Labor Day (New Zealand)/Ramadan Begins/Independence Day (St Vincent)
2003-10-27 @ 3:56 p.m.

I find it rather sad when a person refuses to engage in logical and reasonable debate, especially when he's the one trying to defend his religion. For your edification, I've decided to post the entire exchange of e-mails between a certain Bob Stanley and myself, a rather brief exchange since he has shown himself to be a closed-minded person who isn't prepared to engage in constructive argument in defence of the Roman Catholic faith. Talk about a two-faced person. It seems I'm not the only Protestant heretic he's denounced. Some other guy actually provided a complete rebuttal to an article by Bob Stanley, only to receive the reply that he was a heretic and as such Bob Stanley would not speak further with him to avoid having to hear more lies and perversions of the Holy Scripture. Is this some sort of insecurity I'm seeing here? If you're bold enough to invite Protestants to question your Roman Catholic doctrine, you'd better be well-prepared to argue your case instead of just flinging the label of "heretic" back at anyone who you can't out-argue. To quote: "I do not think that you follow the Bible sir, and I will show you why and I expect an answer." After having received my answer, which he did not bother to rebut at all: "You sir are a tap tap tap dancer and a twister of the word of GOD. I do not dialog with such as you." Pray tell then, who would you dialog with? Other sycophants of the Pope perhaps, who will happily nod their heads in agreement with you? I thought so. Yet lest I be accused of being anti-Catholic, let me place before the world the evidence, and let them make their own judgement...

FIRST E-MAIL

Ian Chung wrote:
What is the difference between a mortal and a venial sin?

Bob Stanley wrote:
It is explained very nicely in Rom 6:16, and 1Jn 5:16-17.

Ian Chung wrote:
And where in the Bible is such a distinction made? Also, where does it state that Mary was immaculately conceived?

Bob Stanley wrote:
Where does it say she was not immaculately conceived? I do not think that you follow the Bible sir, and I will show you why and I expect an answer.

If you claim to follow Holy Scripture, please read Luke 1:48. "Henceforth" means from the moment she said it until the end of time. "All generations", I presume includes you as well as every Protestant in the entire world. "Will/shall" denotes a command and not a suggestion. "Call me blessed". You did not call her blessed in this post and I doubt that you ever have in your entire life. If you truthfully claim to follow Holy Scripture, then please explain to me why you ignore Luke 1:48?

GOD Bless,

Bob

SECOND E-MAIL

Ian Chung wrote:
Romans 6:16 states that sin leads to death, not that there is a distinction between types of sin. Romans 6:23 affirms this: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death." 1 John 5:16-17

Although "the wages of sin is death", a sinner is not damned by God the moment he sins, while there yet remains hope for his salvation. This passage does not claim that there are gradations or categories of sin. The "sin unto death" referred to here is an attitude of total rejection of God. As such, the person is separated from God and has sinned "unto death".

"Where does it say she was not immaculately conceived?"

Show me a passage that states she was. Only if such a statement can be proven by scripture can such a doctrine be accepted.

"And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." Luke 1:46-47

If Mary was of immaculate conception, she would not have needed God to save her. Her explicit acknowledgement of God as her "Saviour" demonstrates her recognition that she was a sinner, and consequently in need of God's salvation.

"For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." Luke 1:48

You are correct in saying I have never referred to her as Blessed in my entire life. This verse is not a command to "all generations" to address Mary as Blessed Virgin Mary.

Bob Stanley wrote:
The Bible says ALL GENERATIONS SHALL CALL HER BLESSED. You say it does not say that. How plain could that verse be? Ahhh decisions decisions, who am I to believe, the Word of GOD or you??? Well that was no contest...YOU LOSE BIG! You sir are a tap tap tap dancer and a twister of the word of GOD. I do not dialog with such as you. Goodbye!

Ian Chung wrote:
Where is such a term ever used to describe Mary? Such an interpretation is a deliberate distortion of the Word of God. There is no question of ignoring her supposed command. The implication of the verse is that she is "blessed" by virtue of her having the honour of bearing Jesus Christ. Nowhere is it indicated we are to address her as anything other than Mary, for she was just a woman, mortal. For Christ to pay the price of the sins of Man, he had to be born as a man himself. How else could he be born a man, but of a mortal woman?