Nowhere in the Bible does it say or infer that mary the Mother of Christ...

[SugarOcean]

So you agree that God cannot create an object which He cannot move. Therefore God cannot do 'EVERYTHING.'

You're confused. And quoted the wrong member.

 

[rstrats]

Sugar Ocean,
re: "I read your avatar."

What has that got to do with my question?



re: "What do you think?"

I'm not sure what to think. But I'm asking you what you think?

 

[The Anointed]

You're confused. And quoted the wrong member.

No kiddo, it is you who are confused, mine was a response to your post # 93, where you said; "It is impossible for God to create something from God's own energy and then not be able to move that which exists of and from God."

Thereby admitting that God cannot do anything that he wants to, as you have admitted that he cannot create an object that he cannot move.

 

[Catholicus]

It is equitable to allow women to have sovereignty over their bodies, without religious bias. Not all expecting mothers are xtian. It is equitable to not assume we know for sure when life begins, and there's plenty of biblical evidence for Xtians to think that life begins at first breath, as in Genesis. It's reasonable to realize that people are going to abort fetuses whether it's legal or not, so, not knowing for sure about when life begins, it's reasonable to keep abortion legal and safe, and to protect the lives we do know about -- those of the mothers.

"It's reasonable to realise that people are going to commit murder whether it's legal or not" - so should we legalise murder, then ?

Science condemns your arguments:

1) We know when life begins (at conception) since there are scientific photographs from that point, of life beginning

2) We know from scans that foetuses have separate lives from their mothers. The foetus is kept in a pouch within the mother's body - but it is NOT part of her body, so she has precisely ZERO sovereignty over it.

3) Therefore we DO know about foetuses' own lives; and for certain.

4) And as science has no religious bias, all this applies to all mothers, irrespective of belief.

 

[Catholicus]

This story is a provision wonder, similar to Jesus providing wine for a wedding and great catches of fish. There are stories of wonderful provision of food in the early church's scripture (manna in the wilderness; Elijah and the widow; Elisha feeds a hundred with twenty barley loaves). The last of these stories is closest in detail to the Gospel story.

Just as Jesus made possible the great catch of fish when Peter was first called to the task of "catching people,' so he will now enable the twelve to fed the people who have been gathered. In verse 17, the narrator emphasizes that there are 12 baskets of food left over. Each of the apostles now has a supply for future nourishment of those gathered through their mission.

In 12:41-46 Jesus equates the image of feeding with congregational care. The image refers to the responsibility of church leaders for those in their care. The feeding of the five thousand has the same symbolic overtones. Support for this view also comes from 22:24-27, where Jesus, in his farewell discourse, asks the apostles to understand themselves in the future as table servers.

There is detailed description of Jesus' actions with the food in verse 16. The significance of these actions appears when we note that they are very similar to Jesus' actions at the Last Supper and the Emmaus meal. This similarity ties these three meals together and also relates them to the early church's meal celebration, even though Jesus in Luke 9 is sharing food with people who do not recognize him as Messiah.

The scene also gains depth of meaning through the eschatological associations of meals in Luke. The statement in verse 17 that the "ate and were filled" uses the same verb (chortazo) as the beatitude in 6:21. The abundant food for the five thousand not only anticipates the church's meals but also this eschatological meal."

(Robert Tannehill, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries: Luke [Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1996] pp 154-156)

The periscope is rife with metaphor -- and metaphor borrowed from other texts.

Yes - but all the stories are literally true, not mere metaphors.

 

[Catholicus]

Yea, well each to their own. I neither believe that Mary was sinless or in the supposed triad God as taught by the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine, which was established in the fourth century, and has nothing to do with the Jesus as taught by the apostles.

There are five women recorded in the genealogy of Joseph ben Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary, and they are Tamah, who had sex with her Father-in-law and bore to him a set of twins, then there is Rahab, the Madam of a whore house in Jericho, who married Salmon to who she bore Boaz, then Ruth, who with her sexual cunning lured Boaz into marriage, to who she bore 'Obed,' then Bathsheba who committed adultery with King David and later bore to him his successor 'Solomon," then last of all, Mary the daughter of Alexander Helios=Heli, who bore the child Jesus to her half brother Joseph the son of Heli.

Those particular sins of these women were committed beneath the shadow of the wings of the Lord of Spirits.

Galatians 4: 29; “Yet at that time the child born according to the flesh (Ishmael) persecuted him (Isaac) who was born according to the promise and the Power/workings of the holy spirit.” It was through the workings of the Holy Spirit that the barren Sarah conceived the child of God’s promise, who was the biological son of her half-brother Abraham. And it was through the power=workings of the Holy Spirit that Mary conceived the child of God’s promise, who was the biological son of her half-brother, ‘Joseph the son of Alexander Helios.’

