Praying to Mary

1123heavy

lazybones32 wrote: »

Are you a Sunni Muslim, 1123heavy? I ask only because I thought Ashura (had to look the name up) was a day of atoning/cleansing of sin that applied to all Islam.

I'm not too fond of the "sunni"/"shia" thing as I believe we were only ever given one faith, but that is a thread in itself, I would be what you would call sunni yes.

The day of Ashura (literally "the tenth") is a day which we may choose to fast on in commemeration of God saving the children of Israel from pharoah. The reward for fasting this day is that God wipes all our minor sins (eg lying etc) from the previous year.

lazybones32

Thank you. I know little of Islam and all I could find about that festival mentioned Shia's only, so I asked.

1123heavy

lazybones32 wrote: »

Thank you. I know little of Islam and all I could find about that festival mentioned Shia's only, so I asked.

Unfortunately Ashura gets a lot of bad press because shias use it as a day to self harm and pour their own blood into the streets, this is actually a sin in Islam, but again, another thread would be required. The sunni and shia reasons for Ashura being a special day are not the same though. Sunnis commemorate and fast the day to commemorate the children of Israel gaining freedom, it's the anniversary of it, that reason gets next to no press unfortunately.

Leroy42

1123heavy wrote: »

The day of Ashura (literally "the tenth") is a day which we may choose to fast on in commemeration of God saving the children of Israel from pharoah. The reward for fasting this day is that God wipes all our sins from the previous year.

Really? So you can do whatever you like and just do a fast and you are in the clear. That is a pretty nice little loophole. So do all prisoners etc get pardoned the next day?

1123heavy

Leroy42 wrote: »

Really? So you can do whatever you like and just do a fast and you are in the clear. That is a pretty nice little loophole. So do all prisoners etc get pardoned the next day?

I've corrected my post on this, no that isn't correct. It's minor sins. In Islam, if you have wronged another person, then as well as God's forgiveness, you need the forgiveness of the person you have wronged. Prisoners who are in for murder will not have their sin of murder forgiven for fasting a day.

Leroy42

Ah, thank you for the clarification. Seemed a bit strange alright.

looksee

Leroy42 wrote: »

Really? So you can do whatever you like and just do a fast and you are in the clear. That is a pretty nice little loophole. So do all prisoners etc get pardoned the next day?

Sounds like a close parallel to Catholicism, confess your sins and do a penance and you have a clean slate, but it would not be a get out of gaol free card.

uck51js9zml2yt

1123heavy wrote: »

I've corrected my post on this, no that isn't correct. It's minor sins. In Islam, if you have wronged another person, then as well as God's forgiveness, you need the forgiveness of the person you have wronged. Prisoners who are in for murder will not have their sin of murder forgiven for fasting a day.

You see, that's the difference with Christianity.
Jesus Christ died to forgive ALL sin. No sin is beyond the grave and forgiveness of God.

Leroy42

Leia Nutritious Murk wrote: »

You see, that's the difference with Christianity.
Jesus Christ died to forgive ALL sin. No sin is beyond the grave and forgiveness of God.

Which sins did he forgive though? Can't be all sins as otherwise why are we sinners?

Nick Park

Leroy42 wrote: »

Which sins did he forgive though? Can't be all sins as otherwise why are we sinners?

We are forgiven sinners. And thank God for that!

Giacomo McGubbin

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have to say this thread has both educated me and confused me.

Educated me in that I didn't know that protestants didn't pray to Mary, it's not something I ever thought, about but makes perfect sense.

But some Protestants, in particular Anglicans do. Our lady of Walsingham being a classic example.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Confused in that praying to Mary does seem somewhat blasphemous and is strange that Catholics are brought up with such regard for Mary. It nothing to do with her sinlessness, or whatever, but Jesus said that the only way to God is through him and yet we (Catholics) decided to expand that.

