Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Thekla]

.



Originally Posted by Thekla

This is about the typical male view about sex: that men deserve to have sex. That no-one may refuse a man's desire to have sex. It's about taking offense at women having any agency, about owning their bodies and their "voice" (to use the Feminist term).


This is about the possibility that a man might be refused sex.



.
​

You made your point crystal clear.





.

In order for you mischaracterization of my position to be correct, my statement must present a condition that did not ever exist before Feminism, Josiah

Where's your argument to prove it ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This is about the typical male view about sex: that men deserve to have sex. That no-one may refuse a man's desire to have sex. It's about taking offense at women having any agency, about owning their bodies and their "voice" (to use the Feminist term).


This is about the possibility that a man might be refused sex.


.

It's YOUR position.

You made it very clear.

I don't have to prove your position is correct.






.

 

[mrmccormo]

Where IS the evidence that She never once shared loving marital intimacies with Joseph? That She DIED having never had sex ever?
I agree: Where is the evidence?

Despite the fact that you haven't really told anyone what sort of "evidence" would satisfy your curiosity, one piece of evidence is that the unified church - for hundreds of years - believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary and they taught it as doctrinal fact. Naturally, you can call that tradition into question, but these same bunch of "misinformed" Christians who taught the perpetual virginity of Mary also preserved the canon of the Bible you have on your shelf. These "backward" Christians taught the concepts of Original Sin that Lutherans cling to so tightly. It is intellectually dishonest to accept some of what these "primitive" Christians say in your church doctrine while so casually dismissing their other beliefs.

The easy rebuttal is to say "but why is the virginity of Mary so important anyway?"

Well, two observations:

First of all, if you don't think it's important, why comment at all? This is an obvious, glaring inconsistency throughout this entire thread, which is full of people saying "well, I don't care if she remained a virgin, but she's not a virgin. Prove me otherwise"'

Second, where do you draw the line? If Mary's virginity isn't important, then is it important if we take the story of Jonah to be literal? What about the story of Noah? Is the Flood a literal event? What about the story of Adam and Eve? In your own Lutheran circles, this line of thinking has led to some interesting developments, including but not limited to the ordination of homosexuals and approving abortion.

 

[Thekla]

[/size][/size][/color][/font][/size][/color][/font][/size]


Where's your argument to prove it ?

It's YOUR position.

You made it very clear.

I don't have to prove your position is correct.

You need to support your claim that your (mis)characterization of my position is accurate.

In order to do that, you need to prove that the view I describe (which you've quoted above) did not exist before the advent of Feminism.

You've been to college, no ?
Have you taken any classes in Modern history, Sociology, Psychology, Literature ? The particular descriptive of "voice" as agency is commonly covered in all these disciplines, and is ascribed to early Feminist theory. Thus, as you are college educated, I sourced the term "voice" to its origins as this is a method of encompassing the conceptual parameters of the term. Just because I sourced the term "voice" to Feminism to convey the conceptual content of the term does not make me a "Feminist".

Feminism aspires for women to stay at home and have lots of babies, like me ? Yeah, right

And yet you still refuse to engage, and instead claim to speak for me.


Cute

 

[Kristos]

There seems to be a serious issue here with definition of a virtue in the anthropological sense. Are we just bodies when it comes to intercourse? Or anything else for that matter... Then is it possible, or right, to define virginity purely in terms of a physical act? That's doesn't seem to be a THE teaching of THE apostles...we are not just bodies!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

This is about the typical male view about sex: that men deserve to have sex. That no-one may refuse a man's desire to have sex. It's about taking offense at women having any agency, about owning their bodies and their "voice" (to use the Feminist term).


This is about the possibility that a man might be refused sex.

It's YOUR position.







.

 

[Thekla]

.


It's YOUR position.

Although you've failed to provide evidence for your claim re: my position, your statement is evidence in support for my position: that you claim to speak for me.

IE, actual dialogue is not possible.
Which is a shame.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

?"

Well, two observations:

First of all, if you don't think it's important, why comment at all?

Pray tell, WHERE did I remotely indicate that I think Truth is not important?

If I didn't think Mary mattered at all, if I didn't think gossip wrong, if I didn't think divisive dogma mattered at all, if I didn't care what what shouted about my mother (or sister) sex life (and thus even more Mary), then why would I post here? The opposite of your thought holds true. My participating here shows I DO care, not that I don't. That these things DO matter to me, not that they don't.

