wad caused the 'breakaway'?
-
harlo!!! i am back!!! remember me? anyway, juz want to find out the real reason y protestants broke away from catholicism...some tell me its cos of the issue on indulgence...some say its cos of the justification by faith as stated it Rom chapter 1...perhaps u forumers can provide the rite reason behind the breakaway? wad cos martin luther to breakaway???
-
Those are not the main reason.Originally posted by despondent:harlo!!! i am back!!! remember me? anyway, juz want to find out the real reason y protestants broke away from catholicism...some tell me its cos of the issue on indulgence...some say its cos of the justification by faith as stated it Rom chapter 1...perhaps u forumers can provide the rite reason behind the breakaway? wad cos martin luther to breakaway???
The main reason was - the Catholic Church did not accept the sole authority of the Scripture. -
mannn ... i hope fadango doesnt appear hahaaOriginally posted by Icemoon:Those are not the main reason.
The main reason was - the Catholic Church did not accept the sole authority of the Scripture.
we have 3 pillars; MAgeisterium, tradition and Scripture
it has been that way since the early church
i will even argue that despite Protestant frowning on our dependency on tradition, they have adopted many of their own and borrowed extensively from our Early Fathers like Justin MAtyr, St Ausgustine, etc -
hey, ben1xy...
u catholic? perhaps u can tell me why catholics believe tat mother mary was considered perfect...is tat true? if true, wheres the basis for tat? -
No basis.Originally posted by despondent:hey, ben1xy...
u catholic? perhaps u can tell me why catholics believe tat mother mary was considered perfect...is tat true? if true, wheres the basis for tat?
It was something they conjured to explain away some difficult passages (at best). -
The litmus test is whether the tradition can be found in Scripture.Originally posted by ben1xy:mannn ... i hope fadango doesnt appear hahaa
we have 3 pillars; MAgeisterium, tradition and Scripture
it has been that way since the early church
i will even argue that despite Protestant frowning on our dependency on tradition, they have adopted many of their own and borrowed extensively from our Early Fathers like Justin MAtyr, St Ausgustine, etc
One can always argue (for example) - they adopted the Nicene Creed .. which was formulated by the church fathers (or rather a council of bishops) too. -
There is a similar topic which is currently being discussed at the catholic forumOriginally posted by despondent:hey, ben1xy...
u catholic? perhaps u can tell me why catholics believe tat mother mary was considered perfect...is tat true? if true, wheres the basis for tat?
http://christians.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=206042 -
The church fathers, for example, chose what gospels go into the tradition what.Originally posted by Icemoon:The litmus test is whether the tradition can be found in Scripture.
One can always argue (for example) - they adopted the Nicene Creed .. which was formulated by the church fathers (or rather a council of bishops) too.
if they are wrong, the scriptures are prolly wrong too -
the litmus test, to me personally is this, what happen if tradition crashes with the scripture?Originally posted by Icemoon:The litmus test is whether the tradition can be found in Scripture.
One can always argue (for example) - they adopted the Nicene Creed .. which was formulated by the church fathers (or rather a council of bishops) too.
should tradition be used to interpret scripture? or scripture to govern traditions?
-
Ben would suffice.Originally posted by despondent:hey, ben1xy...
u catholic? perhaps u can tell me why catholics believe tat mother mary was considered perfect...is tat true? if true, wheres the basis for tat?
anyway, i will tackle this from 2 perspective
26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
John 19:26-27
Here this passing on symbolises Mary being our Mother and We her children
Another way that i will argue this comes is that when Christ accepted the Father’s call to become a Man, he accepted responsibility to obey the law. The Moral law which is summarized in the 10 commandments. There’s a commandment which reads ‘honour your Father and Mother.’ In original Hebrew, the word honour means to glorify, to bestow the glory and honour you have upon your father and mother. Christ fulfilled that law more perfectly than any human by bestowing his glory upon his heavenly father and by taking his own divine glory and honoring his Mother, Mary, with it. Basically, all we are doing is imitating Christ. We honour her with Christ’s glory.
answers your question? -
yupOriginally posted by Icemoon:The litmus test is whether the tradition can be found in Scripture.
One can always argue (for example) - they adopted the Nicene Creed .. which was formulated by the church fathers (or rather a council of bishops) too. -
to: ben1xy...
no u havent answered my qn...my qn was catholics believe tat mother mary was perfectly sinless...so wheres the basis for tat? -
traidition should nv contradict scripture. that's the main point people miss out.Originally posted by vince69:the litmus test, to me personally is this, what happen if tradition crashes with the scripture?
should tradition be used to interpret scripture? or scripture to govern traditions?
ok ... now i expect u to list out things that we Catholics do that contrsdict scripture... i sure wish Macross or Oberditica was here! i need back up! -
They won't clash with Scripture.Originally posted by vince69:the litmus test, to me personally is this, what happen if tradition crashes with the scripture?
should tradition be used to interpret scripture? or scripture to govern traditions?
