spirit" of the text better than the rest of us. The rest of the post is just basic "I know you are, but what am I?" which gets us nowhere. I'm only going to address this one part:



No, I'm taking your words at face value. You, on the other hand, keep dragging irrelevant items out of left field and trying to deflect attention from the fact that your argument doesn't hold up. You said, in so many words, that either Jesus "permitted her to run His life" or he dishonored - and later you said "disowned" - her and committed a sin. That's not a straw man. That's your words.
Again, you keep using the phrase, "in so many words". Essentially admitting that I never said what you accused me of saying.

I'm going to guess from this glaring error that English isn't your first language? Because in English, the phrase "in so many words" means "that's exactly what you said." How you manage to twist that to mean the exact opposite is beyond me, but you're wrong. When I say "in so many words" it means "this what your words say, plain and simple." If I were to say "by implication" the way you did so many times trying to manipulate my words, that would mean you didn't actually say it. "In so many words" means that's precisely what you said, and you did in fact say it so either recant or defend your words. Trying to arbitrarily reverse the meaning of my words gets you nowhere.

Instead of being argumentative you would have much more chance of convincing me if you testified to the influence of the Holy Spirit in your life.

I'm not here to convince you Paraclete. Nor am I here to get your blessing.

1 Corinthians 4:2-4 (King James Version)

2Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

3But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

4For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

I don't believe in faith alone, therefore I don't believe that I should sit around telling people how good I am. If I am good and if I am doing God's will, He will let me know. My hope is in Him. Not in myself. Not in you.

Does that make sense?

Unfortunately, all of De Maria's supposed answers to my post take the form of "is not is not is not!" There is no substance at all. I demonstrated, from the actual text of John 2, that Jesus performed his miracle because he chose to, not because his mother or anybody else told him to. Any kind of command, or request, or directive, or anything else, from her, simply isn't there. De Maria chooses to gloss over that simple truth and continue as though there's universal agreement. This kind of cop-out reflects badly on one who claims to know the "spirit" of the text better than the rest of us. The rest of the post is just basic "I know you are, but what am I?" which gets us nowhere.

In other words, you know that you have been refuted and you are trying to save face.


I'm only going to address this one part:

I'm going to guess from this glaring error that English isn't your first language?

Another fallacious argument. Instead of addressing any point, you try to make another straw man to draw attention away from the point at hand.


Because in English, the phrase "in so many words" means "that's exactly what you said." How you manage to twist that to mean the exact opposite is beyond me, but you're wrong.

Lol! I didn't twist it to mean exactly the opposite. You didn't post exactly what I said. You posted selected tidbits which you then dressed up with your commentary to make it sound as though that is what I said. But you misrepresented my point.


When I say "in so many words" it means "this what your words say, plain and simple."

In other words, you pretended to summarize my words. But you didn't summarize the meaning of my words. You quoted a few fragments and proceeded to imbue them with your meaning.


If I were to say "by implication" the way you did so many times trying to manipulate my words, that would mean you didn't actually say it. "In so many words" means that's precisely what you said, and you did in fact say it so either recant or defend your words. Trying to arbitrarily reverse the meaning of my words gets you nowhere.

In fact, I did not say what you claimed I said and you need to quote where you claimed I said it or recant. Since I have made this challenge before and you have yet to meet it, I take that as admission that you were making a fallacious argument.

Mark 16:20
And they went forth, and preached every where, the lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Your arguments would carry a lot more weght if you could back them up with some works as per this Scripture.

Works are not necessarily miracles. Is that what you mean?

When it comes to religion there is no universal answer, there is no right or wrong, it is all relative to the person, culture, or region. Instead of debating about theology, scripture, or tradition, realize that we are all different religiously and that it is OK for someone to have different beliefs. Open your mind and listen. Ignorance breeds prejudice.

When it comes to religion there is no universal answer, there is no right or wrong, it is all relative to the person, culture, or region.

Are you sure you are right? Or could you be wrong?


Instead of debating about theology, scripture, or tradition, realize that we are all different religiously and that it is OK for someone to have different beliefs.

