Are you really unable to see the conflation error in the assertion/question? ... catholiciism uses mother in two different ways but conflates the two in order to promote The Mother of Jesus beyond her human nature, giving her titles made up by the magicsteeringthem and not found anywhere in scripture. A woman can have adopted a fireman as a son without having gestated his body, so that if one parses her to be the biological mother they are in error. But then, ambiguity is the tool of catholic empowerment for the institution.
It is you who are in error. The Catholic church does not use ‘mother’ in any way other than that she bore the human body of Jesus into this world. It is you who limit God’s existence to His human form. You complain that if Mary is God’s mother then she must be responsible for His existence. That is true only if God did not exist until He was incarnate of this world. No Catholic believes or teaches this.
Your attempt to dispute the fireman logic question also fails. If a woman adopted a fireman, then she is still the mother of a fireman and has a fireman as a son.
If you really believe that Jesus is God, then you must be able to use the word God everywhere you use the word Jesus, or else you must not truly believe that Jesus is fully God and fully human. Any objections to the ‘improper’ honors that the Catholic church pays to Mary are unrelated and straw man arguments.
It all comes down to basic logic. Mary is the mother of Jesus, Jesus is God, therefore Mary is the mother of God. To make the jump to ‘therefore Mary is the creator of God’, is illogical, unless you believe mother=creator, which is not true.
Love,
O2