If Mary's virginity isn't important

Where did I say it's not important what is shouted about Mary (or any other highly esteemed and beloved person)? Where did I indicate that Dogma doesn't matter, that Truth doesn't matter? Why this sudden turn in this discussion from some that "it just doesn't MATTER what's said about Mary?" Odd. I think it odd.








.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

support for my position:

I quoted you. VERBATIM.

You've made no effort to substantiate it.





.

 

[Philothei]

Why is it so dang important to you that someone from the first century said this?

The Bible sitting on your shelf came from the 4th century, and the Book of Concord sitting next to it came from the 16th century.

Of course, I'm sure you - like many Lutherans - will dismiss what I say with a simple "but our teachings come from the Bible". Really? You mean...the Bible that was made in the 4th century? You mean...the Bible that was formed by a unified church that believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary?

My thoughts.. exactly.

 

[Thekla]

I quoted you. VERBATIM.

You've made no effort to substantiate it.

Okay, Josiah.

 

[Philothei]

If I thought Mary doesn't matter, if I thought truth doesn't matter, if I thought that disputed Dogma among Christians doesn't matter, I never would have posted in this thread.

And what is 'proof" to you when you evidently dismiss all writttings of the Fathers past 100AD? St. Justin the martyr is 100 and something and it is not good enough...True that you are not as picky about the Biblical writings...that sure day much later...See the discrepancy?

 

[Philothei]

It's YOUR position.

You made it very clear.

I don't have to prove your position is correct.






.

If you have no position then why it is important to you that we quit believing in the Ever Virginity of Mary again? It was hard for me to follow you your syllogism here ..sorry if I sound redandant..

 

[Philothei]

I quoted you. VERBATIM.

You've made no effort to substantiate it.





.

Let's move on shall we ?

So what exactly is you point with our "denomination/church" Josiah? That we are wrong? or not?

 

[Philothei]

We are wrong into making it a dogma? If so how it different than saying we "have no opinion" on the matter and then letting our members believing it for 2,000 years? Cause I cannot fathom ANY EO believer not believing in the EV even if it was not dogma. To be honest some are "lukwarm" about the EV who convert to EO it is not somtheing they believe right away... And I understand that. But we do not compromise our faith for people are 'lukewarm' with certain dogmas in our Chruch... And that is how it is. You can call this wrong but the Church did this for 2,000 years.

But think for a moment that the EV cannot be disproved so who would want to dispute something sacred Tradition holds without any evidence to dismiss it?

Some thoughts to ponder.

 

[Thekla]

There seems to be a serious issue here with definition of a virtue in the anthropological sense. Are we just bodies when it comes to intercourse? Or anything else for that matter... Then is it possible, or right, to define virginity purely in terms of a physical act? That's doesn't seem to be a THE teaching of THE apostles...we are not just bodies!

This is an important (in fact central) conceptual nuance that has been deliberately avoided in this thread, and like discussions in this forum.

The concepts of sophrosyne, agia (set aside/holy), and the broader yet deeper meaning of chastity have been entirely skipped. Yet these are central to the discussion.

 

[mrmccormo]

Pray tell, WHERE did I remotely indicate that I think Truth is not important?

If I didn't think Mary mattered at all, if I didn't think gossip wrong, if I didn't think divisive dogma mattered at all, if I didn't care what what shouted about my mother (or sister) sex life (and thus even more Mary), then why would I post here? The opposite of your thought holds true. My participating here shows I DO care, not that I don't. That these things DO matter to me, not that they don't.


Where did I say it's not important what is shouted about Mary (or any other highly esteemed and beloved person)? Where did I indicate that Dogma doesn't matter, that Truth doesn't matter? Why this sudden turn in this discussion from some that "it just doesn't MATTER what's said about Mary?" Odd. I think it odd.
.

Why did you quote those fractional portions of my post and yet still refused to answer the bulk of what I said?

I see this happening throughout this ENTIRE thread! The "Virgin Mary"-ists continue to pose valid questions and comments yet they get ignored. So, I'll pose my question again:

How do you rationalize dismissing "Virgin Mary"-ism when it was a crucial part of the early church for hundred of years? How do you justify the discard of "Virgin Mary"-ism while at the same time trusting in the Bible canon preserved by "Virgin Mary"-ists and while trusting many of the other foundational beliefs (Original Sin) taught by "Virgin Mary"-ists?

Where's your justification?

