Was the Virgin Mary wise?

[NeedImprovement]

It was the TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.
They didn’t have that knowledge, they were childlike, and they had never dealt with any major consequences before.

Any sane, reasonably intelligent person could guess that they would eventually take the fruit (out of boredom if nothing else). It would be idiotic to expect otherwise.

Before they ate the fruit, a sin of pride was committed (and if you’re going to reply, please consider avoiding crippling the definition of “pride” with ambiguity as done in an earlier post : What is implied here is pride tending towards arrogance - not as in a sense of achievement ).

If a sin of pride was committed, actually if any sin is committed, it has to be with knowledge - otherwise it cannot be considered a sin.

The sequence is simple: Pride, Disobedience , Death.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Technically true.
But only celibate, unmarried men can be part of the hierarchy.

So priests aren’t considered part of the hierarchy ? ? ? ?

 

[NeedImprovement]

It was the TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.
They didn’t have that knowledge, they were childlike, and they had never dealt with any major consequences before.

Any sane, reasonably intelligent person could guess that they would eventually take the fruit (out of boredom if nothing else). It would be idiotic to expect otherwise.

So, as intimated in post # 151, you’re continuing to imply they weren’t free - which contradicts the definition of sin. Either they were free or they weren’t - there is no grey area here … No freedom - no original sin.

Prior to any attempt at commenting about our Blessed Mother being conceived without original sin, or on Adam and Eve, wouldn’t it make sense for any sane reasonably intelligent person to learn the proper working definition of original sin beforehand ? So far, your posts haven’t divulged anything which might be considered semblant in this regard.

Rather than agree with your definition of original sin, I find myself much more inclined to agree with the definition provided by Father John Hardon S.J. , in his Modern Catholic Dictionary (highlights mine) :
Modern Catholic Dictionary:

ORIGINAL SIN.

Either the sin committed by Adam as the head of the human race, or the sin he passed onto his posterity with which every human being, with the certain exception of Christ and his Mother, is conceived and born. The sin of Adam is called originating original sin (originale originans); that of his descendents is originated original sin (originale originatum). Adam’s sin was personal and grave, and it affected human nature. It was personal because** he freely committed it**; it was grave because God imposed a serious obligation; and it affected the whole human race by depriving his progeny of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned. Original sin in his descendants is personal only in the sense that the children of Adam are each personally affected, but not personal as though they had voluntarily chosen to commit the sin; it is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to hell; and it is natural only in that all human nature, except for divine intervention, has it and can have it removed only by supernatural means.

We’re all learning, all of the time. And we all make errors. I see no need for contention there. What I do question though , is the practice of dissing our Blessed Mother and/or the holy Faith which She is mother of, or of even dissing God Himself during the learning process. None of that is really necessary.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Here , also from Father John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, are the definitions of preternatural gifts and infused knowledge , for a more complete understanding of the definition of Original Sin in the previous post :
Modern Catholic Dictionary:

PRETERNATURAL GIFTS.

Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title -infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.

INFUSED KNOWLEDGE.

The gift of natural (secular) and supernatural (spiritual) knowledge miraculously conferred by God. Thought by some to have been possessed by Adam and Eve, who came into existence in an adult state and were to be the first teachers of the human race.

.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You believe this because you have become accustomed to swimming in sewage. You think that’s the norm.

But once you step out of the sewage, and see that it’s not normal to drink filth, you’ll have a different perspective.

Your words would be more convincing if Catholicism did not have a long history of saying we are all sinners, of reminding us that virtually everything we do is motivated or touched by (their definition of) sin.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Before they ate the fruit, a sin of pride was committed (and if you’re going to reply, please consider avoiding crippling the definition of “pride” with ambiguity as done in an earlier post : What is implied here is pride tending towards arrogance - not as in a sense of achievement ).

If a sin of pride was committed, actually if any sin is committed, it has to be with knowledge - otherwise it cannot be considered a sin.

The sequence is simple: Pride, Disobedience , Death.

Its not my fault the story doesn’t make sense

 

[AngryAtheist8]

So, as intimated in post # 151, you’re continuing to imply they weren’t free - which contradicts the definition of sin. Either they were free or they weren’t - there is no grey area here … No freedom - no original sin.
Prior to any attempt at commenting about our Blessed Mother being conceived without original sin, or on Adam and Eve, wouldn’t it make sense for any sane reasonably intelligent person to learn the proper working definition of original sin beforehand ? So far, your posts haven’t divulged anything which might be considered semblant in this regard.

