Immaculate Conception

Source: Wikipedia.

I always thought the phrase “immaculate conception” referred to the virgin birth of Jesus. I was, accordingly, shocked the other day when my wife — a Catholic convert — mentioned in conversation that immaculate conception properly refers to Jesus’ mother and the doctrine that Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception.

There’s a kind of rebirth when you discover a whole category of knowledge you didn’t know about. The immaculate conception of Mary is such an event for me, because I was wrong in my assumptions and because the doctrine makes perfect sense. Of course the mother of the Son of God had to be uniquely exempt from the original sin of Adam and Eve.

43 thoughts on “Immaculate Conception

  1. She wasn’t. She even admitted it in the Bible:
    Luke 1:38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” {{not above Him or equal to Him but His servant} Mary answered. “May it happen to me according to your word.”
    43: And why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? {mother, not the Lord or equal to it, admitted by Elizabeth}
    47-48: “My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior! {She calls God her Savior because she needed one} 48 For He has looked with favor on the humble state of His servant. {again Mary states she is His servant, not equal or above Him}


    1. RE: “She wasn’t. She even admitted it in the Bible.”

      Thomas Aquinas made the same observation, which some Catholics today consider his one and only theological mistake.

      Wikipedia: “Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), objected that if Mary were free of original sin at her conception then she would have no need of redemption, making Christ superfluous; they were answered by Duns Scotus (1264–1308), who argued that her preservation from original sin was a redemption more perfect than that granted through Christ.”


      1. There is no proof of that in the Bible anywhere. They have no proof to consider it a mistake. Nowhere in the Bible is Mary mentioned in the OT as being part of the Godhead. Why wouldn’t it have been mentioned, especially given Paul’s books of the Bible he wrote to clarify dogma? He even indicated specifically about heresy coming in, so why didn’t he clarify that issue then? Because she was God’s servant and in need of redemption. “For all have sinned”, didn’t exclude Mary either.


      2. RE: “There is no proof of that in the Bible anywhere.”

        One can argue the Bible. It is, however, a fact that Pope Pius IX issued an apostolic constitution (or theological law) proclaiming the immaculate conception of Mary in 1854.

        I understand that Protestants generally disapprove of Mary’s uniqueness, but in my experience, Catholics don’t relate to Mary as part of the Godhead or Trinity, but as “full of grace” in a way that the mother of Jesus must have been.


        1. The Bible is the infallible Word of God. The Pope can issue what he wants: the Bible still stands as refuting that issue. Is she unique? Absolutely!! Are we glad she was chosen? Yes. She was granted a great honor. Still, in Gods’ eyes: she is a sinner just like everyone else.

          Um I had a Catholic tell me they pray to her just like Jesus. No difference, indicating the belief that she is not like us.


        2. RE: “Still, in Gods’ eyes: she is a sinner just like everyone else.”

          I can’t speak for God. I can only speak to the Catholic concept of Mary, which the Wikipedia article describes.

          It is true that Catholics pray to Mary. For every bead on her rosary, my wife says, “Hail, Mary, full of grace.” This is (in part) in memory of the Angel Gabriel’s greeting to the virgin, recounted in Luke 1:26, “Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!”

          For my wife, at least, praying to Mary is a way of asking her to intercede with God, a form of humility.


          1. God speaks thru the Bible. That’s how we know He speaks to us. Why pray to a dead person who can’t help? When Christ was crucified, the Veil in the Temple was split in too. No longer did the world have to use sacrifice and priests: His sacrifice (not Mary’s, Christ alone) made it possible for us to go to Him without any other humans.


          2. RE: “Why pray to a dead person who can’t help?”

            It is dogma in Catholicism that Mary can help. In fact, that her intercession with God is her very purpose after ascending to Heaven. Mary is considered the greatest of all the saints.

            I don’t know the theological reason for this dogma.


          3. I don’t either John. That’s why I ask and question. God never said we couldn’t learn and ask Him questions about how we can do what is right in His eyes.


          4. RE: “That’s why I ask and question.”

            If it helps, I’m told the apostle Paul recommended various types of prayers, including prayers of intercession.


