T
Thekla
Guest
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 ?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
.
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.
.
Thekla said: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.
.
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.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?
[/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.
Thekla said:
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.
?"
Well, two observations:
First of all, if you don't think it's important, why comment at all?
If Mary's virginity isn't important
support for my position:
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?
I quoted you. VERBATIM.
You've made no effort to substantiate it.
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.
It's YOUR position.
You made it very clear.
I don't have to prove your position is correct.
.
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!
Why did you quote those fractional portions of my post and yet still refused to answer the bulk of what I said?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.
.
How do you rationalize dismissing "Virgin Mary"-ism when it was a crucial part of the early church for hundred of years?
Where?How do you justify the discard of "Virgin Mary"-ism
1. I don't share the Canon of the RCC. None but the RCC does.while at the same time trusting in the Bible canon preserved by "Virgin Mary"-ists
For what? Thinking that truth matters? That gossip is bad? For what?Where's your justification?
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 either1. 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.
You realize that Martin Luther and scholars within your own church history have done the exact same things to rationalize: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?
"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.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.
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.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.
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.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 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.1. I don't share the Canon of the RCC. None but the RCC does.
Using fiction and absurdities doesn't disprove my point.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?
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.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?
You are under the assumption that Joseph having sex with Mary would have been "loving her". This is an assumption, not a historical fact
I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that you didn't accept the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
the early church - from the time of the apostles - taught that Mary was perpetually virgin. That's my justification.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?