No Immaculate Conception, No Immutable God

[ReadTheBible]

Again, you’re really not making sense.

 

[MarysLurker]

Again, you’re really not making sense.

You aren’t because you clearly have a double standard. One for Catholics and one for everyone else.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[MarysLurker]

You’re right. If he sincerely believed what he is saying (that the 1st Commandment forbids the making of graven images rather than their worship), he would be just as devoted to purging the mall of “idols” as he is as concerns the Catholic Church.

 

[MarysLurker]

At this point I think any possibility he sincerely holds his positions has been lost. He’s an anti-Catholic. There are only three possibilities as to why.

1. Hurt by the Church in some way (unlikely)
2. Mother/wife wound such as family history of divorce, explaining the preoccupation with Mary-bashing
3. Bias from family history (descendant of historical anti-Catholics such as Masons, Ulster, Orange, etc.)

In all 3 circumstances he’s just a wounded person. Which is why I haven’t slammed the door yet.

 

[ReadTheBible]

You know God instructed the building of the ark. The point is that God supersedes everything. Murder is against the commandments yet God ordered the execution of Isaac.

I am being asked in this dialogue to explain my thoughts and I’ve done so with scripture as a source for the rationale. In turn, I’m said that I must have some mother complex, or wife complex, and now in Maryslurker latest comment she’s comparing me to racists.

None of which offends me as I know the absurdity of such things. If my belief in scripture and pointing out the facts to which no Catholic theologian would disagree (such as many traditions they espouse to are found nowhere in scripture) offend you than I freely admit I’m not sorry. I would never be ashamed for believing on scripture. I’m not going out of my way to offend you or anyone else. I’m simply providing my belief based on scripture.

 

[MarysLurker]

I am being asked in this dialogue to explain my thoughts and I’ve done so with scripture as a source for the rationale. In turn, I’m said that I must have some mother complex, or wife complex, and now in Maryslurker latest comment she’s comparing me to racists.

You have a double standard. That has clearly been demonstrated by your refusal to clarify why only Catholics are forbidden to have angel statues. You either can’t perceive your discrimination (hence the jarring reminder) or you know you have it and are lashing out because of it.

 

[ReadTheBible]

You have a double standard. That has clearly been demonstrated by your refusal to clarify why only Catholics are forbidden to have angel statues. You either can’t perceive your discrimination

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to this. Again you misrepresent what I say.

 

[mcq72]

to define what you mean. What do mean by wed?

wed to mean means receive your wife unto yourself, to take her out of her parents house, to have a wedding…it is much more than just begin to cohabitate as married which you seem to favor, but cohabitate as one, after a wedding.

Again, no one hear has answered the question of can you have conjugal relations as soon as betrothed, pledged, promised , espoused ( Latin verb spondēre, meaning “to promise or betroth.”), before any wedding. Perhaps I am saying they were not romantically crazed or conjugally crazed as we are , and that indeed folks got married without "relation"s until the couple was "ready’(home, matured, job etc.). Actually having relations was a big deal, so much so that is what part of the wedding festivities for the couple. Pretty sad we cant even agree on marriage customs of the time because of Marion issues need satisfying.

 

[ReadTheBible]

I don’t think you and I would have the same definition of idol worship.

Think about the Jews and the exodus from Egypt. Look at all the miracles they witnessed first hand including all the firstborn of Egyptians being killed in one night and the Red Sea being parted. Yet while Moses was getting the commandments from God they built a golden calf. It’s hard for me to fathom they all of a sudden stopped believing there was indeed a God. It’s one possibility but it doesn’t seem plausible. The fact is they made an idol and were bowing before it. Whether they still believed in God’s existence isn’t explained but God’s anger was.

Another example is when the Jews were captive in Babylon. There’s 3 Jews recorded that didn’t bow down to the statue of Nebuchadnezzar. Again, it’s hard to fathom all the Jews stopped believing in God but more than likely they bowed down to spare their lives.

Speaking for myself, I would never bow before a statue of anything.

 

[MarysLurker]

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to this. Again you misrepresent what I say.

What you said was: it is a sin to make graven images unless God commands the specific instance. (This is how you explain their presence in the Ark and the Temple.) According to you, the sin is making the image. How it is used is irrelevant, according to your position, which you repeated here. If God doesn’t command it in that specific instance, making an image is a sin.

In response I pointed out that the Hallmark store makes them without a mandate from God and asked you to uniformly apply your rule to them and you did not with no justification.

You are incapable of uniformly applying rules. Regardless of your subjective motivations for discriminating against Catholics, you believe that God does not make uniform rules. The rules can change. As has been pointed out earlier, this is also how you justify imputed righteousness. Covetousness is wrong on earth but not in heaven which is why a thief can get into heaven and bring his covetousness with him.

Since the rules can change, you say, angel statues are OK for Hallmark to make but not for Immaculate Conception Catholic Church to make. By the same logic you could say that marriage was between a man and a woman back then but not today. Abortion is wrong in X circumstance but not in Y. Pick a sin, add a justification for changing the rule, et voila.

