Bible verses Pope. Who is wrong?

[polonius]

Is the Bible or the Pope in error here?

Romans 3:23 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
" since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

OR

Ineffabilis Deus
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception (December 8, 1854)
“Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully.�

[Divine Insight]

What is wrong with us creating ourselves?? Was that not intended ?

Then you become the "Creator" not God.

It seems you believe that if somehow a higher power exists, he should save you from your self?

Absolutely. Especially if the higher power is the one who created me. That's paramount right there.

I will agree that under certain circumstances the creator could allow you to hurt yourself. However, the Biblical God does not qualify for those circumstances. So there's no point in discussing that possibility when discussing the Biblical God.

All I need to consider is whether a creator God would be as loving and caring and moral as myself if I were in his place. If the answer is no (which it definitely is in the case of the Biblical God) then the Biblical theology fails because it requires that its God isn't even as loving, caring, or moral as myself.

Also, you can't ignore the omniscient and omnipotent powers this God is supposed to have. There is no excuse for this supposedly omniscient omnipotent God to not have the time to spend with every single human "soul" that he either creates or allows to be created.

In fact, I hold that if he's too busy to personally mentor every single soul he creates or allows to be created, then he's being irresponsible. Why should he allow for more souls to be created than he can tend to himself?

Besides, to even claim that this would be too much for God, or that we shouldn't expect God to keep tabs on every single person because this is "too much to ask of him", flies in the face of his supposed omniscience and omnipotence.

This is where Christian Theology wants to have its cake and eat it too:

"With God all things are possible",... EXCEPT,... God is too busy to be bothered keeping track of every single individual 100% of the time.

And, "Oh by the way,... God knows every thought you have and watches everything you do, so there's no escaping his omniscient Big Brother presence".

Sorry, but if you can't see the contradictory nature of this theology I just don't know what else to say.

If the God is truly omniscient and omnipotent then he has no excuse for not protecting innocent people 100% of the time.

And if he's not omniscient and omnipotent, then he's irresponsible in allowing more human souls to be created than he can keep track of.

There's just no excuse for this theology. It's a failed theology. Face it.

It's a theology that is based on extreme self-contradictory claims that simply don't hold up under careful analysis.

The little girl who suffers for her entire life because of a purely innocent accident has absolutely NOTHING to do with sin, or evil choices, or anything like that.

So this theology is without excuse. Free Will as an apology fails miserably.

Free Will cannot save this crippled theology.

[brianbbs67]

You covered a lot of ground. Here is my condensed Apology.

Basically, I think your are saying since God created all this He should intervene every time something bad comes along Despite the fact we have caused it by our choices? Or due to our condition as living here?

When the brakes on your car wear out, should you blame the manufacturer and have them fix it for free?

As to innocents being hurt, you do realize that would mean God would have to control every aspect of life? I would not want that. What life would that be? I like my freedom but know it has a cost.

I am sorry for you that you can't hear or see when He acts or speaks. Because He does.

There is a creator for sure. As nothing can not create anything, as it is nothing. It is something, what? I do not know for sure. But, it is something or we would not be here.

[Divine Insight]

You covered a lot of ground. Here is my condensed Apology.

Basically, I think your are saying since God created all this He should intervene every time something bad comes along Despite the fact we have caused it by our choices? Or due to our condition as living here?

That's exactly right. In fact, free will can be taken out of the equation entirely because accidents happen that just happen, when no one made any choices.

For instance, in my previous example I had the little girl reaching up to grab the pan of boiling molasses to see what was in the pan. You could somehow argue that this was then "her choice", albeit not an intentionally evil choice.

However, we can easily eliminate that problem by simply having the house pet cat jump up on the stove and knock the boiling molasses onto the innocent girl, then your excuse that the girl needs to have her free will honored fails. Her horrid injuries would have absolutely nothing at all to do with her free will.

So free will fails as an apology for this religion.

When the brakes on your car wear out, should you blame the manufacturer and have them fix it for free?

Sorry, but it would be more like faulty brake that failed right after you bought the care. Then of course you would expect the manufacture to take responsibility for having designed faulty brakes.

And besides, this is a failed analogy to being with because an auto manufacturer is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. If the auto manufacturer was omniscient and omnipotent and knew that you're brakes had failed but did nothing to stop you from having the accident, then of course they would be considered to be maliciously responsible. So unless you want to claim that your God is as inept as an auto manufacturer your analogy here doesn't hold.

As to innocents being hurt, you do realize that would mean God would have to control every aspect of life? I would not want that. What life would that be? I like my freedom but know it has a cost.

Well, then clearly you don't want to go to heaven right? You can hardly have God allow boiling molasses to be poured onto your face and then let you suffer in great pain for weeks on end only to end up being disfigured for the rest of your existence.

So there cannot be any free will in heaven if you expect God to protect you from harm in heaven. Therefore free will cannot be anywhere near as important as you had first thought.

I am sorry for you that you can't hear or see when He acts or speaks. Because He does.

Please provide evidence that any supernatural entity speaks to anyone. I have never seen any credible evidence for these kinds of claims.

There is a creator for sure. As nothing can not create anything, as it is nothing. It is something, what? I do not know for sure. But, it is something or we would not be here.

If nothing cannot create anything, then it would be impossible for a God to ever exist. For how would your God have come into existence?

This argument is absolute nonsense. In fact, according to this argument your God would necessarily have needed to have been created by a preexisting intelligent creator himself, and so on, ad infinitude.

You do realize that claiming that nothing cannot create nothing does nothing to demonstrate that Zeus must be God right?

