Christian Views on Homosexuality

[logical4u]

Who would be the second, other than Jesus?

Mary, she was full of grace (according to G*d's messenger).

No where in the Bible does it say that Mary never sinned or was without sin.

(that is a catholic church doctrine and not biblical)

What does "full of grace" mean to you? She was incapable of sin.

 

[Sunni Man]

Mary, she was full of grace (according to G*d's messenger).

No where in the Bible does it say that Mary never sinned or was without sin.

(that is a catholic church doctrine and not biblical)

What does "full of grace" mean to you? She was incapable of sin.

Having grace is not the same as never sinning.

Grace is forgivness for sinners and sin.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary was: incapable of sin, never sinned, born without sin, or died without ever sinning.

 

[logical4u]

No where in the Bible does it say that Mary never sinned or was without sin.

(that is a catholic church doctrine and not biblical)

What does "full of grace" mean to you? She was incapable of sin.

Having grace is not the same as never sinning.

Grace is forgivness for sinners and sin.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary was: incapable of sin, never sinned, born without sin, or died without ever sinning.

I thought forgiveness was used seperately from grace. Can you name anyone else in the Bible that was described as "full of grace"?

 

[Sunni Man]

I thought forgiveness was used seperately from grace. Can you name anyone else in the Bible that was described as "full of grace"?

The Bible and "full of grace"

The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos" and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).

"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?

The Latin Vulgate and other translations

The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena "Hail full of grace.'" Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation. Of course, it cannot correct itself since so much is invested in the worship, adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church and to recant of this false teaching would greatly lessen its credibility. Unfortunately, this means that millions of Catholics will continue to look to Mary for help, not Christ who is truly full of grace.

 

[logical4u]

I thought forgiveness was used seperately from grace. Can you name anyone else in the Bible that was described as "full of grace"?

The Bible and "full of grace"

The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos" and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).

"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?

The Latin Vulgate and other translations

The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena "Hail full of grace.'" Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation. Of course, it cannot correct itself since so much is invested in the worship, adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church and to recant of this false teaching would greatly lessen its credibility. Unfortunately, this means that millions of Catholics will continue to look to Mary for help, not Christ who is truly full of grace.

The Catholic Bible is the Bible that all other Christian Bibles used as a model. Those sects, chose to use only some languages, arguing the NT originals should have been in Greek, ignoring the fact that Jerusalem was a Roman occupied territory and Paul (Saul) was a Roman citizen, and would therefore know Latin. Peter, also went to Rome, and probably communicated in Latin. Other Bibles were selectively edited to strengthen the "creed" of the sects' originators.

The Catholic doctrine does not promote the "worship" of Mary. It honors her. As far as talking to her, Catholics believe that the saints are not dead. Since they are alive, Catholics do not see anything wrong with asking them (the saints) to pray for particular people (living on earth or in the afterlife), the same way you would ask a neighbor (the saints, including Mary, are proven to be in favor with the Lord) to pray for you. The Catholic doctrine has NO declaration that Mary is god, or part god. She is the mother of our Lord, and as such, she is give honor and gratitude. Her Son is the Son of the Father, and is our Savior.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You know what I find funny? I find it funny that self labeled atheist are the ones that tend to exalt "scientist" to GOD levels. You believe in everything "scientists" tell you, you want those beliefs translated into law enforced by the government, how are you different from the people you criticize? On another thread you wanted a mandate from the government that all people should drive little electric cars because your gods have told you that our use of fossil fuel is destroying the planet, causing "global warming"...... or is it global cooling, I lose track. This garbage being perpetuated by your gods has more to do with government grants than it has to do with science. AlGore has become extremely rich pushing your religion on all of us, how is he any different than a ripoff televangelist?

Those who wish to understand reality (aka scientists) are required to provide evidence and/or proof to support the logic of their conclusions. Many, many other scientists test those initial claims for validity. After verification, it's all written down in books for everyone else to read with references to all information which was used in the conclusion. Those tests of validity continue as scientists do further research and make more discoveries.

None of it is taken strictly on faith. Some people may believe scientists as an appeal to authority, but many many more do not.