          5. Was that to living believers or dead believers?

            Dan 12:2, I Cor 15:51, Acts 7:60, Ecc. 9:5, Psalms 115:17, Psalm 146:4.

            Jesus said ‘Lazarus is dead’ (John 11:11-14).

            He’ll raise them up on the last day (given by God the Father to God the Son/Jesus: John 6:39.

            Jesus says the dead are dead, not in Heaven, not in Hell. The last day, they’ll be resurrected to their reward.

            Remember Satan’s lie? “You will not die.” It is appointed unto man to die once and then be judged.


    2. And only those of House Targaryen can ride dragons.

      Seriously, arguing what the Bible “proves” is equally pointless. The Bible has been translated and reconstructed by partisan theologians for so many centuries there is no way to know what is original and what is not.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I learned Hebrew, some Greek. You can’t? The original manuscripts are out there. Learning of the culture is out there too. Are you saying all theologians are not impartial? So Martin Luther was completely wrong? Ever see indulgences in the Bible?


  2. TY for trying Mr. Robert’s but much like abortion all discussions about the Bible are impossible to have. In the case of the Bible it always ends up with some “expert” telling everyone else what the truth is and ruining the conversation.


    1. RE: “TY for trying Mr. Robert’s but much like abortion all discussions about the Bible are impossible to have.”

      No worries. I tried to make the post about my own perceptions, not about Truth, which I am unqualified to address. I really was shocked to learn that Catholics have a specialized concept of the immaculate conception.


  3. We were the only Catholic family in a small town in Georgia back in the 1950s. We experienced first-hand the hatred of Catholicism that was common in “Christian” circles and which you have now stirred up by sharing this bit of information about Catholic dogma.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “hatred of Catholicism”? How do you get from “sharing this bit of information about Catholic dogma”?

      Since when does disagreeing over an issue = hatred?

      Amazing how a couple of days ago, several of us on totally opposite sides of the political sprectrum went to dinner, had no fights, cursing or anything else, and agreed on the next time we’re going out to eat together. Even encouraging each other in our political endeavors.

      No one in my core group at work is the same religion as I am. They don’t hate me, I don’t hate them. We wish each other positives for the other sides’ festivals or holidays.

      So explain to me how 2 totally different situations and people can work together, get along, and even encourage each other, but pointing out differences is hateful? You don’t have to accept my word as dogma, I don’t have to accept your word as dogma.

      Someone who indicates hate for disagreement though, will get that leftist/progressive tactic thrown right back at them, because its a BS control mechanism. It won’t work, its not true and I don’t accept someones’ controlling tactics to try to stop me or any one else from speaking our points. Claim hatred? Well how about the hatred some have for viewpoints that are opposite of theirs, trying to silence them?


    2. RE: “We experienced first-hand the hatred of Catholicism that was common in “Christian” circles and which you have now stirred up by sharing this bit of information about Catholic dogma.”

      What are you saying? Am I supposed to keep my thoughts to myself because you are afraid?


      1. Uh, I have no idea how you came up with me being afraid. Your logic is a mystery to me.

        I simply noted how quickly people jumped in after you shared this information about the doctrinal meaning of “immaculate conception” to prove that what Catholics believe is not supported by their reading of Scripture and therefore not a valid belief. This back and forth about which beliefs are correct reminded me of my status as a Catholic in a “Christian” town many decades ago.

        Anyway, Merry Christmas.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Paul, phobia is a fear of something, not hatred. I’m afraid of my car blowing up on me, doesn’t mean I hate the car.

          “people jumped in” more like I didn’t have to work today and am doing things at home, hence jumping in quickly. I don’t have a lot of other conversations going on at the moment.

          Um, in our church, we are textual based Christians, so if someone knows or says something that isn’t Biblically consistent, we help a fellow brother or sister how so they know. That is why we ask questions to check our own beliefs to make sure they’re consistent with the Bible. I had a hermaneutics class so that’s a bit different than what others experienced. So what got done to you is no different than for our own church brothers and sisters. You’re getting treated like a brother.

          “which beliefs are correct” more like which beliefs are consistent with the Bible. I’d expect Muslims to be consistent with the Quran. Jews with the Torah, Talmud, Gemara, etc.

