Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Tu Es Petrus]

Is it fair to say that going by the Bible Alone, there is no DEFINITIVE evidence on Mary's perpetual virginioty either way?

 

[Thekla]

right. I'm just trying to understand the offense, Thekla. I think if I were better able to understand it (and I think this is not something that you can explain, I just have to work it out) I could understand why it's so upsetting.

Perhaps, if you could consider a doctrine you hold - and then consider its renaming in a manner that distorts its content ... for example, a reference to a Church as a cult.

Is it my right to rename any other Church's doctrine in such a way that the content of the doctrine is distorted ? Its upsetting because its disrespectful and despite repeated explanations, the renaming is maintained.

As I pointed out by citing one of his posts, CaliforniaJosiah knew in Sept of 2008 (or before) that the definition of virginity re: the Virgin Mary included the physical understanding. Considering the length of the threads where this was discussed, and his repetitive iteration of the term "no sex ever" and his understanding of it, I find it either curious or tragic if he was not able to remember what it meant in February of 2009. I've given links to some of the threads, and you may see for yourself.

I think it's a general frustration on the part of CJ.

I understand the feeling.

I understand that, but if the discussion is on marian virginity, it likely will have sexual conotations. I understand how that would distress you when it comes to your younger children. I don't think that outside of Mariology it's been an issue though, correct?

I don't know. But given the repetatively explicit content of posts here, as I said, my daughter is no longer allowed in CF. Based on my experience here, I don't trust the rest of the forum.

thing is, I can think of another example where this comes up. The prophecy regarding the "gate" being used as proof of ever virginity, is oft discussed, and it is likened to Mary. I always say "womb" when we are talking about the issue, as to not cause people to get angry at "explicit" talk but if we are realistic, it's another part of the anatomy that is technically the comparison, one that I'm sure would be "offensive" if it were used in plain language, instead of the allusions that are used. It seems another example where the Dogma uses something that asserts, but is horrified with the "literal" outcome of the assertion.

Does the discussion of this and other concepts require explicit language ? Does the tone of the discussion need to be demeaning ? My children know what virgin means (both/all). That was not my concern. Please look over the threads, or can cite them. Is the language and tone respectful ? It not just terminology at issue ...

Further, if Christians for centuries have understood what the teaching means without a description mentioned in a disrespectful tone or inquiring into the frequency of "marital relations" of those within the discussion - why can't we ?

I wouldn't expect you to, Thekla, I am not accusing any one person of anything. I may be completely off, too. I only stated how I saw things.

It can be a struggle to keep a positive tone in these discussions over the course of nearly a year in the face of disrespectful behavior. I must have failed at some point.

It would be up to CJ to say who it was, but I think rules prohibit him from doing so.

Then what is the point of making claims that cannot be substantiated ? I only know my own response, and I was and am deeply discouraged by the persistence of the tone and content of the posts. And frankly, its just part and parcel of GT -- I am repeatedly told that I don't know the content of my own belief. That I really am an idolater. That Greek belongs to modern English speakers whose only education in the Greek language is their opinion. That the careful and deliberate language of Christian doctrine is just "prudish fussiness", not the result of a deep love of Christ and a service to Him in the Holy Spirit. That I am ritualistic, thus not really Christian and devoid of the true meaning of the Gospel. That a difference in cultural expression and meaning is a cover up for heresy because a different culture "says so". That what I do is clearly in defiance of scripture. And in CF, its officially ok to call an EO or OO or RC an idolater for venerating relics.

There's my rant. Its impolite, its a spill. But if its permissable for CJ to be frustrated because he isn't told for the hundredth time what he already understands to be the EO definition of ever-virgin (which was coined before English began its split from Frisian), then he should try being EO or OO or RC in GT.

Our secular society has lost a moral compass. This forum evidences its creep into Christianity.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Is it fair to say that going by the Bible Alone, there is no DEFINITIVE evidence on Mary's perpetual virginioty either way?

I'd say so.

I'd also add that, IMHO, it serves no theological purpose.

When I worked hard to study this dogma, what struck me is the attitude in the Roman Empire regarding women and sex. We need to remember that Christianity is one of two great religions that was founding in one mileau but developed and became established in an ENTIRELY different one (Buddhism being the other). This dogma developed late, and in the West - in the culture and mileau of ROME. It was never about ANY Scripture (thus, it was never an issue of interpretation), only MUCH later did any biblical apologetic began to be developed (a sort of retroactive support).

