Notices by Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)
-
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 04-Jul-2025 14:17:47 JST 
Ash Kvetchum
😂 The worst is the last 10 minutes of either the day before Thanksgiving or on Christmas Eve
"WHERE IS YOUR CHEEZE WHIZ I CAN'T FIND IT" -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 04-Jul-2025 13:04:13 JST
Ash Kvetchum
yuh but it has a picture uh a duck gettin' his body wash rite on tha label
y not chicken? -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 04-Jul-2025 02:26:49 JST
Ash Kvetchum
I want to hurt their thing, not hand them gold
-
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 04-Jul-2025 02:21:47 JST
Ash Kvetchum
Because I want to deflate what they identify with -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 04-Jul-2025 02:19:41 JST
Ash Kvetchum
>new element to sodomy flag
>libertarians need represented
>Israel-loving conservatives need represented
I don't see why a snake doesn't suffice.
You could even make it like the ourboros and place it inside the yellow "egg yolk" circle they've recently added to that flag -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Wednesday, 02-Jul-2025 08:04:11 JST
Ash Kvetchum
Thank you
I know 🎶 just the family member🎶 to pocket this for
-
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Wednesday, 02-Jul-2025 07:55:10 JST
Ash Kvetchum
This is a good line of rhetoric 🍻
yyyYOINK -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Jul-2025 11:13:36 JST
Ash Kvetchum
I don't remember a time seeing either a man or woman painted by you. They're difficult! And yet, as every window into wonder you make, this is awesome. 😊 Ethereal, eerie, beautiful. This is extremely well done 🍻
-
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Jul-2025 04:41:09 JST
Ash Kvetchum
I saved Huntress' profile pic and banner.
I intended to change my name, pfp, and banner for a day sometime soon, as a joke--fun for the gang--but I am also wary and don't want admins of NCD, Poast, etc to pass over and nuke or ban "Huntress" (me, a retard)
😆 -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Jul-2025 04:41:08 JST
Ash Kvetchum
I believe so--and she was trying to, either way. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Monday, 30-Jun-2025 03:03:20 JST
Ash Kvetchum
real footage of what I look like when I go into threads on NCD dot com and Poast dot com to demand our volk know it's the jews and to stop talking about how to make better muffins -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Sunday, 29-Jun-2025 03:21:51 JST
Ash Kvetchum
:cats_dance: -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:36 JST
Ash Kvetchum
(In the green text below, I'm not quoting the comment immediately above. I'm quoting the points within this fork of the thread that were in response to my OP as well as the responses to those, in one place, responding to them all.)
>Mary was bestowed with an ongoing grace prior even to Christ's conception, in a way that is unique to her. She held Him within her womb.
>Mary was either preserved from temptation in a particular way or simply chose not to sin
Every Israelite was in sin. "There is none righteous, not one... except Mary. I swear on my mama."
The conceptual misunderstanding, an itch, that needed scratched that led to the idea/solution of a sinless Mary is the wrestling with how Christ would be sinless if born through a fallen human--the same state that results in other humans being in sin.
(The answer: It wasn't the same state--not because Mary was sinless or in some special grace, but because Christ is a second Adam in that he has no father by the Spirit but God. He is descended by flesh from Adam, but not descended by Spirit from Adam. He is rather by the Spirit the ancestor of Adam, as He is God, who gave His Spirit to Adam. That is why He is the true vine and we are the branches.)
It's unnecessary for Mary to be sinless, let alone inconsistent.
Let alone insufficient, really, if we were to trace that, too.
>If Mary was sinless then her death would have been a perfect sacrifice as much as Christ's was
The reason that Christ's death is the sufficient sacrifice is that only the death of the Husband (God) releases the adulterous Bride (all Israelites, living or dead, regardless of whether they were of Judea or whether they were the much greater number elsewhere--even the greater number of Israelites: those having been removed from the congregation so long ago (and their descendants) that they no longer knew/remembered themselves as Israelites) from the vow (the law). With the death of the Husband, the adulterous Bride is released.