Firstly blasphemy is the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things. Secondly the word pray means to ask, as in 'pray tell'. Asking someone to pray for you, whether they be your friend, or a saint or Mary is not worshiping them.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It must be annoying to God that He created the universe, sent his only Son down to atone for our sins and then Catholics decide that Mary deserves some credit when really what did she do, and what can she do?

In short she trusted God (unlike Eve), and she gave her consent 'fiat' to let it be.
Another example is that she approached Christ on behalf of the wedding couple and Christ, despite being reluctant to carried out her request.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So by praying to Mary are we actually going against the very teachings of the bible? As was mentioned, with a direct line to God through Jesus why bother with Mary (the middle man so to speak)

We don't, we also go directly, as well as also, if we wish, asking other people to pray for us. You can be a devout Catholic your entire life and never have to say a single prayer to Mary or any other saint, it's entirely optional.

Leia Nutritious Murk wrote: »

The problem lies in Mary being given the title of Co- Redemptrix, Queen of Heaven, ever virgin.

Firstly she hasn't been given this title by the Church. Some speculative theologians have used this description during their speculation, that does not mean it's in any way a doctrine. Also co-redemtrix refers to the theology concerning her co-operation with our redemption, and unlike you're trying to twist, does not claim she is a co-redeemer on a level with Christ. But anti-Catholic sectarians prefer to leave out these facts when misrepresenting it.

Leia Nutritious Murk wrote: »

As for ever virgin, the Bible clearly states that Joseph did not "know" Mary until after Jesus was born, The word "know" being used in relation to them having sexual relations. There is also a mention of the names of Jesus' siblings in the Gospels and that information the crowd gave Jesus that His mother and brothers were outside.

The translation of until has been used in other contexts as well throughout scripture without meaning the contrary. In that culture, the word brother was also used for cousins and half brothers.

Leia Nutritious Murk wrote: »

The RCC wants to tell us that there are Mediators other than Jesus in Heaven. The Bible says that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men, I'm fairly sure that if there were any more, then they wold have been included in the Bible, particularly in relation to Mary.

This is yet another misrepresentation of Catholicism. Many Christian denominations have their ministers. Christ is the only mediator between God and men, it's doesn't mean that no man may act as the apostles did, baptising, forgiving sins, curing the sick, all by the power and authority of Christ and the Holy Spirit, through them.

Leia Nutritious Murk wrote: »

Before anyone says.."what do I know about Roman Catholicism"...I was RC for a good many years and am very familiar with it.

You are from the diocese of Rome in Italy ?
I'm not a "Roman" Catholic. I'm not from the diocese of Rome. I'm an Irish Catholic.
The Church uses the term very occasionally to refer to the diocese of Rome. Sectarians in this part of world (mostly UK and NI) use it however in a sectarian manner just like Paisley did for years, shouting the word ROMAN out whenever he could when referring to Catholics.

It's very easy to tell btw between those who are using it in a sectarian and derogatory manner and those who use it merely because they are not familiar with the nuances of the term.

Regarding your claim about being "very familiar with it". Your posts prove otherwise. You may have been a cultural Catholic once, but now you're only interested in peddling false claims and sectarianism about Catholicism and making up what it teaches. I seen enough anti-Catholic sectarianism, and false claims about Catholics and what they believed in Northern Ireland and where it lead.

I've no issue with Christians preferring their own denomination (nor do I care what religion or non religion anyone is), but to do nothing here other than continually soapbox false claims about other Christian denominations and what they believe is not very Christian. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if false claims were made about your Church and what it teaches. "Do unto others . . . "

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

Which sins did he forgive though? Can't be all sins as otherwise why are we sinners?

All through the Bible we see that He was Gods Sacrifice for Sin.

His death made it possible for God to forgive all sin.

It doesnt make us not sinners. It makes us sinners who have a Saviour, capable of forgiving our sin if we repent.

1123heavy

looksee wrote: »

Sounds like a close parallel to Catholicism, confess your sins and do a penance and you have a clean slate, but it would not be a get out of gaol free card.

