Posted on 03/14/2010 12:14:46 PM PDT by NYer
Pretty lousy extensive research dear brother,considering the FACT that they were NOT 3 sisters.The three children were Lúcia Santos and her cousins, siblings Jacinta and Francisco Marto.
On whose research did you rely? In what way did you find it reliable?
I'm very sorry to have uttered the words, “. . . then you [Quix] must be spiritually dead ....” for obviously they have caused you great distress. I was out of line to say what I did. There is no basis for the remark. I guess I was just feeling a little frustrated at that point.... about our seeming lack of a common language....
Perhaps you and I could both agree to take a page out of our dearest sister in Christ Alamo-Girl's book — her metaphor of the gemstones. You and I are different stones, and each of us reflects the "color" characteristic of the refraction-of-light properties particular to the type of stone we "represent." The truly important thing is that the light source refracted through each of us is One Light. THAT is what we must recognize.
Or so it seems to me, dear brother.
Indeed. If one's source cannot give a reliable account of the witnesses, what else are we to find reliable about its account?
In consequence of her experiences at Fatima, Lúcia Santos consecrated her life to the service of Jesus Christ as a Discalced Carmelite nun. She lived a very long time, IIRC.
Also IIRC, either one or both of her cousins — Jacinta and Francisco Marto — died before attaining adulthood.
Whatever. The three witnesses were not three sisters.
What “hate” sites are you stating that I “pimp” for? Who are the “bigots” that I “pimp” for? Please list them or post a link to a post where I have done such. If not, then please apologize to me.
I complied that list of titles from the “Litany of Loreto”, the list created by Meredith Gould, Ph.D. (which she compiled from poetic, devotional titles in Roman Catholic hymns, litanies, novenas, poems, writings of the “saints”, and “Early Church Fathers”), and the Wikipedia entry for “Titles of Mary”.
Which titles are you saying are not of the Roman Catholic Organization? Which are objectionable to you and why?
If you Google “titles of Mary” you will find all these titles and more on just the first few links. Every site I saw was a “Catholic” site who’s purpose is to “venerate” the being they refer to as “Mary”.
Please take a look at these sites for an example:
http://www.ourladyweb.com/mary-titles.html
http://www.mncuf.org/bvm.htm
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/1069/Many_Titles_of_Mary___Meredith_Gould.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Mary
With the exception of the Wiki site, these sites appear to only want to “praise” “Mary”. The Wiki site seems to only want to provide factual information.
You can also Google a specific title and find any number of songs or hymns or prayers meant by their authors to “venerate” “Mary”.
The Mary of the Bible was indeed blessed to be chosen by God to have such a role on this world. It was a great gift. I, however, do not ascribe to the Mary of the Bible the *title* of “Blessed” as there is no reason for it other than idolatry.
It is all to easy to say names like “pimp”, “bigot”, and “hate” in an effort to shut down a communication that was nothing of the sort. Leftists use this Saul Alinsky tactic all the time.
AMEN AMEN AMEN!!!
Thank you. Your kind words mean a lot to me.
You got it in one, Quix.
Thank you for your kind reply.
I'm not allowed to post names or links and I have no intention of apologizing.
I complied that list of titles from the “Litany of Loreto”, the list created by Meredith Gould, Ph.D. (which she compiled from poetic, devotional titles in Roman Catholic hymns, litanies, novenas, poems, writings of the “saints”, and “Early Church Fathers”), and the Wikipedia entry for “Titles of Mary”.
Earlier you said these were titles bestowed by the Church, that's not entirely true now is it?
It is all to easy to say names like “pimp”, “bigot”, and “hate” in an effort to shut down a communication that was nothing of the sort.
You're the one disputing the inerrancy of Scripture.
It is so easy to fall into the idolatry of women. Be it for their beauty, femininity, fertility, mothering aspect, or marital relations aspect. Most religions have had goddesses as their primary focus of worship.
This may stem from a rejection of men or masculinity or jealousy over their apparent authority/favoritism from God. Or perhaps it stems from anger at Christ for coming as a man and not a woman. Or perhaps from anger at God for referring to Himself in the masculine. Or perhaps from anger at God for making man first. Or perhaps from anger at God for making woman as a helpmeet to man. Or perhaps from anger at God for the curse women are currently under due to their part in the Fall. Or perhaps from simple loneliness or rejection or anger at God for loneliness or rejection.
