Featured Today is the Feast Day of the Blessed Virgin Mary

I spelled out what I meant. No such gods exist in reality. These are idoltrous religions just as Rome and Maryoltry is an idoltrous religion. Both are equally perversions of the true religion and the true God. Both borrow from the truth and both equally pervert that truth. Romanism is a synergism of paganism and Judaism.

You simply illustrate the paganism of Romanism by your inclusion of the book of the dead as equal to Biblical prophetic scriptures. Romanism is a synergism of paganism and Judaism and that is precisely why UNINSPIRED paganist writings are acceptable to you as much as uninspired half pagan half Christian writings of the Fathers are acceptable sources of authority for you.

Your pagan fangs are being exposed fully in this statement. You include God's inspired Word under your classification of "unbias document" as though it is on a sub par level to pagan writers (the only other documents) which are more unbiased in your fertile imaginative mind.

Who cares what YOU believe? Who cares what an Atheist believes?? What you or an atheist believes does not determine the inspiration of the Word of God. Does not change any facts. When you are long gone the Word will still be standing and it is settled forever in heaven and preserved on earth distinct and apart from all secular uninspired literature of your pagan spiritual ancestors.

I never suggested any such thing! I am not even speaking of the Biblical Mary of the Bible but the superstitous paganist Romanistic Mary of Babylonian religion. The Madonna, The Queen of Heaven, the Mother of God - the mary of the Great Harlot.

Of course, and the standard is Rome and Roman paganistic historians. - Circular justification.

 

Yes I agree with this statement. Thus as baseless as your view that Catholics worship Mary is a version of Babylonians worshiping Ishtar is just as Baseless as the view that worshiping Jesus is the same as Babylonians worshiping Ishtar.

Unlike you I am using reason to show you where your argument fails Catholicism is no more Pagan than Baptist your attempt to make it seem it is, is on the same dishonest level as an atheist accuses Christians of being Pagan by making Mythras or Horis into Jesus.

It is neither. No more than Baptist are synergism between paganism and Judaism and humanism.

See this is a false accusation which provides a straw man argument. I don't accept paganist writings as acceptable only as evidence of what people believed who wrote these document. I consider them only an authority on their pagan beliefs not on reality or on my beliefs. I only mention them because you are using the same irrational method an atheist uses against Christianity and thus refute you in the same manner I refute the atheist. In both cases, you and the atheist provide straw man arguments.

We get to the crux of your dilemma. Everyone is their own authority. Thus you are your authority and it really doesn't matter what anyone else says because you have placed yourself into the position of being the sole authority of what is and is not truth. People can only be compared to what it is you personally believe. Thus if they disagree with you its because they are in error though you are right in every area according to you. Even the scriptures aren't authoritative to you but what you believe to be true about them. In both cases niether is based on what really is true ( objective truth) rather what you believe to be true whether it is objectively true or not. All subjective truths are correct only if you hold them. Thus Historical facts are easily dismissed. Thus scientific facts are easily dismissed. If Jesus or any of the Apostles themselves where to tell you that you are wrong they too are easily dismissed. And this is the whole foundation of your faith. Is that really a faith you should have?

What did you call this pattern of argument? Jump, Run, and something else. You are changing the argument because you know that my reasoning is correct. You can no more claim that Catholics worship a pagan Mary using the same process as an atheist does to show Christianity is pagan because that makes you a pagan as well.

I thank God that his word will still be standind long after I am gone because it is the very instructions making plain our salvation and it should be distinct form all other literature and it will stand against atheist assults and assults to mispresent it as well. And I recall very clearly what our Lord said to those who thought they had faith ""Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. " - Matt 7:21

You certainly did!

to whom the Catholics are referring when they speak of Mary. Using scriture, we call her Mother of God because she gave birth to Jesus Christ who is God. We call her queen of Heaven because of the imagery of the heavenly queen in Revelation.

RCC is nothing like the Babylonian Ishtar and shame on you for calling the Mother of Jesus a whore! However, by Calling the Mother of Jesus a whore you expose yourself for what you are. A man to which nothing is sacred save themselves. Is it really any wonder why you have such a resistance and hatred for any authority apart from yourself? I should think not. You have expressed it clearly here.

In the spirit of scriptures presented in Isaiah

I have come to you to make a reasoned argument for the Catholic position but this is how I am and the Catholic positon is attacked by you.

Of course, and the standard is Rome and Roman paganistic historians. - Circular justification.