Did any of us say that it was not OK to have different beliefs? I didn't.

However, I do believe that my beliefs are correct and that my beliefs have a stronger possibility of salvation. You are free to keep your beliefs, but I believe they are not good for your soul and especially for your eternal destination.


Open your mind and listen.

Will you do the same?


Ignorance breeds prejudice.

I don't think any of the "experts" here are ignorant. They seem very knowledgeable about their beliefs.

Instead of going by what your friend says, why not figure out for yourself what you believe on your own. With your own research, your own studies and deciding what fits what you personally believe.

This person sounds like Anti Catholic, there tends to be lots of difference in opinions depending on the denomination. In reality though we all should be coming together. Embracing each other and accepting that we all have differing beliefs.

Who cares what your friend says. You do not have to believe in anything you do not want to. Do not feel pressured by your friend. Discover what your own beliefs are on your own.

Only way to do that is to read the bible, visit different types of churches and see what fits more for yourself.

Are you sure you are right? Or could you be wrong?



Did any of us say that it was not ok to have different beliefs? I didn't.

However, I do believe that my beliefs are correct and that my beliefs have a stronger possibility of salvation. You are free to keep your beliefs, but I believe they are not good for your soul and especially for your eternal destination.


Will you do the same?



I don't think any of the "experts" here are ignorant. They seem very knowledgeable about their beliefs.


WOW! Super Christian of you. :rolleyes: No wonder I'm Hindu.
Hare Krshna.

You can critique and take out of context whatever quote you want from this post. Hey kinda like bible passages, no wonder you are so good at it.

Right on...

The problem with religious discussion is that people always argue about right and wrong. There is no such thing. God is God and whichever path one walks is all right.

Works are not necessarily miracles. Is that what you mean?

I refer you back to the passage I quoted just above your post. God confirmed the word preached by "signs" and those given in the Bible in various places were miracles of healing.

Christians can indeed do good works, but if it can be done by man, then it does not qualify as a "sign" or a miracle. Hope this clarifies my position.

PS: I see the unbelievers have arrived late to the fray.:D

Actually, you and I do agree on several points.

I refer you back to the passage I quoted just above your post. God confirmed the word preached by "signs" and those given in the Bible in various places were miracles of healing.

Christians can indeed do good works, but if it can be done by man, then it does not qualify as a "sign" or a miracle. Hope this clarifies my position.

PS: I see the unbelievers have arrived late to the fray.:D

Actually, you and I do agree on several points.

I so hope you weren't referring to me as one of the unbelievers... that would be very very Baptist of you.

In other words, you know that you have been refuted and you are trying to save face.

http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif

You make me laugh.


Lol! I didn't twist it to mean exactly the opposite. You didn't post exactly what I said. You posted selected tidbits which you then dressed up with your commentary to make it sound as though that is what I said. But you misrepresented my point.

Do you even read what you type? Here's what you said:


Again, you keep using the phrase, "in so many words". Essentially admitting that I never said what you accused me of saying.

Now you're claiming something totally different. You made the claim, right there in that statement, that the phrase "in so many words" means that's not what you said.


In other words, you pretended to summarize my words. But you didn't summarize the meaning of my words. You quoted a few fragments and proceeded to imbue them with your meaning.

So what you actually say has nothing to do with what you mean? This doesn't make any sense at all.


In fact, I did not say what you claimed I said and you need to quote where you claimed I said it or recant. Since I have made this challenge before and you have yet to meet it, I take that as admission that you were making a fallacious argument.

I already did quote you, and I quoted you in context. If you're saying things that you don't mean, maybe you need to find a clearer way of saying what you mean. That's your problem, not mine. The fact remains that in all of your comments, you only acknowledge two possibilities:

1) Jesus was totally subservient to his mother throughout his whole life or

2) he dishonored/disowned her.

Once again, these are your words, not mine. If you don't mean them, don't put them out for public scrutiny. But as I said, that's your problem, not mine.

