The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.

[robrecht]

I do not agree with the highlighted above. Mary is indeed given special authority as an intermediary between God and humanity, and special station as being born without sin. You did say that 'Mary is some sort of human,' and based on the actual belief of the Roman Church, she is a lesser Goddess 'Mother of God' by definition. She is described as 'being above all angels.' Many Christians share that this belief is a definite problem.

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm

Wholly united with her Son . . .

964 Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death";504 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:


Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."505

965 After her Son's Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers."506 In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation."507

. . . also in her Assumption

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:


In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509

. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace

967 By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus)510 of the Church.

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."511

969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512

970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."513 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."514

* II. DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN

971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."516 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.

© Copyright Original Source

I agree, of course, that Mary is given a special role within Christianity and more specifically in Roman Catholic doctrine. I'm not sure I would describe that as special authority, but I am sure that Roman Catholic doctrine never describes Mary as a goddess or as a lesser God. It is a standard critique of Catholic doctrine and practice that it may sometimes seem functionally equivalent to some kind of implicit attribution of divinity to Mary. I have always agreed with the criticism that extreme forms of Marian devotion and some elucidations of Marian doctrines lend themselves to this aberration. But Catholic theologians, even those who may be considered Marian maximalists, in my experience are always explicit in their rejection of considering Mary to be any kind of goddess or lesser God or god. You cannot, in good faith, ignore this explicit rejection of polytheism when characterizing the beliefs and doctrines of others. For example, I do not like the language of coredemptrix or similar terms but it is essentially an evolution of Paul's enigmatic language about his making up for others what is otherwise somehow lacking in Christ's sacrifice. Mary, understood as being free of original sin (only through the merits of Christ), was seen as able to participate in such activity to an even greater degree. While I don't like the doctrine much, especially because it can lead to exaggeration, I do like the fundamental impulse of acknowledging a communal role of the Body of Christ in continuing to make the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ present throughout history and in the world today. We all participate in the work of Christ in missionary activity, our service of the poor, in our daily lives of loving sacrifice and generosity, and this is ceremonially thematized in our celebration of the Eucharist. The bodily assumption of Mary is seen as unique in the present time but is essentially what is believed to foreshadow the resurrection of the body for all Christians. It is not some divine power that Mary herself exercises. Likewise, Mary's intercession with God is not fundamentally different from the intercession of any saint, alive on earth or presently in heaven. Mary is given special honor because of her special role in obedience to God's plan, but it is not her own divine plan that she imposes on creation. She is no more divine than the divinization that all humanity is destined for in eternity.

[robrecht]

Feel free to clearly restate your view of Westermann's work, clarify, and please explain what you meant by your statement concerning the 'original author's intent.'

Also, what was I supposed to achieve concerning reading the reference?

You were supposed to substantiate your claim that I had somehow misrepresented Westermann. As a first step, you were repeatedly asked to actually quote me where you think I misrepresented him. You have not yet done even this.

[shunyadragon]

You were supposed to substantiate your claim that I had somehow misrepresented Westermann. As a first step, you were repeatedly asked to actually quote me where you think I misrepresented him. You have not yet done even this.

The problem occurred over a number of posts likely in different threads.

Please state your case clearly or I will consider it a Duck, Weave and Dodge.

Again . . .

Feel free to clearly restate your view of Westermann's work, clarify, and please explain what you meant by your statement concerning the 'original author's intent.'

Also, what was I supposed to achieve concerning reading the reference?

You want a dialogue. I got the books. Put up or shut up!!!!

[robrecht]

The problem occurred over a number of posts likely in different threads.

Please state your case clearly or I will consider it a Duck, Weave and Dodge.

Again . . .

Feel free to clearly restate your view of Westermann's work, clarify, and please explain what you meant by your statement concerning the 'original author's intent.'

Also, what was I supposed to achieve concerning reading the reference?

You want a dialogue. I got the books. Put up or shut up!!!!

You are so totally pathetic. You made the charge that I was misrepresenting Westermann, and were immediately and repeatedly asked to quote the statement where I supposedly misrepresented Westermann and you declined to do so because you could not do so. There was no statement of mine where I misrepresented Westermann. You simply made up that charge to try to save face and could not quote me as doing so or substantiate it with reference to Westermann's work because it was a completely baseless charge. A pure figment of your imagination. And now you want to accuse me of 'duck, weave, and dodge' if I don't state my case. Unbelievable.

Here's my case: I never misrepresented Westermann. You can't point to a single statement of mine that misrepresents Westermann. You are unable to support your baseless charge because it is simply not true. You just make stuff up.

[robrecht]

The reason to believe in the Revelation of God has consequences as does the rejection of the Manifestation of God. The rejection is a self imposed curse of the consequences of rejection. If this were not so than there would be no reason for humans to accept the Revelation as in Jesus Christ when his Revelation was Revealed to the world.

wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy and false imaginings, is still expectant that the idol of her own handiwork will appear with such signs as she herself hath conceived! Thus hath God laid hold of them for their sins, hath extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire. And this for no other reason except that Israel refused to apprehend the meaning of such words as have been revealed in the Bible concerning the signs of the coming Revelation. As she never grasped their true significance, and, to outward seeming, such events never came to pass, she, therefore, remained deprived of recognizing the beauty of Jesus 21 and of beholding the Face of God. And they still await His coming!

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-13.html.utf8?