There is much supporting evidence that the Big Band was the first event. There is much supporting evidence that life developed from primordial ooze. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence and almost undeniable logic which supports evolution through natural selection. There is a lot of supporting evidence for global warming (I've seen this evidence myself with the recently and rapid recession of alpine glaciers). A lot of that evidence tends to show that global warming and cooling is a natural trend, however, this trend has in the last century been greatly accelerated. The evidence supporting that claim shows that the acceleration is caused by human beings in industrialized cultures.

I don't just believe Al Gore out of faith. I was aware of accelerated global warming before Al Gore took that as his cause.

I've studied astrophysics and quantum physics, geology, anthropology (cultural and physical), biology, and many other fields of study as I am a curious being and a voracious reader, critical thinker, a person with an analytical mind, and would consider myself and have been considered by most of my teachers and college professors as a highly intelligent person. I'm educated. And that education, along with my personal and life experiences lead me to the conclusion that religion has it wrong, is harmful for the progression of humankind as a civilized, rational race of beings and that science, however mistaken it could be, is most likely more closely aligned with reality than stories in a book that is almost 2,000 years old and which does not benefit, as there are no revisions, from the discoveries and advances humankind has made since its first edition.

Because of ALL of that, and more, there are very sound reasons for codifying rational laws that truly protect people and protect life on this planet.

 

[Setarcos]

Who would be the second, other than Jesus?

Mary, she was full of grace (according to G*d's messenger).

No where in the Bible does it say that Mary never sinned or was without sin.

(that is a catholic church doctrine and not biblical)

Nowhere does the Torah predict a virgin birth. That was a creation of the early churches.

 

[Sunni Man]

Because of ALL of that, and more, there are very sound reasons for codifying rational laws that truly protect people and protect life on this planet.

Just more evidence that Secular Humanism is a religion.

Although there is no deity involved.

It has a set of beliefs that it's devoted adherents seek to codify and force all of humanity to blindly follow.

 

[Setarcos]

Because of ALL of that, and more, there are very sound reasons for codifying rational laws that truly protect people and protect life on this planet.

Just more evidence that Secular Humanism is a religion.

Although there is no deity involved.

It has a set of beliefs that it's devoted adherents seek to codify and force all of humanity to blindly follow.

Wow...

The words you quoted say nothing of secular humanism. They merely recognize the reality of social contract and mutual cooperation.


Would you prefer to codify and enforce nonsensical laws given by some guy one a mountain who heard voices?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Because of ALL of that, and more, there are very sound reasons for codifying rational laws that truly protect people and protect life on this planet.

Just more evidence that Secular Humanism is a religion.

Although there is no deity involved.

It has a set of beliefs that it's devoted adherents seek to codify and force all of humanity to blindly follow.

Secular Humanism isn't something one blindly follows, such as a religion. Secular humanism uses reasoning, logic, and rational thought for the foundation of its principals. Its a philosophy, not a religion.

If you want to be educated and know what your talking about, here is a link to begin your quest for knowledge:

Secular Humanist

The basic tenets of secular humanism are

1. Humans have value and can solve human problems.
2. Science, free speech, democracy, rational thought, and freedom in the arts go together.
3. There is nothing supernatural.

Secular humanism is a philosophical school of thought that advocates the use of reason, compassion, scientific inquiry, ethics, justice, and equality. It appeals to agnostics, atheists, freethinkers, rationalists, skeptics, and materialists.

George Jacob Holyoake created the term “secularism” in 1846 in order to describe “a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life.”

Secular humanism organization can be found in all parts of the world: India, China, Australia, Europe, and North America. Summer and winter solstices are special days for secular humanists, as is Charles Darwin’s Birthday. Darwin was born on February 12, 1809. Secular humanists celebrate Darwin’s use of human reason and empirical science.

Since Secular Humanists do not believe in life after death, many are active in organizations that relieve human suffering. These include rights of refugees, anti-death penalty, and environmental groups. They believe not in God, but that people create their own meaning in life.

Secular Humanism often finds itself in conflict with religious fundamentalism over the issue of separation of church and state. Secular humanists see religious fundamentalists as superstitious, regressive, and closed minded. Fundamentalists believe that as non-believers, secular humanists are a threat as outlined in books such as the Bible and the Qur’an.