Neighbor Posted April 7, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 18 Topic Count: 952 Topics Per Day: 0.35 Content Count: 13,573 Content Per Day: 5.03 Reputation: 9,054 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/04/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/03/1885 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Unlike Masonry, one does not have to be one know one. As a non Non-Roman Catholic Christian I may read the decrees of the popedom, I may even find truth in many of their decrees. In any case I do think it wiser for me at least to read what I am opposing in order to understand why I oppose it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted April 7, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 On 06/04/2017 at 11:50 AM, Jayne said: That's not a sin. Babies do socially unacceptable things because they don't know the social mores of adults. They are just entertaining themselves. Play is not a sin. Annoying your mom by throwing good food off the table is a sin even if babies don't realise they are doing it. Ok then here is another example. What about a two or three year old (still practically a baby). They learn how to LIE all on their own. they don't understand its wrong but they do it. No one taught them to lie, they just automatically know how to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BacKaran Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 As a former rcc kid, I will tell you what is taught us fraught with error at every church and school in the rcc. Some were told Mary is the keep to keeping Jesus from being angry at sinners so if you pray to marry she will appease Jesus anger for the sinner confessor. I was never told or taught that Jesus is returning, never told about the been seat and the throne judgements. I never knew Paul was Saul until I taught first grade Protestants! I almost cried, I had to re read it over again to take it all in... Paul was at Stephens stoning, Paul was on the road to Damascus, Paul was Saul the Christian killer, I never heard that from 3o+ years in the rcc... The rcc locks itself into a three year schedule of sermons. Look it up. They will do abc or the 123 of prepared sermons approved by Rome. I'm sure there's a fancy name for their homily schedule, I don't care to know any more as I've seen the results of it's false doctrines and false hope it gives to people who must pray to dead people, attend church so many times a year or be excommunicated... Know thy enemy but trust in Christ only ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted April 7, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Danger Noodle said: I would suggest that since this is a Christian identified community and not expressly dedicated to Romans Catholicism, that the initiating post inviting us to opine on the topic of immaculate conception is open to all fields of believers. The scriptures do speak to what is immaculate conception. That Christians here do not concur with the RCC definition is appropriate being they are not Romes Catholics. The topic as we understand it from our Father's word is still valid in my view. 59 Bible Verses about Immaculate Conception The only one who was truly immaculately conceived was Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted April 7, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 19 hours ago, Yowm said: I guess I'm still confoosed, 'what purpose is the Immaculate Conception for Rome, since Mary is still a sinner'? Well, they don't believe she WAS; that there lies the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted April 7, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted April 7, 2017 6 hours ago, Neighbor said: If we are to argue against a position it might be reasonable to read the position which we are to argue against. With that reasoning I offer a link http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056 I think it might be profitable to read of when the doctrine was established, by whom, and why. And one might want to seek out other resourses for confirmation of the doctrine as stated in the linked resource. And why might we want to do that? Because; it might help in presenting our argument for or against the doctrine. It might also help in gaining some sympathetic understanding of the passion held by observers of the doctrine, so that we might gain better credibility if we are to discuss and make argument against it with someone that holds to it. Seems to me we should not spend a lot of time arguing against something we may have little to no knowledge of when there is easily available resources to read in order to then question our own position, affirm it, or perhaps even modify it. I'm not so sure about this. But I definitely know you have to read the Bible to know the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neighbor Posted April 7, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 18 Topic Count: 952 Topics Per Day: 0.35 Content Count: 13,573 Content Per Day: 5.03 Reputation: 9,054 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/04/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/03/1885 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) Well it is hard to be against something if I don't know what that something is. The logic of the 1859 position established by the then pope of the Roman Catholic church seems to me to provide a rather different definition of imacculate than that which I would have assumed before reading it. None of which changes the truth of the Bible, but it may influence whether I believe that pope discerned truth of the Bible or not. ___________________ One of the more brilliant presenters of Bible truths plus applications of those truths for life today came from a Roman Catholic priest Bishop Fulton Sheen ( IMO). Now I definitely part company with his teaching on many issues, but I find understanding of his church's position and even concurrence on many too. He has taught me much that I still value. So to throw out all of the findings, by the RCC, of truth because I find serious fault in some things they find to be truth might be to err and to miss fuller enjoyment of God's will for me. Do I forgo that value just because the RCC may be the least Christian of the Christian Churches? I think that is a step too far for me personally. I know my own church body is pretty much agahast by anything Roman Catholic, but I have not been so persuaded, and they still accept me - go figure, a church ruling body allowing diversity of opinion,- on some issues. Edited April 7, 2017 by Neighbor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Noodle Posted April 7, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 573 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 329 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/27/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted April 7, 2017 4 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said: The only one who was truly immaculately conceived was Jesus Yes, I think that is what we're speaking of here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnD Posted April 8, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 0 Topic Count: 905 Topics Per Day: 0.19 Content Count: 9,646 Content Per Day: 2.02 Reputation: 5,832 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/07/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted April 8, 2017 If I understand the human reasoning behind the Immaculate Conception doctrine... providing a sinless womb for the sinless Christ child... the problem is, her mother would have to be sinless, then her mother's mother, then her mother's mother's mother, etc. all the way back to Eve. Is it not simpler and within the realm of possibility that God the Father created the body of the Son with all the DNA / genes of Adam - Mary (via Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David...) but were not the actual fallen sin natured DNA / genes but were the same in this unique prototype (last Adam / Second Adam) body planet by the Holy Spirit in the womb of his surrogate mother the virgin Mary? 1. he gestated in her womb 2. he was born through the matrix 3. he has the Davidic bloodline (DNA information / genes) yet his body is not the actual / direct son of Adam. This meets all the legal requirements (certainly of that day) and we have scientific proof that such a thing can happen since we've had surrogate births for decades now. Doesn't this make sense? That way God the Father can create a sinless body for God the Word to become in the incarnation and still be the kinsman redeemer to mankind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts