Was the Virgin Mary wise?

[NeedImprovement]

I see a methodology being employed here:

The main method is that a false construct, a false model of Catholicism is repetitively presented by the poster in question , in order to disrupt , gain attention … (whatever their agenda). Then that same poster argues against the false model which they have just, themselves, presented. The purpose, in part is to try and establish their own terms for debate, which subsequently evokes a desired response. If the desired response gets posted by an unsuspecting (CAF)member, (granting the poster in question the “benefit of the doubt”) , the poster in question twists the CAF member’s response to make it appear that the CAF member is agreeing with them (which can only serve to heighten members’ frustration).

Have a look at posts 75, 76 ,88 where the poster tries to imply that CAF members’ replies agree with the depraved assessment that our Blessed Mother was not “ human in any ‘meaningful’ sense.”

Now, going back a moment to an earlier expression, let’s see what “Catholics in this thread” have been saying :

Tim said it earliest in post # 48

No, this is not how the Catholic Church defines sin.

… It is extremely frustrating as a Catholic, to be told that my Church teaches something which it does not…-Tim-

… but let’s continue in order to get a true cross-section of the consensus …

Sorry… But I can’t just stand idly by while you continue to grossly misrepresent Catholic teaching…

…I see there’s a reason why you’re an atheist. You’ve never been introduced to Catholicism…

You seem to be quite misinformed about what Original Sin is, Angry.
There is no “collective guilt and punishment” for a single individual crime.

Perhaps, before you post in a thread where knowledgeable Catholics are in dialogue with you, you ought to read up a bit on Catholicism.

It’s not a question of liking but of correcting your error:

CCC 405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does **not **have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

…The only reason you’re not already is because you haven’t a whit of a clue what Catholicism is or what she teaches … :

First why don’t you explain what you think Original Sin is. Perhaps go to the Catechism. That might help you.

I am quite comfortable saying that the angels were not set up to fail.

If you are deficient in knowledge about the Church’s teaching on angels, then go read and learn!

By now, the picture should be starting to come into focus.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Now everyone who isn’t sure, please look up the definition of the word taunt . Then, tell me is it just me, or does this comment appear to be a taunt to you too ? …

If you want start a flame war and exchange personal insults that’s fine with me too:shrug:

What about when we place it next to this comment ?

If Catholics are not willing to accept criticism of certain things, then you (I am using the universal you here) should not debate them with outsiders (and you should admit as much).

We really have to wonder what planet some people come from when Catholics are attacked daily in all facets of the media.

Now to close this thing we need a few more definitions – but not from Father John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary . This time we’ll use the Urban Dictionary, the Online Slang Dictionary, and a couple of more conservative resources - Cambridge Dictionary and Webster’s Dictionary.

And the word we want to look at is : Troll
Urban Dictionary:

TROLL :

1.One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

2.One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. ‘you’re nothing but a fanboy’ is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

Online Slang Dictionary:

TROLL:
a person who posts to an internet discussion group or chat room with the sole purpose of disrupting it.

Cambridge Dictionary:

TROLL:
someone who leaves an intentionally annoying message on the Internet, in order to get attention or cause trouble .

I think it’s great that Webster’s Dictionary was kind enough to include a hint on “how to recognize” trolls (highlights mine)
Webster’s Dictionary:

TROLL:
n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he’s just a troll.”

 

[NeedImprovement]

One problem with trolls at CAF is that they aren’t just inflaming the passions about any subject in particular – they make a sport out of spitting on what we live and what we breathe and on us for living it and breathing it.

Another problem about trolls at CAF is that their posts can sometimes cause a sincere CAF member to be banned, where, if they had never been provoked, they may have never been banned in the first place.

And of course, we all end up investing time, effort and care into responses – almost all of which can go to waste ( unless perhaps we consider offering up all the frustration for the holy souls in Purgatory).

