How do non-Catholics explain Eucharistic miracles, such as bleeding, and Marian...

[Nanopants]

"Every day", seems more like its of that "disordered deal", at least it would seem so to me.

Well, if you both feel that way, I suppose, but gees what some folks believe is that ordered desire thingy, is like way too much.

Like sexual gluttony, I somewhat agree with that comparison.

That's a delicate issue I think there sis.

David was a man with multiple wives and concubines, and although he clearly sinned through his unfaithfulness to his brother Uriah, God did tell him that he could have been given more of "such and such things" had he gone through the proper channels and asked instead of taking what he shouldn't have (2 Sam 12:8). If we're not careful in applying popular christian "anti-sexual" attitudes, we could end up considering Christ to be the Son of "a sexual glutton." But that shouldn't be very surprising as people seemed to have a tendency to call Him "a glutton and a drunkard" anyway.

 

[Root of Jesse]

"Every day", seems more like its of that "disordered deal", at least it would seem so to me.

Well, if you both feel that way, I suppose, but gees what some folks believe is that ordered desire thingy, is like way too much.

Like sexual gluttony, I somewhat agree with that comparison.

I think you get my point then. In a marriage, sometimes it's important to examine one's motives. But there can be lust in a marriage. Think of the trophy wife scenario, for example. Or the guy who marries her just because she's hot.

 

[Fireinfolding]

That's a delicate issue I think there sis.

David was a man with multiple wives and concubines, and although he clearly sinned through his unfaithfulness to his brother Uriah, God did tell him that he could have been given more of "such and such things" had he gone through the proper channels and asked instead of taking what he shouldn't have (2 Sam 12:8). If we're not careful in applying popular christian "anti-sexual" attitudes, we could end up considering Christ to be the Son of "a sexual glutton." But that shouldn't be very surprising as people seemed to have a tendency to call Him "a glutton and a drunkard" anyway.

It wasn't Christian anti sexual behavior though bro, there are Christian books pressing the whole having sex seven days a week. The book itself angled at getting your spouse (the woman) to want more sex, which isn't the answer as to why some women stop wanting it from men anyway. It was offered as a method of restoring her desire by foisting it more upon her.

The one book was written by a man, and so it figures.

One wife is sufficient in our time, and times of abstaining (but by permission) are actually advised us to tend to fasting and prayers.

When you are married to an unbeliever, even as I am I do believe you can discern someone ruled by their lusts, because very typically that is so.

I wouldn't make the comparison you yourself made either. David had concubines he never went in and knew also.

But to keep this thread PG, and not mention other things which play into the same, I wont say anything further on it.

 

[Standing Up]

Nope, that's a consecrated widow. The temple virgins served the temple. Anna never left the temple precincts and prayed and fasted. Consecrated virginity is not unheard of in Judaism.

Correct. The consecrated woman, the non-virgin, and non-menopausal woman served in the temple. IOW, it is obvious from scripture that it wasn't only virgins serving in the temple. Thus, the argument that originated from the docetic Protoevangelium of James about Mary being a dedicated virgin when she was three years old is a non-starter; it's a myth.

There is, however, stories of vestal virgins in Rome.

 

[Tzaousios]

Correct. The consecrated woman, the non-virgin, and non-menopausal woman served in the temple. IOW, it is obvious from scripture that it wasn't only virgins serving in the temple. Thus, the argument that originated from the docetic Protoevangelium of James about Mary being a dedicated virgin when she was three years old is a non-starter; it's a myth.

There is, however, stories of vestal virgins in Rome.

Parallelomania!

 

[Girder of Loins]

Let me just say... In 51 pages, you guys went from discussing the miracles seen in the Eucharist to... lust.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I reckon that folk in GT would benefit from a miracle or two ... let's all go to Lourdes

 

[sunlover1]

I'm sure many do. I pray for them, because they're misled.

That's your own belief.
Intimacy with your spouse is not evil.
Even if you are intimate daily, its not evil.
God designed it to deepen intimacy and
God Himself is involved in the Spirit.
You act as though sex is dirty and so
should only be enjoyed how or when
you think is 'holy'.

It is true that it's harder to lust for your spouse than it is someone you're not married to. But there is the element of purity. For example...I wonder how many people in this thread actually pray before they have marital relations? I mean before... Because if God's not in charge of your sex life, he's not in charge of your life...

I'd dare say some people here pray WHILE "having relations".

You mean you don't know? LOL...I don't need to be all worked up, and neither does she. And we're fine after 26 years.

Besides, consider this...what if your spouse, God forbid, got into an accident, and was sexually incapacitated for the rest of their life??? Or physically disfigured? Just rhetorical, don't want to derail the thread, anymore than it has been already. All I'm saying is there's plenty to life besides the marital bed.

Marital bed is the least of our concerns.
But it's not dirty in any way and you're
trying to make it seem dirty.. like Mary
having sex with her husband was a dirty thing
and makes her "impure" when it's just the
opposite.
NOT obeying God in the marriage duty is
what makes one vulnerable.

Desire is not the issue. Disordered desire is. If you spend all day at work daydreaming about the half-hour you'll spend tonight, kind of thing. Extreme activities, too, if you get my drift. Becoming excited upon arriving home and being together is not lust, and I think that involves the whole person, usually...

 

[Standing Up]

Parallelomania!

Not sure what you're saying. Could you explain?