Rather than agree with your definition of original sin, I find myself much more inclined to agree with the definition provided by Father John Hardon S.J. , in his Modern Catholic Dictionary (highlights mine) :

We’re all learning, all of the time. And we all make errors. I see no need for contention there. What I do question though , is the practice of dissing our Blessed Mother and/or the holy Faith which She is mother of, or of even dissing God Himself during the learning process. None of that is really necessary.

Actually there is a grey area.
In the post right before this one you say knewledge is also necessary for sin to take place.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

So, as intimated in post # 151, you’re continuing to imply they weren’t free - which contradicts the definition of sin. Either they were free or they weren’t - there is no grey area here … No freedom - no original sin.

Prior to any attempt at commenting about our Blessed Mother being conceived without original sin, or on Adam and Eve, wouldn’t it make sense for any sane reasonably intelligent person to learn the proper working definition of original sin beforehand ? So far, your posts haven’t divulged anything which might be considered semblant in this regard.

Rather than agree with your definition of original sin, I find myself much more inclined to agree with the definition provided by Father John Hardon S.J. , in his Modern Catholic Dictionary (highlights mine) :

We’re all learning, all of the time. And we all make errors. I see no need for contention there. What I do question though , is the practice of dissing our Blessed Mother and/or the holy Faith which She is mother of, or of even dissing God Himself during the learning process. None of that is really necessary.

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).

 

[PRmerger]

Your words would be more convincing if Catholicism did not have a long history of saying we are all sinners, of reminding us that virtually everything we do is motivated or touched by (their definition of) sin.

This is a non-sequitur, Angry.

You are conflating 2 separate ideas:
-seeing sin as normal (that is, my proposal that you are swimming in sewage and thinking that it’s just the way it is…you’ve become accustomed to sewage and filth, thinking that’s the norm.)

-the idea that you and I are sinners, but that we don’t HAVE to sin.

2 totally different ideas that you’re mixing up.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This is a non-sequitur, Angry.

You are conflating 2 separate ideas:
-seeing sin as normal (that is, my proposal that you are swimming in sewage and thinking that it’s just the way it is…you’ve become accustomed to sewage and filth, thinking that’s the norm.)

-the idea that you and I are sinners, but that we don’t HAVE to sin.

2 totally different ideas that you’re mixing up.

Not at all.

As the Church usually reminds us, the only 2 people who managed to be free of sin were the God-Man (Jesus) and his Blessed Mother. Despite the efforts of the saints, they all fell short. Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary were very much unique and special cases.

 

[PRmerger]

Not at all.

As the Church usually reminds us, the only 2 people who managed to be free of sin were the God-Man (Jesus) and his Blessed Mother. Despite the efforts of the saints, they all fell short. Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary were very much unique and special cases.

I am not sinning right now.

You don’t have to answer this personal question on a forum such as this, but did you by chance come from a Calvinist background?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

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

Not to engage in a ad hominem argument … but, I think the poster’s choice of names spells out the basic problem. How can one honestly process complex data when they are ‘angry’. Regaining emotional control seems like the minimum requirement before engaging in any intellectual activity.

Yes, that post was just one of several non sequiturs posted by Angry. It just may be that while freely engaging in a polemic he has lost sight of the free will that empowered that choice. You have to know about the deed - and then choose to violate a requirement - knowing what you are doing is wrong, before there can be any discussion of sin.

And, while I do not exactly see the connection here and ANY questions about the Seat of Wisdom. Here is a link that will make for some enjoyable reading on the topic: marymediatrix.com/morality

God bless

This is a non-sequitur, Angry.

You are conflating 2 separate ideas:
-seeing sin as normal (that is, my proposal that you are swimming in sewage and thinking that it’s just the way it is…you’ve become accustomed to sewage and filth, thinking that’s the norm.)

-the idea that you and I are sinners, but that we don’t HAVE to sin.

2 totally different ideas that you’re mixing up.

 

[BrunoMaria]

**I really in all my life will never comprehend, how a serious christian forum even can admit such incredibly silly question, as:
“Was the Virgin Mary wise?”

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

Let me ask such blasphemers: “Was your mother wise?” He definitely - if he loved his mother, would burst out in anger against me, and rightly so.

What does such worm think how God, how Jesus Christ takes such suggestive questions and answers about the mental (intellect) situation of Holy Mary?

I really would be terribly afraid and I’d never even dare to let any such thought get even near me!

To expose everlasting Virgin Holy Mary such depriving, slanderous badmouth-questions including atheist’s answers, is daemonic.