Well, if that's the case, then it doesn't nothing to support the God of the Biblical mythology either.

~~~~~~

Free will cannot be a valid excuse for Christianity, because if this God can offer people eternal life in a heavenly paradise where they will never suffer the horrors of accidents or natural disasters, then those people would either need to forfeit their free will heaven, or free will cannot be a valid excuse for why God doen't protect innocent people here on earth.

And if people need to forfeit free will in heaven, then clearly free will can't be important at all. In fact, if free will must be relinquished in heaven then it can never have been a desirable thing. Therefore the Christian claim that free will is all-important cannot be true. Free will would then be a curse, not anything valuable or desirable.

So free will fails miserably as an apology for Christianity.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

That looks clear cut to me. I wonder why there was ever thought to be a need to venerate Mary?

Doesn't one think every child is born sinless, please?
Humans could make mistakes but to sin is something different. Jesus did not sin. Did he, please?
Mary also did not sin. I don't know any of her sins.
Right, please?
We accuse or put slur anybody, please?
Regards

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

God could have written it all down but even in his autobiography, the Koran, he forgot this important detail.

The Bible itself let’s us know it would be impossible for it to contain all that God wanted us to know.

I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.…-John 16:12


Which is why God left us His Church. There was no need for God to write down everything – He left us His Church.

Also, I know you don’t have a problem with the teaching of the immaculate conception, but for those who do . . . Mary needed to be saved, just like the rest of us. Only God saved her prior to her birth. Why so difficult to believe? The first Eve was created free from the stain of all sin, as well as Adam.

Also, taking all in ‘all have sinned’ literally is kind of silly. Obviously, Jesus did not sin. And we can compare the passage to these . . .

.... the whole world has gone after him� [John 12:19 ] Did all the world go after Christ?

then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.� [Matt. 3: 5-6] Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?
We can know from reading Scripture as a whole that acknowledging Mary’s sinlessness makes sense.

In Luke 1:28 “And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you’!� The Greek word used for “full of Grace� is κεχα�ιτωμένη (kecharitomene), and it is found only here in Luke’s Gospel (in this form) . This is a very unique word… first, it literally means she was always full of God’s grace, she is now full of God’s grace, and will always be full of God’s grace.. . .

http://www.catholichack.com/romans-3-23/

So, first Mary being born free from sin is supported in Scripture not something simply “made up� by the Catholic Church. It is also something supported by the first Christians and early Church fathers.

[marco]

Is the Bible or the Pope in error here?

Romans 3:23 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
" since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

It depends who is included in "all". It's used loosely. God himself doesn't sin, so he's out. Jesus is out, I think. Michael the elusive Archangel and Gabriel, the messenger - they are out. It's been decided that, as well as these, Mary herself is out. Seems reasonable that God would pick an impeccable person to be the repository of Jesus. Does it matter?

The text means humanity, as a whole, is sinful. I'm sure Paul wasn't speaking mathematically and inclusively.

[polonius]

Is the Bible or the Pope in error here?

Romans 3:23 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
" since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

It depends who is included in "all". It's used loosely. God himself doesn't sin, so he's out. Jesus is out, I think. Michael the elusive Archangel and Gabriel, the messenger - they are out. It's been decided that, as well as these, Mary herself is out. Seems reasonable that God would pick an impeccable person to be the repository of Jesus. Does it matter?

The text means humanity, as a whole, is sinful. I'm sure Paul wasn't speaking mathematically and inclusively.

RESPONSE: I'm afraid Paul was speaking inclusively. Hence hell for all mortal sinners and, according to Augustine and several councils of the Church, for all infants who die with the inherited guilt of Adam's sin. Unless Baptized. (This is true if you buy into the "Original Sin" story.)

From the sixth session of the Council of Florence, (July 6, 1439): “The Church has repeatedly defined this truth, e.g. in the profession of faith made in the Second Council of Lyons (Denz., n. 464) and in the Decree of Union in the Council of Florence (Denz., n. 693): “the souls of those who depart in mortal sin, or only in original sin, go down immediately into hell, to be visited, however, with unequal punishments� (poenis disparibus).�

[marco]

RESPONSE: I'm afraid Paul was speaking inclusively. Hence hell for all mortal sinners

As I pointed out, there are exceptions, and Mary may well have been one of them. It is sometimes hard to know exactly what was going on in Paul's mind so I salute your certainty.

in the Decree of Union in the Council of Florence (Denz., n. 693): “the souls of those who depart in mortal sin, or only in original sin, go down immediately into hell, to be visited, however, with unequal punishments� (poenis disparibus).�

My own view is that the Church can regard the pronouncements of this early Council as being outside the ambit of infallibility. It is good to see that Latin ablative and while we are pondering Latin it might be useful to note that "verses" should be "versus." Bible verses, nice as they are, mean something else. Best regards.

[brianbbs67]

It is good to see that Latin ablative and while we are pondering Latin it might be useful to note that "verses" should be "versus." Bible verses, nice as they are, mean something else. Best regards.

Dactylic hexameter or Iambic pantameter? Or another way, African or european swallow? Sorry in advance...

[marco]

It is good to see that Latin ablative and while we are pondering Latin it might be useful to note that "verses" should be "versus." Bible verses, nice as they are, mean something else. Best regards.

Dactylic hexameter or Iambic pantameter? Or another way, African or european swallow? Sorry in advance...

Ah, brian, we are wandering from the real verses. They were sadly never in dactylic hexameter, such as:
Jesus replied that the meek would be blessed and inherit the earth....

A recent Pope, John Paul 11, wrote poetry but I don't think he spoke infallibly in hexameters. And I am sure he would have considered the question posed in the OP, and had an answer. I believe it would have been along the lines I suggested.

Go well.