It is not a parallel with Catholicism, we do not confess our sins with anyone else other than God, he can forgive without us fasting or having to do anything, we can simply ask for it, we speak to God acknowledging we have signed, we say what we did, we ask sincerely for his forgiveness and make a promise we intend to keep to not go back to it, and that is the method for repentance. However, as a means of attempting to make up for a bad deed we may do a good deed to counter it. God has also outlined many things we can do that help expiate our sins which maybe we didnt get forgiven for when asked (could be out of insincere initial repentance).

Leroy42

Leia Nutritious Murk wrote: »

It doesnt make us not sinners. It makes us sinners who have a Saviour, capable of forgiving our sin if we repent.

So Jesus dying didn't forgive us our sins, but gives us a chance to? Which was the position before he died wasn't it?

1123heavy

Leia Nutritious Murk wrote: »

You see, that's the difference with Christianity.
Jesus Christ died to forgive ALL sin. No sin is beyond the grave and forgiveness of God.

You seem to take the assumption that only minor sins can be forgiven in Islam, thus limiting our ability to repentance. This is incorrect. There is no sin whatsoever that cannot be forgiven by God as long as you don't associate partners with him, which for a Muslim means there is no sin that cannot be forgiven. The Quran tells us "he forgives all sins".

However not all sins are to be classed the same when it comes to murdering someone or harming somebody else, then you need that person's forgiveness too in Islam. And this is entirely necessary, because otherwise it would mean that some of the most evil people who have ever lived will be granted access to Heaven, just because they believe Jesus died on the cross for them. This does not seem right, that would not be justice. Because if true, then that means Hitler for example has heaven to look forward to, that seems most unjust, however Islam says "no, what about the 6 million innocents he murdered?", and they will get a say. To me that is true justice.

1123heavy

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Jesus dying didn't forgive us our sins, but gives us a chance to? Which was the position before he died wasn't it?

Atonement in christianity is not something I have ever fully understood, and in all honesty I even had a priest once struggle to answer my questions.

Jesus died for our sins, yet we still have to repent?

We have the sickness and Jesus takes the tablet?

God can do anything, he is Almighty, yet he couldn't just forgive ? There had to be a death? What about everyone from Adam until Jesus' pbuh alleged crucifixion?

This lead a priest trying to explain how we are all sinners from birth, which i find astonishing how anyone thinks that is fair ... then I found out it's because our great ancestor Adam pbuh ate from the tree, I simply asked if he would be happy to be held accountable for what crimes his great grandad may have committed and if he felt a fair judge would do that. The conversation ended there.

And I didnt even ask why any other human couldn't die, why it had to be Jesus, I would have been told because his blood is special because he's God and it needed a major sacrifice, then upon asking how could God die, be told that God didnt die, so then why couldn't someone else have died if God didnt actually die in the end? One minute God is the sacrifice, the next minute he isn't the sacrifice and he never died, just the human form of Jesus (when asked how God could die of course).

Yes I have noticed the major thread drift, do feel free to delete as you see fit, mods .

Giacomo McGubbin

1123heavy wrote: »

Atonement in christianity is not something I have ever fully understood, and in all honesty I even had a priest once struggle to answer my questions.

Jesus died for our sins, yet we still have to repent?

We have the sickness and Jesus takes the tablet?

God can do anything, he is Almighty, yet he couldn't just forgive ? There had to be a death? What about everyone from Adam until Jesus' pbuh alleged crucifixion?

This lead a priest trying to explain how we are all sinners from birth, which i find astonishing how anyone thinks that is fair ... then I found out it's because our great ancestor Adam pbuh ate from the tree, I simply asked if he would be happy to be held accountable for what crimes his great grandad may have committed and if he felt a fair judge would do that. The conversation ended there.

And I didnt even ask why any other human couldn't die, why it had to be Jesus, I would have been told because his blood is special because he's God and it needed a major sacrifice, then upon asking how could God die, be told that God didnt die, so then why couldn't someone else have died if God didnt actually die in the end? One minute God is the sacrifice, the next minute he isn't the sacrifice and he never died, just the human form of Jesus (when asked how God could die of course).

