A conversation about unity.

[2PhiloVoid]

In celebration of what, weak apologetics and playing games?

The thing is, brother ozso, while I essentially agree with you on the point of the RCC magisterial position being weaker that they suppose, I also put a lot of weight on the social-psychological conditioning that comes from each Christian finding his/her 'safe place' of belief.

And for Xeno, apparently that 'safe place' is the RCC. So, knowing that folks like him are 'convinced' because he's identifying with his chosen homebase, I expect him to take a stance on what he thinks the truth is from within the RCC tradition.

The tension here for me arises in that I don't have a social or philosophical 'safe space,' and I don't see any denomination serving me as such. Like you, and probably more so in my case, I have a very strong tendency to affirm the principle of Critical Study and start pulling at the threads of every claim coming from every metaphysical or theological stance that is out there to choose from. The RCC just happens to be 'one more' entity for me to apply critical sauce to, just like I do all of the rest.

And did I say, I don't like being bully-pulpited?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I think you're playing silly games.

No more than you are. I feel sure that you have something that you want to say, that you haven't bothered to say yet. You appear to be waiting for me to say something so that you can pounce on it and pronounce it as unbiblical or some such thing. I'd love to oblige you.

So I'll start with this: if you want to see blessed Mary, crowned, robed and standing upon a glorious orb, you only need to read Revelation chapters 11 and 12.

If you want to learn how Mary can be queen of heaven, you only need to read in the Old Testament where that phrase is used.

If you want to know how important the queen mother was in the Kingdom of Israel, I'd point you to the Old Testament once again.

If you are willing to do a decent search using your Bible software, you'll find all the relevant passages. But if you are not confident of your ability to conduct such a search, if you think you need help, then I may be willing to offer you some clues in another post.

This is not a game. I don't know why you would see it in that way.

A doctrine is not built on the sort of flimsy foundations that you appear to think it is built upon. Nor am I going to take your interpretations of whatever passages I refer to as if they were authoritative. And as if I should follow them in preference to the teaching of the Catholic Church—to do so would be absurd.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Read the Gospels - and then show me the passages where Jesus taught about Mary's perfection.

No. I have read the Gospels, but I do not intend to show you where the passages are, do your own research, it's not my job to do it for you.

 

[concretecamper]

So there's will be saved vs can be saved

Yes

That those who are active members of the RCC will be saved,

I did not say that nor does the Church teach it.

whereas Protestants could be saved.

The Church teaches, anyone who dies in a state of Grace will be saved, including protestants.

The million dollar question with protestantism is without the Sacraments, how possible is as you put it "could be saved".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Lol! .................... You can't help yourself, can you? Well then, buckle up, buttercup!

somehow. You managed to mix up a gif with something that I'd written, The gif was not included by me, and if "buckle up, buttercup" is the best you have to offer, I suggest that you stop offering anything in the thread because this sort of thing is not a contribution

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes

I did not say that nor does the Church teach it.

The Church teaches, anyone who dies in a state of Grace will be saved, including protestants.

The million dollar question with protestantism is without the Sacraments, how possible is as you put it "could be saved".

It's very, very possible I'm going to be saved without ever stepping a single toe into an RCC diocese.

But I won't hold that against you guys.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

somehow. You managed to mix up a gif with something that I'd written, The gif was not included by me, and if "buckle up, buttercup" is the best you have to offer, I suggest that you stop offering anything in the thread because this sort of thing is not a contribution

Did I mix that up? My apologies. To whomever it was meant to go to, I hope it finds its mark.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No. I have read the Gospels, but I do not intend to show you where the passages are, do your own research, it's not my job to do it for you.

This is double talk. You can't, with integrity, cite others for making theological mistakes and then, at the same time, utterly refusing to point them in the right direction when you already have the "right answers."

Personally, I don't mind if you're RCC, but all you're doing here in this thread, whether intentionally or not, is being a lightning rod and bloviating on behalf of the RCC.

Somehow, I don't think it's in line with the Statement of Purpose for the General Theology section.

Statement of Purpose - General Theology Statement of Purpose

General Theology Statement of Purpose The General Theology forums are for discussing and debating the various theological doctrines of the Christian faith. All member's who participate in GT are self-identified Christians through adherence to the Christian Forums' Statement of Faith and the...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This is double talk. You can't, with integrity, cite others for making theological mistakes and then, at the same time, utterly refusing to point them in the right direction when you already have the "right answers."

Personally, I don't mind if you're RCC, but all you're doing here in this thread, whether intentionally or not, is being a lightning rod and bloviating on behalf of the RCC.

Somehow, I don't think it's in line with the Statement of Purpose for the General Theology section.