You can always harmonize it.
Aren't you amazed .. those 1 million contradictions posted by atheists .. Christians can always come out with solutions? -
/me to the reinforcement.Originally posted by ben1xy:traidition should nv contradict scripture. that's the main point people miss out.
ok ... now i expect u to list out things that we Catholics do that contrsdict scripture... i sure wish Macross or Oberditica was here! i need back up!
-
he waiting for reinforcement to come .. wait a while.Originally posted by despondent:to: ben1xy...
no u havent answered my qn...my qn was catholics believe tat mother mary was perfectly sinless...so wheres the basis for tat? -
ohh .. sorryOriginally posted by despondent:to: ben1xy...
no u havent answered my qn...my qn was catholics believe tat mother mary was perfectly sinless...so wheres the basis for tat?
got it wrong
look at the next post .. very long so read when u r free -
Solutions or explain away?Originally posted by Icemoon:They won't clash with Scripture.
You can always harmonize it.
Aren't you amazed .. those 1 million contradictions posted by atheists .. Christians can always come out with solutions? -
from http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112fea1.asp
First, if only God is sinless, Mary couldnÂ’t have been sinless or she would have been God.
Second, if Mary was sinless, why did she say, "My spirit rejoices in God my savior" (Luke 1:47)? If only sinners need a savior, why would Mary, if free from sin, include herself in the category of sinners? If she were sinless, she would have had no need of a savior, and her statement in Luke 1 would be incoherent.
Third, Paul says in Romans 3:10-12, 23, "There is no one just [righteous], not one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God, all have gone astray; all alike are worthless; there is not one who does good, not even one. . . . all have sinned and are deprived [fallen short] of the glory of God." In Romans 5:12 he says, "Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned . . . ." These verses seem to rule out any possibility that Mary was sinless.
The Immaculate Conception emphasizes four truths: (1) Mary did need a savior; (2) her savior was Jesus Christ; (3) MaryÂ’s salvation was accomplished by Jesus through his work on the Cross; and (4) Mary was saved from sin, but in a different and more glorious way than the rest of us are. LetÂ’s consider the first and easiest of the three objections.
The notion that God is the only being without sin is quite false--and even Protestants think so. Adam and Eve, before the fall, were free from sin, and they werenÂ’t gods, the serpentÂ’s assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. (One must remember that Mary was not the first immaculate human being, even if she was the first to be conceived immaculately.)
The angels in heaven are not gods, but they were created sinless and have remained so ever since. The saints in heaven are not gods, although each of them is now completely sinless (Rev. 14:5; 21:27).
The second and third arguments are related. Mary needed Jesus as her savior. His death on the Cross saved her, as it saves us, but its saving effects were applied to her (unlike to us) at the moment of her conception. (Keep in mind that the Crucifixion is an eternal event and that the appropriation of salvation through ChristÂ’s death isnÂ’t impeded by time or space.)
Medieval theologians developed an analogy to explain how and why Mary needed Jesus as her savior. A man (each of us) is walking along a forest path, unaware of a large pit a few paces directly ahead of him. He falls headlong into the pit and is immersed in the mud (original sin) it contains. He cries out for help, and his rescuer (the Lord Jesus) lowers a rope down to him and hauls him back up to safety. The man says to his rescuer, "Thank you for saving me," recalling the words of the psalmist: The Lord "stooped toward me and heard my cry. He drew me out of the pit of destruction, out of the mud of the swamp; he set my feet upon a crag" (Psalm 40:2-4).
A woman (Mary), approaches the same pit, but as she began to fall into the pit her rescuer reaches out and stops her from falling in. She cries out, "Thank you for saving me" (Luke 1:47). Like this woman, Mary was no less "saved" than any other human being has been saved. She was just saved anticipatorily, before contracting original sin. Each of us is permitted to become dirtied with original sin, but she was not. God hates sin, so this was a far better way.
PaulÂ’s statements in Romans chapters 3 and 5 (no one is righteous; no one seeks God; no one does good; all have sinned) should not be taken in a crassly literal and universal sense--if they are, irreconcilable contradictions will arise. Consider Luke 1:6. Common sense tells us whole groups of people are exempt from PaulÂ’s statement that "all have sinned." Aborted infants cannot sin, nor can young children or severely retarded people. But Paul didnÂ’t mention such obvious exceptions. He was writing to adults in our state of life.