When trolls attack a special interest group- specifically CAF, they often have an ulterior motive and are connected to a group with an anti-Catholic agenda.

Now concerning this piece of drivel :

If Catholics are not willing to accept criticism of certain things, then you (I am using the universal you here) should not debate them with outsiders (and you should admit as much).

Catholics can and do debate with the best of them. But we aren’t expected to endure all the incessant insults and abuse that the world hurls at us here at CAF . And CAF is debate tolerant – generously so . However, as evidenced earlier, concerning the poster in question on this thread, debate never enters into the picture . I think this thread has served us well in demonstrating, by way of ample evidence, why trolls cannot be too leniently tolerated in any forum – not just Catholic ones .

Perhaps ending with a prayer taken from the intercessions of Evening Prayer from the Office For The Dead might be appropriate here :
Liturgy of the Hours:

Christ, Redeemer , look on those who have no hope because they do not know you

• May they receive faith in the Resurrection and in the life of the world to come.

Lord, You are our life and resurrection.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Needimprovement,

Looks like it is unmasking time!

Great post

God bless

I see a methodology being employed here:

The main method is that a false construct, a false model of Catholicism is repetitively presented by the poster in question , in order to disrupt , gain attention … (whatever their agenda). Then that same poster argues against the false model which they have just, themselves, presented. The purpose, in part is to try and establish their own terms for debate, which subsequently evokes a desired response. If the desired response gets posted by an unsuspecting (CAF)member, (granting the poster in question the “benefit of the doubt”) , the poster in question twists the CAF member’s response to make it appear that the CAF member is agreeing with them (which can only serve to heighten members’ frustration).

Have a look at posts 75, 76 ,88 where the poster tries to imply that CAF members’ replies agree with the depraved assessment that our Blessed Mother was not “ human in any ‘meaningful’ sense.”

Now, going back a moment to an earlier expression, let’s see what “Catholics in this thread” have been saying :

Tim said it earliest in post # 48

… but let’s continue in order to get a true cross-section of the consensus …

By now, the picture should be starting to come into focus.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**As I posted, the sequence is simple : Pride, Disobedience, Death. If you find yourself encountering ineptitude when you try to wrap your mind around it, it is probably due to a lack of faith.

Contrary to what you claim (although you may not understand this either) some of the Church Fathers ( I believe St. Augustine was the first ) teach that faith precedes knowledge.**

St Anselm , frequently referred to as the *father of scholastics * put it this way :

** “I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order that I may understand, for of this I feel sure, that, if I did not believe, I would not understand.”** .

So in this regard, it makes perfect sense that you do not understand what the rest of us are discussing here - because you do not believe ; you have no faith ( yet ) . And faith isn’t something which we somehow obtain from studying or learning - it’s a gift from God ; a gratuitous gift.

For the rest of us : Here is an excerpt from a nice commentary found in some pages of Orthodox Apologetic Theology describing the integrality of faith, particularly when the mind is helpless :

I am familiar with the theory.
To which I answer:
If an assertation requires a special kind of faith to make sense, the simplest and most logical explanation is that it is just wrong.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Honestly … if you aren’t going to read all the posts … what’s the point here ?.. I’ll give you one last hint : Try looking for ORIGINAL SIN, PRETERNATURAL GIFTS, INFUSED KNOWLEDGE ( this sequence is even simpler : Posts 161, 162, 163 ) .

Another pertinent definition (highlights mine)

**SIN. “A word, deed or desire in opposition to the eternal law” **(St. Augustine). Sin is a deliberate transgression of a law of God, which identifies the four essentials of every sin. A law is involved, implying that there are physical laws that operate with necessity, and moral laws that can be disregarded by human beings. God is offended, so that the divine dimension is never absent from any sin. Sin is a transgression, since Catholicism holds that grace is resistible and the divine will can be disobeyed. And the transgression is deliberate, which means that a sin is committed whenever a person knows that something is contrary to the law of God and then freely does the action anyway. (Etym. Old English synn, syn, sin; Old High German sunta, suntea, perhaps to Latin sons, guilty.)

A desire (e.g. feeling) is a deliberate transgression

 

[AngryAtheist8]

My dear fellow CAF members : As far as the one flinging acerbic provocations (read : not “criticisms”) on this thread is concerned, debate doesn’t even enter into the equation – not by a long shot . Debate requires substantiation for one’s argumentation . Debate requires logic – not logical fallacies and, as PRmerger says, not non sequiturs. Debate requires the ability of someone to answer concerning their assertions – as opposed to evasive action or diversions employed to avoid addressing the essence of the issue . And, relative to the subject matter of this particular thread, debate definitely requires proper knowledge of our Catholic Faith.

That isn’t what we got though, was it ? It rather appears more like a barrage of insults , what with Our Blessed Mother being called a robot at least three times- in three separate posts , being called not human in any meaningful sense in at least three posts, combined with the repeated claim that God is cruel and purposefully so…

Now in case you weren’t able to catch what is being said in post 153, clearly, it isn’t your fault. There is some deceptive wording being employed. If you feel the post upsets you …

but you can’t quite put your finger on why… lets trim away all the subterfuge and see what we’re left with :

If you think/believe Adam and Eve really had a free choice in the garden of Eden, you’re an idiot.

In other words: “All Catholics and Christians are idiots.”

But I think my favorite has to be post # 84

Why … ? … Because this is tantamount to blatantly calling God a liar.

Now when you say “God is a liar and He’s purposefully cruel” … where else do we find sentiments of the same nature expressed ? Well, one place is in Genesis 3:4-5
But the serpent said to the woman:

“You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.” [NAB]

So Satan says God is a liar and Adam and Eve agree. First they buy into the lie that God is a liar: “In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God…(CCC 398).” Adam and Eve then proceed to “conceive a distorted image” of Him - a “God jealous of His prerogatives (CCC 399).”

Everyone please note well that, on this thread, the poster in question also has called God a liar , also has scorned Him (and our faith along with Him) and also has presented a distorted image repeatedly of a “purposefully cruel” God. In fact, on this thread the poster has done all those same things the Devil and Adam and Eve did in the Genesis account of Man’s First Sin while simultaneously arguing against its implausibility. How ironic is that ?

There are a great many unproven assumptions in this post.
But I think the best one is the untrue assertion about my feelings regarding Christians as a whole. Of which NeedImprovement could have no personal knewledge.

I am also fairly certain that NI has compared me to the devil as an insult.
If were a devout Christian I would almost certainly be deeply offended.
However, in reality I’m merely amused

 

[AngryAtheist8]

If we bring all the crud being spewed by the poster in question, to its logical conclusion, it is saying that our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ came and died for nothing.

I would like to complete the autopsy by presenting to you the remaining explanations, in my opinion, of how this thread on so dear a Mother, was turned into such a mess. It should only take several more posts :

IMO , things started to turn sour somewhere in the vicinity of post # 13 …

There were unsubstantiated claims made on this thread by the poster in question that “many scholars” and “many theologians” say, said , such and such a thing – claims made without ever naming all these scholars and theologians (or even one of them) .That should be an indicator … that the benefit of the doubt has almost run its course , or as one member remarked : “ You are losing that benefit rapidly.”

When a CAF member took the time to point out to the poster in question that poster’s false presentation of Catholicism ,instead of acknowledging the error and the correction , the poster replied
56

I think if we do, in fact, take a look at what the “Catholics in this thread” have been saying it will lend strong support to what I believe is more than a theory now.

Back at post # 64 , a pattern was beginning to emerge :

Wardog also picked up on the scent :

And Wardog was totally right . Take for example PRmerger’s post :
Rather than face that assertion, the poster evades answering it , creating a diversion by mockery of the Church being referred to as “she” (see [if you must] posts 124,128) .

