Yet, if any Proddy dares to form an opinion of a Roman Catholic document, pronoucement, encyclical or page of the Catechism
WITHOUT READING IT,
The wailing is extreme.
In this case, I’ll just note that your assumptions appear to be grossly flawed.
And your seeming resistence to learning something is a bit dreadful.
BTW, this was several notches beyond what has gone before.
Just the fact that CNN covered it as it did should have been some clue . . .
of course . . . only for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
WITHOUT READING IT,
The wailing is extreme.”
Personally speaking some Roman Catholic documents I would be in agreement with, however “sinless” Mary is not one of them.
Rom.3:23
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
The “all” as stated in the New Testament include Mary.
Yes, even in Sir. a book viewed to be UNINSPIRED by both the Jews and Bible based Christians, only the LORD is righteous! Still that escapes Catholics. It is also not an issue of “inference”. You cannot “infer” that Mary is without sin, when you have other verses that clarify Mary. Mary contributed the SIN half of Christ who over came all sin since no other human being could.
Sir.18:2
[2] The Lord only is righteous, and there is none other but he,
Rom.3:10
[10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Again, even in an INSPRIED book of the Bible, Mary is not “righteous” either. The word “none” includes Mary and again this is in the New Testament.
“In this case, I’ll just note that your assumptions appear to be grossly flawed.”
You're “assumptions” have no standing. So you may consider me “flawed”. That's just mild name calling but I can deal with that.
“And your seeming resistence to learning something is a bit dreadful.”
Again, putting people down that don't agree with you is also nothing new. It discredits you but you don't see that since your emotions are ruling you.
Do I need to learn about abortion to figure out if it is wrong? No! I know enough already and the same applies to your pushing UFO and little green men. Yes, I'm sprinkling in some humor about the little green men.
“BTW, this was several notches beyond what has gone before.”
Of course you are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to putting people down and simple minded name calling when others don't agree with you.
“Just the fact that CNN covered it as it did should have been some clue . . .”
Yes, when CNN covers it, it is a huge clue. I don't watch CNN because they have no credibility and I certainly wouldn't give them credibility with this either. Perhaps they are looking for a rating spike? They are in the toilet when it comes to credibility and ratings.
“of course . . . only for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.”
Again, you may believe you are superior if you want to believe in UFS’s and get your news from CNN. I beg to differ however I will not stoop to name calling and ridicule when your “evidence” falls way short and your sources are not credible. Many times people look for attention. Maybe this will satisfy their few minutes of fame and attention.
In this case, I’ll just note that your assumptions appear to be grossly flawed.
And your seeming resistence to learning something is a bit dreadful.
BTW, this was several notches beyond what has gone before.
Just the fact that CNN covered it as it did should have been some clue . . .
of course . . . only for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Thank you!