If certain groups are exempt from the "all have sinned" rubric, then these verses canÂ’t be used to argue against MaryÂ’s Immaculate Conception, since hers would be an exceptional case too, one not needing mention given the purpose of PaulÂ’s discussion and his intended audience.
Now letÂ’s consider what the Bible has to say in favor of the Catholic position. ItÂ’s important to recognize that neither the words "Immaculate Conception" nor the precise formula adopted by the Church to enunciate this truth are found in the Bible. This doesnÂ’t mean the doctrine isnÂ’t biblical, only that the truth of the Immaculate Conception, like the truths of the Trinity and JesusÂ’ hypostatic union (that Jesus was incarnated as God and man, possessing completely and simultaneously two natures, divine and human, in one divine person), is mentioned either in other words or only indirectly.
Look first at two passages in Luke 1. In verse 28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as "kecharitomene" ("full of grace" or "highly favored"). This is a recognition of her sinless state. In verse 42 Elizabeth greets Mary as "blessed among women." The original import of this phrase is lost in English translation. Since neither the Hebrew nor Aramaic languages have superlatives (best, highest, tallest, holiest), a speaker of those languages would have say, "You are tall among men" or "You are wealthy among men" to mean "You are the tallest" or "You are the wealthiest." ElizabethÂ’s words mean Mary was the holiest of all women.
The Church understands Mary to be the fulfillment of three Old Testament types: the cosmos, Eve, and the ark of the covenant. A type is a person, event, or thing in the Old Testament which foreshadows or symbolizes some future reality God brings to pass. (See these verses for Old Testament types fulfilled in the New Testament: Col. 2:17, Heb. 1:1, 9:9, 9:24, 10:1; 1 Cor. 15:45-49; Gal. 4:24-25.)
Some specific examples of types: Adam was a type of Christ (Rom. 5:14); NoahÂ’s Ark and the Flood were types of the Church and baptism (1 Peter 3:19-21); Moses, who delivered Israel from the bondage of slavery in Egypt, was a type of Christ, who saves us from the bondage of slavery to sin and death; circumcision foreshadowed baptism; the slain passover lamb in Exodus 12: 21-28 was a symbol of Jesus, the Lamb of God, being slain on the Cross to save sinners. The important thing to understand about a type is that its fulfillment is always more glorious, more profound, more "real" than the type itself.
MaryÂ’s Immaculate Conception is foreshadowed in Genesis 1, where God creates the universe in an immaculate state, free from any blemish or stain of sin or imperfection. This is borne out by the repeated mention in Genesis 1 of God beholding his creations and saying they were "very good." Out of pristine matter the Lord created Adam, the first immaculately created human being, forming him from the "womb" of the Earth. The immaculate elements from which the first Adam received his substance foreshadowed the immaculate mother from whom the second Adam (Romans 5:14) took his human substance.
The second foreshadowing of Mary is Eve, the physical mother of our race, just as Mary is our spiritual mother through our membership in the Body of Christ (Rev. 12:17). What Eve spoiled through disobedience and lack of faith (Genesis 3), Mary set aright through faith and obedience (Luke 1:3
.
We see a crucial statement in Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike at his heel." This passage is especially significant in that it refers to the "seed of the woman," a singular usage. The Bible, following normal biology, otherwise only refers to the seed of the man, the seed of the father, but never to the seed of the woman. Who is the woman mentioned here? The only possibility is Mary, the only woman to give birth to a child without the aid of a human father, a fact prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.
If Mary were not completely sinless this prophesy becomes untenable. Why is that? The passage points to MaryÂ’s Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity between the woman and Satan. Such an enmity would have been impossible if Mary were tainted by sin, original or actual (see 2 Corinthians 6:14). This line of thinking rules out Eve as the woman, since she clearly was under the influence of Satan in Genesis 3.
The third and most compelling type of MaryÂ’s Immaculate Conception is the ark of the covenant. In Exodus 20 Moses is given the Ten Commandments. In chapters 25 through 30 the Lord gives Moses a detailed plan for the construction of the ark, the special container which would carry the Commandments. The surprising thing is that five chapters later, staring in chapter 35 and continuing to chapter 40, Moses repeats word for word each of the details of the arkÂ’s construction.
Why? It was a way of emphasizing how crucial it was for the LordÂ’s exact specifications to be met (Ex. 25:9, 39:42-43). God wanted the ark to be as perfect and unblemished as humanly possible so it would be worthy of the honor of bearing the written Word of God. How much more so would God want Mary, the ark of the new covenant, to be perfect and unblemished since she would carry within her womb the Word of God in flesh.