Galveston, we are all believers of our own beliefs. Practice tolerance and maybe you wouldn't have criticized those with different opinions. It is hypocritical to be a christian and to speak to someone as if you are right. Before that gets taken out of context, I mean you should always be humble in your arguments and treat the other/others with respect regarding their stance on the subject. Ask questions instead of making accusations. Isn't that why the original question was being asked? because a christian ignorant of Catholic belief(or is it doctrine?(de maria)) made this person feel uncomfortable.

Surely you are not suggesting that when the Scriptures are clear, I shouldn't say so.

Do all paths lead to God?

Not all paths lead to God. In fact, very few of all paths even point in His direction anymore. But all "Paths to God" lead to God.

Think about it this way... if we were to all meet in St. Louis, would we all be on the same path? Not even remotely, but would they all be paths to the city? Yes!

We are uniquely shaped by our heritage and culture but everyone can agree that God is universal and transcendent.

WOW! Super Christian of you. :rolleyes: No wonder I'm Hindu.
Hare Krshna.

A very confusing religion Hinduism. Do you really think you are prepared to argue its merits here on the Christianity board?

I wasn't attacking anybody or talking specifically about any previous post. Your religious opinion is an opinion. Therefor the rightness or wrongness of that opinion is relative to you. I am certain I could find millions of people in the world that would say you are wrong. I am saying you are right or wrong depending on who you ask, which would mean relatively every religious opinion is right and wrong. You are right, you didn't say it wasn't OK to have different beliefs, but your tone is sharp and opinionated.

So is yours. Just because your opinion is that no one should have opinions doesn't mean that your tone isn't sharp and opinionated.

It is your opinion that there are no absolutes. You will find that 99% of Christians don't agree.


Again I wasn't necessarily referring to you but as for these "experts" what sort of credentials do you need to be one because to me it seems all you need is an opinion. Also the ignorance I was talking about was the ignorance of other peoples beliefs not your own. You can critique and take out of context whatever quote you want from this post. Hey kind of like bible passages, no wonder you are so good at it.

Spoken like a true unbeliever. We who believe in Christ, believe in absolute truths revealed by God.

If you don't believe that there are any absolute truths, then what do we do with your belief that there are no absolute truths?

If you are correct, then your belief is not absolute and there are absolute truths which we must believe.

Sincerely,

De Maria

http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif

You make me laugh.

That's the only option you have left. You obviously have no coherent response.


Do you even read what you type? Here's what you said:

Now you're claiming something totally different. You made the claim, right there in that statement, that the phrase "in so many words" means that's not what you said.

I'm being generous when I say you're a bit confused. Perhaps you didn't understand. You used the phrase, "in so many words" because you selected a few words out of my statement in order to twist their meaning into what YOU CLAIMED that they meant. If you had quoted the entire phrase, your claim would be proven wrong. Which I did when I quoted my entire statement.


So what you actually say has nothing to do with what you mean? This doesn't make any sense at all.

Sure it does. You took a few of my words and claimed that I said something "in so many words". But when my statement is read it is clear that you twisted the meaning of those words to create a straw man which you could then destroy. But the straw man of your creation has nothing to do with what I actually said.


I already did quote you, and I quoted you in context.

Nope.




I already disproved those accusations.

[quote]Once again, these are your words, not mine.

Those are actually your words. You didn't even bother to take any words from my statements that time.


If you don't mean them, don't put them out for public scrutiny. But as I said, that's your problem, not mine.

I'm fine with the public scrutinizing my words and yours. I think my statements will stand the scrutiny just fine.

I'm pretty sure that yours won't.

I refer you back to the passage I quoted just above your post. God confirmed the word preached by "signs" and those given in the Bible in various places were miracles of healing.

Christians can indeed do good works, but if it can be done by man, then it does not qualify as a "sign" or a miracle. Hope this clarifies my position.

Not really. Because you seem to be suggesting that men can't look upon our nonmiraculous works and glorify God. That isn't what you mean, is it?

Do you mean that for anyone to believe that we are Christian, we must accompany our preaching with miracles?


PS: I see the unbelievers have arrived late to the fray.:D

Yes, I've already engaged a couple of them.