As I studied this, what kept being pointed out in that in the mileau that developed it, virginity among women was highly regarded (ironically, it was ridiculed in men - even teen boys). A woman who was a virgin was regarded as "pure" and "undefiled" - held in some esteem, EVEN IN A RELIGIOUS sense. (I wonder if our brides dressed in white still conveys this?). BUT once she had sex, she was no longer pure. She was defliled, "dirty." Not really sinful (sex was expected IN MARRIAGE for women, expected in men whether married or not) but while sex revealed a man's manhood and power, it made the woman "impure" and no longer of the same status or esteem - INCLUDING IN A RELIGIOUS SENSE.

Without a doubt, the esteem of Mary was early. While Our Lady seems rather unimportant in the Synoptics (all written in the 60's) and even in John (perhaps written as late as 90 AD), it seems Our Lady DID rise in the esteem of early (largely Jewish) Christians - partly because of her faith and piety, partly because She is His mother, but especially because of Her role in salvation history - Her role as the "mother of God" was early and Jewish. Now, as this esteem moved from one culture (Jewish) which had a very embracing view of marital sex to another (Greco-Roman) that viewed sex (marital or not) as defiling a woman and making her impure, it SEEMS the Marian devotion began to embrace her PERPETUAL virginity. The origins of this APPEAR to be the Greco-Roman idea that FEMALE virginity was associated with purity and a certainly godliness whereas even marital sex was associated with making her "used" or "impure" or "defiled" especially in a religious sense. How could the Mother of God, so esteemed, be "used?" Well, they concluded, She was not.

Nonetheless, even with this very reasonable and understandable development in the Greco-Roman culture, this was not a quickly embraced idea. But SLOWLY, it did become embraced. Rather universally.

But, what needs to be discussed, is it's status as DOGMA. Is this a matter of HIGHEST IMPORTANCE and GREATEST CERTAINTY? Or should it be understood as an abiblical, western development with very strong and ecumenical embrace - what many Protestants regard as a "pious opinion?" A Pious Opinion is a historical, ecumenical view that is not contrary to Scripture but not confirmed by Scripture. While this dogma was clearly embraced by Luther and the Lutheran Church Fathers (at least the title appears in the Lutheran Confessions although the teaching does not), Lutherans came to understand this (and most of the other RCC Marian views) as "pious opinion" but not DOGMA. People are permitted to not embrace them (although they are discouraged from rebuking them) - or even taking no position at all (which is where I'm at here). The issue of it's status is very important here, as well.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Thekla]

The teaching of aieparthenos did not exclusively arise in the societies which were culturally Roman. Further, both Paul and Christ extolled abstinence.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Let's try this:

What part of this statement is as it as been characterized: immature, sex-crazed, rude, pathological, Fruedian, psychotic: "Mary had no sex ever."

I NEVER said that the EO's position is ONLY that, only that that is the EO's position. IF you are now claiming (lol) you've all always agreed, then why all the HUGE offensive at what you've stated is correct? Why all the PM's, the Reports, the statements about being hormone-driven, sex-crazed, immature? Posts about "pathological" "Freudian" and "boarderline psychotic?"


You can't have it both ways. Either "Mary had no sex ever" is NOT a teaching of the EO and reveals that I'm a pathological psychotic Fruedian, sex-crazed immature person who clearly want to flame the EO, OR what I said is, in fact, accuate and the responses to me were inappropriate at best and unhelpful.




HERE'S THE ISSUE from my standpoint, the issue I TRIED for months to understand:


THIS is the title the EO gives to this DOGMA: "The Ever-Virginity of Mary."
THIS is the title the CC gives to this DOGMA: "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary."
The title is given because it is the most acceptable and accurate way to convey the teaching.

And while we spent weeks and hundreds of posts in various threads with Orthodox (but not Catholics) trying to convey that "virgin" has nothing to do with sex, frankly, I think that's absurd and finally, all seem to now admit that it DOES have to do with that (thus, making me totally confused as to why my stating that it DOES include that thought made me so sex-crazed, immature, hormone-driven, etc. but their now admission that I was right all alone, well....)

