On "Denigrating Mary"

 "Why do Protestants denigrate the BLESSED MOTHER MARY?"

Dewd! Your question answers itself, if only you'd LOOK at what you're saying.

But, since you won't look-with-comprehension, I'll spell it out: Protestants "denigrate" Mary because you people insist upon trying to elevate her to *at least* the so-equal with Christ (i.e. calling her the "Co-Redemptrix"; calling her "The Queen of Heaven"; etc), if not his superior.

In other words, it's a matter of opposing idolatry.

Addendum:

When one prays to Mary, or to any other saint, one is ascribing to that mere human being -- who, by the way, is dead -- the divine attributes of omnipresence and omniscience.

Why do Protestants denigrate the BLESSED MOTHER MARY?

We Can't Fix the Problem If We're Not Allowed to Name It.

 I have no problem at all in assigning as much blame to "brave single mothers" as to their "baby daddies" (*).

And I have no problem at all in recognizing that second to the personal immorality for forcing an innocent baby to be a bastard, as noted above, is the perverse incentive that Welfare plays in fostering this plague upon our civilization.

Many years ago, I was acquainted (**) with a young black man whose mother had tossed him out on the streets as soon as he turned 18 and she could no longer collect a Welfare check to "care" for him. I am certain that had he been a daughter, his mother would have made sure that that daughter was pregnant while still a minor.

Now, certainly, there are white women who react in the same way to the perverse incentives that Welfare presents them. My point isn't about the race of the "brave single mothers"; my point is about the perverse and immoral incentives of Welfare.

(*) I case you don't know, "my baby daddy" is Ebonics for "my baby's daddy". And, also, in context, for "my babies' daddies".

(**) I met him a few times over several years, as my mother baby-sat his children the last several years of her life. I met his wife much more often.

Coulter Embarrasses Democrats! But Is She Right?

Big Organ Lost One

I've written about this phenomenon several times over the years. And this is why the human chop-shops frequently sedate the "corpses" they are about to break down for parts. I guess they forgot to do that this time.

This is why I oppose the transplanting of vital organs as being immoral:
- because the "donors" aren't always dead;
- because the body-chopper declaring that the "donor" is dead does not mean that he is actually dead;
- because hospitals are not in the business of saving lives and alleviating suffering, they are in the business of making money ... and there is a lot of money to be made in selling off the vital organs of "donors".

Dead Man Wakes Up as Doctors Prepare to Harvest His Organs

No Mercy Intended

 At one point during Christ's crucifixion, he says that he is thirsty, and a Roman soldier lifts a sponge soaked in vinegar to his lips, but Christ refuses it.  

A very common "explanation" for this tableau -- and one which I have long believed to be not merely mistaken but utterly false -- is that this was an act of kindness or mercy, the vinegar being offered to dull the horrible pain of the crucified victim, and that Christ refused it so as to fully experience taking upon himself the weight of mankind's sin.  But, this doesn't make sense; for the whole point of crucifixion was to kill the condemned by slow torture, with as much humiliation and horror as possible.

Here is what I believe to be what was really going on: the Roman soldier was offering Christ vinegar delivered on the Roman equivalent of toilet paper. In their public latrines, Romans wiped their asses with sponges on sticks. Christ refused it not because our salvation required him fully experience the horror, but because it was unclean.

Coincidentally, just before I started writing this post, I did a quick search and came across the following web-page, which argues for the same conclusion -- The Crucifixion Sponge: Adding Insult to Injury