When the ark was completed, "the cloud covered the meeting tent and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling. Moses could not enter the meeting tent, because the cloud settled down upon it and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling" (Ex. 40:34-3. Compare this with the words of Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:35.
ThereÂ’s another striking foreshadowing of Mary as the new ark of the covenant in 2 Samuel 6. The Israelites had lost the ark in a battle with their enemies, the Philistines, and had recently recaptured it. King David sees the ark being brought to him and, in his joy and awe, says "Who am I that the ark of the Lord should come to me?" (1 Sam. 6:9).
Compare this with ElizabethÂ’s nearly identical words in Luke 1:43. Just as David leapt for joy before the ark when it was brought into Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:14-16), so John the Baptist leapt for joy in ElizabethÂ’s womb when Mary, the ark of the new covenant, came into her presence (Luke 1:44). JohnÂ’s leap was for precisely the same reason as DavidÂ’s--not primarily because of the ark itself, but because of what the ark contained, the Word of God.
Another parallel may be found in 2 Samuel 6:10-12 where we read that David ordered the ark diverted up into the hill country of Judea to remain with the household of Obededom for three months. This parallels the three-month visit Mary made at ElizabethÂ’s home in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39-45, 65). While the ark remained with Obededom it "blessed his household." This is an Old Testament way of saying the fertility of women, crops, and livestock was increased. Notice that God worked this same miracle for Elizabeth and Zachariah in their old age as a prelude to the greater miracle he would work in Mary.
The Mary/ark imagery appears again in Revelation 11:19 and 12:1-17, where she is called the mother of all "those who keep GodÂ’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus" (verse 17). The ark symbolism found in Luke 1 and Revelation 11 and 12 was not lost on the early Christians. They could see the parallels between the Old TestamentÂ’s description of the ark and the New TestamentÂ’s discussion of MaryÂ’s role.
Granted, none of these verses "proves" MaryÂ’s Immaculate Conception, but they all point to it. After all, the Bible nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence supports the Catholic teaching.
A last thought. If you could have created your own mother, wouldnÂ’t you have made her the most beautiful, virtuous, perfect woman possible? Jesus, being God, did create his own mother (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and he did just that--he created her immaculate and, in his mercy and generosity, kept her that way. -
i guess u would have to doOriginally posted by Icemoon:/me to the reinforcement. 
-
another long answer coming up
-
both, actually.Originally posted by laurence82:Solutions or explain away?
solutions when the answer sounds logical .. explain away when they attribute it to the "mystery" of God. -
How to Defend the Immaculate Conception
By Jason Evert
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp
This Rock
Volume 12, Number 2
February 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frontispiece
By Karl Keating
Letters
ApologistÂ’s Eye
1. Why does the Church teach that Mary was immaculately conceived? Her conception is never even mentioned in Scripture.
Before presenting the scriptural foundations for the ChurchÂ’s belief in MaryÂ’s Immaculate Conception, know that the person who is posing this question to you is probably operating with the three following misconceptions: (1) The doctrine infringes upon the universality of ChristÂ’s redemption and the unique holiness of God. (2) The Church has no scriptural foundation for the teaching. (3) If any doctrine is not in Scripture it must not be true. Any adequate defense of Our LadyÂ’s Immaculate Conception is incomplete unless all three of these areas are addressed.
The first issue that you need to cover is sola scriptura—the idea that the Bible is the only rule of faith. In order to understand the flaws of this theory, familiarize yourself with the Catholic Answers tract at www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/proving.htm. One of the reasons why our separated brethren have difficulty accepting certain Marian teachings is that they do not understand the scriptural role of sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.
The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:25, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Luke 10:16).
Besides historical evidence and the authority of Tradition, several biblical texts can be offered. In Genesis 3:15, God states that there is to be an enmity between the "woman" and the serpent, and this enmity is shared between her seed and its seed. Her seed is the messiah, who stands in opposition to the seed of the serpent. The mother of the messiah is said to share the same enmity—total opposition—with Satan. If Mary, "the woman" had any sin, then she would not be in complete opposition to the devil. Some argue that the "woman" refers to Eve, but this can not be the complete meaning of the text, as Eve is always associated with her collaboration with the serpent, not her opposition to him. Only Mary, the new Eve, fits the description of the woman in Genesis 3:15.
An implicit reference can also be found in the angelÂ’s greeting to Mary in Luke 1:28: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you." The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. This means that the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angelÂ’s visit, and was not only as "full" or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace."