Oh, you say, I would never try to justify redefining marriage, the Bible is so clear on that. The next generation of Protestants disagree with you and they have a biblical case to counter yours. As a Catholic, I believe that God does not change (Mal. 3:6) and I have Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to back me up. I will never have to worry about the Catholic Church ever teaching error. But you reject both of those safeguards; having sown the wind by refusing to universally apply moral rules in order to be rid of that pesky Virgin Mary, you will reap the whirlwind once the kiddos take over your church.

Everyone say it with me:

No Immaculate Conception, No Immutable God!​

 

[hope]

It is good to define it lead to understanding. If that is your definition of wed, then we agree. It is not what I consider wed. Lets get past that. I believe correct me if I am wrong that you have stated that they were indeed husband and wife at the betrothal. The problem I think we are having is you are trying to relate society today to then. It was not the practice to have relations during the period of the first part of the marriage until the second part. I wonder why you are insistent on this? Perhaps you think it might answer her question? It wouldn’t. If an angel had appeared to me before I married but was engaged. I wouldn’t be saying but not I am not married yet.(which isn’t what Mary said) I would assume that my husband to be would be the father.

 

[ReadTheBible]

At this point you’re creating your own argument. Why would I think it’s ok for any business to make idols?

 

[mcq72]

It was not the practice to have relations during the period of the first part of the marriage until the second part. I wonder why you are insistent on this? Perhaps you think it might answer her question? It wouldn’t. If an angel had appeared to me before I married but was engaged. I wouldn’t be saying but not I am not married yet.(which isn’t what Mary said) I would assume that my husband to be would be the father.

thank you for your thoughtful response. I was only insistent on the “refrain” between first and second part because there seemed to be some avoidance of this, and little response until now. I am glad we agree on this. Of course we just disagree and both see it to fit our understanding of things. I differ than you in that i understand your view and admit it, just disagree.

 

[MarysLurker]

At this point you’re creating your own argument. Why would I think it’s ok for any business to make idols?

You said it was a sin for anyone to make graven images. Having been caught with your pants down for the third time, now the sin is making idols. Making an image is not a sin, worshipping it is. That’s actually true.

No Catholic worships graven images.

Not that you’ll believe me, because you’re a discriminator, and you change the rules to fit your bias. Repent of that, or one day the same practice of changing God to fit an agenda will be used against you by the next generation.

 

[ReadTheBible]

Through this entire dialogue you have consistently misrepresented what I’ve said and flat out made up other things and attributed it to me. You’ve slandered me multiple times now making up fantasies concerning my relationships to explain my belief. You create made up scenarios then argue with yourself on said scenario. When presented with scripture that validates my belief you have no response to invalidate scripture.

Just one example so you see the hypocrisy of your own statements.

I posted the following verse: Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it:

Do you see where scripture says neither make nor bow down to idols?

You then say the following: “You said it was a sin for anyone to make graven images. Having been caught with your pants down for the third time, now the sin is making idols. Making an image is not a sin, worshipping it is”

You haven’t shown the capacity to follow along with dialogue and when you don’t you freely make up things.

I’m willing to debate ideas but you don’t even attempt to do so legitimately. We are not going to agree and you are free to believe what you wish. Please stop making things up and attributing them to me.

 

[MarysLurker]

Please stop making things up and attributing them to me.

I’ve done no such thing, I have merely asked you to be consistent with the rules you decree and you cannot.

Case in point: you were busted by the Hallmark argument, so now you’re saying you meant “neither make nor bow down to idols,” which means you meant that either making or worshipping an image, standing alone, is a sin. I addressed making standing alone, and you just confirmed that was your position.

Now your back is against the wall.

Time to log off, take a deep breath, think and pray. Then go look at the Protestant churches you know from your childhood. Take an honest look. See how they’ve changed. I think you’ll see they were built upon sand.

The Rock is here for you when you’re ready.

 

[ReadTheBible]

Lol you are completely making things up. You expect me to go to Hallmark stores and start breaking things otherwise you think that I think what they do is ok. This is just silly.

 

[hope]

I differ than you in that i understand your view and admit it, just disagree.

No mcq72 just because I disagree and defend my point of view does not mean that I don’t understand.

 

[hope]

On the other hand, scripture does say in Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God,

Leviticus 26:Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God

Psalm 135:15 The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.
16 They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not;
17 They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths.
18 They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them.

Catholics bow down to statues of Mary world wide. I already know you will say they are not worshiping but rather venerating. Again, scripture makes no such distinction. I would neither make a statute of Mary nor bow down before one because scripture is clear regarding such things. Once again this is where in Catholicism, tradition supersedes scripture.

You are taking scripture out of context
Let us put it back into context. You should start with verse 3
"I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.

3 You shall not have other gods besides me
Exodus 4 is then talking about other putting other gods before the one true God. That is the meaning of graven. It isn’t just making statues.
Leviticus is the same Do not make false gods for yourselves.

Catholics bow down to statues of Mary world wide.

You are saying that we worship Mary and that is a breaking of the commandment of bearing false witness. In order to worship, you must believe that what you worship is a god. You owe an apology for your unchristian remarks. It isn’t our tradition that is wrong but your misrepresenting. We do not regard Mary as a god

 

[MarysLurker]

You are saying that we worship Mary and that is a breaking of the commandment of bearing false witness.

Indeed. But since he believes that God can change, there is no such thing as truth for him.

Very sad.