Geniue question do Muslims have a higher reverence for Mary and Mariology than Protestants?
>>18415928Yes, aside from jews, Prots HATE Mary
it says a lot that catholics feel closer to a religion that denies jesus is the son of god because they treat mary better lol
>>18415936Shut up Satan
>>18415938
>>18415936>>18415940Luther is a cuckold
>>18415941What is the islamic view of jesus' relationship to god again, chepito
>>18415943Thread is not about JesusWhy do you deny Mary
>>18415945>it's not about jesuscatholicism rarely is
>>18415928>Geniue question do Muslims have a higher reverence for Mary and Mariology than Protestants?She's the greatest woman of all time for them so yes
>>18416034What about Aisha?
Overall, yes. Prior to the 20th century, probably even more so.There are some Proto-Salafist, Salafist and Pakistani ideologues (Pakizionists) who believe that Mary wasn't really a virgin mother, similar to what some Protestant ideologues believe.
>>18415936That’s because Mary is the chief goddess of the Romanist religion.
>>18415948
>>18416039The Quran explicitly states Mary is chosen over all women >>18416042You are probably thinking about th Ahmadiya cult who say (God forbid) she was a hermaphroditie
Catholics will let slander of Jesus go by with nary a ruffled feather but will explode into full favela rage if Mary is slighted.
>>18415928Fun fact in Surah Maryam the divine name of God called Rahman is mentioned the most there the root word of Rahman is the word womb
>>18416042There are precisely 0 Protestants who deny the virgin birth
>>18416054He means that there are prots who believe she didn’t stay a virgin
Really it's going to depend on what type of Protestant, both sect wise and time period wise. It is my understanding that at least the early Reformed had a surprisingly high Mariology. It varied between individuals, but at least persons like Zwingli avidly defended her perpetual virginity and freedom from (personal) sin. Now they did attack the Catholic doctrines and forms of veneration given to her, and may have launched into some of the same tirades modern Protestants might also do when criticizing Catholic Mariology, but it seems over time the Reformed tradition really has watered-down the higher Mariology it once had in its roots. Reformed Mariology today at least appears almost non-existent compared to early on. But I'm sure there's going to be one unhinged Reformed anon on here whose going to sperg out at whatever I just said for whatever reason he finds objectionable. Whatever. It's par for the course on this board.Evangelicals have largely overlapped with the Reformed in this arena, sometimes to an even more radical extent, and have virtually no Mariology apart from what they personally interpret what the Bible says about her.Lutherans, on the other hand, still retain a relatively high Mariology, going all the way back to Luther. Certainly it isn't as high as Catholicism's, which is to be expected, but it is there, and she is offered a degree of veneration by Lutherans. This isn't the hyperdulia of the Catholics, but she is honored by Lutherans with both feast days and hymns.The Anglican tradition varies, unsurprisingly, and is entirely dependent on one's theological commitments, from basically non-existent Mariology among those in the more Reformed and Evangelical camps of Anglicanism, to a moderate or even high Mariology among those on the more Catholic side of the Anglican aisle, and many Anglicans observe a variety of feast days dedicated to Mary, similar to Catholics and Lutherans.
>>18415928As someone from the traditionally Lutheran part of Germany, these online Protestant vs Catholic threads are fascinating because it's like looking at a time capsule at what my retarded ancestors were killing each other over for. Thank God only stupid third worlders still act up on this stuff
>>18416095>unironic we don't do that in Germany kek
>>18416057I don’t believe that’s what he’s saying
>>18416115That’s literally what he is saying
>>18415928Absolutely, protties treat Mary as if she was insignificant and any other woman could have taken her place. Meanwhile in Islam there's discussion of whether she was actually a prophetess and even those that don't accept that believe she is amongst the best women to ever exist.
>>18416039Just one of Muhammed's wives. There were nineteen of them, you know.>>18416047>Ahmadiyya. Ah yes of course, Indian Islam. Where else could it have been.
>>18416358>protties treat Mary as if she was insignificant and any other woman could have taken her placeWtf is wrong with them
>>18416099Haha
>>18415936protestards are muslims with extra steps just admit it
>>18416426spanish will never take off
Why do Catholics insist on worshipping a woman and wanting others to join with this silly idea as well?
>>18416426comparison doesn't really work in a thread where the OP feels more familiarity with a religion that denies the divinity of christ just because he feels they have a better view on mary
>>18416686you deny the divinity of Christ's mother you're the same. literally muslim lite
>>18416692Holy kek
what I don't get is why some Protestant sects outright start frothing at the mouth if you call her Theotokos. Not "Queen of Heaven", since that's a second-order logical inference, but "God-Bearer''. She literally bore God. Are the Protties implying Jesus was not God in the womb? Or that He has two distinct, disunited nature? What the fuck is this bullshit?
>>18416692why are catholics like this
>>18416049It really is bizarre isn't it
>>18416692I think this stems from an instinctual -if wrong- monophysite tendency in beievers not properly catechized, in which they believe Jesus was uncreated, and therefore not a creature. But Jesus was fully Human, so therefore He must be a creature; and since He is God, He is perfect. Mary meanwhile was holy in God's Grace, which means it is not innate, which means she is definitely not perfect.