Over the centuries, the Fathers and doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the Ark of the Covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the Ten Commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (an instrument of Israel’s redemption). If this box was created with such honor—to carry a stick, some bread, and stone tablets—how much more should Mary be made a worthy dwelling place for God himself? She is the new Ark of the Covenant because she carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the instrument of our redemption, Jesus’ body.
Some argue that the new ark is not Mary but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would seem to be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box and not sanctifying the womb who carried the Holy One himself. After all, wisdom will not dwell "in a body under debt of sin" (Wis. 1:4 [NAB]).
2. If Mary is sinless, doesnÂ’t that make her equal to God?
If this question is posed to you, it opens up a wonderful opportunity to show how the Immaculate Conception of Mary glorifies God.
Many people are under the impression that one is not quite human if he or she is sinless. On the contrary, it is when we sin that we fall short of what it means to be fully human. Since we are made in the image and likeness of God, we are called to love as God loves. This is why Christ fully reveals man to himself, as Vatican II says. He shows us what it means to be perfectly human.
In the beginning, God created no one (neither angel nor human) with sin, and yet no one was equal to God. When Adam and Eve sinned, they acted in a manner that was beneath their dignity as beings made in GodÂ’s image and likeness. It was their sin that detracted from the glory of God, not their original sinlessness. GodÂ’s goodness is most clear when he sanctifies his creation by entering into it fully with the life of his grace.
This is why the sinless souls in heaven give the most glory to God. The unique glory of the Trinity is manifested most clearly in heaven—where is he surrounded by sinless beings. In their sinlessness, God has made them most fully what he intended for them to be. In Mary’s case, her sinlessness gives the most glory to God, since his work is made perfect in her. She is his masterpiece.
3. How could Mary be sinless if in the words of the Magnificat she said that her soul rejoices in God her savior?
The Church does not hesitate to profess that Mary needed a savior. This should be the first issue to address if this question arises. It was by the grace of God—and not the work of Mary—that she was saved from sin in a most perfect manner. By what is called "preservative redemption," Mary was preserved from sin at the time of her natural conception. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15), and Mary was sanctified at her conception. It is no difficulty that Christ distributed the grace of Calvary some forty-five years or so before it happened, just as he bestows it upon us two thousand years after the fact. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that this gift was given to Mary, making her "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
God can "save" a person from a sin by forgiving them, or by providing them the grace never to fall into that particular sin. An ancient analogy is often useful to explain this: A person can be saved from a pit in two ways; one can fall into it and be brought out, or one can be caught before falling into it. Mankind is saved in the first manner, and Mary in the second. Both are saved from the pit of sin. If Jesus wished to save his mother from the stain of sin, what is to prevent him?
4. How can you reconcile MaryÂ’s sinlessness with PaulÂ’s statement that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?
Though Paul is making a generalization of all humanity, Protestants and Catholics alike would agree that there are exceptions. For example, a child below the age of reason is not capable of committing actual sin. By definition he canÂ’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the epistle to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).
Jesus is another significant exception to the rule, having been exempt from actual and original sin (Heb. 4:15). If PaulÂ’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the new Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the new Eve (Mary) can also be made.
5. DidnÂ’t the Church just invent the doctrine 150 years ago?
Pope Pius IX officially defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the Pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it. (For abundant evidence that the sinlessness of Mary is not a new idea in the Church, visit www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/_fullgra.htm).
Doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the Magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf.. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her. By understanding the work that God has done in Our Lady, all should have greater appreciation for both him and her. For if one member of the body is honored, all should share in its joy (1 Cor 12:26). -
i think solutions are, eg, this is the Catholic perspective of this verse x of the Bible, and here are our reasons whyOriginally posted by Icemoon:both, actually.
solutions when the answer sounds logical .. explain away when they attribute it to the "mystery" of God.
explain away includes, eg, humans cannot understand God's logic, we are righteous in God's eyes, so action xxx doesnt matter, etc -
Actually even I have to admit, some of the Catholic arguments make more sense than the Protestant's.Originally posted by laurence82:i think solutions are, eg, this is the Catholic perspective of this verse x of the Bible, and here are our reasons why
explain away includes, eg, humans cannot understand God's logic, we are righteous in God's eyes, so action xxx doesnt matter, etc
Not sure whether you realize .. but the immaculate conception explains away something very beautifully - the biblical idea of original sin.
Because through Adam, all man has sinned. That's why they came out with the Virgin Birth. 'cos last time when woman discriminated, they thought the seed came from the man; the woman was just a vessel.
today genetics tell us man and woman contribute equally .. so cham .. the sin can be passed through the mother!
But fear not .. now we have sinless mother! Problem solved!