          One thing you may not be aware of – because in my church we question, we look up in the Bible, we look at others’ beliefs, this is how we grow in our beliefs to be Biblically consistent. So we have either looked or shared or saw what is different in the religions to know what is in tune with what the Bible teaches. Its not we’re better than others. We’ve simply gone the Berean way. I hope to impress on folks as much as possible to be able to know why they believe (whether religion or politics or child raising) what they do, see what else is out there. Expore, investigate.



          1. Well, I thank you for your thoughtful and civil reply.

            I will avoid the temptation (planted by the Devil, maybe?) to engage with you on the study and meaning of the Bible. I would only suggest that in your exploration you seek to learn more about how the Bible came to be the Bible historically. For that purpose, I recommend, for example, Misquoting Jesus by the Biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman. His scholarship has outraged many but – try as they might – they cannot change history.

            Also of great relevance if one is going to interpret the words in the Bible is a detailed understanding of which texts became the Bible and why. And which texts were left out. And, who did the translating and re-translating? Without going into any detail, it can be described as a very messy and very political process. Warning: If you know this history it will strain your belief that the Bible is the unerring Word of God.


          2. The belief that the Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God has been used to give creedance to all sorts of heresies. It allows man to usurp the position of the Bible over all things. Satan’s lie was “you shall be like God”, because Satan wanted to be in charge.

            Do you really think that the all powerful, all knowing God would not be able to direct that His Word be kept inerrant thru the generations? If so, why believe in Him at all? A God that can raise His own Son from the dead, is going to be able to keep His Word in the way He wants.

            Are you trying to justify the extra books from the Catholic church?

            No, I’ve seen quite a few objections. I remember one they were going after the book of Kings for a timeline. By going back thru Jewish history, etc. it was able to be explained. Nothing new. When an introductory hermaneutics class has you take each word apart, this is not a surprise. None of it has ever strained my belief, actually it has made it more firm that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.


          3. Of course, an all-powerful and unerring God can do anything He wants. That is a tautology. But the question that would strain my belief – if I had any – would be why would He go about producing the Bible in such a convoluted way?

            For example, we are all familiar with the Bible story of the men preparing to stone the loose woman when Jesus intercedes to say . . . “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” But, that is NOT what the original text says. It was more along the lines “He that has not lain with this woman, let him first cast a stone at her.” Quite a bit different. Especially if you are engaging in detailed hermeneutics seeking to pry out God’s meaning. Which version is the unerring Word of God?

            And, BTW, this particular story is NOT in earlier versions of the original scripture. It was added CENTURIES later by a copyist who thought it was a cool story and should be included.

            I could go on and on and on. But you get the idea. The Bible has the hand of man – not of God – all over it.


          4. So you’re saying that He did not, in any way, inspire or influence the groups of men choosing the Bible?

            That story does appear in the Codex Benzae.

            If you take a look at the 4 Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they are different and some parts are left in, some out. Different men, different views, all still canonical. How do we know that God didn’t inspire the writer to put that in? The men of the Bible were unlearned. Remember Acts 4?

            If you think that it said lain rather than without sin, why didn’t any of the men stone her then? You believe that every man would have admitted adultery with her? The point was sin in general, not adultery. Jesus would not have approved adultery, that would be inconsistent with His message. What would be consistent with His message, is forgiveness. If you remember, Jesus said to forgive 70 x 7. He forgave Rahab her being a prostitute and a Canaan woman, because of her belief in God and protection of the Jews. She became an ancestor of Christ.

            Btw, are you reading the Catholic Bible or the Protestant Bible? If I remember correctly, the Catholic Bible has 9 commandments not 10. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. That is missing in your Bible correct?


          5. “The Catholic Bible has 9 commandments not 10.”

            That is simply wrong and it reflects very badly on the intellectual quality and honesty of the people who have been teaching you. The Commandment about idolatry is the FIRST comandment in the Catholic list. Just as it is on the Protestant list. As the following article lays out, both versions of the Ten Commandments are essentially the same. They both rely on the Old Testament but they have been numbered, sliced and diced slightly differently.