THIS is how our Orthodox friend put it: "The Virgin Mary never had sex."

ALL THOSE STATEMENTS ARE EMBRACED AS ACCURATE, THE BEST WAY OF RELATING THIS (AS THE TITLE AND SUMMERY) AND ALL APPROPRIATE.

BUT...

Consider this statement of mine: "Mary had no sex ever." THAT statement has been characterized as "rude" "offensive" "totally wrong" "immature" "sex-crazed" "hormone-driven" "pathologocial" "Fruedian" "psychotic" and a rule violation for posting here at CF.

That is what I've been trying to understand - for months.

And yes, some of you Orthodox need to review what you've posted to me. And what you PM'ed to me. And what you reported about me.


The HUGE firestorm over this, the AMAZING reaction to what I posted, the persistence in that, the evasions, the diversions, they seeming contradictions - they all lead to one pretty unavoidable conclusion: Some Orthodox have major, huge, issues with women, marital sex and virginity - and this dogma really brings that out. And it does seem limited to Orthodox (note that no Catholics joined in on this, although they too embrace the dogma). Now, IS that conclusion true? I don't know. I only know it's the unavoidable conclusion from these hundreds of posts on this.


Again, I gave up.
Thekla is right. This issue CANNOT be discussed with Orthodox.



YES, the reaction to my statement, "Mary had no sex ever" from Orthodox (alone) has been absolutely amazing and very puzzling. ESPECIALLY in the light of the stated correctness of the statements: "The Virgin Mary never had sex" "The Ever-Virginity of Mary" and "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary." The personal attacks, accusations, PM's, Reports to Staff. I'm "psycholotic" "Fruedian" "pathological" "sex-crazed" "immature" "hormone-driven." Absurd. SOMETHING is afoot here, and it has nothing to do with me and a LOT to do with those stating such. WHAT, I'm not sure, but obviously MUCH. I stepped on a hornet nest here - and I don't know why or what that nest is all about.

Did I report those posts and PM's? No. Why? Because I understand passion and being overly zealous - and read things accordingly. Did I take any PERSONAL offense at all this? No (unlike the Orthodox). I don't think these people actually believe what they have stated about and to me, they OBVIOUSLY came entirely unglued at my statement, "Mary had no sex ever" and my point that this dogma, entitled as "The Ever-Virginity of Mary" is about her not having sex, it's not ALL about that (as I've stressed repeatedly and boldly) but it DOES include that. And THAT is the "Hornets nest" There's obviously a HUGE discomfort with the idea of marital sex in the EO - or such is the unavoidable conclusion one would reasonable come to reading this exchange, to be point of attacking one whom they actually don't so regard. I stepped on a hornets nest. I TRIED to understand that nest.

I gave up. Everything I say in this thread will continue to be ignored anyway.


:o






.

 

[Thekla]

.


Let's try this:

What part of this statement is as it as been characterized: immature, sex-crazed, rude, pathological, Fruedian, psychotic: "Mary had no sex ever."

please provide citations for my posts which reflect such content

I NEVER said that the EO's position is ONLY that, only that that is the EO's position. IF you are now claiming (lol) you've all always agreed, then why all the HUGE offensive at what you've stated is correct? Why all the PM's, the Reports, the statements about being hormone-driven, sex-crazed, immature? Posts about "pathological" "Freudian" and "boarderline psychotic?"

please provide citations with links for my posts and PMs which reflect such content

You can't have it both ways. Either "Mary had no sex ever" is NOT a teaching of the EO and reveals that I'm a pathological psychotic Fruedian, sex-crazed immature person who clearly want to flame the EO, OR what I said is, in fact, accuate and the responses to me were inappropriate at best and unhelpful.

please cite evidence that the EO teaches that aieparthenos is exclusively defined as "no sex ever"

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Is it fair to say that going by the Bible Alone, there is no DEFINITIVE evidence on Mary's perpetual virginioty either way?

I'd say so......

Good. Then you cannot Biblically deny her perpetual virginity

 

[Thekla]

.


Let's try this:

What part of this statement is as it as been characterized: immature, sex-crazed, rude, pathological, Fruedian, psychotic: "Mary had no sex ever."