The Trinity - God as triune - is implied throughout the Gospels. Mary does not, of course, form part of it.

 

[sojourner]

"It's reasonable to realise that people are going to commit murder whether it's legal or not" - so should we legalise murder, then ?

Murder is a legal term, not an act.

1) We know when life begins (at conception) since there are scientific photographs from that point, of life beginning

The question is: when does the spirit come in? The Bible tells us it’s at first breath. Science doesn’t offer a hypothesis. It’s ok to euthanize dogs, because we don’t think dogs have souls. It’s the breath that makes us living beings.

We know from scans that foetuses have separate lives from their mothers. The foetus is kept in a pouch within the mother's body - but it is NOT part of her body, so she has precisely ZERO sovereignty over it.

We also know that fetuses share blood supply, nutrients, chemicals and immunities with the mother. The pouch is part of the mother’s body. The baby is attached to the mother. Your argument is moot.

Therefore we DO know about foetuses' own lives; and for certain

How very nice for you. The rest of us prefer the real world.

 

[sojourner]

Yes - but all the stories are literally true, not mere metaphors.

No. They’re not. Contact me again when you get a clue about literary criticism.

 

[SugarOcean]

No kiddo, it is you who are confused, mine was a response to your post # 93, where you said; "It is impossible for God to create something from God's own energy and then not be able to move that which exists of and from God."

Thereby admitting that God cannot do anything that he wants to, as you have admitted that he cannot create an object that he cannot move.

No old man, I'm not confused. (If you want to call me kiddo)
And you're bearing false witness as well concerning my post. I never said that. If you can't speak truth don't speak to me at all.

 

[Shad]

I was wondering when, 'magical thinking', was going to be thrown out. No other way to respond to my observation? At a loss?

You are invoking magic as you are making claims about other realities while ignoring what the two shapes are. So yes it is magical thinking.

"God can make a squared circle in a fictional reality which I created in my head. I will just ignore the definition of the shape completely"

That is the sum of your argument. Try again.

Yes, that's apparent your incapacity to comprehend origin of Geometry.

Say the one that say God can make a shape that is impossible by definition. Try again son.

Definition of circle | Dictionary.com
Definition of square | Dictionary.com

 

[SugarOcean]

You are invoking magic as you are making claims about other realities while ignoring what the two shapes are. So yes it is magical thinking.

"God can make a squared circle in a fictional reality which I created in my head. I will just ignore the definition of the shape completely"

That is the sum of your argument. Try again.





Say the one that say God can make a shape that is impossible by definition. Try again son.

Definition of circle | Dictionary.com
Definition of square | Dictionary.com

Wow, you're not even capable of comprehending what defines God. That's the crux of the question. Can God make something so heavy "he' can't lift it.
That's an old atheist trick. Usually issued by those who don't comprehend what God is defined as. Like you, for instance.
The laws of the universe are created by God.
What a stupid question to think God can create something he can't handle. Seek elsewhere for your hobby.

 

[Shad]

Wow, you're not even capable of comprehending what defines God.

Wrong. You just think God can do the logically impossible. FYI my point came from a theist.

That's the crux of the question. Can God make something so heavy "he' can't lift it.

Wrong point.

That's an old atheist trick. Usually issued by those who don't comprehend what God is defined as. Like you, for instance.

You are going off-topic discussing a point I never made. Try again. More so there is this. Yup those Catholic atheists. Hilarious.

Can God make square circles? If not, does that mean he isn’t all-powerful?

The laws of the universe are created by God.

Irrelevant as per the definitions of the shapes.

What a stupid question to think God can create something he can't handle. Seek elsewhere for your hobby.

You are arguing a point I never made. So dishonest. Try again son.

 

[SugarOcean]

Sugar Ocean,
re: "I read your avatar."

What has that got to do with my question?

Clearly quite a bit or else you would not have changed your avatar before making your post.

re: "What do you think?"

I'm not sure what to think. But I'm asking you what you think?

Well, when you can't comprehend that which has already been answered, repeating myself would be redundant.

This thread was started on a false assertion. That's the actual fact here.

 

[rstrats]

Sugar Ocean,
re: "Clearly quite a bit or else you would not have changed your avatar before making your post."

I thought is was apropos to your comment in post #100. When you answer my question in post #102, I'll change it back.

