Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Hank | 48536 | ||
Brian, if your object is to show that there isn't complete harmony among the various denominations of Protestantism, you really don't need to work at it so hard! Most of us Protestants are all too keenly aware of the fact, concede it, and walk away not feeling especially proud of it. But isn't it something like the pot calling the kettle black when Catholics disparage Protestants on account of their denominational differences? Come, come, Brian, are you asking anyone to believe that all is sweetness and light within the Roman church, that there is complete accord on every issue, that there are no schisms or splinter groups within the RCC? Do you think every Roman Catholic on the face of this earth believes the same way on every issue concerning the Christian faith? I believe you know perfectly well that that is not true, and if you don't, you certainly should..... Let me tell you a story. I have a relative who is a Catholic and who lives in Boston. Two years ago he visited us at Christmas time. We went as a family to Christmas Mass at a local Catholic church, Immaculate Conception by name. I said to my relative, "I don't believe in the immaculate conception." Whereupon he replied, "Hank, are you telling me you don't believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?" Said I: "I'm saying I don't believe in the immaculate conception of Mary." Said he: "Well, I don't believe that either, but immaculate conception doesn't have anything to do with Mary, it's about Jesus." Said I: "No, it's about Mary." But knowing he wouldn't accept any theological talk coming from a Southern Baptist, and not wanting to promote family strife by debating the issue, I advised him on his returning home to Boston to take the matter up with his parish priest. He did. And he later informed me that I was right, immaculate conception did refer to Mary. And added, "That's what we believe, all right." I have always thought it odd that after having told me he didn't believe in the immaculate conception of Mary either, he later said, after talking with his priest, "That's what we believe, all right." This may be an atypical example in the Catholic church; I have no way of knowing. On the other hand it may be the norm that the priest tells the parishioner what the parishioner believes and the parishioner believes it. --Hank | ||||||
2 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Emmaus | 48621 | ||
Hank, Your story about the Immaculate Conception being confused with the Virgin Birth of Jesus is interesting and not uncommon, among Protestants and poorly catechised Catholics who often both mistake the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception with Jesus's Virgin birth or even Mary's wrongly supposed virgin birth. Not only does it say something about a bad understaning of basic theolgy in both camps, but an even more basic lack of understanding of the English language. Conception and birth are not synonyms, no matter how many seem to make that mistake, even some who have practical and personal experience in themselves concieving and giving birth. Close in space but distant in time. Your story seems to suggest the relative was saying he did not believe in the Virgin Birth of Mary, since his question as you phrased it seems to indicate he thought the Immaculate Conception referred to Jesus' virgin birth and he mistakenly thought you were saying you did not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. You knew what you were saying but he did not. And I must say you handled the situation with great wisdom and charity. Emmaus |
||||||
3 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Hank | 48626 | ||
Emmaus, thank you for your decorous remarks. You write with clarity and felicity, and though some of your theological views differ from mine, it's always a pleasure to engage in dialogue with you on the forum. In your post you touched on the subject of the English language and how the lack of understanding of the exact meaning of English words can and does affect even one's religious views. I concur without reservation. I've loved to hang around words since first I learned to speak a few of them. This affinity for the spoken and written word led me no doubt to major in English and its literature. I know and appreciate good writing when I see it and, conversely, know and deplore bad writing when I see it; and these days one sees far more of the latter than of the former. So there is a possibility that few users of this forum become nearly as exercised as I by the appearance of so many carelessly written, often incomprehensible, posts. And the irony of it is that those who dash off a sloppy and obviously hastily-written piece of theological gobbledlygook are the very ones who have the most imperfect understanding of their subject and of the words they use in an attempt to address it. Yet chances are better than even that it will be they who are most adamant that the only right view is their view, that anyone opposing them is a knucklehead at best or an infidel at worst. Much of this confusion and invective could be averted by learning basic English usage and communication skills. Day after day we see on the forum some shade-tree Greek or Hebrew scholar attempting to parse those ancient tongues while failing in his attempt to write a clear sentence in English. There is no royal road to proficiency in English. It takes time and hard work. But it is absolutely necessary to learn how to read before one can learn the Bible. And it is equally necessary to learn how to write before one can contribute anything of value on this forum or any other medium that depends on understanding the exact meanings of English words and their relationship to each other in a sentence. So ends, Emmaus, Lesson 1 of English 101, directed not to you who does not need it, but to some of the other users who do. --Hank | ||||||