Ummm, nope. Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, not her mother.
Mary's mother is St. Anne (here's a link to an NON-Catholic site with information of Mary's mother, since the Catholic bashers on this thread continually insist that "the Catholics" made up this stuff, when in reality ALL of Christendom proclaimed it early on in Christianity: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Joachim_and_Anna )
The only "logic" on this thread from people objecting to the basic Christian doctrine that Jesus was God when he was in Mary's womb are making bizarrely illogical arguments with "logic" that would conclude:
President Obama's mother must be "greater" than the President, and he must have gotten his presidency from her, since she's accepted as the President's mother (and not merely "Barack Obama's mother").
A fireman's mother must have existed "before there were firemen", since she's recognized as the mother of one.
Angie Jolie must have "created" her Cambodian son that she adopted, she since is universally accepted as his mother.
In short, none of the "logic" objecting to the use of the term "Mother of God" is used in the real world for any motherhood. Contining to make up straw man arguments whose "logic" falls apart in when applied to any other situation isn't helping their cause.
President Obama's mother must be "greater" than the President, and he must have gotten his presidency from her, since she's accepted as the President's mother (and not merely "Barack Obama's mother").
Be careful - many of Barry Hussein Soetoro's acolytes and devotees probably think he is a divine being, at least by looking at their faces, and I'll bet that many of them could be convinced of Ann Dunham special exalted status with your logic.
The problem with your analogy is that Jesus Christ, is 'monogenes'; single, unique, the only one of his kind. He is God incarnate, the God man. Unlike Deity, Presidents and firemen are all created beings who did not preexist so there is generally no ontological confusion or category error when ascribing titles to their mothers.
As far as I can tell there has been only one post on this entire thread by one poster who objects to the basic Christian doctrine that Jesus was God when he was in Mary's womb, and it is because that poster DENIES the Deity of Christ, (and by "Deity" I mean "the state of being God"). None of the other objectors to the ascription, "Mother of God" deny the Deity of Christ, and certainly not the one to whom you replied, so your reference to "... people objecting to the basic Christian doctrine that Jesus was God" is an unresponsive straw man.
And just about this whole thread illustrates daniel1212's point about the general lack of qualifiers in the ascription:
Now if Catholics typically added such a qualifier, that Mary is the mother of God as concerning the flesh (as she provided none of His Divine nature, but which provided her), who is over all, God blessed for ever," then it would be more tolerableRomulus is to be credited (at least on this point if not on other points:^) for providing the necessary qualifiers (at #359, 360 & 362), but generally it's like pulling teeth to get some RC's to even acknowledge the necessary ontological distinctions.
That there are difficulties inherent with the "Mother of God" descriptor is also evident from daniel1212 sourced list of instances of "hyper-exaltation" of Mary, which are factual instances and not merely hypothetical consequences of the practice, and to this documentation you made no response.
Cordially,
Correct (congrats) but so is the logic regardless with Anne being the grandmother of God, and so forth back to Eve.
(here's a link to an NON-Catholic site with information of Mary's mother,
Many if not most of the Orthodox would object to you denying they are Catholic. At least they seem to prefer Theotokos.
The only "logic" on this thread from people objecting to the basic Christian doctrine that Jesus was God when he was in Mary's womb
And where was I objecting to that, versus an extrascriptural misleading unqualified term?
making bizarrely illogical arguments with "logic" that would conclude: President Obama's mother must be "greater" than the President,
Wrong, and an illogical argument, since you are confusing a name which denotes a unique being due to possessing an uncreated nature with title of an elected position which has nothing to due with nature. If the objection was to Mary being called the mother of the Savior then your logic would be valid.
A fireman's mother must have existed "before there were firemen", since she's recognized as the mother of one.
Likewise invalid, as this also is the title of a occupation, not a title denoting a unique nature no one can ontologically be the mother of. If a ewe gave birth to a lamb that was God in nature who created the sheep, but was incarnated thru the ewe, and the latter was called the Mother of God, then it would be logically analogous to Mary being called "Mother of God," and just as misleading.
Angie Jolie must have "created" her Cambodian son that she adopted, she since is universally accepted as his mother.
But she well could have authored his Cambodian nature thru a Cambodian father, yet the son could not have created his mother, while Mary could not have contributed something to the Divinity of Christ, yet who made her.
In addition, adoption of humans is a common thing, nor is she uniquely titled "Mother of Cambodian," and while her contributing to his racial nature would not be unique, yet a qualifying aspect to her being described as his mother would often still be in order for adoption. And if so, then how much the more with the unique title "Mother of God." But instead of even that, man should respect the use of terms which the Spirit uses in describing Deity.
In a rare instance of a mild form of reproof of excessive Marian exaltation, no less a devotee of Mary than Cardinal Ratzinger at least recognized that the title “Co-redemptrix” “departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings”
He went on to say that, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language” - God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306
What Ratzinger reasoned based upon the "language of Scripture and that of the Fathers" applies to Mother of God" as concerns the language of Scripture.
In short, none of the "logic" objecting to the use of the term "Mother of God" is used in the real world for any motherhood
Rather, it is your analogies that manifest illogic.