For someone criticizing me for not being specific your short on actual details yourself.

If what I said was so nasty why not simply cut and paste what I said into your argument, rather than just referencing the post # with a vague description?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I see a methodology being employed here:

The main method is that a false construct, a false model of Catholicism is repetitively presented by the poster in question , in order to disrupt , gain attention … (whatever their agenda). Then that same poster argues against the false model which they have just, themselves, presented. The purpose, in part is to try and establish their own terms for debate, which subsequently evokes a desired response. If the desired response gets posted by an unsuspecting (CAF)member, (granting the poster in question the “benefit of the doubt”) , the poster in question twists the CAF member’s response to make it appear that the CAF member is agreeing with them (which can only serve to heighten members’ frustration).

Have a look at posts 75, 76 ,88 where the poster tries to imply that CAF members’ replies agree with the depraved assessment that our Blessed Mother was not “ human in any ‘meaningful’ sense.”

Now, going back a moment to an earlier expression, let’s see what “Catholics in this thread” have been saying :

Tim said it earliest in post # 48

… but let’s continue in order to get a true cross-section of the consensus …

By now, the picture should be starting to come into focus.

That people who disagree with me think I’m wrong?
How is that noteworthy?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Now everyone who isn’t sure, please look up the definition of the word taunt . Then, tell me is it just me, or does this comment appear to be a taunt to you too ? …

What about when we place it next to this comment ?

We really have to wonder what planet some people come from when Catholics are attacked daily in all facets of the media.

Now to close this thing we need a few more definitions – but not from Father John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary . This time we’ll use the Urban Dictionary, the Online Slang Dictionary, and a couple of more conservative resources - Cambridge Dictionary and Webster’s Dictionary.

And the word we want to look at is : Troll

I think it’s great that Webster’s Dictionary was kind enough to include a hint on “how to recognize” trolls (highlights mine)

I generally refrain from personal insults (and am more polite on a forum like CAF).
Moreover I have responded to the content of the posts addressed to me.
The issue appears to be that I am drawing the incorrect conclusions (according to Catholics like you NeedImprovement) regarding the Virgin Mary based on the Marian doctrines and the Catholic Church’s own statements about sin.

I come to this forum for intellectual stimulation and to satisfy my curiosity regarding what Catholics are actually saying to one another. But I never expected to last this long.

I frankly expected to be banned long before this. I didn’t think an open atheist who speaks his mind and calls people on their BS would have been tolerated this long on a conservative Catholic forum.

Now I suspect your trying to shame me into shutting up or get me banned by saying that I am a disrespectful unbeliever, as well as devil-like. But while getting banned would be a little upsetting I would get over it, and if you want to get an emotional reaction out of me NI, you are going to have to do much better than you have so far.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

One problem with trolls at CAF is that they aren’t just inflaming the passions about any subject in particular – they make a sport out of spitting on what we live and what we breathe and on us for living it and breathing it.

Another problem about trolls at CAF is that their posts can sometimes cause a sincere CAF member to be banned, where, if they had never been provoked, they may have never been banned in the first place.

And of course, we all end up investing time, effort and care into responses – almost all of which can go to waste ( unless perhaps we consider offering up all the frustration for the holy souls in Purgatory).

When trolls attack a special interest group- specifically CAF, they often have an ulterior motive and are connected to a group with an anti-Catholic agenda.

Now concerning this piece of drivel :

Catholics can and do debate with the best of them. But we aren’t expected to endure all the incessant insults and abuse that the world hurls at us here at CAF . And CAF is debate tolerant – generously so . However, as evidenced earlier, concerning the poster in question on this thread, debate never enters into the picture . I think this thread has served us well in demonstrating, by way of ample evidence, why trolls cannot be too leniently tolerated in any forum – not just Catholic ones .

Perhaps ending with a prayer taken from the intercessions of Evening Prayer from the Office For The Dead might be appropriate here :

Is this a reference to Betterave?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I do agree that this thread is kind of falling into a rut.
And I am at least as responsible as anyone for that.