Statement of Purpose - General Theology Statement of Purpose

General Theology Statement of Purpose The General Theology forums are for discussing and debating the various theological doctrines of the Christian faith. All member's who participate in GT are self-identified Christians through adherence to the Christian Forums' Statement of Faith and the...

www.christianforums.com

I have given you the hints that you need. You asked the questions - you wanted to know how Mary could be queen of heaven. You need look need look no further than the two chapters that I pointed to. We should start there. The rest can come later. I am inclined to think we'll never get to the rest, because you'll fight every word that I've got to say about Mary being the queen of heaven. From my perspective, you have a theological bias that makes it impossible for you to acknowledge the point of view that I'm going to present, if you want me to present it, regarding those two chapters

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have given you the hints that you need. You asked the questions - you wanted to know how Mary could be queen of heaven. You need look need look no further than the two chapters that I pointed to. We should start there. The rest can come later. I am inclined to think we'll never get to the rest, because you'll fight every word that I've got to say about Mary being the queen of heaven. From my perspective, you have a theological bias that makes it impossible for you to acknowledge the point of view that I'm going to present, if you want me to present it, regarding those two chapters

I wasn't in the conversation about Mary. So my point was a general point about your approach to others who are not RCC. I'm not talking about some specific teaching, especially that of Sister Mary, which you and I might disagree on.

As for my "theological bias," you don't even know what my bias is at this point. Nor is this the thread in which to delve into it.

This thread, as you've said, is about UNITY (or at least I thought that is what it was intended for------------I could be wrong).

Obviously, you're wanting this to be a thread solely about the RCC perspective on UNITY rather than one that allows a more general, all-Trinitarian discussion on that topic.

 

[ozso]

Yes

I did not say that nor does the Church teach it.

The Church teaches, anyone who dies in a state of Grace will be saved, including protestants.

The million dollar question with protestantism is without the Sacraments, how possible is as you put it "could be saved".

In a roundabout way that still sounds like the RCC teaches only members of the RCC recive salvation. Because without partaking the sacraments one is not in a state of grace. And and the only valid sacraments are through the RCC. And only Roman Catholics can partake in those sacraments.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I wasn't in the conversation about Mary.

there wasn't a conversation about Mary in this thread.

So my point was a general point about your approach to others who are not RCC.

just you go back and read The original post if you want to see what my approach to others who are not Catholics is, it's very well explained, there,

I'm not talking about some specific teaching, especially that of Sister Mary, which you and I might disagree on.

if you're not talking about that, then why did you bring it up?

As for my "theological bias," you don't even know what my bias is at this point.

I don't think I need to know The details of your theological biases it's sufficient to observe The bias as that you've expressed regarding The things I've written already.

Nor is this the thread in which to delve into it.

you're completely correct there. This is not The thread to delve into your particular theological views, this is a thread about Unity.

This thread, as you've said, is about UNITY (or at least I thought that is what it was intended for------------I could be wrong).

Obviously, you're wanting this to be a thread solely about the RCC perspective on UNITY

if what you say is obvious or so, then why are you in this thread voicing your opinions about Unity and nobody has stopped you. I think what is obvious, is that you just don't wanna hear what I've got to say that's fine with me, you don't need to read The posts that I write.

rather than one that allows a more general, all-Trinitarian discussion on that topic.

Had you and a couple of others not hijacked this thread into some sort of fight, about what I've written, there could have been some interesting discussion about unity, my Orthodox brethren. Might have wanted to contribute, Anglicans and Lutherans too. There are plenty of people who have an interest in unity, and the Catholic Church has been very clear that she has an interest in unity. What is unclear is why you keep leaping into the discussion with the kind of comments that you make—they don't seem to be very productive.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

there wasn't a conversation about Mary in this thread.

just you go back and read The original post if you want to see what my approach to others who are not Catholics is, it's very well explained, there,

if you're not talking about that, then why did you bring it up?

I don't think I need to know The details of your theological biases it's sufficient to observe The bias as that you've expressed regarding The things I've written already.

you're completely correct there. This is not The thread to delve into your particular theological views, this is a thread about Unity.

if what you say is obvious or so, then why are you in this thread voicing your opinions about Unity and nobody has stopped you. I think what is obvious, is that you just don't wanna hear what I've got to say that's fine with me, you don't need to read The posts that I write.

Had you and a couple of others not hijacked this thread into some sort of fight, about what I've written, there could have been some interesting discussion about unity, my Orthodox brethren. Might have wanted to contribute, Anglicans and Lutherans too. There are plenty of people who have an interest in unity, and the Catholic Church has been very clear that she has an interest in unity. What is unclear is why you keep leaping into the discussion with the kind of comments that you make—they don't seem to be very productive.