Certainly Holy Mary was the wisest woman of all times, for She alone and no other woman ever, was so much honored by God, that God even took her up into heaven with her body, whom was given the Grace to give birth to Jesus Christ, Son of God, God and saviour.

yours
Bruno Schulz in Karlsruhe/Germany**
really very much disappointed indeed!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I am not sinning right now.

You don’t have to answer this personal question on a forum such as this, but did you by chance come from a Calvinist background?

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

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**I really in all my life will never comprehend, how a serious christian forum even can admit such incredibly silly question, as:
“Was the Virgin Mary wise?”

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

Let me ask such blasphemers: “Was your mother wise?” He definitely - if he loved his mother, would burst out in anger against me, and rightly so.

What does such worm think how God, how Jesus Christ takes such suggestive questions and answers about the mental (intellect) situation of Holy Mary?

I really would be terribly afraid and I’d never even dare to let any such thought get even near me!

To expose everlasting Virgin Holy Mary such depriving, slanderous badmouth-questions including atheist’s answers, is daemonic.

Certainly Holy Mary was the wisest woman of all times, for She alone and no other woman ever, was so much honored by God, that God even took her up into heaven with her body, whom was given the Grace to give birth to Jesus Christ, Son of God, God and saviour.

yours
Bruno Schulz in Karlsruhe/Germany**
really very much disappointed indeed!

Get a little perspective

I am no more required to praise the Virgin Mary and refrain from criticizing her than you are with regard to Communism. Moreover what I have said about the Virgin Mary is relatively mild compared to what Critics of Catholicism (including some Catholics) commonly say about her.

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

AngryAtheist8;8512454:

Her body would not be responding to the same destiny as our bodies. Her body wasn’t like ours in that ours responds to the reality of death. Her body wasn’t subject to the powers of nature. It may be that the Incarnation was made possible because the Virgin Mary’s body did not inherit death, so, would reproduce in the way natural to man in the Garden.
Because she has a body that didn’t inherit death

I would be very careful here. It almost sounds as if you are saying that the Mother of God’s body was unlike our own, and that is bordering on heresy since our very salvation rests on the fact that Christ became man, died for our sakes and rose again. Christ was completely (hu)man and completely divine, without mixing or confusing the two natures. His humanity came completely from His mother’s flesh since she was ever-virgin. If her body was unlike the rest of humanity, then it would seem that she did not share in our humanity, and therefore Christ would not have shared in our humanity. I think I understand what you are getting at, but be careful in case stating the faith wrongly you could lead others to believe something foreign to the faith.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Its not my fault the story doesn’t make sense

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 :
Orthodox Apologetic Theology ;By professor Ivan M. Andreyev of the Holy Trinity Seminary:

The word religion as explained by Lactantius, Blessed Jerome and Blessed Augustine is derived from the word “religare” — to tie, to unite, or as Blessed Augustine emphasizes, possibly from “reeligere” — to reunite. Lactantius defines the nature of religion as a union of man with God. Blessed Augustine defined it as a reunion of man with God.

There is no doubt that every religion presents in itself a tie, a union or reunion and communion with a higher world or a higher being, with a higher absolute worth, that is, with that which is called God.

At the foundation of all religions lies faith. Faith is an intricate, syncretic (that is, syncretic at first) capability of the mind, feeling and will (the triune harmony of all these spiritual powers of man), directed to understanding that which is inaccessible for the mind alone. Where it is enough for the efforts of the mind alone to understand something, there is no need to turn to faith. But in a case where the mind alone is incapable and helpless, faith is essential.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Actually there is a grey area.
In the post right before this one you say knewledge is also necessary for sin to take place.

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.)

 

[NeedImprovement]

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).

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 …

…
Any sane, reasonably intelligent person could guess that they would eventually take the fruit (out of boredom if nothing else). It would be idiotic to expect otherwise.

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

God is supposed to be all-knowing.
But he put the Tree there anyway.

Adam and Eve were set up to fail.

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 ?

 

[NeedImprovement]

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

That’s not what the Catholics in this thread have been describing.

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 :

I further note that it wasn’t the first time on this thread where you claim the Catholic mindset to be a certain way, when in actuality it isn’t. Yet substantiation for these claims remains predominantly absent. Surely you are aware that if one continues to set up false premises for argumentation, while their own credibility continues to wane, they will eventually end up arguing only with themselves ?

…What are you hoping to achieve here ?

Wardog also picked up on the scent :

You are just being obtuse by this point. By not really listening to what is being said by the posters here, but filtering it thru your own bias you have already answered your own questions…

And Wardog was totally right . Take for example PRmerger’s post :

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

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) .