Yes I have noticed the major thread drift, do feel free to delete as you see fit, mods .

You or the your version of 'the Priest' story don't seem to understand the concept of original sin. There is no guilt associated with original sin for the rest of humanity or passed on to them, the guilt is Adam and Eves, but there are the inherited effects of sin as a result, and a weakened nature contracted through no fault of our own. Including death, which Christ permanently defeated for all of us. Through Adam and Eve's choice to not trust God and trust Satan's "advice" instead, sin, disorder death and chaos has been released into the world (once you release it you can't put it back in the bottle), and we've contracted spiritual HIV if you will, not the fault of the child or because of any action they did, and Christ is the cure. As you said this is going off topic.

1123heavy

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

the guilt is Adam and eves, but there are the inherited effects of sin as a result, and a weakened nature contracted through no fault of our own. Including death ...

Inherited affects as a result? Why and how is any connection between us and Adam's sin fair?

"The one who sins is the one who shall die" Ezekiel 18:20

Jesus saved us from a death Adam gave to us? Why were we ever given that as a punishment when we never played any part in it?

Scripture says everyone is responsible for themselves and no one has an affect on anyone else.

Giacomo McGubbin

1123heavy wrote: »

Inherited affects as a result? Why and how is any connection between us and Adam's sin fair?

"The one who sins is the one who shall die" Ezekiel 18:20

Jesus saved us from a death Adam gave to us? Why were we ever given that as a punishment when we never played any part in it?

Scripture says everyone is responsible for themselves and no one has an affect on anyone else.

It isn't a "punishment". If you pass HIV or disease onto your child, it isn't "being punished", it suffering the consequences of your actions and your choice. The child has to live with the effects/weakness and can choose to do good or bad in turn when they reach the age of reason. Scripture only "says that" if you try to quote a few lines out of context, and refuse to examine it as a whole. What people chose to do does have an effect on others.

Leroy42

Hold on, but didn't Jesus die to save us, so get rid of the sin of Adam? So we no longer have that sin?

If Jesus wasn't taking that sin, that what sins was he taking? And for whom? Those who had already died and so already in hell, those who were present at the time or those of the future? Or all three?

1123heavy

Giacomo, you're saying others suffered due to Adam's actions, I don't believe a fair God would have that as being the way things are done. This idea of thinking only comes after the alleged crucifixion and the church were deciding what it is they will belie, it contradicts all previous thought regarding who is responsible and feels the affect when a sin is committed.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hold on, but didn't Jesus die to save us, so get rid of the sin of Adam? So we no longer have that sin?

Yes you're right. Though you will be told you don't know anything about original sin when you try to highlight the flawed logic behind it.

Giacomo McGubbin

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hold on, but didn't Jesus die to save us, so get rid of the sin of Adam? So we no longer have that sin?

No, he didn't get rid of any sin, origional or otherwise, sin is still man's choice as the origional introduction of sin was Adam's. Christ showed us how to ultimately defeat it and it's effects and obtain eternal life with God if we choose so. We now have the choice to defeat the sin and death Adam and Eve chose to unleash. Easter is not just about good friday, it's far more about Easter Sunday.

Leroy42 wrote: »

If Jesus wasn't taking that sin, that what sins was he taking? And for whom? Those who had already died and so already in hell, those who were present at the time or those of the future? Or all three?

All of the above, but every man will also be judged and pay the penalty for any sins of his own that he has not sought forgiveness and repetance for. In otherwords you can still choose to reject the gift of eternal life now being open to man once more.

1123heavy wrote: »

Giacomo, you're saying others suffered due to Adam's actions, I don't believe a fair God would have that as being the way things are done.

Then by your logic, God does not exist, because people suffer every day because of what other people choose to do.

1123heavy wrote: »

Yes you're right. Though you will be told you don't know anything about original sin when you try to highlight the flawed logic behind it.

