No, there is nothing at all about my statement being contradictory. If Mary was a "birthgiver of God" it implies that Mary, though devout as she was, was nothing more than a vessel serving the Lord. She was still, as we all are, a frail human subject to her corruptable nature. Not to minimize the event but she was simply the birthgiver of our Lord for which she will evermore be bless.
Mary, as "MOTHER of God" and as the term is used, implies she was sinless, contradicting Romans 3:23 where all have sinned. This is the current belief of the Church. Mary is more than a birthgiver. She is sinless perfection and had to be in order to give birth to the Christ and had to remain that way until her death. What's more is that she had to take a vow of never having to have relationships with anyone.
This is far more than "birthgiver of God" and it is this second belief that contradicts what the inspired scriptures plainly state and shows up nowhere in the early traditional beliefs of the Church until many centuries later (something that seems untracible). But who cares what scripture plainly states when we have tradition-as quasi as it may be?
Mary, as "MOTHER of God" and as the term is used, implies she was sinless,
To me it's a separate point and when I use the word "mother" it doesn't carry with it "sinless" only "mother." But I finally see that you do and therefore the term offends.
So it is the Catholic teaching rather than the actual word that you object to. I would wonder then why you would object to the word if it were used by a church not teaching the parts you object to. Or would this be ok?
The rest of the theology is really not my interest here. It's the Incarnation and the important and simple fact that Jesus had a mother.
How about "mother of our Lord"? You are ok with this, yes? It's solely the theological baggage you see with "mother of God." that's the problem, right?
thanks for your reply.