Actually, you and I do agree on several points.

Yes, we do. Hopefully, one day, we will agree on everything.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Not really. Because you seem to be suggesting that men can't look upon our nonmiraculous works and glorify God. That isn't what you mean, is it?

Do you mean that for anyone to believe that we are Christian, we must accompany our preaching with miracles?


Sincerely,

De Maria

To your first paragraph, I do not mean that men will not see and glorify God because of our own good works that are motivated by our obedience to God.

As to the second paragraph:

Let me try an illustration.

You are in a land among people who worship a wooden idol decorated with bird feathers. You tell them that the God of Heaven is unseen, all powerful, omniscient, and omnipresent, and that they need to turn from their idol worship. You tell them that you have a Book that explains your God, and what He expects from humans.

But they respond that they have their religion handed down from their fathers for many generations. Why should they believe that your God, who they cannot see, is better than their God, who they CAN see.

What do you do now?

That is where the miracle working power that God invested in the Church on that day of Pentecost by the Baptism of the Holy Ghost comes into play.

When the idol worshippers see their people being healed in the Name of Jesus, they realize that the God you represent is the true God, because their idol cannot do anything at all. The same can be said of every false religion.

I'm not going to cite passages here at this time unless you ask me to. It would make this lengthy post even longer.

Good question Gal. From my point of view I blame Plato. Naturally, Plato predates Christianity but he has left us with many unanswered questions in relation to universals. Today it is nearly always referred to as,'the problem of universals'



In a dialogue discussion an argument is put forward between Socrates and a priest of Athens named Euthyphro. Socrates asks Euthyphro where he is going? The reply comes that he is off to the courthouse to give evidence against his father who is being tried for murder.

Socrates asks for the fully story and both he and Euthyphro come to the conclusion that the case is weak. Euthyphro says that he already knows this but he is still going to give evidence against his father. Naturally Socrates asks, why?

Euthyphro explains that it is the holy thing to do. Socrates subjects Euthyphro to some close questioning about the nature of holiness. Whenever, Euthyphro comes up with a definition of holiness Socrates shows him that his definition is inadequate.

In the end, Euthyphro gives up and claims that every time he puts words down, they get up and walk away.

One thing Plato is doing is highlighting the relationship between appearances and reality.
I guess we could generalize and say we need a' physical thing' or 'an image', not so much 'to enhance' our worship but to know that appearances and reality are closely linked in some way. The big problem is how are they linked?

Plato is not denying there is such a thing as holiness but is showing that 'physical' holiness is not the same as 'actual' holiness. Plato believes that there needs to be a mediating entity to link appearances to reality.

If Plato were alive today and he wanted to answer Galverston's question.." Is not the Holy Spirit adequate all by Himself?' He might say, no- because the Holy Spirit provides us with a way of making sense of God and the physical world.

In John 14:16 I understand the Holy Spirit to have the role of our Counselor or "Mediator" in our lives.






It might be worth reiterating my earlier post. This may go some way to answering the original question and the nature of absolute truths. Anyway, putting it up for debate.

Socrates is demonstrating to Euthyphro that what he believes to be 'truth' is in fact not true. What he holds is only an approximation of the truth. I could be the case that we have a psychological disposition to want to know 'the truth' and 'an approximation' may help us to some degree. Unless we are unfortunate enough to run into Socrates.

Absolute truth can be looked at in terms of universals. Truth can be seen to be universal if it is true all of the time and in all places> past, present and future. Many things can fall under this category. For example. Mathematics and logic. Some ethical theories also claim to be universal.

Now it seems any truth which satisfies these conditions can be seen as an absolute truth. Even a tautology can satisfy these conditions.

I think there is a good argument for saying that there are many absolute truths.


Tut

To your first paragraph, I do not mean that men will not see and glorify God because of our own good works that are motivated by our obedience to God.

As to the second paragraph:

Let me try an illustration.

You are in a land among people who worship a wooden idol decorated with bird feathers. You tell them that the God of Heaven is unseen, all powerful, omniscient, and omnipresent, and that they need to turn from thier idol worship. You tell them that you have a Book that explains your God, and what He expects from humans.