Satan uses these kinds of feelings to assist him in twisting the Truth into what a particular person would rather see as true.
It is far wiser to approach God and ask Him how He feels about women and their place in His Heart. Women do not need to be elevated to goddesses in order to be loved by God. And the manner of woman’s creation and purpose does not require a raise to goddesshood to be acceptable to the woman herself. And, as great as some feel women are, always remember that God created women and He can create stuff *even better* than that. So it is wise to put the Creator of women even higher than you place woman.
Idolatry has to be the hardest trap to get out of. That is probably why God hates it so much. You have to keep reminding yourself that no matter how much you like something, it is NOTHING compared to God. There should never be a question in anyone’s mind that you are putting some created thing before the Creator. The things that He can create have not even been imagined yet by us.
I’m at a loss. Who do you mean is “the Church” if not the followers of your religion? Does everything have to come from just the Pope?
Those titles were used by people the Roman Church refers to as “Saints” and “Church Fathers” as well as Clergy and other offices. Some of them are used as names of Roman Church Buildings.
What exactly is the criteria you are setting to label these titles as not “bestowed by the Church”?
Where have I “disputed the inerrancy of Scripture”? Again, I am going to need a quote or a link to a post where I have done this or you are simply bearing false witness against me.
I would agree.
Where have I “disputed the inerrancy of Scripture”? Again, I am going to need a quote or a link to a post where I have done this or you are simply bearing false witness against me.
Give me ANY LINK to a prior post where you have called the Blessed Mother "blessed" without being prompted, otherwise your words dispute Luke 1:48.
LOL. I figured you would perform an ad hominem on that line, thanks for showing your fruit.
Where is it in the Bible where a person must use the title “Blessed” when referring to the Biblical Mary in any context, let alone all?
The word SHALL means SHALL, it does not mean may.
I assume you won’t be able to provide a link?
The research was great.
I don’t carry a lot of details around in my head that some part of me considers petty.
It appears that I frequently carry far more details around in my head than a lot of folks hereon seem to . . . however, that’s far from everything on a given topic.
“... and why is this granted me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me? Blessed is she who believed ...”
I didn’t see the point of Marian devotion, either - although I had no objections to it for others ;-) - until I had my own children.
I agree - I do not understand why a person would not at least wish to show Jesus’s mother the natural respect we’d show anyone’s mother.
Presumption on your part.
No sweat. I was primarily mystified and wanted to better understand what triggered such a response and what the essence of your message was that I might benefit from understanding better.
In terms of Fatima . . . there were a couple of books that I’d have to track down. I don’t carry their titles around in my head.
I was prepared, when I first investigated the main points of the authors, to see them as sensation seeking and poorly done. I was wrong.
There’s a very significant chunk—a majority—of UFO stuff that is well done, quality, rigorous, thorough, solid etc. And there’s a chunk that’s pretty flakey, full of disinformation etc.
These books and reports were methodically, meticulously and amazingly thoroughly done . . . fairly exhaustively researched and documented.
There are decent summaries available on the net. I probably have the links somewhere. I may try and find them and share them with you. Not likely very quickly, though.
Maybe I’ll try and come up with an analogy, later.
In short—I thought the worst going into the investigation—that is I was greatly biased in favor of the Vatican construction on Fatima.
I HAD to change my perspective because of the evidence and particularly because of the evidence along side of my very extensive knowledge of the UFO topic before hand.
The quality of their effort and the content of their multiplicity of reports was easily convincing given the growing wealth of material on the topic I have carried around in my head for more than 40 years.
INDEED.
I don’t understand your previous post. I had asked you where it was stated in the Bible that a person must use the *title* “Blessed” when referring to the Biblical Mary in any context, let alone all.
It seems to me that demanding a title be used for Mary is just another order for submission to Rome’s edict that Mary be worshiped instead of Christ.
The question needs to be asked. Why does a human need a divine title? In the Bible, Christians are called saints, and the word is never capitalized or used as a title. Mary is referred to as woman, and that is also neither capitalized nor used as a title. In Luke 1:48 the word blessed is also not capitalized or used as a title.
That’s a fault of my faulty memory, not of the sources.
Some details I don’t carry well in my head, particularly long term.
The list of points I typed above were all out of the top of my head. They are essentially accurate. That detail was wrong.
You are welcome to trash my assertions accordingly, if you wish.
I wouldn’t consider it wise, however.
No such edict or even passing suggestion exists, we're done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.