You can almost see your venom of hatred dripping from your mouth as you fail to attempt to reason but make accusation after accusation after accusation without one substantiating document. You don't reason back you jump to personal attack calling me a pagan and my "spiritual ancestors pagan" you fill the cyber world with your vile descriptions of my person and beliefs and when I attempt to reason politely with you instead of reasoning against you thow putride accusations without substance at me directly hoping that by its multitude of assults that some thing of your accusations smell might stick and make me smell. While all I have ever wished for you is the best and even prayed for you when your personal life problems errupted on this board. Once you explained what was going on I even chided another poster for bringing up those accusations made against your person. However, this has not stopped your accusations of my person. But once again you reveal your true natureby the vile hate spilled Anti-Catholic Sentements that are at times just as unfounded and untrue as many Anti-Semetic statements are made of Jews.

 

The fact that Atheists use the same basis of reasoning does not mean that basis of reasoning is false. It is their application that makes it false not the reasoning method. The reasoning method is quite sound but in reverse. God's revealed religion is the oldest and from it all paganistic perversions have developed. Romanism is a synergism of Babylonian pagnism and its goddess cult with apostate Christianity.

Quite the reverse is my argument! No one is their own authority but the scriptures alone are the authority and either you agree or disagree with them and your diagreement (perverted interpretations) do not change it one iota.

Interpretations can be tested by context and so the Biblical context is the final authority. Romanist interpretations fail context. This is so clear in regard to the very crux of Romanism sacrodotalism in Romans 4:11.

It will stand against apostate Christianity as well and it does and it completely destroys the very heart of Romanism in Romans 4:11. BTW the kind of profession being made in Matthew 7:21 is not a Baptist Confession of faith as Baptists abhor that kind of profession and would never make such a confession. That is the Roman Catholic confession to the "T".

Like all cults the Roman cult seeks justification from Revelation and symbolic langauge. Well, are you prepared to accept the other SYMBOLIC CHILDREN if this is Mary (It is not Mary nor does it symoblize Mary):

with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed,

Now watch for some mental gymnastics to deny what "her seed" would mean metaphorically - other children by birth.

I have made no "personal" accusations against you as a person. I have attacked your paganistic religion and beliefs. Theologically your spiritual ancestory is paganism mixed with apostate Christianity. As a person I have no ill will or feelings against you nor have I any reason to suspect that you are nothing more than a sincere zealot for your paganistic belief system. That is no reflection upon your personal character as you are most likely a very sincere, honest individual who is expressing what you believe to be true.

 

It is easy to gather up multitudes of Catholic prayers all addressed to Mary, all praising Mary, petitioning Mary, etc. They worship Mary. That cannot be denied. Praise, honor and glory go to God alone. He alone is worthy of our praise. The Bible declares that.

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
--By the fact that He is our Creator, He alone is worthy to receive glory and honour and power. No other being deserves such praise.

Your praise and adoration of Mary is just as pagan as the Babylonians who worship Ishtar.

The Baptist has only one authority--the Scriptures. The RCC has more than one authority: Bible, Tradition, and then whatever is added on by the Pope, Catechism, and throughout history. It is a constantly changing church, even in its doctrine. Someday you will have a four-person trinity that will include Mary--a change in doctrine that some are fighting for. Already the Pope has changed its view on evolution. That is a change in doctrine.
Catholic doctrine is man-made. We have listed the man-made doctrines that are not in the Bible many times for you. It developed these doctrines from paganism, when Constantine married the church to the state. He had to appease both pagans and Christians. The RCC was born out of that synthesis.

That statement you cannot prove.

You can't refute arguments by using mythological sources that end up with you denying the Resurrection of our Lord. I was amazed when I read that. Reading also that people believed in the resurrection before Christ, does not make it true, just like the Hindus who believe their sins are washed away by bathing in the holy waters of the Ganges River. It is not true though they believe it to be true, and have been practicing it much longer than the RCC have been practicing the same thing--subjecting infants to water thinking that that water will wash away their sins. Pure superstition gained from paganism. It was a pagan belief that entered into Christianity.

The Bible is our authority. There are two groups of people in this world: spiritual (saved) and natural (carnal and unsaved).
Study 1Cor.2:12-14.
The spiritual man understands the things of the Spirit--the Word of God.
The natural man (unsaved) cannot understand the things of the Spirit--the Word of God.
This twofold division ought to solve your dilemma of "everyone is their own authority." All those in the first group generally agree with one another.

Because both Biblicist and myself fall into that category described in 1Cor.2:12,13, we generally agree on most everything. We see with spiritual eyes.

That is not an accurate statement.

You are in trouble if you do not believe in objective truth. The standard of objective truth must be the Word of God.

 

They also can be easily manipulated by those who are unwilling to accept the truth. The Bible refers to those people

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
--We live in these last times where there are scoffers who are willingly ignorant. Such people abound in our society.

The question needs no answer in the light of the heresies of the RCC.