One of the problems is that were discussing a complicated topic without much evidence to go on. Of course me and NeedImprovement could say ‘NO YOU’RE WRONG!’ endlessly, but I suspect that will get dull after a while (at least for me).

 

[PRmerger]

My parents shopped around for churches.
They were basically hippies (at least when they were younger).

The religion that had the biggest impact on me was the Church Universal and Triumphant.

Here’s the wiki link in case your curious about it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Universal_and_Triumphant

Thanks for answering my personal question.

And how is it that you know about the Catholic Church–have you read the Catechism? Have you been to a Mass? Have you read any of Pope JPII’s encyclicals or B16’s?

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, PRmerger,

Nice to see you … I just joined and have been catching up on some posts.

Hey, friend. Nice to see you!

 

[Disinherited]

Oh for crying out loud angryatheist, I’ve had enough with you. If you want to debate with people about Catholicism, debate with those who really have knowledge about Catholicism and Mariology, such as the apologists this same forum provides and not trying to pick on people who actually love and have devotion to Mary. You say you want an intelectual discussion; your comments say that you’re ignorant of Catholicism and Mary.

First of all, the Blessed Virgin had absolute free will in all Her actions. Every action She did was so pleasing to God was because of Her intention, otherwise if She (or any saint for that matter) acted like a puppet with strings, there’d be no merit. It is because of this that Mary is so amazing and not what out fellow troll here claims. Mary didn’t feel the least attraction to sin simply because She didn’t want to engage in it and simply because She was so attracted to doing good and the love of God. Jesus Himself was tempted yet He refuted the devil’s temptations and arguments why He should sin not because He was robot but because He had the knowledge and especially the will to do good, the same with Mary; proof that Mary had absolute free will is the fact that the Angel himself asked Her on God’s behalf whether or not She would accept becoming the Mother of God.

Now Mary as always had free will and because of this free will, She willingly became the Mother of Christ and the Mother of all men. She wasn’t forced by God because that would amount to RAPE. Its undeniable that God tried to convince Her why She should become the Mother of God, just as this angry troll here is trying to convince us why Mary is an ‘evil’ person. Its not intruding on free will, its trying to influence it. Just as the old Eve by her own free will made us all fall, so did Mary, by Her own free will help us rise again. Hell, Her line ‘How shall this be since I know not man?’ indicates that She had difficulty not in believing God’s words but in accepting this huge responsibility if it meant losing Her virginity.

There are a few arguments atheists will bring up such as:

-But God knew that Mary was going to become the Mother of God so based on the future He decided that She would be the Mother of the Messiah because, you know, you can’t fight fate! God KNOWS the future, He doesn’t read it. If God did things on what He was saw going to happen in the future, that would mean that the future influences God and not God who influences the future. Hence, while He knew Mary was going to become the Mother of God, He didn’t sit back and do nothing, He prepared Her for this role form the before She existed and because of this preparation and choice, He loved Her more than the rest.

Not only that but Mary was extremely intelligent Herself. She spent 12 years at the temple of Jerusalem as a temple virgin and anyone with half a brain knows that Mary knew about sex from Her comment about not knowing men. Don’t tell me She didn’t talk about sex when She made that comment. Matthew uses the same expression in the first chapter of his gospel to show Joseph didn’t know Her and the fact She took a vow of virginity shows that She wanted to abstain perpetually from carnal pleasure. While ignorant people can be innocent, the idea ignorance was associated with innocence is just flawed. Saint Thomas was promised by God and Mary that he would never suffer sexual temptations after he resisted them so much, yet his summa is often filled with things such as whether a woman can have sex when she’s menstruating (in fact, some of these parts of the Summa were removed in the Leontine edition. You can read them here actually: newadvent.org/summa/5064.htm, and Hildegard of Bingen was one of the first women to write about female sexuality. She was born in 1098.