>>18416692>>18415938>>18415932>>18416701
>>18416354>who believe that Mary wasn't really a virgin motherSounds a lot like he’s talking about the virgin birth. Who cares if Mary remained a virgin after or not? It’s not as though lifelong virginity is a miracle or something. You have to have a twisted, monastic view of human sexuality for it to even matter to you.
>>18416717These people actually believe in uncreated skin and bones just like they believe when the HS took on the form of a dove that's an uncreated bird. So they cannot envision that Jesus was a created being.
>>18416426You’re an idiot>>18416692>you deny the divinity of Christ's motherThat’s correct, Mary is not God, you are a pagan and an idolater.>>18416701Most Protestants of any denomination will be confused if you call her theotokos because they do not speak Greek. The term they object to is not the stiltedly literal translation of “God-bearer”, but “mother of God”, which they object to for two reasons (neither of which are Christological) 1. Many Romanists mistakenly believe the term refers to the divine nature, and so exalt Mary as a goddess above God because they think she is His mother 2. The term is typically used by Romanists as one of many titles of worship and exaltation of Mary, and so has at best become a monument of idolatry like the serpent of Moses which was originally good but was necessary to destroy when it was degenerated into an idol.
>>18416741>The term they object to is not the stiltedly literal translation of “God-bearerIt should because that's also pagan. If you believe in a "god" that came out of a pussy then you're just a lost case. Anyway you're right in the sense that the cathdox literally worship her in a manner that resembles the other idolatrous man worship (directed towards Jesus) you think is okay
>>18416766
>>18416766The worship of Jesus is not idolatrous because He is God incarnate.
>>18416781Jesus is a creature according to the bible. You're worshiping that which isn't God therefore it is idolatry
>>18416786No, Jesus is God incarnate according to the bible.
>>18416793I can show you where you are wrong. But before we get to that do you believe Jesus' foreskin is God? Yes or No
>>18415928Neutral third party here Protestants are right
>>18416786>retvrn to arianismWe've been over this...
>>18416801No, Ahmed, you cannot.
>>18416801the Holy Prepuce (if it even still exists) is physical only, so therefore it is a remnant artefact of Jesus' human nature, so therefore it is not God.Or are you ascribing spirit to a discarded toenail?
>>18416825I'll take that to mean no. So you're saying the human body of Jesus is not to be worshiped yes? What about the body that was seen after resurrection?
>>18416834The Body of Jesus is to be worshipped when in union with His Divine Nature. I'll ask you to answer the question again : do you ascribe spirit to a discarded toenail, yes or no?
Catholics expose themselves every time when the Mary worship issue comes up. They can copypaste their church father screeds all they like but when it comes down to it they white knight her over our Lord.
Papists should just drop the mask and make Mary the supreme goddess, would probably revive attendance rates as well.
Only someone with a vile heart would have a problem with Mary.
>>18416841>The Body of Jesus is to be worshipped when in union with His Divine NatureSo before they snipped it off his foreskin was to be worshiped according to you? But since you're making this connection to waste. When his poop was inside is bowels would you have worshiped that too?>Do you ascribe spirit to a discarded toenail, yes or no?No but that's an implication from https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/888912/jewish/Nail-Clippings-and-Pregnant-Women.htm these are the kind of people you got your religion from lol
>>18416956>So before they snipped it off his foreskin was to be worshiped according to you?The whole of the Body was to be worshipped, the moment you categorize a distinct part you separate the Human Nature from the Divine because you then presuppose the Spirit inhabits the separate part individually, which is false.>When his poop was inside is bowels would you have worshiped that too?Excrements are not a part of the body, and you'd know this if you weren't a raging retard>*other garbage relating to Jews*I am not a Jew, so I do not care what falsehood they believe in.
>>18415928Sometimes, yeah.
>>18415928It's still ironic that Prots contradict Luther
>>18417003e-caths do know that luther isn't considered the founding father of most branches of protestantism right
>>18417016I meant in terms of reverence for Mary
>>18416962>The whole of the Body was to be worshippedIncluding the foreskin as I have said, you believe a divine foreskin existed at least at one point pagan>Excrements are not a part of the body,Pee is literally what is filtered from the bloodstream and Jesus' body extracted nutrition from that poop when it was in his guts. The question is do you believe his gas was divine too?
>>18417003Protestants don't revere Luther like you lads worship Augustine. He was just a man.
>>18417026>you believe a divine foreskin existed at least at one point paganno I did not. You purposefully separated one of Jesus' body parts again from the whole of His Body and conflated it with His Body. This is a categorization fallacy.>Pee is literally what is filtered from the bloodstream and Jesus' body extracted nutrition from that poop when it was in his guts. Are you legitimately retarded, or are you just underage? Digesting or digested food is no more part of the body than a needle inserted in it. Urin and excrements are not a part of the body because they are definitionally not used in the biological processes. Urin and excrements are not a part of the body. And EVEN if they were, I've already explained how separating parts from the whole will make some qualities not apply, i.e. a body part does not hold spirit, a body does.
