Was Jesus' crucifixion all part of God's plan?

I've never heard of a Catholic Church that attempted to promote Mary as anything beyond "human." Have you heard differently?I've heard that they say she was Jesus' mom.
That makes her somewhat special (if you believe Jesus was born and had a mom, anyway...).
A virgin birth (if you believe Jesus was born from a virgin as well...) is also special, and deserves a bit of indication.But anything more than that? I don't recall any Catholic Church claiming anything more.If you think that what they are doing is "more than that"... then that is your own personal hangup... and perhaps the Catholic Church isn't for you. But you don't get to decide if someone else is claiming a religious figurehead "as a God" when they explicitly state otherwise. Or, at least, it needs a bit more than just your say-so.

Heh... I never applied that concept to the Bible before.
Interesting... if God wanted us to choose Him freely, why send us the Bible or His Son at all? That doesn't seem to be a "free choice" it seems to be God stacking the deck in His favour. Making His presence known in any way whatsoever really removes the whole "free choice" aspect... if that's what He was going for, anyway.Like Star Wars (and pretty much any other movie dealing with the concept).
"Bringing balance to the force" apparently means that the good guys win and the bad guys are defeated.It may be a happy ending, but it's hardly "balanced."

Yeah, for sure.
I do like those sorts of stories. They make for moving endings.It just irks me when they are touted as "maintaining balance" or "keeping things even."Entirely wiping out the threat of evil is a good thing. But it's not balanced or even, it's incredibly lopsided to the side of good."We're on an airplane where the wings are balanced between good and evil"
"Oh no! The evil side is attacking the good wing of the plane and bent on a crash landing for everyone!"
"Shall we beat them back to their wing to maintain balance?"
"No! Let's maintain the balance by completely destroying their wing!"
"..." "Wait... do we want to maintain balance so the plane still flies... or totally defeat evil?"
"Totally defeat the evil! It's the right thing to do! Let's go!!!"
"But without their side of the balance, the plane will crash anyway... doesn't evil get what they want then?"
"SPARTAAAAAA!!!!"It kind of reduces otherwise-decent movies to Monty Python skits. Welcome to EvC. It's nice here. Lots to read and follow and learn and laugh about. And the logistics of the forum software are pretty cool.

Seems plausible. But still off somewhat to me, though. This seems to imply that before the Dark Side rose up... there was no Light Side (good side)... did everyone just walk around in states of neutrality?However, it does seem to be backed up by this entry: And further confirmed with this entry: Which seems to state that before the Jedi (Light Side) were created to remove the Sith (Dark Side)... there was already the first order of force-users... The Je'daii who balanced things between the Light Side and the Dark Side. So... there were regular users of light and dark first.This idea seems to make sense:Light and Dark side users exist and work in balance.
Then "Super Dark Side" users rise up (Sith) and cause some havoc.
So, then "Super Light Side" users rise up (Jedi) to remove them.If the Jedi's plan is to wipe out the Sith, and then dissolve themselves... regardless of the existence of other non-super dark-side users and non-super light-side users... it can make sense.But this isn't apparent from the movies.
The movies seem to imply that the Jedi are there to battle any and all dark forces.
They seem to rejoice when the dark side is utterly defeated... and then continue on as Jedi themselves.
(...which springs forth my comment that makes sense when you're ignorant of the Wookiepedia.)In contrast to how Jesus's crucifixion was all part of God's plan, the movies make it seem like keeping balance is not all part of the Jedi's plan.

You seem to paint a tightly controlled dichotomy.Either someone chooses to let Jesus guide their life, exactly the way Phat thinks it should be done...
Or someone rejects Jesus, refuses all external gifts and focuses only on what they can create themselves.It seems to me like there are plenty of other options:

• Choosing to let Jesus guide your life in a way that Phat does not approve of, but actually comes straight from Jesus
• Rejecting the "gift from God" when it is described in a nonsensical way, but willing to accept such a gift if it did make sense
• Questioning the existence of grace in the first place instead of thinking you could create such a thing yourself
• various degrees and combinations of the above

I do not think things are the way you so tightly believe them to be.
With nothing to actually base our ideas on, I find it highly unlikely that any person who claims to "be inspired by God" actually has it right.That doesn't mean I want to grind your ideas into dust.
It just means what it says... I don't think you have it all right. Who knows? Maybe you do. I just don't think so. If you are required to save or redeem yourself... then yes, you will have to do it through your own actions.
Someone else saving or redeeming you wouldn't be "saving ourselves."Personally, I don't even think we need saving or redeeming unless we actually do something evil that requires saving or redeeming ourselves.