            This misinformation that you have been lead to believe seems to me to be part of a general attack on Catholic practices where their Churches tend to have more statues and shrines – particlularly with regard to role of Mary and the intercession of the saints. Someone wanted you to believe that not only do Catholics ignore that injunction against idolatry, they also struck it out of the Bible. Neither is true.


          6. Catholic 10 commandments (9 really, missing #2 and split 9/10 into 2):
            1 I am the LORD your God. You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve.
            2 You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
            3 Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.
            4 Honor your father and your mother.
            5 You shall not kill.
            6 You shall not commit adultery.
            7 You shall not steal.
            8 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
            9 You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
            10 You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.

            Bible 10 commandments
            1 I am the LORD thy God…Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
            2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
            3 You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
            4 Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.
            5 Honor your father and your mother.
            6 You shall not kill.
            7 You shall not commit adultery.
            8 You shall not steal.
            9 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
            10 You shall not covet.

            Vic – so what about the call no man father, only Christ forgiving sins, not eating meat/forbidden to marry?


          7. First of all, what makes you refer to the list you prefer as “Bible Commandments?” It came LONG after what you call the “Catholic Commandments.” To be fair, you should refer to the original version as the Bible Commandments and the revised version as the Protestant Commandments.

            If there is a real difference in these lists – there is not – why would an unerring God allow there to be two versions? And, if one is wrong and one is right, how can ANY human being KNOW which is which?

            As the article spelled out, these differences in tradition (not belief) arise because the Old Testament has two slightly different presentations of the Mount Sinai event – one in Exodus and one in Deuteronomy. Again, if there are differences, then why would an unerring God “publish” a book with such differences?

            As for various Catholic traditions that you seem to disapprove of, they are not based on claims of Biblical sanction. They are traditions. The Pope tomorrow could end the tradition of celibate priests. Many Catholics nowadays do not abjure meat on Friday. It is NOT a requirement of the faith – just a tradition.


          What was missed about 20:3 and 20:4 – “NOT you(ms)~will~DO to~you(ms) SCULPTURE and~ALL RESEMBLANCE WHICH in~the~SKY~s2 from~UPWARD and~WHICH in~the~LAND from~UNDER and~WHICH in~the~WATER~s2 from~UNDER to~the~LAND
          you will not (make) (for) you {a} sculpture and (any) resemblance which {is} in the skies , and which {is} in the land , and which {is} in the waters the land, ”
          What makes you think God would not say don’t make any graven image or any likeness of anything ? Especially given #3 ‘no Gods before me’?
          20:17 is one verse. What is the purpose of splitting it out? If you split out one, you split them all out.

          Not the way the Hebrew is read do you get that.

          I said original Bible, because that’s what it is.

          So what about I Timothy 4:1-3? Compared to I Timothy 3:2 – husband of one wife to be an elder, deacon or pastor.

          There are no differences. You don’t want to see the Bible for speaking what it does. I can’t help that. II Tim 3:16 indicates all Scripture is God breathed and useful for reproof/correction.

          The RCC uses the Bible to justify its use of tradition on an equal weight of Scripture: II Thess. 2:15. Mark 7:8-9 goes against that. Matt 15:3-6 goes against that. II Cor. 11:2 is a frequent one used for that.

          Do you believe solo fidei? Justification by faith alone? Then Jesus didn’t save the thief on the cross, even though He said that He would be in paradise for his faith? So Jesus lied? What about Abraham? Faith was counted as righteousness according to God.

          Do we find indulgences in the Bible?


          1. There you go again trying to prove how wrong Catholicism is compared to whatever brand of belief you are subscribing to. Boring!

            You have done me the courtesy of sharing what you believe. I will do the same in return.

            I should have been more clear. I was raised a Catholic but then I grew up. Other than weddings and funerals, I have not been to a religious service since I was 17. I am not a Believer in anything like your personal God. Not only do I believe that the Bible 100% the product of mankind, but so too are the gods and like them, the God of your Bible.

            All that we can really know is what can be detected with our senses and our instruments. All else – Dogma and Revealed Truth – is – at best – wishful thinking. Religions served an evolutionary function and helped groups of people bond and survive STDs, tainted meat, dangerous sewage, and other such threats. They no longer serve that function. For quite some time now they have been tools of the ruling classes to keep ordinary people in line.