But they respond that they have their religion handed down from their fathers for many generations. Why should they believe that your God, who they cannot see, is better than their God, who they CAN see.

What do you do now?

That is where the miracle working power that God invested in the Church on that day of Pentecost by the Baptism of the Holy Ghost comes into play.

When the idol worshippers see their people being healed in the Name of Jesus, they realize that the God you represent is the true God, because their idol cannot do anything at all. The same can be said of every false religion.

I'm not going to cite passages here at this time unless you ask me to. It would make this lengthy post even longer.

Mightn't those pagans see your works and glorify God?

... Plato is not denying there is such a thing as holiness but is showing that 'physical' holiness is not the same as 'actual' holiness. Plato believes that there needs to be a mediating entity to link appearances to reality...

His name is Jesus.



I think there is a good argument for saying that there are many absolute truths.

Absolutely!

Sincerely,

De Maria

This is not suppose to turn into a debate.


No wonder why so many people are scared away from God.

I thought I already replied to this a few days ago, but it would seem that post went into the Great Cosmic Bit Bucket. http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/dontknow.gif


Thats the only option you have left. You obviously have no coherent response.

I asked for clarification of what you meant and you refused to give it, descending instead into ad hominems. So be it. This is getting boring. You keep saying that what you said is not what you meant but decline to actually spell out what you supposedly meant. I'm tired of http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/banghead.gif so I'm bowing out of this. I'm sure you'll insist on having the last word, so go for it.

I thought I already replied to this a few days ago, but it would seem that post went into the Great Cosmic Bit Bucket. http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/dontknow.gif





You have found that there is one of those here too. Its full of opinions someone doesn't like and no doubt this post will find its way there too!

OK.

Actually, I think you are correct. Perhaps a moderator could clarify the rules. I thought this section was for answering questions and debates were restricted to the Member Discussion section?

This is not suppose to turn into a debate.


No wonder why so many people are scared away from God.
Actually, I think you are correct. Perhaps a moderator could clarify the rules. I thought this section was for answering questions and debates were restricted to the Member Discussion section?

I disagree. Yes Jesus respected his mother as we should respect our parents but he performed the miracle on his own accord. "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come." Mary was a woman like any other.

God obviously valued her heart as he chose her out of anyone to bear his son but that does not make her supernatural in any way. She died like anyone else. I think you have sadly missed the point if you continue to pay tribute to someone dead.

... haha, demonic Mary. : Pictures it in mind : Okay, maybe your friend has an issue against catholics or branches of catholicism.. . because focusing on Mary doesn't mean you will become demon possessed.

Now, I personally am Not catholic, and go to churches that don't have any statues of Mary (or even Jesus... though we do have a small quilt upfront that has a cross on it) The fear is, that instead of focusing on God/Jesus/Holy Spirit him/itself, you'll be focusing on the earthly interpretation of it. That's why statues of Mary and Jesus are a bit worrisome for me, as some may focuse more on that then on Jesus himself.

You DO have to believe in God/Jesus/Holy Spirit... You have to believe that Jesus died for your sins, God created EVERYTHING and the holy spirit is around to help any way that it can (that's a rought description, go to a church to seek further explaination), but Mary was real... and idols of Mary aren't idols, but statues, or pictures. Next thing you could say is that my school picture is demonic as well. Mary was a real person... but I don't think that you should focus on her more than God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, because that means you are putting her in front of the real power, the person who died for your sins.

:)

Your friend is entirely right.

Icons/ and idols are not allowed according to the 2 commandment, and as Jesus said himself... "I did not come to change the Laws"

she said you have to believe in god and jesus plus the holy spirit

That is exactly right, the emphasis is on the triune God, not on any human no matter how saintly. By emphasising the veneration of the virgin and saints the RCC has divirted from the basic message of Jesus which is salvation only through him. God told us not to make images and bow down before them. This making of images is the introduction of pagan ritual into the Church. A patron saint for this, or that, how is that different from the pagan system of gods?