The Bible is our final authority. It is our basis for debate. Thus the statement, "who cares what an atheist says." Our beliefs are not determined by what any atheist says, but by what God's word says. Your reasoning is not correct. My reasoning is correct when I say that your religion (the RCC) has much in common with Hinduism.
--You both believe water washes away your sin.
--You both are polytheistic (treating Mary as another god).
--You both bow down to idols (stations of the cross, for example)
--You both pray to the dead (the resurrection has not yet taken place.)
--In light of the above point you both pray and worship many "deities," since prayer is worship, and God alone is to be worshiped.

You are more of a Hindu than you think. Just the name of your God is different.

And that is all? Do you even believe that it is inspired?

You really need to study that chapter. That "woman" gets swallowed up. Only a small remnant of her children survive. If the model, your interpretation is correct, then you would be the smallest religion in the world, not one of the largest. Your interpretation does not fit.

He didn't. But at least you are admitting to the truth here, in that you are admitting that your Mary is the Babylonish Mary, the great whore! By using that term, one you should be familiar with, you know that he is probably referring to a passage in the Bible:

Revelation 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
--This may be the Catholic Mary, but not the Mary of the Bible.
It is the Mary that comes from Babylon, as Biblicist said.
It is the Mother of harlots.
It is drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, which fits the RCC more accurately than any organization on earth.

No, he has referred to Scripture, that you are apparently unaware of, Scripture which very aptly describes the RCC.

The Scriptures attack your position.

These Scriptures in Revelation 17 did that all by themselves didn't they?
This last paragraph was just a confirmation of it, by the language and personal attacks you used and stooped to.

 

All ofyour rants I have already dealt with. The fact you don't accept the arguments for them is irrelevant. Because in all cases you have niether shown evidence for your suppositions since Catholics do not worship Mary as God or hold her as a 4th person in the Trinity. And since the "synthesis of paganism and Catholicism" neither is given evidence apart from your attempt to combine two things not alike which is what atheist do to Christianity using the same rhetoric which your reasoning once again falls flat because the same accusations about Catholics worshiping Mary as a God can be used to accuse you of worshiping Mythras or Horis.

However, to show how your positions is entirely false and how your reasoning is flawed and how you put up straw men I want to point out that you said.

You have revealed yourselves and lack of reason when criticising the catholic Church and me as this very statement you made points out. Lets look at your dishonesty! Yes Dishonesty! You said and I quote again

I have never, ever denyied the resurrection of the Lord ever. I believe it whole hartedly. I attest to all humanities bodily resurrection from the dead some to life and some to death. Never have I denied it!!! Ever!!!! Yet you say

How can you be suprised by an assertion I did not make! You as you do with all things catholic and can be seen in this one glaring statement

. When clearly I did not deny the resurrection. What I did do is express to Biblicist that Atheist using the same reasoning that he used Deny Christ saying that the Christian belief in Jesus raising from the dead is no different from the Egyptian believing Horis rose from the dead or the Babylonian believing Mythras rose from the dead. That since Christianity holds to this they are pagan from the Atheist perspective. I even said I don't hold to that atheist belief. But in the same manner as the argument is made against the Catholic view of Mary can be made against all christianity including baptist belief. Never once did I deny the ressurrection. However, that is your false assertion that cannot be substantiated. And like that false assertion of my belief so too are your assertions that Catholics worship Mary as a God or that Catholicism is a synthesis of paganism or that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, or a multitude of other nonsense that you espouse with out any evidence save suppositions based on what two things seem alike. This perfectly shows how you misrepresent Catholic belief just as you represented my belief about the resurrection! Sorry DHK. It just doesn't fly!

 

Consider for a minute what you just said here. If an Athesist using this reasoning to claim that you are no less pagan for worshiping Jesus Christ because in fact you aren't worshiping Jesus as God but rather Horis and Mythras because of the similarities in their titles and the proclimation of their raising from the dead. You would say nonsense! And you would be right however, using this same reasoning seems perfectly reasonable to you to accuse Catholics of worshiping Mary who is in reality Ishtar when Catholics say neither is the case. Yet if this reasoning is acceptable to you as "proof" against Mary then the same reasoning must be acceptable to you as "proof" against Jesus Christ making you and all others who rely on him for their salvation pagans. Thus you have defeated your own stance. You just said that basis of reasoning is not false therefore logically (if you were to follow with this line of thinking) Jesus to you is a myth.
However, I know that you do not believe Jesus is a myth therefore you do not believe this line of reasoning is valid. Then why use it? To be hypocritical? In effect you are saying "I can say nonsense things against Catholic belief because I know in my hear they are wrong despite what the truth is?"

 

I dont know bout that ....but today 8/13 is "LEFT HANDER's" Day!! :laugh:

My son & I are Lefties.... I will buy him a beer I'm thinkin!

 

With all due respect, I don't think it is. The feast day of her birth is celebrated on Sept. 8. The nearest Marian feast day to this is Aug. 15, the feast day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

Oh man Z, you got a Catlic Calendar...with all the fishes & colors of what the priests will wear for mass that day! Been there & done that.:laugh:

Is this Ordinary Time we are in now??? What day?