            I am what many would disparagingly call a “secular humanist.” That would be accurate. I believe the highest form of being that we KNOW of is the human being. That is why, while rejecting the Metaphysical mumbo jumbo of Abrahamic religions, I believe and follow – as best I can – the moral teaching of Jesus as summarized in the Golden Rule.

            I share this so that you will understand your attempts to discredit Catholicism by reference to Scripture are meaningless to me. I really do not care.


          2. 1) I believe the Bible. Comparing what you have stated, compared to the Bible. Sharing the Bible. Why get upset with me? Its the Bible you have a problem with.
            2) That’s what the forum is for. You are sharing what you believe – which hopefully is the same thing that Catholics believe. I go by the Catechism or what you state your beliefs are. I have known Catholics who don’t believe what the Catechism says.
            3) Raised a Catholic and then grew up?
            4) No religious service attendance and not a believer in God, why have the discussion then? The point of the Bible is to have a relationship, and how to live life based on that. I can’t see you being bothered by anything I say and you appear to. When discussing different religions, people tell me what their books or teachers say, I say here is what mine say. We aren’t offended. II Tim 4:3
            5) The heart is deceitful (Jer 17:9) and the eyes? II Cor 5:7.
            6) Evolutionary function? You mean back to #3? What about having a relationship that give you purpose? Can always call on? Helps you in trouble? Given their life for you? Comforts you? Celebrates w/you? Someone you can trust?
            7) The ruling classes use evil to keep those in line. We have a Pastor we follow His teaching of the Word. If people don’t like it, they’re free to break the covenant and move on. With blessings. We’re not beholden to specifically this one person.
            8) I see no reason to disparage you for being a secular humanist if that is what you want to call yourself. Or Catholic.

            Odd then that you don’t care, but you appear to give off anger when someone is simply given the statements. I am not angry with you for your statements or for what you believe.


  4. The problem is that MAN has translated the Word of G-d for centuries. We can study and study and may still never come to the “right answer”. (Hint: I don’t think there is one to be found whilst we walk this earth). But man, inspired by G-d or not, is a fallible being.

    Happy Kwanza!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I also noticed quite a bit of slighting or ignoring of the Old Testament, without which the New Testament would not exist.

    The Protestant Bible, the Catholic Bible, and any other iteration of the Bible has its basis in The Torah and the Prophets (major and Minor) of the OT. Many Christians need to be reminded of that.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. New Covenant. There are items in the NT that indicate replacement of a # of instructions/laws/rules/guidelines/ from the OT.

      What slighting/ignoring are you looking at, based on that? Some specifics please?


      1. “The Bible is the infallible Word of God.”

        The Jewish Bible (OT) is NOT the infallible word of G-d; it is the Law (5 books of Moses) and The Prophets.

        As far as the New Covenant; that is strictly a Christian belief not held by Jews.

        And as far as “the infallible word of G-d” goes, it has been interpreted by man for centuries, and as we all now, man is NOT infallible. Every time a translation comes out, things change. And some folks will misinterpret those changes.


        1. “noticed quite a bit of slighting or ignoring of the Old Testament” was your first statement. I didn’t see links or anything else to support that issue. That’s why I questioned it. One very basic issue was the kashrut laws, those no longer apply in Christianity, change instituted by God to indicate the new covenant.

          You indicate in the 2nd response that no one has interpreted the Bible correctly. What is that based on? How do you know no one has, unless you are the only one who has interpreted it correctly. Is that what you’re saying?


          1. You granting me superiority on the subject is quite generous, but not the point I was getting at. I, like others here, am offering my personal opinion based on my own studies over the course of my life.

            The slighting and ignoring of the OT is something that happens quite often in Christianity. Check in with Southern Baptists for insight. (I was once told I was wrong to believe in the OT by a devout SB.)

            As far as interpreting the Bible, I was only pointing out man’s fallibility. I did not indicate that no one got it right; I am just pointing out that we do not know for sure, and won’t until our Earthly journey is completed.


          2. Opinions are nothing unless they’re backed up in some type of reference. Otherwise, truth is relative and we have people unable to function in true reality, not their reality. What we have now.