Mary dying (i.e. not the Husband), whether sinless or not, would not satisfy this. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:33 JST
Ash Kvetchum
>pretty exotic theology
Which part(s)?
>And the reason for that was not because the Fathers were trying to have a conversation about Mary, but because they were trying to think through questions about Jesus.
Yes. (💀) This just saying back to me what I said:
"The conceptual misunderstanding, an itch, that needed scratched that led to the idea/solution of a sinless Mary is the wrestling with how Christ would be sinless if born through a fallen human--the same state that results in other humans being in sin." -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:32 JST
Ash Kvetchum
>the questions the Council was trying to solve
Which would be... ?
They weren't addressing Christ's nature?--through the centuries, through these councils, extending the conversation from Christ's nature to Mary's part in forming or not forming that nature (as well as discussing which natures)? And then naming Mary in accordance with the stance they held?
And then--later, as Catholicism took the conversation, though not Orthodoxy--extending from Christ's nature to Mary's part in Christ's nature to even Mary's nature?
Yes.
(Examples are above / in parallel forks. Catholics referring to the CCC, quoting about Mary's "sinless" nature.)
This is how it came to be that we have Catholicism saying Mary was sinless--with Orthodoxy not going that full extent.
The reason you and I are not having the same conversation is that your goal is--what exactly? Where are you addressing a point I've pressed? I'm not arguing against the idea Mary gave birth to Him. I'm not arguing against the truth that it was through Mary that God came in the flesh as a man, born by the flesh of a human mother.
My OP is about the overemphasis on asking Mary to intercede and from where that stems. (For some, in the conversation above, the emphasis is due to their stance that Mary was without sin or preserved from temptation.)
For the Orthodox, some would argue that it's her role as His mother and/or (depending on the particular Orthodox branch) her role as the one who bore Him.
And this still does not address the comparative overemphasis (over examples of other figures in scripture I presented) on asking Mary specifically to intercede.
Engage in the topic 🍻 Or go. Whichever suits you. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:31 JST
Ash Kvetchum
>Where do you get the idea the EO don't go as far as the RCC? Orthodoxy holds to the sinlessness of Mary, I don't think any of the EO churches teach otherwise.
Talking to Orthobros, friend. 🤷 By "Orthodoxy doesn't go as far," I only leave room because--though every Catholic with whom I've talked about this says that Mary is sinless--some Orthodox (whether it may be according to their tradition or not--whether that's specifically Greek, Russian, or what-have-you) have said instead that Mary was not sinless. If they have stated what is counter to Orthodoxy (or their specific branch), then that bears on their point rather than mine.
>Ephesus 431
Have more care with what I am saying. I haven't claimed anyone *began* calling Mary 'Theotokos' at this council (nor did I limit the scope to one council, and I'll say the reason for that in a second--I understand why you have referred to this one, as it's during this one that there's discussion on specifically continuing or altering the used title for Mary).
What I said is that there was choosing what to call Mary based upon views (which isn't a criticism)--and that is true of both a) those at the council trying to call Mary something new and b) those at the council choosing to continue what they had been calling her.
My point was that there was discussion of Mary (her title and her role) that extended directly from discussion of Christ's nature. (The discussion of Christ's nature need not be *during* the council. Nestorius posited the new title for Mary because of discussions about Christ's nature.)
Some also discuss Mary's nature by extension. (I am not limiting the scope of this to councils. Not all claims about Mary were made in councils. Some are made within sects--even the largest ones.)
The reason I left the scope as wide as "councils" rather than naming Ephesus is because these conversations carry from one council to the next, by extensions--even questions not within a previous council, but arising after a previous council, often due to points from a previous council, leading to topics in the next. (Example: We could talk about how the view of Apollinaris addressed long before Ephesus affected the view (like a guard rail) of Nestorius and so affected the topic at Ephesus.) Both views--Apollinaris and Nestorius--were about Christ's nature--and it did lead to discussions about Mary.