You folks asked for evidence and proof. The evidence has been given. Now the "ball is in your court", so to speak. You need to prove that the stance of the early church was incorrect.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

How do you rationalize dismissing "Virgin Mary"-ism when it was a crucial part of the early church for hundred of years?

Where did I "rationalize" or "dismiss" any dogma? Where did I even so much as render a personal opinion that ANY of the unique RCC Marian dogmas is wrong? Pray tell. Quote me.



The issue is this: Something normally VERY personal and intimate is being insisted upon here in the strongest way possible. It is stated, as a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. The question I'm asking is the SAME as Catholics ask when any non-Catholic utters a view (even if NOT dogma) - where's the confirmation of that? That's it. That's all. Anything of a nature that they'd accept from me or you or an LDS or Calvinist believer.



What has been given (so far) is this:


1. Those that say it's true say it's true (the Tradition argument) - even though it seems admitted none of them had ANY possibility of knowing this tidbit and they seem to admit none of them gave ANY confirmation or evidence of such - just that they say that they say that they are correct.

2. That if we REALLY stretch things (perhaps changing verb tenses in the process), if we do some "really deep thinking" and if we do some "analysis" it's POSSIBLE (theoretically anyway) that this could be true (it doesn't necessary make it impossible anyway) or perhaps it at least makes it theoretically possible that Mary's INTENTION was to have no sex ever. But none of that confirms that Mary died a virgin, only that it MIGHT be theoretically POSSIBLE if - IF - we do some "really deep reading" of the text and "deep analysis." If any Calvinist did this with any Calvinist view, well - we can hear the laughter even now, can't we?

3. Mary made a vow to God to never had sex - and thus it is a dogmatic fact that She did not. But no evidence whatsoever has been supplied that She made ANY vow to God about anything.

4. They know how Joseph felt about Mary's sex life (how has never been disclosed) and that Joseph would have loved Mary less because of Her faith and obedience, so much less that he could not share his love for her in this normal marital way. (Odd, because most men are MORE willing to share their love where they love than when they don't). In any case, NOTHING has been presented to document that Joseph would only share intimacies with a wife he didn't love or respect.

5. That this dogma actually is "about the typical male view about sex: that men deserve to have sex. That no-one may refuse a man's desire to have sex. It's about taking offense at women having any agency, about owning their bodies and their "voice" (to use the Feminist term). This is about the possibility that a man might be refused sex." (quoting verbatim an EO poster).

How do you justify the discard of "Virgin Mary"-ism

Where?

while at the same time trusting in the Bible canon preserved by "Virgin Mary"-ists

1. I don't share the Canon of the RCC. None but the RCC does.


2. Is your position that if one is correct at one point, ergo one must be held as correct at all points? IF so, then because Obama is right that there are currently 50 US States, then he MUST be right that abortion on demand is fundamental to all women and should be paid for (where needed) by American tax payers. That because Joseph Smith was right about Paul being an Apostle, ergo he MUST be rigtht that he too is such. You might want to think about your apologetic here and whether YOU accept it, because if you reject it as silly why should others accept it as valid?

Where's your justification?

For what? Thinking that truth matters? That gossip is bad? For what?

Where's YOUR justification? YOU are the one with all this insistence about Her sex life after Jesus was born. YOU are the one insisting in the strongest way possible that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. The "ball" is entirely in your court. Where's your justification?





.

 

[mrmccormo]

1. Those that say it's true say it's true (the Tradition argument) - even though it seems admitted none of them had ANY possibility of knowing this tidbit and they seem to admit none of them gave ANY confirmation or evidence of such - just that they say that they say that they are correct.

So you don't trust the authority of those who said it is true? You realize that if you really want to stand on that, you are also calling into question the validity of your own Bible, the tenants of faith that you - a Lutheran - hold to, and more. Ultimately, you have to admit that either

a) the early church had dogmatic authority (and you can keep your Bible, your Book of Concord, etc)

b) or it did not have dogmatic authority (and you might as well become a Mormon)

2. That if we REALLY stretch things (perhaps changing verb tenses in the process), if we do some "really deep thinking" and if we do some "analysis" it's POSSIBLE (theoretically anyway) that this could be true (it doesn't necessary make it impossible anyway) or perhaps it at least makes it theoretically possible that Mary's INTENTION was to have no sex ever. But none of that confirms that Mary died a virgin, only that it MIGHT be theoretically POSSIBLE if - IF - we do some "really deep reading" of the text and "deep analysis." If any Calvinist did this with any Calvinist view, well - we can hear the laughter even now, can't we?