 

[Standing Up]

That's your own belief.
Intimacy with your spouse is not evil.
Even if you are intimate daily, its not evil.
God designed it to deepen intimacy and
God Himself is involved in the Spirit.
You act as though sex is dirty and so
should only be enjoyed how or when
you think is 'holy'.


I'd dare say some people here pray WHILE "having relations".


Marital bed is the least of our concerns.
But it's not dirty in any way and you're
trying to make it seem dirty.. like Mary
having sex with her husband was a dirty thing
and makes her "impure" when it's just the
opposite.
NOT obeying God in the marriage duty is
what makes one vulnerable.

I suspect the catch-22 or between the rock and a hard place sort of problem was lost on folks. Should I spell it out?

She's ever-virgin, thus disobeys scripture, and sins.
She's normally married, thus obeying God, and sinless, but loses the ever-virgin motif.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That's your own belief.
Intimacy with your spouse is not evil.
Even if you are intimate daily, its not evil.
God designed it to deepen intimacy and
God Himself is involved in the Spirit.
You act as though sex is dirty and so
should only be enjoyed how or when
you think is 'holy'.

Gee! Isn't this getting a little bit personal and a little bit judgemental?

I'd dare say some people here pray WHILE "having relations".

That's a good thing, right?

Marital bed is the least of our concerns.
But it's not dirty in any way and you're
trying to make it seem dirty.. like Mary
having sex with her husband was a dirty thing
and makes her "impure" when it's just the
opposite.

NOT obeying God in the marriage duty is
what makes one vulnerable.

So, are you suggesting that sex is a commandment for the married and not to have sex is some kind of sin?

 

[Fireinfolding]

I'd dare say some people here pray WHILE "having relations".

God is often mentioned during, I agree

 

[Fireinfolding]

That's a good thing, right?

Oftentimes, that's a decent indicator

 

[Tzaousios]

Not sure what you're saying. Could you explain?

I will confess that it was difficult to see what you were getting at with the ramblings about virgins, menopause, and Mary. However, when you mentioned your usual indictment of Marian traditions with the PoJ, and then followed it with a seemingly fallacious genetic link to "stories of vestal virgins in Rome," the strategy became clearer to me.

 

[Standing Up]

I will confess that it was difficult to see what you were getting at with the ramblings about virgins, menopause, and Mary. However, when you mentioned your usual indictment of Marian traditions with the PoJ, and then followed it with a seemingly fallacious genetic link to "stories of vestal virgins in Rome," the strategy became clearer to me.

You probably missed the link or didn't read the link that was provided. It was well argued and interesting, trying to show the idea from scripture and tradition that Israel had "vestal virgins" in the second temple.

For example, the girl watching the gate who spoke with Peter when he denied Him could have been a "vestal virgin".

The author at the link, however, neglected to deal with Anna who was married 7 years from her (loss of) virginity. She would also be considered a "vestal virgin" of the second temple.

Given Anna, therefore, the idea of "vestal virgin" is incorrect as it applies to Israel. There were obviously non-virgins, non-menopausal women who watched the gates. (Becoming a woman, blood, was the reason Mary supposedly could no longer reside at the temple and had to be married to Joseph.)

As such, the question would then remain. From where did the Proto of James and subsequent history get the idea of "vestal virgins"? It is to Rome that we look. They had them. Not Israel.

 

[Tzaousios]

As such, the question would then remain. From where did the Proto of James and subsequent history get the idea of "vestal virgins"? It is to Rome that we look. They had them. Not Israel.

So naturally you take the association and run with it since it fits your presuppositions about where traditions came from. No, I did not miss anything.

 

[Standing Up]

So naturally you take the association and run with it since it fits your presuppositions about where traditions came from. No, I did not miss anything.

Again, not sure what you're saying, perhaps you are unaware of "vestal virgins"?

Vestal Virgin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, the other link was trying to show that Israel had "vestal virgins". Given Anna from scripture, it is shown that they did not. So, from where did the idea arise that the PoJames used? Not Israel, but Rome.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Again, not sure what you're saying, perhaps you are unaware of "vestal virgins"?

Vestal Virgin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, the other link was trying to show that Israel had "vestal virgins". Given Anna from scripture, it is shown that they did not. So, from where did the idea arise that the PoJames used? Not Israel, but Rome.

Perhaps the association that is made in the above quote between virgins in Israel's temple and vestal virgins in a Roman pagan temple is just plain stupid?

I reckon that it is a very poor argument made worse for lack of sound foundations in history and logic. So how about dropping it and discussing the thread's topic?

 

[Tzaousios]

Again, not sure what you're saying, perhaps you are unaware of "vestal virgins"?

I am. However, what do you expect from ancient gentile Christians whose immediate intellectual and social context was what was inherited from Greece and Rome? Surely you don't think they should have been prescient enough to use Evangelical Protestant young women with Promise Rings as their model, right?

I see this as you justifying your presuppositions by taking the association as far as possible to draw a genetic link between the pagan Vestal Virgins and the portrayal of Mary and virginity in Marian traditions. It is a laughable genetic fallacy that you employ for the purposes of demonization as well as a striking example of Parallelomania.

 

[Rhamiel]

I suspect the catch-22 or between the rock and a hard place sort of problem was lost on folks. Should I spell it out?

She's ever-virgin, thus disobeys scripture, and sins.
She's normally married, thus obeying God, and sinless, but loses the ever-virgin motif.

you are assuming that it was a normal marriage