All of that aside, remember that the larger (original) point of the post is that there is an overemphasis on asking Mary to intercede and addressing why that is the case--not whether she in the flesh bore Christ in the flesh (as everyone in this thread agrees she did), and not on whether she should be called Theotokos (as the title and the concept--as far as her having born Christ--isn't the concern). -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:29 JST
Ash Kvetchum
🤍 Thank you for the clarifying question, man.
I'm setting aside one larger categorical objection (praying that saints intercede on our behalf)--assuming a stance that that is fine--for the sake of more specifically addressing the quantitative objection: that Mary is given--among those asked to intercede--an emphasis that I think is misplaced.
Hand-in-hand with this quantitative objection though goes the categorical objection of Mary's sinlessness. It's unnecessary for her to have been sinless.
I just now wrote a more full response to Sulla_Felix in this fork, further clarifying, if you want to look there. If you want to respond there or come back here, keeping them separate, either is fine. 🍻 -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:28 JST
Ash Kvetchum
I think anyone would agree that there are claims not explicit in the text of scripture but that can (and should) be extrapolated. For example, in the four testimonies Christ doesn't say explicitly the exact words "I am God"--and atheists think that's a trump. But we know that we can extrapolate from "before Abraham was, I AM" and other statements He gives, and we know that God had previously said He would come and gather His sheep scattered, that He would be the good shepherd--and many more points in scripture that clearly support and necessitate that Christ is God. We can extrapolate clearly to the conclusion. And then more conclusions from there, sure.
So it isn't automatically false when someone states something not explicitly stated in scripture, we see--but there must be the basis in scripture *and* it must not contradict other passages of scripture (unless one also claims the specific passage contradicting is a later addition that doesn't belong or was corrupted, whether purposefully or by accident).
No where does scripture explicitly say that Mary was sinless, and no where in scripture is there a passage that implicitly necessitates that she was sinless. It does however say in scripture that none were righteous, that all were fallen, and it does say that the Israelites--and Mary was an Israelite--were condemned to death by the law, as the Bride had been adulterous. These--which are in scripture--would contradict Mary being sinless.
The reason Mary not being sinless matters (in the context of this conversation, not as a whole) is that the claims the RCC makes about her (that she did not die an earthly death and/or that she chose to set aside her life) are only necessary *if* she were sinless.
And we know from scripture that it *cannot be* that she was sinless, as she was 1) of Adam, 2) an Israelite--meaning of the Bride condemned by the law, as told by God through the prophets as we have received through scripture, regardless of a recieved (man-handled) tradition offering a contradiction that's not scripturally based and is an unnecessary exception.
The reason this matters is that this inflation of Mary's nature is the basis for the inflated emphasis of Mary's role or ability in intercession.
I would point out that the beat of "The Father, the Son, and the... " begs for "Mother", and the RCC puts Mary in that role--not going so far as to make her God-- but "Mother of us all," "sinless," "Queen in Heaven," "closest to God for intercession."
A typology of Eve seems diluted and inflated, consumed, lost in the sauce, by a member-of-the-Godhead typology given to Mary by the language and claims of Mary's nature the RCC uses ("sinless," "Mother of us," "Queen in Heaven," "closest to God for intercession," etc.). Granted, of course, not quite a Mother that's part of the Godhead, but approaching closer to that than to only the nature, role, and importance explicitly given in scripture or that which can be extrapolated with a scriptural basis.
(just a good animal for your time) -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:26 JST
Ash Kvetchum
LMAO
😤 Stay in your fork
🤣
Man, I felt the same way about the conversation you and the others were having over there.
It was good to see in your all's fork that people were trying at talking, too -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:34:33 JST
Ash Kvetchum
This doesn't touch the more broad topic of asking the dead to intercede.
(inb4 "It's asking the living to intercede. They're not dead." I'm not arguing their state with that statement. You know what a woman is; you know what I mean by dead.)
I almost find the broader topic unnecessary to address because--of all the dead--Mary is the go-to GOAT, the frequent, the common, the mentioned, the Hail Mary.
I would go so far as to say the broader idea is held fervently primarily for the sake of being able to ask Mary to intercede.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the