[shunyadragon]

wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy and false imaginings, is still expectant that the idol of her own handiwork will appear with such signs as she herself hath conceived! Thus hath God laid hold of them for their sins, hath extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire. And this for no other reason except that Israel refused to apprehend the meaning of such words as have been revealed in the Bible concerning the signs of the coming Revelation. As she never grasped their true significance, and, to outward seeming, such events never came to pass, she, therefore, remained deprived of recognizing the beauty of Jesus 21 and of beholding the Face of God. And they still await His coming!

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-13.html.utf8?

I did not 'soft shoe' the consequences are very real and can be harsh and severe. They are nonetheless imposed by ones own exercise of free will to reject the Revelation of God.

[robrecht]

I did not 'soft shoe' the consequences are very real and can be harsh and severe. They are nonetheless imposed by ones own exercise of free will to reject the Revelation of God.

[shunyadragon]

You are so totally pathetic. You made the charge that I was misrepresenting Westermann, and were immediately and repeatedly asked to quote the statement where I supposedly misrepresented Westermann and you declined to do so because you could not do so. There was no statement of mine where I misrepresented Westermann. You simply made up that charge to try to save face and could not quote me as doing so or substantiate it with reference to Westermann's work because it was a completely baseless charge. A pure figment of your imagination. And now you want to accuse me of 'duck, weave, and dodge' if I don't state my case. Unbelievable.

Here's my case: I never misrepresented Westermann. You can't point to a single statement of mine that misrepresents Westermann. You are unable to support your baseless charge because it is simply not true. You just make stuff up.

You are so totally pathetic!!!!!!

State your case and fess up. I said I would get the books and I am reading them. You brought up Westermann as a reference, and failed to adequately cite anything of substance from the references.

Now that I got the books you apparently do not want face your assertions and fess up. They are great references! Thank you! By the way Westermann's books very much confirm my view of academic view of Genesis. I am willing take on citation per citation from the references.

[robrecht]

You are so totally pathetic!!!!!!

State your case and fess up. I said I would get the books and I am reading them. You brought up Westermann as a reference, and failed to adequately cite anything of substance from the references.

Now that I got the books you apparently do not want face your assertions and fess up. They are great references! Thank you! By the way Westermann's books very much confirm my view of academic view of Genesis. I am willing take on citation per citation from the references.

I will gladly discuss Westermann with you if you either quote me where you think I misrepresented Westermann or admit that you made a baseless accusation that you cannot substantiate. Otherwise, there is no point in carrying on a conversation with someone who cannot be intellectually honest.

[shunyadragon]

I will gladly discuss Westermann with you if you either quote me where you think I misrepresented Westermann or admit that you made a baseless accusation that you cannot substantiate. Otherwise, there is no point in carrying on a conversation with someone who cannot be intellectually honest.

It is you that refuse to be intellectually honest!!

Again . . .

You are so totally pathetic!!!!!!

State your case and fess up. I said I would get the books and I am reading them. You brought up Westermann as a reference, and failed to adequately cite anything of substance from the references.

Now that I got the books you apparently do not want face your assertions and fess up. They are great references! Thank you! By the way Westermann's books very much confirm my view of academic view of Genesis. I am willing take on citation per citation from the references.

Still waiting . . .

[shunyadragon]

First, it is clear in Baha'i scripture that descriptions of the after life are symbolic of suffering and not literal.

Second, The beliefs and scriptures of Judaism, Christianity,Islam and the Baha'i Faith believe there are consequences for rejection of the Manifestation of God, both in this world and the journey after. This is a self-imposed consequence of the Free Will decision of the individual. Much of the violence in the world through history is the conflict between religions living in past paradigms which engender violence, suffering and conflict. These consequences are carried over into the journeys beyond this life.

I presented my case, and it is not 'soft shoe.' The free will rejection of the Manifestation of God and Revelation has self imposed consequences.

[robrecht]

First, it is clear in Baha'i scripture that descriptions of the after life are symbolic of suffering and not literal.

I presented my case, and it is not 'soft shoe.' The free will rejection of the Manifestation of God and Revelation has self imposed consequences.

[robrecht]

It is you that refuse to be intellectually honest!!

Again . . .

You are so totally pathetic!!!!!!

State your case and fess up. I said I would get the books and I am reading them. You brought up Westermann as a reference, and failed to adequately cite anything of substance from the references.

Now that I got the books you apparently do not want face your assertions and fess up. They are great references! Thank you! By the way Westermann's books very much confirm my view of academic view of Genesis. I am willing take on citation per citation from the references.

Still waiting . . .

I will gladly 'face' any of my assertions about Westermann, most especially those you claimed were misrepresentations, if you would just quote these assertions of mine that you believe to be misrepresentations of Westermann. I know of no such misrepresentations and you apparently cannot cite any either. Therefore it is time for you to withdraw your false claim if you cannot substantiate it. Basic intellectual honesty.

[shunyadragon]

You have an issue to deal with concerning Westermann. No more dialogue with you until you respond.

[shunyadragon]

I will gladly 'face' any of my assertions about Westermann, most especially those you claimed were misrepresentations, if you would just quote these assertions of mine that you believe to be misrepresentations of Westermann. I know of no such misrepresentations and you apparently cannot cite any either. Therefore it is time for you to withdraw your false claim if you cannot substantiate it. Basic intellectual honesty.

The disagreement occurred over a number of posts that I do not even know where the original discussion began. Basic intellectual honesty is a problem with you. You are the first to post the questions concerning Westermann's books. There great, by the way!!! You need to fess up and state your case, before we can go on.

Our dialogue ends until you can be intellectually honest and state your case so I can respond.

Still waiting . . .