I do believe the woman in revelation is Mary, but she is screaming in pain as she delivers. If one of the consequences of sin is pain, brought into the world by Adam (wait a minute... isn't evolution the truth?) then she did not have an immaculate conception. I would like a Catholic response. I am not a prideful fundamentalist, I'm just a young man in pursuit of Christ. Do the Orthodox churches not believe in the immaculate conception?|||Oh it hurt. They just sugarcoated it for the nativity scene.|||Catholic heresy, it has no biblical basis. Plus the woman in Revelation is not Mary, it's not even a "woman." Revelation is heavily symbolic and figurative.|||Didn't happen. Scientifically impossible.|||Adam appeared out of no where and you have a problem with virgin birth? lol|||Stop believing in nonsense and you will stop asking questions based in nonsense. It'd be like me asking, "How does Santa get around the world in one night? There is no way he could visit every house in one night."|||Because as co-redemptrix, she suffered mystically with her beloved children past, present, and future, many of whom are mothers who, as sinners, experienced pain in childbirth. She was not obligated to accept this suffering, and it's accompanying redemptive value that saved many, but she did this out of her great love for her Son and us. Mary's Immaculate Conception means she was conceived *without sin* inside of St. Anne, her mother. Catholics are permitted to believe in evolution, as long as they believe at some point God gave free will to our ancestors, creating the first human beings. Having free will means having the capacity to love, choose right from wrong, and live forever.|||Why do you think the birth of Jesus was painless? I am intrigued by this.......|||Why do you think Mary had a painless birth? Not mentioned anywhere in the bible. Have not heard this woman in Revelation referred to as Mary. I thought the immaculate conception was by the Holy Spirit, how would that be painful and what does that have to do with Adam.....I'm confused by your logic, sorry.|||she didn't and she didn't - or then again she might have used some weird form of artificial insemination utilising a cow udder or some such thing, and smoked opium or considering the story is situated in a remote part of the middle east then mega puffs of first class hashish *just joking* in earnest, those bible stories are pure bunkum at best and vicious wicked evil b*s* at worse <;3|||Things are written in the bible for a reason. But, I don't think John wrote that to make the point that you are trying to make, saying that Mary was a sinner. Nor do I think he is fascinated with the struggles of giving birth as he is making the spiritual point that Jesus was brought into this world with much struggle. As far as child birth being painful. We know that it is because of the nature of women's bodies that makes child bearing painful. But a woman who gives birth to a child in pain is also a spiritual image of bringing something into fruition with much struggle. The devil warred against Christ from the get go. He sent Herod to try and kill the child. But, Mary and Joseph took Jesus into the desert, to Egypt, to save him, having been warned in a dream. But, perhaps a better explanation is found in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. It says the pangs of birth is probably related to the Passion of Jesus, which pierced the heart of his Mother (Lk 2:35) and seized his disciples with the distress of a woman in labor.|||Who says Mary had a painless birth? First I have heard of that.|||You are confused beyond comment that could possibly reach you.|||Charles Darwin failed miserably in his quest to validate his argument on Evolution. Evolution is a lie. God created the Heaven and Earth as the Holy Bible declares (Genesis 1:1). Don't put faith in theories. Have faith in God. Charles Darwin did not use good logic in his famous book, "The Origin of Species." W.R. Thompson, a Canadian entomologist(entomology-study of insects) of international repute, wrote in his introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin's Origen, "Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others. Chapter 4 of the Origin, entitled "Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest," occupies 44 pages in the 1958 mentor edition. In this chapter Darwin used the language of speculation, imagination, and assumption at least 187 times. For example, pages 118 and 119 contain the following phrases; "may have been," "is supposed to," perhaps," "If we suppose," "may still be," 'it is probable," "will generally tend," "may" "will generally tend," 'If," 'if...assumed," "supposed," "supposed," "probably," "It seems, therefore, extremely probable," and "We may suppose." Is this really the language of science? No, it is not. Of Darwin's speculative arguments Thompson wrote, "....Personal convictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favor of the theory....The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any conceivable case. It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation (change of one species to another) has been given." Source: Thompson, W.R., Introduction to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, E.P. Dutton and Co., New York. Have faith dear friends in God, not theories. Genesis 1:1 Isaiah 45:18 Colossians 1:16 Hebrews 11:1-6 Genesis 2:1-3 Exodus 20:8-11 Psalm 14:1 SDA

火车采集器