Speak lovingly of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If someone does not agree with it they would have to have proof for the opposite and unfortunately the opposition has not yet (and never will).

No.

This rubric (so often claimed by Catholics and Mormons) is unheard of in any acedemic discussion known to me or in any rules of debate or apologetics. It is the one making the statement of fact that has the "burden of proof" (the need for substantiation).

If I state that there are 6 billion furry brown creatures on the Moon of Endor, it is NOT your "job" to prove this wrong (good luck!), it would be MY job to support it as true. But this rubric that you and our Mormon firends so often try, this "turning the tables," you'd need to insist that it is DOGMA that Bigfoot exists because no one has (or likely ever will) prove that he doesn't. That is absolutely, completely, totally unrelated to whether Bigfoot actually exists. Or by your rubric, if I said that Mary had pink hair and a hankerin' for fish tacos, it would be DOGMA unless you could PROVE it to be false (good luck). I HOPE (but frankly doubt) you see the absurdity of this Catholic/Mormon rubric. If YOU say it's true, YOU need to substantiate that it is.

So far, in some 142 pages of posts, no one has offered ANYTHING that remotely supports this dogma of Mary Had No Sex EVER. That's obvious to all.




.

 

[Philothei]

That's obvious to all.

Correction :That is obvious to the minority of christians who are not either EO, RC, or OO and also all those Protestants who are not of the same belief that the EV ever existed.....

 

[Uphill Battle]

Calling PV "mindless dogma" is unbased.

If someone does not agree with it they would have to have proof for the opposite and unfortunately the opposition has not yet (and never will).
Furthermore althouhg cute your cartoon has no place in this thread as if the kitten is not interested ....she does not have to "participate" in this thread....LOL.....

ah! Ok then. how about this.

Moses comes down from heaven every thursday and plays chess with me. My church has declared that this is something that we all must believe, even if nobody is there playing chess other than Moses and I. I have no proof, other than that other people believe it happens.

now, given the same requirements you have of us... prove it isn't true.

 

[Thekla]

ah! Ok then. how about this.

Moses comes down from heaven every thursday and plays chess with me. My church has declared that this is something that we all must believe, even if nobody is there playing chess other than Moses and I. I have no proof, other than that other people believe it happens.

now, given the same requirements you have of us... prove it isn't true.

who typically wins ?

(I would have guessed the Sumerian game, "Ur" - oh well ...)

 

[Uphill Battle]

I win. Chess wasn't invented when he was around. Makes it easier.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

ah! Ok then. how about this.

Moses comes down from heaven every thursday and plays chess with me. My church has declared that this is something that we all must believe, even if nobody is there playing chess other than Moses and I. I have no proof, other than that other people believe it happens.

now, given the same requirements you have of us... prove it isn't true.

Good point....


The RCC has a LONG history (way before any Protestant denomination even existed - they didn't learn it from us, lol), of judging people, condemning them, anthematizing them, condemning them, and perhaps dispatching them to heaven a bit ahead a schedule smelling like smoke - so OBVIOUSLY it doesn't operate under the rubric of: "If you say it, it must be true. If you are sincere, it must be correct. If you've always thought it, it's dogma." Nope. It holds all others ACCOUNTABLE - and to a fairly high bar. It demands evidence - right here, right now - or suffer the consequences. (I'm not arguing if such is good for bad, only that the RCC does it and so can't complain when others do what it has done for centuries).


Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The RCC must be the reciever of EXACTLY the same thing. Since the RCC holds OTHERS accountable, then OTHERS must hold the RCC accountable. And to the same "level" and with the same "substantiation" of the same nature. So, if the RCC rejects that there are 6.5 billion furry critters living on the Moon of Endor because I have no substantiation for that of a nature it accepts, then it is absolutely appropriate for all to seek substantiation for the DOGMA that Mary had no sex ever - and seek the same level of substantiation and same type of substantiation that it seeks of others. Now, IF the RCC accepted as substantiation that a denomination formally teaches it THEREFORE it's true, IF the RCC accepted as substantiation that the "fathers" of that denomination are interpreted by that denomination as agreeing with that denomination, IF the RCC accepted as substantiation that the denomination appoints itself as the sole interpreter of Scripture and it alone interprets Scriptures as agreeing with itself as determined by itself, IF the RCC accepted as substantiation that if a denomination has long and sincerely believed this, THEN I'd understand Catholic apologetics such as we've been getting throughout this thread. But the RCC does not. It condemns such apologetics as circular and dangerous. And they are correct.




Thank you again.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[Philothei]

ah! Ok then. how about this.

Moses comes down from heaven every thursday and plays chess with me. My church has declared that this is something that we all must believe, even if nobody is there playing chess other than Moses and I. I have no proof, other than that other people believe it happens.

now, given the same requirements you have of us... prove it isn't true.

Your paradigm has not 'tradtion' in any church... except those cults... sure you can call it whatever...lol......There are sects who believe whatever about personalities of the Bible... sure go ahead call yourself Moses if you like too...

Your example has no purpose, no point....How it relates to Christ and our salvation? That is the key UB.... It does not... and it is your say as whether Moses comes to play chess or not .... is irrelevant to our salvation.
PV of Theotokos has an aim and a purpose and the Church in her wisdom set is as a belief for it points to God's salvific plan...

 

[Rick Otto]

I wonder what a neuroliguistic programmer would make of all the trigger words I see flashed when logic & proportion becomes overwhelming.