No, you will be factually told you know nothing about it when you admit you don't understand it and then in the same post go on to attempt to misrepresent it.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

When did this thread become an Islam vs Christianity thread?

Also after reading through the arguments that have been presented they seen very typical Zakir Naik and dawah stand arguments.

I mean it is unreasonable to quote from Ezekiel and not consider the whole book. Including the problem of the Israelites sin in chapter 10 when the glory of the Lord departed from the temple, including Ezekiel 34 which stresses the need for a new king who will be both God Himself and a descendant from David (I wonder who that could be!), and also including Ezekiel 36 which stresses the need for a new heart, and a new Spirit within us to live rightly rather than just being cleaned of our sin. If our heart doesn't change we will still sin. (Jesus ties this into His death in John 3). Just because the OT says forgiveness is available that doesn't mean the cross is unnecessary. Isaiah amongst other OT books are clear that forgiveness comes through sacrifice. Ultimately in the sacrifice of Jesus.

What I would say to you is please leave the Zakir Naik stuff and the dawah stuff at home. To be frank it's all nonsense that isn't considered in context.

Works based religion of all shapes and forms doesn't save anyone.

We need a new thread for this as I've said already.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

looksee

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

When did this thread become an Islam vs Christianity thread?

Also after reading through the arguments that have been presented they seen very typical Zakir Naik and dawah stand arguments.


What I would say to you is please leave the Zakir Naik stuff and the dawah stuff at home. To be frank it's all nonsense that isn't considered in context.

Works based religion of all shapes and forms doesn't save anyone.

We need a new thread for this as I've said already.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

This is not Christianity v. Islam, it is a Muslim offering an opinion on the bible, which he is entitled to do - you will find Christians with loads of opinions on the Quran. Of course you think he is wrong, that's because you are a Christian and he is a Muslim. The arguments on both sides look equally improbable to me.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

I mean it is unreasonable to quote from Ezekiel and not consider the whole book.
solodeogloria

Solo, that really is a bit hypocritical to say that since you are very fond of quoting various passages from the bible to suit your our argument, whilst leaving out glaring contradictions from other parts.

An extreme example being that many christians like to discount the OT as not to be taken literally (the whole killing and murder, slavery, women being treated as property etc) whilst taking every word written in the NT as, excuse the pun, gospel.

Leroy42

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

No, he didn't get rid of any sin, origional or otherwise, sin is still man's choice as the origional introduction of sin was Adam's. Christ showed us how to ultimately defeat it and it's effects and obtain eternal life with God if we choose so. We now have the choice to defeat the sin and death Adam and Eve chose to unleash. Easter is not just about good friday, it's far more about Easter Sunday.

So Jesus was cruxified, sacrificed really, to show us that death can lead to eternal life? But only if we believe in him. So all those that have never heard of Jesus are condemned and his sacrifice was a waste?

Then I really don't understand what the cruxifixtion was about at all, I was totally misunderstanding it. I thought that by dying, Jesus took away the sins of the world but is that not right?

I do get it that the the resurrection is also a vital part, but a different part and not something I brought up so we can park that for the moment.

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

All of the above, but every man will also be judged and pay the penalty for any sins of his own that he has not sought forgiveness and repetance for. In otherwords you can still choose to reject the gift of eternal life now being open to man once more.

But we also have the pay the penalty for Adams sins. And why just Adam, why not everyone's sins? Adam choose to reject God, but so do many others. Do I also have to repent for their sins as well?

If repenting your sins and believing in God gets you absolved of sin then do you not think Adam has already been absolved. I mean, it is clear he believed in God (he had direct link to him) and since he was kicked out of Eden surely he regretting it and saw the error of his ways. Are we supposed to believe that despite knowing of God existence and knowing the direct result of his sin he wouldn't repent?

And Jesus death throws up the issue of timing. By his death and resurrection he showed us the path to God, but what about all the people who had already died before that. Do they get a second chance to repent? Seems a bit unfair to not allow them, but on the other hand if they were in hell then believing in God isn't really belief any more, the evidence is there.