>>18415928>genuine questioncan't you got damn goat fucking sand monkeys ever STFU???
>>18417042>You purposefully separated one of Jesus' body parts againI absolutely did not. If I refer to your hand am I separating anything? Of course not. Your hand is still there. Same thing happens when talking about your deity which used to have a foreskin. When it was attached to him you believe his foreskin was divine because it was attached to the rest of him. That's still a holy foreskin.>I've already explained how separating parts from the whole will make some qualities not applyGreat but before they were separated you believe shit and pee was divine and worthy of worship like every other hindoo pagan
>>18417073I'm curious, do you believe Jesus' hand, while still attached to His Body, INDIVIDUALLY has spirit?
>>18417092Yes absolutely are you kidding me? Like this is not even controversial, his cells are alive while they are attached to him so obviously they were given life by his spirit. If however it were chopped off then the hand dies and the flesh itself becomes worthless like a clipped nail
>>18417123But Jesus' hand does NOT have spirit individually, anon; Jesus does. Are you deliberately obfuscating the whole being of Jesus with his human body parts? A hand does not have the exact same qualities and attributes as the human body as a whole, just like a bike is not its chains by themselves, or a tree a trunk by itself. That's completely retarded, which is why it's a categorization fallacy; and nowhere does it say the individual body parts of Jesus are divine, especially considering the Council of Chalcedon stresses that those are elements that qualify His Human Nature - creature attributes.I think you're committing a heresy anon.
>>18417136>A hand does not have the exact same qualities and attributes as the human body as a wholeOf course it doesn't. Can a hand see? Nope! Can the individual who has a hand see? Yep. The entire individual is composed of parts that gives him various different attributes. If I pop out those eyes and the visual processing parts of the brain, can the individual see anymore? No again but neither can the removed parts because they depend on the rest of the body. Meaning in this case it's his spirit that is the part that is shared with the rest of the body. Remove the spirit from the part and it dies, which is exactly what happens when the hand and foreskin gets severed. The spirit gets removed from them and life functions cease. Obviously this means that when they were attached they had life giving spirit in them
>>18417155>Meaning in this case it's his spirit that is the part that is shared with the rest of the body.But that's not what you implied earlier when you said in >>18417073>When it was attached to him you believe his foreskin was divine because it was attached to the rest of him. As you can see, the foreskin, or any body part individually then, is not divine, but the Body, whose form defines which parts are attached, is. I'm glad we agree that there is no such thing as a Holy Penis.
>>18417166How is any of that different? You believe when the penis skin was attached to him it had spirit since it was part of the body do you not? Or is somehow his body disconnected from the parts that compose him?
>>18417250because the "penis" part does not intrinsically get spirit, it gets it from being part of the Body, which is itself an attribute of the Human Nature of Christ in union with His Divine Nature as the Son. The hand can never be holy by itself, it's because it's Jesus' hand, specifically as part of the hypostatic union, that it can share in the Divinity of the Fully Human Fully Divine Jesus; but it does not create Divinity or possess It due to being a creature trait. How is this hard to grasp?
>>18417265>because the "penis" part does not intrinsically get spirit, it gets it from being part of the BodyYou just admitted that it gets spirit eventually just in an indirect manner. Meaning the penis has the spirit just as much as the body in the end and you necessarily believe in holy penises. It's no different than saying the heart pumps blood to the arms.
>>18417282>Meaning the penis has the spirit just as much as the bodyno, again you're inflating the part with the whole in a categorization fallacy. This circular reasoning bores me. I will not reply to you again. Goodbye.
>>18417312>hurr the hand doesn't get blood because it passes through the arm from the heartRun bitch, you cannot even name the circle. Anyway I got what I needed from you penis worshiper.
>>18415928Yes, all pagans love Semiramis and her mangod son.
>>18415928Yes
>>18416708God's son came to earth to empty their seed into earthly women and created the nephililim. But god himself came to earth to empty his seed into Mary and created a healthy bouncing boy. Now that's bizarre.
How come Orthodogs are often ignored in these debates
>>18417775They don't matter.
>>18417792Fair enough.
>>18416099Yes, why should I shy away from our superiority in this matter? The meme doesn't negate this fact, sorry
>>18418425is your superiority your love for arab migrants or your fondness for transwomen?
>>18418430Always cute when Yankoids called some shit like "Joey Kryzuchowsky Lopez" start talking shit about immigration in Europe..
>>18418438I’m a 100% white Aryan German and Irish man, you are a brown immigrant named Ahmed. I’m the real German.
>>18418439You're an Amerimutt, you're circumcised.
>>18418443I am uncut. You’re circumcised though because Muhammad (pbuh) said to
>>18418447Good cope, I've seen the stats, 90%+ of white yanks are mutilated by their parents lolololo
>>18417775>>18417792But le hecking based denomination...
>>18416692its the right answer though, jesus wasnt a created creature