By the way angryatheist, you said you were surprised your thread calling us Catholics out on our BS as you put it lasted this long. Guess what? I did the same thing with those smug snakes on the atheist experience where I refuted Philip Pullmans obnoxious depiction of the Blessed Virgin as one who could be easily seduced if an ordinary man called himself an angel and the next day, they banned me form their channel. Besides, I troll other atheist and protestant channels all the time, not with trying to insult or confuse them but by giving valid arguments on why they are wrong and doing actual research, something which you yourself fail to give when you speak on catholicism and especially Mary. And while my comments sound harsh, I don’t want to demean anyone. With who give deliberately flawed logic, some harshness is necessary. As Dawkins put it, don’t critcize what you’re so ignorant of.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Disinherited,

Great post!

God bless - and try to maintain your composure…

Oh for crying out loud angryatheist, I’ve had enough with you. If you want to debate with people about Catholicism, debate with those who really have knowledge about Catholicism and Mariology, such as the apologists this same forum provides and not trying to pick on people who actually love and have devotion to Mary. You say you want an intelectual discussion; your comments say that you’re ignorant of Catholicism and Mary.

First of all, the Blessed Virgin had absolute free will in all Her actions. Every action She did was so pleasing to God was because of Her intention, otherwise if She (or any saint for that matter) acted like a puppet with strings, there’d be no merit. It is because of this that Mary is so amazing and not what out fellow troll here claims. Mary didn’t feel the least attraction to sin simply because She didn’t want to engage in it and simply because She was so attracted to doing good and the love of God. Jesus Himself was tempted yet He refuted the devil’s temptations and arguments why He should sin not because He was robot but because He had the knowledge and especially the will to do good, the same with Mary; proof that Mary had absolute free will is the fact that the Angel himself asked Her on God’s behalf whether or not She would accept becoming the Mother of God.

Now Mary as always had free will and because of this free will, She willingly became the Mother of Christ and the Mother of all men. She wasn’t forced by God because that would amount to RAPE. Its undeniable that God tried to convince Her why She should become the Mother of God, just as this angry troll here is trying to convince us why Mary is an ‘evil’ person. Its not intruding on free will, its trying to influence it. Just as the old Eve by her own free will made us all fall, so did Mary, by Her own free will help us rise again. Hell, Her line ‘How shall this be since I know not man?’ indicates that She had difficulty not in believing God’s words but in accepting this huge responsibility if it meant losing Her virginity.

There are a few arguments atheists will bring up such as:

-But God knew that Mary was going to become the Mother of God so based on the future He decided that She would be the Mother of the Messiah because, you know, you can’t fight fate! God KNOWS the future, He doesn’t read it. If God did things on what He was saw going to happen in the future, that would mean that the future influences God and not God who influences the future. Hence, while He knew Mary was going to become the Mother of God, He didn’t sit back and do nothing, He prepared Her for this role form the before She existed and because of this preparation and choice, He loved Her more than the rest.

Not only that but Mary was extremely intelligent Herself. She spent 12 years at the temple of Jerusalem as a temple virgin and anyone with half a brain knows that Mary knew about sex from Her comment about not knowing men. Don’t tell me She didn’t talk about sex when She made that comment. Matthew uses the same expression in the first chapter of his gospel to show Joseph didn’t know Her and the fact She took a vow of virginity shows that She wanted to abstain perpetually from carnal pleasure. While ignorant people can be innocent, the idea ignorance was associated with innocence is just flawed. Saint Thomas was promised by God and Mary that he would never suffer sexual temptations after he resisted them so much, yet his summa is often filled with things such as whether a woman can have sex when she’s menstruating (in fact, some of these parts of the Summa were removed in the Leontine edition. You can read them here actually: newadvent.org/summa/5064.htm, and Hildegard of Bingen was one of the first women to write about female sexuality. She was born in 1098.