You realize that Martin Luther and scholars within your own church history have done the exact same things to rationalize:

- the "real presence" in the bread and wine
- infant baptism
- the doctrine of how we can lose our salvation
- the doctrine of "apostolic succession" and "lost apostolic tradition"

You hold up a harsh standard while not applying it to yourself. For shame.

3. Mary made a vow to God to never had sex - and thus it is a dogmatic fact that She did not. But no evidence whatsoever has been supplied that She made ANY vow to God about anything.

"Evidence" would be "material or witness to the fact". As such, the writings and teachings of the early church would be "evidence" to the very T. It is material AND witness to the fact of Mary's vow as a point of tradition. Saying "no evidence whatsoever has been supplied" is either a willful lie or a false statement out of ignorance.

4. They know how Joseph felt about Mary's sex life (how has never been disclosed) and that Joseph would have loved Mary less because of Her faith and obedience, so much less that he could not share his love for her in this normal marital way. (Odd, because most men are MORE willing to share their love where they love than when they don't). In any case, NOTHING has been presented to document that Joseph would only share intimacies with a wife he didn't love or respect.

You are under the assumption that Joseph having sex with Mary would have been "loving her". This is an assumption, not a historical fact (which you seem so intent on seeing). You are also ignorant as to the customs of the ancient world, not just among the Jews but among many nations: the custom of an older man acting as "patron" to a younger women by marrying her, even though sex was never, ever a part of such a marriage.

Where did I "rationalize" or "dismiss" any dogma? Where did I even so much as render a personal opinion that ANY of the unique RCC Marian dogmas is wrong? Pray tell. Quote me.

So you don't dismiss the dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity? If you accept it, simply say so then we can go on our merry way. I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that you didn't accept the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

1. I don't share the Canon of the RCC. None but the RCC does.

The books in your Bible - especially the New Testament - were chosen out of dozens of others as "canon" by the early church, long before the Roman Catholic church came into being. As such, you share the canon of the same church which held the tradition that Mary remained a virgin.

To deny this is to deny both history and to deny the Bible.

Oh wait. I forgot that Martin Luther didn't want James, Hebrews, or Revelations to be in the New Testament, so I suppose in a way that you don't share the Biblical canon with the early church, either.

2. Is your position that if one is correct at one point, ergo one must be held as correct at all points? IF so, then because Obama is right that there are currently 50 US States, then he MUST be right that abortion on demand is fundamental to all women and should be paid for (where needed) by American tax payers. That because Joseph Smith was right about Paul being an Apostle, ergo he MUST be rigtht that he too is such. You might want to think about your apologetic here and whether YOU accept it, because if you reject it as silly why should others accept it as valid?

Using fiction and absurdities doesn't disprove my point.

Is your position that if one is incorrect at one point, they can still be correct at other points? I think God might have said something that about His prophets and about His teachers of the law.

Where's YOUR justification? YOU are the one with all this insistence about Her sex life after Jesus was born. YOU are the one insisting in the strongest way possible that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. The "ball" is entirely in your court. Where's your justification?

Simple: the early church - from the time of the apostles aaaaaaaaaaallll the way up to Martin Luther - taught that Mary was perpetually virgin. That's my justification.

Whew! It gets tiring repeating it over and over again.

Now that you've seen my justification, I am open to any disagreements or criticisms you might have of my justification.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You are under the assumption that Joseph having sex with Mary would have been "loving her". This is an assumption, not a historical fact

Then isn't the whole point that Joseph would NOT want to love one who is so faithful to God also an assumption and not an historical fact?

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that you didn't accept the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

I don't. I don't deny it either. I'm seeking the truth of the matter.

You seem to be unaware that of the 50,000 + denominations some Catholics insist exist, 49,998 of them don't ACCEPT or DENY anything about Mary's personal sex life after Jesus was born. For now, I'm "there" too.

the early church - from the time of the apostles - taught that Mary was perpetually virgin. That's my justification.

Actually, that's your claim. You've not offered ANYTHING but your claim.

Now, quote from just 5 people who lived when the Apostles did that said it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Just 5. Quote them. Date the writing. Otherwise, all you've done is make a baseless claim. ANYONE (that can type) can do the same - doesn't make it true (unless you're saying that it does).







.