          3. I referenced MY personal studies, both growling up in a Jewish Temple in mu youth, and the expansion to better understand others’ (including my wife’s) beliefs.

            And I find this statement of yours quite interesting …”truth is relative and we have people unable to function in true reality,”… As you say, it is what we have now. But I question if you are referring to this particular thread or to something as basic as the “stolen election” mantra. Which YOU seem to be VERY supportive of.

            When it comes to religious beliefs, I have come to the conclusion they are individual choices. If one chooses to attend church, temple, or mosque, it is that individual’s choice. It is none of my business, nor yours, to dictate how, when or to whom someone should pray.

            When my wife was pregnant with our first, I was getting pressure from a certain member of my family about how we were going to raise our children. I fended off the question for a bit and when I got tired of it, I turned to the one person I trusted the most in my life: My paternal grandmother, the Jewish one. I will never forget what she said. “Adam, those children are yours and Jill’s. It is no one else’s damned business how you raise your children. I have one request: Please raise them to believe in something.”

            My wife and I followed that advice. We shared with them our shared belief in ONE TRUE G-D. We taught them the prayers of our separate and diverse childhood’s. We continued the religious traditions of BOTH sides of the family. Today, as adults, our children believe in a Supreme Being. Not one dictated by the church, the Pope, the head Imam, or Chief Rabbi. They have their own personal and individual with whatever it is they do believe in. And they are better people for it because they learned how to accept people for who and where they are and not judge them for not being some idealized version of what some religious tome or leader tells them they should be.


          4. ”truth is relative and we have people unable to function in true reality,”

            when I said truth is relative, it is referring people who believe something other than a fact. For example if someones’ BMI is 10 pts over their upper limit, and it is not due to extra muscle, and you say you are fit, your ‘truth’ is not reality.

            “Stolen election” – I am supportive of folks who give the basis for those assertions in fact. Meaning I’ve had presented to me a law firm that gave many examples of concerns, so on that basis, I support their work and their mission to get more examples to prove their point.

            “It is none of my business, nor yours, to dictate how, when or to whom someone should pray.” Then it is none of the state or feds business how I practice my religion, meaning no vaccines.

            Regarding your paternal grandmother, if you are for vaccines, then everyone has an interest in how you raise your children. The problem with individual choices is where people feel individual and social order/dictates come into that.

            “And they are better people for it because they learned how to accept people for who and where they are and not judge them for not being some idealized version of what some religious tome or leader tells them they should be.”

            So you believe that religious people of any sort are untermenchen (below human)? That is what you indicate: “better people”. You don’t want others to judge you, but yet you judge others.


          5. “Then it is none of the state or feds business how I practice my religion, meaning no vaccines.”

            Sorry, but that is, IMO, a non-factor. Public health overcomes religion when it puts others in jeopardy. By your account, animal sacrifices would be the norm, without strict adherence to public health safety.

            You totally and completely misconstrued what I said about my children. I said they were better people, not better than others. I only judge those who put themselves above me based on their own beliefs. J’accuse tu.

            That is the issue I have with religious ZEALOTS: They do not allow others to believe in the ways they do. It is their way or you going straight to hell. The First Amendment protects us all from not only a national religion, but form others who take it upon themselves to condemn or attack others for their beliefs. When was the last time a Christian church was shot up because it had a bunch of Christians in it?


          6. Public health is not at risk, given the data and research collected.

            If I understand correctly, you are not of my religion or beliefs. Why then do you assume anything? I see a lot that is incorrectly stated. Just as you accused me of.

            Better people = better than others.

            Human nature to put oneself before another.

            I believe you are confusing a doctrine with what others think. I don’t have a problem with Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or any one else who says my religion is the right way: all others go to a bad place (Hell if you want). I would hope that you believe your religion rewards you for your adherence. Again, the Bible tells us there is only one way to God. If someone doesn’t follow it, its their choice. I seem to have no problem with a lot of folks who don’t believe the way I do. I seem to work, play, talk with those not of my ilk without any issues.

            I had a young 13 year old tell me that and they were Muslim. Ok by me, he has his beliefs, I have mine.

            Where do you want to start? China? India? Pakistan? How about in the Middle East where Christians can’t have a church?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s