 

[Philothei]

See I do not have to "wonder"...because the Church tradition has already dealed with problems similar and the Holy Spirit guding the Church has prevailed......while for sure you are left to "wonder"..... Mr. Rick Otto...

 

[Rick Otto]

lol

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

See I do not have to "wonder"...because the Church tradition has already dealed with problems similar and the Holy Spirit guding the Church has prevailed......while for sure you are left to "wonder"..... Mr. Rick Otto...

The LDS Church (THE authority, it claims for it itself exclusively and infallibly) has declared that Jesus visited the Americas and established His Church. The Holy Spirit guided His Church to this Truth, it itself self-claims. Others may "wonder" but they need not for the Church has spoken and when It speaks, Jesus speaks (compare with Catholic Catechism # 87).


Now, back to the issue of whether it is distinctively LOVING to spread an altogether moot, potentially hurtful and intensely private, personal, intimate story about someone when there is no substantiation that it is true, nothing of the level or nature that the Catholic accepts from others and thus we should not accept from it.

IF we love someone, we should be respect them - and that includes truth and the correctness of stories or reports about them. Sincerity is not the point (Mormons and Davidians are sincere). Popularity is not the point (millions believe in Bigfoot and alien abductions, billions in reincarnation). Age is not the point (Gnosticism is older than most of the doctrines in the RCC). TRUTH is the point: dogma requires dogmatic substantiation. For 144 pages, we've been waiting for SOMETHING....







.

 

[Thekla]

To truly love another, we must see them as God "sees" them, which is as they truly are - unique in all of creation and time with a particular skopos given to them by God.

When we expect Mary to "be as we are", to fulfill our idea of marriage, this is to deny her unique role in the history of creation and salvation by the will of God. This is actually "love of self/me the standard", not the love which is of God.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

To truly love another, we must see them as God "sees" them,

Then give dogmatic substantiation that God "sees" Mary as one who had no sex ever.




.

 

[lionroar0]

To truly love another, we must see them as God "sees" them, which is as they truly are - unique in all of creation and time with a particular skopos given to them by God.

When we expect Mary to "be as we are", to fulfill our idea of marriage, this is to deny her unique role in the history of creation and salvation by the will of God. This is actually "love of self/me the standard", not the love which is of God.

This paraphrased quote is from St. Francis.

We can only be ourselves in front of God.

Is there an Orthodox Saint that has said something like that?

Peace

 

[Photini]

This paraphrased quote is from St. Francis.

We can only be ourselves in front of God.

Is there an Orthodox Saint that has said something like that?

Peace

I suspect St Silouan the Athonite may have said something to that effect...he spoke extensively about love. But it is a thought that I have read in MANY Orthodox theological books.

 

[MamaZ]

God sees Mary as He sees all of His children.. Through Christ.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This paraphrased quote is from St. Francis.

We can only be ourselves in front of God.

Lost me...

How does that dogmatically substantiate that Mary had no sex ever?





.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Your paradigm has not 'tradtion' in any church...

prove it. I could write up documents stating that this has been true since time immemorial. I could probably even cobble up some "biblical scholars" that say it's true.

except those cults... sure you can call it whatever...lol......There are sects who believe whatever about personalities of the Bible... sure go ahead call yourself Moses if you like too...

where in the heck did I call myself Moses?

Your example has no purpose, no point....

none that you will address, anyhow.

How it relates to Christ and our salvation? That is the key UB.... It does not...

neither does the perpetual virginity of Mary. Even if it IS true, it has nothing to do with our salvation. Unless you're going to start saying you can't be saved if you don't believe it! Or, somehow, her PV was a component of salvation... neccessary to add on to what Christ did... I don't think you'll find either viewpoint tenable.

and it is your say as whether Moses comes to play chess or not .... is irrelevant to our salvation.

agreed. But who cares? the point was, you can't prove it isn't true. so, I can claim it as absolutely true, using the same method by which you are claiming the PV is true... because people can't DISprove it.

PV of Theotokos has an aim and a purpose and the Church in her wisdom set is as a belief for it points to God's salvific plan...

really. What aim did the PV have? what part of salvation does the supposed fact that Mary never slept with anyone have? you're drifting in to a very silly arguement!

I find it funny that it can't just be admitted... "we believe in PV, because the church we chose to trust say it's true." That's the long and the short of it.

To truly love another, we must see them as God "sees" them, which is as they truly are - unique in all of creation and time with a particular skopos given to them by God.

When we expect Mary to "be as we are", to fulfill our idea of marriage, this is to deny her unique role in the history of creation and salvation by the will of God. This is actually "love of self/me the standard", not the love which is of God.

it's no such thing. this is a red herring of Jonahic preportions.

Lost me...

How does that dogmatically substantiate that Mary had no sex ever?





.

it doesn't. Just another tunnel in the rabbit warren. It's like politicians talking about flag burning in a debate about policy. It's meant for nothing more than a distraction, and doesn't address the question in the first place.

 

[Rick Otto]

To truly love another, we must see them as God "sees" them,

Yeah, that sounds too extreme. "Truly" is being squeezed here.
My "thru a glass darkly" perception doesn't prevent me from loving anyone.
I don't think it gives any weight or momentum to that rumor about Mary either.

 

[lionroar0]

Yeah, that sounds too extreme. "Truly" is being squeezed here.
My "thru a glass darkly" perception doesn't prevent me from loving anyone.
I don't think it gives any weight or momentum to that rumor about Mary either.

It's a work in progress Us seeing others as God sees us.

Peace