 

E,W&F, you got me confused and confounded.
Does that mean I get to close the thread.

 

:laugh: That might even be predetermined....you will have to ask a Calvinist though:tongue3:

 

Why did Mary have to be special? God chose everyone in Scripture to fulfil His purposes, and each were normal, unremarkable humans including Mary. To say there was something inherently good in her is contrary to Scripture. He chose her despite 5the wretched sinner she was, just like every other person chosen.

 

Actually it's a Yahoo! calendar, and it doesn't count days in Ordinary Time.

 

Then how do you keep up with the holy Days of Obligation....does Yahoo tell you or is it your weekly bulletin?

 

You mean why does Mary have to be exalted to the role of goddess......answer: Instinct over logic. So much so, in fact, that the only 2 infallible statements of the Roman patriarchal Church are ironically ....(1) the Assumption of the physical body of Mary into heaven & (2) Her privileged choice & protection by God, the Immaculate Conception.

Besides, according to the RCC, Mary was born Chaste & W/O sin. I dont know who chaste her...but that's what I was always told! :laugh:

 

I have a Catholic Calender....which shows the feast days for almost everyday of the calender year, along with vigils,ember days and rogation days. Of course there are lots of little fishies.

The Obligation Days vary....here in NZ the Assumption is on the 15th and it is an obligation to attend Mass, but possibly not if you are at the liberal end of the scale, I don't know.

My mum is a Lutheran and I was surprised to see they follow the liturgical year pretty well in step with us.

By following the liturgical calender, the whole life of Jesus Christ is honoured.

 

You jerked one of my sentences out of its context, something like you do with scripture.

I explained precisely what I meant but you would have none of that because you couldn't twist that. So you pick a statement, separate it from my explanation and build your straw man argument.

That kind of response is precisely why we don't get anywhere in our discussion.

There is nothing wrong with the fundemental structure of the atheistic argument except it does not line up with the facts. The line of reasoning is solid IF it was based upon the real facts. However, it is not based upon the facts because the truth is that paganism is a perversion of previous revealed truth rather than vice versa. That is why their argument fails.

However, in the case of Catholicism their line of argument is precisely in keeping with the real facts. Catholocism is merely paganism thinly clothed in Christian termonology. There is nothing Bibical with 90% of Catholic doctrine and practice. The very heart of Catholicism perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ and that is clear from Romans 4:11.

Your perverted attempt to reinterpret Romans 4:11 is dishonest. It is dishonest because the terms "the faith" from a Greek textual point of view has more than one application in the book of Romans and it is plainly dishonest to merely assume that your arbritary selected use, which I might add, is found OUTSIDE the immediate subject context of justification, must be the meaning in Romans 3:24-5:2. It is dishonest because the immeidate context provides a very explicit definition which repudiates your arbritrary choice (Rom. 4:16-21). Paganistic Christianity will always be forced to pervert the context of scripture because scripture cannot be broken and false teaching will ALWAYS violate any contextual based interpretation.

 

First of all I didn't take you out of context and I showed exactly what you said and showed you how that line of reasoning fails. And again here you prove it once more. Note what you said.

Any line of reasoning is ok as long as it follows logically. However if the premise is wrong no matter how logical your reasoning is, it is faulted. As you stated "except". Thus the premise of connecting paganism to christianity is false is the same false premise of one connecting Ishtar worship to what we believe about Mary. So to say on one case because we can see Female deity worship in Babylon using the same titles Catholics give Mary, Catholics ipso facto are worshiping a babylonian deity. (Your premise of the argument). I took the logical step based on your premise (Babylonians have the same titles for their female deity that catholics use thus catholics are pagan) and used your premise (similarities in titles = pagan worship) and showed how Horis and Mythras have the same titles applied to them that Christians used for Jesus and came to the conclusion that your line of reasoning comes to. Ie Christians don't really worship Jesus but are pagans worshiping Mythras or Horis (Similarities in titles = Pagan worship). However, you noted that the premise is wrong thus you say "except". Thus the whole line of reasoning falls apart based on the premise and thus your line of reasoning falls apart based on the premise. To say Catholics 1) worship Mary and 2) are pagans because of it do not line up with the facts any more than worshiping Jesus makes one a pagan.

 

You need to be careful about making assertions that Roman Catholics "worship" Mary. If you say that to a Catholic they will say "we don't worship Mary, we only venerate her". You see, when they use the term "worship" as relating to God, they designate it by the term latria (the term idolatry is derived from this word). The kind of veneration given to the saints is called dulia and because Mary is special, she receives hyperdulia.

This probably sounds like they're throwing terminology around, but if you accuse a Catholic of worshipping Mary and they say "we only venerate her" then it lessens your credibility in their eyes and they have refuted your argument. It's best to use the correct terminology with them.