By the way angryatheist, you said you were surprised your thread calling us Catholics out on our BS as you put it lasted this long. Guess what? I did the same thing with those smug snakes on the atheist experience where I refuted Philip Pullmans obnoxious depiction of the Blessed Virgin as one who could be easily seduced if an ordinary man called himself an angel and the next day, they banned me form their channel. Besides, I troll other atheist and protestant channels all the time, not with trying to insult or confuse them but by giving valid arguments on why they are wrong and doing actual research, something which you yourself fail to give when you speak on catholicism and especially Mary. And while my comments sound harsh, I don’t want to demean anyone. With who give deliberately flawed logic, some harshness is necessary. As Dawkins put it, don’t critcize what you’re so ignorant of.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Hi, Needimprovement,

Looks like it is unmasking time!

Great post

God bless

Hi tqualey .

… have to admit – it practically looks as if the mask almost came off all by itself on that one .

I don’t know how many times in this thread, the poster in question had it suggested that they go and learn Catholicism/CCC , but I can’t go back and read it again to find out. You see, BrunoMaria was right when he said …

… Some atheist answers here are so terribly blasphemous, that it makes believers sick.

It did actually sicken me to have to read them a second time. This in turn, led me to consider how those comments must affect other members who have a tender love for our Blessed Mother.

 

[BrunoMaria]

Of course me and (other atheists) could say ‘NO YOU’RE WRONG!’ endlessly, but I suspect that will get dull after a while (at least for me).

Funny you didn’t dig that it’s you who got dull to all here - except to your fellow atheists
Just try think of the funny face you’ll make, when you see the truth after your death
But sorry - I forgot - you don’t think, but instead claim to be more intelligent than billions.

It’s amazing how some people think they are more clever than 2,5 billion Christians, 4ooo years Bible with our eler brothers in belief the Jews, and 2ooo years Christian Gospel and Church’s taching.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Some great reasons to have recourse to our Blessed Mother :

Here are the lyrics to a hymn written by Berthold Tours, who although he passed away more than 100 years ago , continues to herald our Blessed Mother’s perpetual help :

ALL YE WEARY

Berthold Tours

All ye weary, all ye wand’rers,
All ye bowed with grief and care,
Turn ye to the Blessed mother,
All your trials she will share ;

She will be your consolation,
In your pain and loneliness ;
Ask her pray’rs ; she waits to aid you,
Waits to comfort and to bless.

Ye who would obey, yet falter,
Ye who strive yet faint and fall,
Ye who stumble with your burdens,
Turn ye, turn ye , one and all;

For the Blessed Mother’s waiting ,
She will hear your faintest cry;
Christ your Saviour , gave you to her ,
In her care to live and die.

Ye who’ve given up the battle,
Ye who bear sin’s deepest scar,
Ye who dare not face your Maker ,
Turn to her as guiding star ;

She will lead you gently, surely,
Back to faith and hope and love,
Ye may know in her God’s mercy,
Shining on us from above

 

[tqualey]

Hi, BrunoMaria,

From my limited experience, there is an astounding dullness that seems to color all that atheists view. No matter what is presented, the repititious response is,“I do not believe; your proofs are inadequate for me!” It really should be getting just a bit stale on the toungue for every atheist who utters such - but, still the same thread-bare reframe, “I do not believe!”

I think you are correct, there will be a new reframe to sing after their last breath - but, it will not be pleasant. For now, they are simply reduced to whistling in the dark. My suggestion at this point is that they may need to whistle a bit louder…

God bless

Funny you didn’t dig that it’s you who got dull to all here - except to your fellow atheists
Just try think of the funny face you’ll make, when you see the truth after your death
But sorry - I forgot - you don’t think, but instead claim to be more intelligent than billions.

It’s amazing how some people think they are more clever than 2,5 billion Christians, 4ooo years Bible with our eler brothers in belief the Jews, and 2ooo years Christian Gospel and Church’s taching.