Thanks for the comment . . . evidently it was too much to benefit very many . . . perhaps particularly those most . . . edifiable? by such ponderings? LOL.
I would guess that many still don't have a clue what I was trying to accomplish. But it has to be experienced to be well felt, well understood, I think.
It seems to me . . . that
IF
there were NO DIFFERENCE, NO BENEFIT, NO ACHIEVABLE UPSMANSHIP INVOLVED
IN
the "MOTHER OF GOD" label,
IT WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN USED.
Mother of Jesus would have been sufficient and that would have been the end of it.
But the deification/near deification of Mary REQUIRES 100's of bits and pieces here and there . . .
here a pebble there a pebble . . . constructing her worshipfulness/adorationfulness/supreme-worthiness . . .
her God-like pedestal
and the MOTHER OF GOD one is a pretty big pebble toward that end.
1. If it's no different than MOTHER OF JESUS--USE MOTHER OF JESUS. If there's NO difference, why brook the least chance of offending God and others?
2. IF it IS different--what's the DIFFERENT PURPOSE IT FULFILLS, IF IT'S NOT AN IDOLATROUS ONE? The only plausible difference is an idolatrous one!
3. Subtle to not so subtle propaganda/subliminal mind control is at work in the MOTHER OF GOD label. And it is not just Mary that is being elevated to the God-like stratosphere.
IT IS PARTICULARLY AND PRIMARILY ALL THE HANGERS ON IN THE BUREAUCRATIC EDIFICE CONCOCTING THE NONSENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE. THEIR elevation and fattened coffers therefrom are paramount in the whole thing.
MARY herself knows better and has to be as revolted at the whole mucky bag of nonsense as anyone can be.