But if they are allowed a second chance then why not the rest of us? So I go through life totally unrepentant, not believing in God, but I can pretty much guarantee that if I find myself in hell I'd believe then. So why wouldn't God allow me to repent and therefore go to heaven?

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

Solo, that really is a bit hypocritical to say that since you are very fond of quoting various passages from the bible to suit your our argument, whilst leaving out glaring contradictions from other parts.

An extreme example being that many christians like to discount the OT as not to be taken literally (the whole killing and murder, slavery, women being treated as property etc) whilst taking every word written in the NT as, excuse the pun, gospel.

Good afternoon!

If I have quoted anything without considering its book context or whole Bible context on this forum please tell me where I've done this.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

If I have quoted anything without considering its book context or whole Bible context on this forum please tell me where I've done this.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Apologies, it is not meant in a bad way, I am not having a go. People use the bible in many different ways to back up their particular viewpoint is the point I was trying to make.

I don't have any examples, as I couldn't know that. You quote passages from the bible to back up your point and so did they. What is different?

The only issue I see is that their argument is not in line with yours so you blame it on context.

We all know that the bible itself is a very complex and extremely adjustable book, depending on the outcome that you want. You can read many passages and take more than one meaning.

God demands Abraham kills his son, only to relent at the last second. Some see this as God testing Abraham devotion to him, others see it as Abraham willing to ignore Gods rules in search of a closer relationship with God. The point is not what the passages means, but rather that the same passage can be taken n various ways and will be taken in line with your overall belief.

So of course they used a passage to paint a negative picture, just like many others ignore these more negative aspects to focus on the message of love & peace.

Giacomo McGubbin

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Jesus was cruxified, sacrificed really, to show us that death can lead to eternal life? But only if we believe in him. So all those that have never heard of Jesus are condemned and his sacrifice was a waste?

Then I really don't understand what the cruxifixtion was about at all, I was totally misunderstanding it. I thought that by dying, Jesus took away the sins of the world but is that not right?

I do get it that the the resurrection is also a vital part, but a different part and not something I brought up so we can park that for the moment.

You can't separate the resurrection from Christ death. Christ, a completely innocent lamb to to the slaughter and was executed by man for saying and being the truth. Pilot asked 'what is truth', as the truth stood in front of him . . . but you can't kill the truth. Prior to Christ's sacrifice, the result of sin, as you see all through the old testament, is death, both physical and spiritual. Now that Christ has defeated death, even though a man commits sin, he may still achieve eternal life, provided he repents of his own sins and spiritually evolves.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But we also have the pay the penalty for Adams sins. And why just Adam, why not everyone's sins? Adam choose to reject God, but so do many others. Do I also have to repent for their sins as well?

If repenting your sins and believing in God gets you absolved of sin then do you not think Adam has already been absolved. I mean, it is clear he believed in God (he had direct link to him) and since he was kicked out of Eden surely he regretting it and saw the error of his ways. Are we supposed to believe that despite knowing of God existence and knowing the direct result of his sin he wouldn't repent?

You're accountable for your own sins and the effects your sin has on others. You may be forgiven for your sins, but the effects remain. If someone murders someone and then later in life repents, the effects, the murder, still remain.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And Jesus death throws up the issue of timing. By his death and resurrection he showed us the path to God, but what about all the people who had already died before that. Do they get a second chance to repent? Seems a bit unfair to not allow them, but on the other hand if they were in hell then believing in God isn't really belief any more, the evidence is there.

But if they are allowed a second chance then why not the rest of us? So I go through life totally unrepentant, not believing in God, but I can pretty much guarantee that if I find myself in hell I'd believe then. So why wouldn't God allow me to repent and therefore go to heaven?

They were allowed the same chance as everyone else. Christ descended to the realm of the dead and released those who died before he defeated death, and who's lives and repentance merited eternal life now, from that permanent death.

- None of this has anything to do with the thread and all this discussion should be posted elsewhere. Start a new thread please.

LordSutch

I pray to God (exclusively).