Apparently, we're speaking past each other here. I'll leave you be with your thread here. Maybe we'll find something more productive to talk about in a different thread at another time.

Have a blessed new month!

 

[ozso]

No more than you are. I feel sure that you have something that you want to say, that you haven't bothered to say yet. You appear to be waiting for me to say something so that you can pounce on it and pronounce it as unbiblical or some such thing. I'd love to oblige you.

So I'll start with this: if you want to see blessed Mary, crowned, robed and standing upon a glorious orb, you only need to read Revelation chapters 11 and 12.

If you want to learn how Mary can be queen of heaven, you only need to read in the Old Testament where that phrase is used.

If you want to know how important the queen mother was in the Kingdom of Israel, I'd point you to the Old Testament once again.

If you are willing to do a decent search using your Bible software, you'll find all the relevant passages. But if you are not confident of your ability to conduct such a search, if you think you need help, then I may be willing to offer you some clues in another post.

I know all of that, xeno. I've discussed it at lenth with you and @Valetta and others on numerous occasions. I know it well enough to teach it by now.

This is not a game. I don't know why you would see it in that way.

Because you claimed Jesus said his mother is perfect and would become the queen of heaven. And pretending it's written somewhere, but you won't say where. Because you're just playing games. Or perhaps you're just genuinely at a loss.

A doctrine is not built on the sort of flimsy foundations that you appear to think it is built upon. Nor am I going to take your interpretations of whatever passages I refer to as if they were authoritative. And as if I should follow them in preference to the teaching of the Catholic Church—to do so would be absurd.

I don't know why you keep starting debates when you can't see them through, and end up being upset.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I know all of that, xeno. I've discussed it at lenth with you and @Valetta and others on numerous occasions. I know it well enough to teach it by now.

Good, we need not go over it again. Let's move on.

Because you claimed Jesus said his mother is perfect and would become the queen of heaven. And pretending it's written somewhere, but you won't say where. Because you're just playing games. Or perhaps you're just genuinely at a loss.

No, it is you who wrote that claim. I will not defend your distortions of Catholic teaching.

I don't know why you keep starting debates when you're not equipped to see them through.

It is you who is seeking a debate. I'd rather not reply to your claims at all.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Apparently, we're speaking past each other here.

Then let's drop this topic and return to unity.

I'll leave you be with your thread here.

Thanks.

Maybe we'll find something more productive to talk about in a different thread at another time.

Time will tell.

Have a blessed new month!

 

[caffeinated.hermit]

So... I do think there's enough in Scripture to at least bring people to the table over Mary being our spiritual mother. Rev. 12 and Psalm 2 are pretty neat when read together, and yes, the Woman does seem to be Mary.

Rev. 12:17 says that the "rest of her offspring" are those who keep God's commandments and have the testimony of Christ; in other words, Christians. So, she's Jesus' Mom and our Mom, too. That seems to make Scriptural sense.

If we can just kind of all get there, and agree on that, even if we don't agree on things like her Immaculate Conception, Marian apparitions, or Assumption, at least we can agree that she's our Mom and we owe her some kind of respect, gratitude, and appreciation.

It's not realistic to expect everything to get ironed out 100% down here. But if Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox can all agree that she's the "Mother of Christians", that would be a good step.

 

[ozso]

Good, we need not go over it again. Let's move on.

To where? If you're not willing or able to discuss these matters, you might as well ask a mod to close this thread

No, it is you who wrote that claim. I will not defend your distortions of Catholic teaching.

Either you're still playing around or you're genuinely confused.

It is you who is seeking a debate. I'd rather not reply to your claims at all.

You should know perfectly well by now that a thread like this in general theology is going to spark a debate. Don't light the oven if you can't take the heat.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

To where? If you're not willing or able to discuss these matters, you might as well ask a mod to close this thread

If you dislike the thread then just stop reading it. I like it except for the annoyances in some posts.

Either you're still playing around or you're genuinely confused.

You should know perfectly well by now that a thread like this in general theology is going to spark a debate. Don't light the oven if you can't take the heat.

 

[concretecamper]

In a roundabout way that still sounds like the RCC teaches only members of the RCC recive salvation. Because without partaking the sacraments one is not in a state of grace. And and the only valid sacraments are through the RCC. And only Roman Catholics can partake in those sacraments.

The Church teaches:

The first Sacrament, Baptism, is found outside the Catholic Church. This is the first Sacrament and is necessary for salvation.

The Sacrament of The Eucharist is also found outside the Catholic Church, but not in the protestant communities.

The Sacrament of Marriage is also found outside the Catholic Church.

In the end of the day, I guess one can interpret that you needed to be Part of His Body "The Church" in order to be saved.