Theology of the Immaculate conception?

[Stanley Anderson]

[John Anthony]

[Stanley Anderson]

[AllanS]

[David Jack]

I can see the sense in that argument Stanley, but the Marian doctrine is a different kind of stumbling block precisely because it ISN'T something that Jesus has taught, but rather something that (whether rightly or wrongly) has been read into the scriptures. For what it's worth I'm another who thinks that the Catholic church takes a firm stand on many central truths but then there are strands of protestantism which do the same without holding to doctrines which, at the moment at least, I can't square with biblical evidence.

[AllanS]

Hi Stanley,

Let's pick an example. Do I believe, without doubt or question, the infallible authority of the RC Church?

Ummm. No. What's more, I can't see how any thinking, honest person can say yes to that. No one knows that life won't lead them to a place where they reject a previously held belief. This means the seed of doubt was there all along.

I do believe (often with questions, uncertainty, ambiguity and doubt) many things that church affirms, am quite agnostic about others, sceptical about some and positively agog when I consider the rest. On a score from -1000 to +1000, I'd be well on the plus side of things. What score would be enough to join without deception? That's the question.

[Karen]

It's not a math problem, it's a response to a call.

[AllanS]

Hi Karen,

Is it that easy?

Let's rate the intensity and conviction felt towards the call on a 1 to 10 scale. A '1' means you have a vague attraction to some course of action from time to time. A '10' means you have an overwhelming sense of attraction to some course of action all the time.

Will a call of 5 be enough to respond?

Why or why not?

[John Anthony]

[AllanS]

Hi John,

Wow. Is that what people are expected to say?

Phew.

Do they actually mean it? Perhaps perjury will be the subject of the first confession, upon joining.

[Karen]

[John Anthony]

[AllanS]

[Fea_Istra]

To me, it makes sense if Mary 'spiritually' replaces Eve as our mother, perhaps as a step to fix the original sin.

But it's a good question that's been brought up here: how do we accept something as true?

There are two ways I think:
1. use your own common sense. You believe in the 'big ideas' like redemption, etc, and you use personal understanding to decide on the 'details'.
There are several problems with this. One problem is that these details might not be so small as we think; perhaps to God the whole miracle (Jesus' birth, life, death, Resurrection) is one continuous event where everything is taken into account, whereas we divide it up so that we can grasp it better with our understanding.

Also, it says in the Bible that we should not lean on our own understanding. Well, perhaps this is a good point in this context. I'm guessing here, but perhaps God doesn't want us to just 'intellectually' agree with His existance and what He did, but actually trust Him. If we simply 'think' He exists (and we may call that belief also), we pick and choose the ideas that seem to 'fit' in our mind. This is a rather faulty process given our psychological limitations, but it gives us a sense of satisfaction that 'no human being is telling me what to think, so I am more integrated with God and less integrated with society and what is popular with the church'.

It makes a lot of sense, but is it right? Aren't our 'opinions' more dependent on society than we usually suspect? That would mean that we are actually more with society than with God.

So the alternative is:
2. Person trusts God, and so believes everything that Church says. On one hand, this is naive and can lead to having the wrong information, since we have no proof that what the church says is actually true to God.

So the first person is not fully trusting but using the brain that God gave him, and the second person accepts more doctrine just because it's doctrine, but shows more trust in the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

This is beginning to be difficult, since now we have to decide who is 'right'. I really admire the first person and my first thought is that he is the 'correct' one, but then I thought that perhaps God wants our trust, not our intellectual understanding. If a person relies on understanding, he might abandon his faith if opposing evidence presents itself. This is a rather weak faith. The importance of faith is greatly stressed in the Bible, for example Jesus says that the disciples can't walk on water because they are lacking faith. So..it seems that God wants to use our faith, not understanding, to change us from creatures to children of God. Since the goal is to be submissive to God's will and LET Him change us, even blind faith seems better than understanding. The first type of person might stop believing at any moment, while the second person believes UNCONDITIONALLY, whatever science or society or other people might say.

Sorry for such a long post, but I felt that I had to explain it sufficiently.

I have heard that there have been some really great saints that were not at all what we would call 'intellectual', and it's not knowledge that saves us, it's Christ who saves us.

Also, the second type of person is more likely to have more humility, which is also crucial.

So...maybe it's not the validity of the information that matters, but our trust in God. If we trust Him unconditionally, perhaps we would be closer to Him, even if we have lots of wrong information that has been corrupted by time. If we have a lot of 'correct' information, it's no use if we don't trust God. and amounts to simple philosophy, not life.

I mean, I greatly sympathize with people who want to understand, and I'm like that too. I have a problem with accepting things unconditionally, without testing them myself. But isn't it true that only a believer can 'see' God, and you only get evidence AFTER you believe? I think so.

Of course, the obvious objection to this argument is that trusting the church doesn't translate to trusting God. And I don't know how to resolve that, or to even prove it true.

Fea~

[Karen]