 

[wellwisher]

was conceived and born without original sin nor that she was absolutely free of any personal sin. I do believe she was a woman of distinct honor, having been deemed fit by God to bear His only begotten Son, and was saved and that she is forever in heaven. The Roman Catholics can't accept that the "Mother of God" is anything less than perfect and absolutely sinless from her own conception. God made Jesus perfect and sinless in the womb of Mary and free of original sin by the miracle of His divine workings. The holy seed (sperm) of God makes Jesus Christ perfect and absolutely sinless.


Does the Bible say that Mary, mother of Jesus, was born without sin?


To me, Mary herself addressed this issue in the words of the Magnificat (the song of praise that she spoke in response to the greeting of her cousin Elizabeth (the mother of John the Baptist) when Mary went to visit her immediately after Mary had been informed by the angel Gabriel that she was to be the mother of the Messiah). Mary began by saying (Luke 1:46-47), "My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." If she had truly been without both original and actual sin, she would have had no need to either have or acknowledge a Savior.

She also said in Luke 1:48-50, "For, behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed, for He (God) has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.” Had Mary been totally without sin, she would have had no need to either receive or accept mercy (that is, undeserved favor or forgiveness) from God.

In addition, the Bible records occasions when Mary was mildly rebuked by Jesus Himself for actions or requests that, had she been totally without sin and shared Jesus' complete knowledge of and devotion to His Father's will, she should not have performed or asked (Luke 2:49-50 and John 2:3-4).

Sin is connected to law. Sin is not imputed, where there is no law. Sin only appears when there is a law. If the law is repealed sin goes away. For example, it was a social sin to smoke Marijuana in most places, because it was against the law. Now that this law has been repealed, in many places, it is not a sin for the same behavior. It is only still a sin, where it has not been repealed. Very little sin is absolute. Rather, most sin is relative and can be repealed.

Mary was under the laws of the Old Testament. In her earlier years Mary had been a temple priestess. Because she was dutifully under law, to set an example, she had original sin. She did not sin or break the law, but she was under the law, and therefore she and everyone else, assumed she was a potential sinner, under certain circumstances. Lead us not into temptation. But God did not tempt her. She was sinless but still had original sin.

Jesus became a sacrifice for sin, and thereby repeals the old law so that people could become sinless. Sin is not imputed when there is no law. If the law is repealed then the sin is made void.

It was not an easy choice for any mother to allow her child to die, and not try to stop it. Yet Mary accepted the destiny of Jesus. His destiny offered a path toward forgiveness of sins; repeal the law, from which Mary then becomes free of original sin. Her faith saved her.

In Catholic tradition Mary is both the mother of Jesus when she was alive on earth, and the bride of the Lamb while in heaven. This is symbolic of a transformation into becoming fully sinless.

If you think of God as omniscience, he knows the past and the future, such that the sequence of time, that humans experience, does not apply to God. God sees the end, at the same time as the beginning. He is the alpha and the omega. The result is similar to a time traveler, from the future, who goes to the past, to observe, but to not interfere, knowing the future is already perfected.

 

[Catholicus]

Murder is a legal term, not an act.

The question is: when does the spirit come in? The Bible tells us it’s at first breath. Science doesn’t offer a hypothesis. It’s ok to euthanize dogs, because we don’t think dogs have souls. It’s the breath that makes us living beings.


We also know that fetuses share blood supply, nutrients, chemicals and immunities with the mother. The pouch is part of the mother’s body. The baby is attached to the mother. Your argument is moot.


How very nice for you. The rest of us prefer the real world.

Murder is an act, as well as a legal term.

The pouch is part of the mother's body ? - yes, but the foetus inside (however dependent on the mother) is not.

 

[sojourner]

Murder is an act, as well as a legal term.

The pouch is part of the mother's body ? - yes, but the foetus inside (however dependent on the mother) is not.

No, because the same act might also not be murder. “Murder” is a legal definition.

The fetus is attached... I’d say that makes it part of her body.

 

[Catholicus]

No. They’re not. Contact me again when you get a clue about literary criticism.

The Bible is Sacred Scripture, only incidentally "literature."

 

[Catholicus]

No, because the same act might also not be murder. “Murder” is a legal definition.

The fetus is attached... I’d say that makes it part of her body.

Not all killings are murder - but it is the nature of the act of killing that determines whether it is murder; legal definitions aren't arbitrary.

The fact that a foetus is attached to its mother, does NOT of course make it part of its mother.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

Can God create an object which cannot be moved by any power?

If he can, then even God would not be able to move that object, proving that he cannot do everything..

If He can move that unmovable object, that would prove that he cannot create an object which cannot be moved by any power.