I NEVER said that the EO's position is ONLY that, only that that is the EO's position. IF you are now claiming (lol) you've all always agreed, then why all the HUGE offensive at what you've stated is correct? Why all the PM's, the Reports, the statements about being hormone-driven, sex-crazed, immature? Posts about "pathological" "Freudian" and "boarderline psychotic?"


You can't have it both ways. Either "Mary had no sex ever" is NOT a teaching of the EO and reveals that I'm a pathological psychotic Fruedian, sex-crazed immature person who clearly want to flame the EO, OR what I said is, in fact, accuate and the responses to me were inappropriate at best and unhelpful.




HERE'S THE ISSUE from my standpoint, the issue I TRIED for months to understand:


THIS is the title the EO gives to this DOGMA: "The Ever-Virginity of Mary."
THIS is the title the CC gives to this DOGMA: "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary."
The title is given because it is the most acceptable and accurate way to convey the teaching.

And while we spent weeks and hundreds of posts in various threads with Orthodox (but not Catholics) trying to convey that "virgin" has nothing to do with sex, frankly, I think that's absurd and finally, all seem to now admit that it DOES have to do with that (thus, making me totally confused as to why my stating that it DOES include that thought made me so sex-crazed, immature, hormone-driven, etc. but their now admission that I was right all alone, well....)

THIS is how our Orthodox friend put it: "The Virgin Mary never had sex."

ALL THOSE STATEMENTS ARE EMBRACED AS ACCURATE, THE BEST WAY OF RELATING THIS (AS THE TITLE AND SUMMERY) AND ALL APPROPRIATE.

BUT...

Consider this statement of mine: "Mary had no sex ever." THAT statement has been characterized as "rude" "offensive" "totally wrong" "immature" "sex-crazed" "hormone-driven" "pathologocial" "Fruedian" "psychotic" and a rule violation for posting here at CF.

That is what I've been trying to understand - for months.

And yes, some of you Orthodox need to review what you've posted to me. And what you PM'ed to me. And what you reported about me.


The HUGE firestorm over this, the AMAZING reaction to what I posted, the persistence in that, the evasions, the diversions, they seeming contradictions - they all lead to one pretty unavoidable conclusion: Some Orthodox have major, huge, issues with women, marital sex and virginity - and this dogma really brings that out. And it does seem limited to Orthodox (note that no Catholics joined in on this, although they too embrace the dogma). Now, IS that conclusion true? I don't know. I only know it's the unavoidable conclusion from these hundreds of posts on this.


Again, I gave up.
Thekla is right. This issue CANNOT be discussed with Orthodox.






.

For your convenience, on page 19 of this thread, I have provided links for other threads which include the discussion of the ever-virginity of Mary.

You may support the claims you make above by citing posts from these (and other Mariology) threads.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Good. Then you cannot Biblically deny her perpetual virginity

Never have.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Further, both Paul and Christ extolled abstinence.

1. Did Christ and Paul teach that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

2. Did Christ and Paul consistently "extoll" abstinence in marriage?

3. How do Christ and Paul affirm "the Virgin Mary never had sex" as accurate and respectful but denounce "Mary had no sex ever" as flaming, immature, sex-crazed, Freudian, psychotic, pathological, and offensive?




Again....

HERE'S THE ISSUE from my standpoint, the issue I TRIED for months to understand:


THIS is the title the EO gives to this DOGMA: "The Ever-Virginity of Mary."
THIS is the title the CC gives to this DOGMA: "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary."
The title is given because it is the most acceptable and accurate way to convey the teaching.

And while we spent weeks and hundreds of posts in various threads with Orthodox (but not Catholics) trying to convey that "virgin" has nothing to do with sex, frankly, I think that's absurd and finally, all seem to now admit that it DOES have to do with that (thus, making me totally confused as to why my stating that it DOES include that thought made me so sex-crazed, immature, hormone-driven, etc. but their now admission that I was right all alone, well....)

THIS is how our Orthodox friend put it: "The Virgin Mary never had sex."


ALL THOSE STATEMENTS ARE EMBRACED AS ACCURATE AND APPROPRIATE. But...

Consider this statement of mine: "Mary had no sex ever." THAT statement has been characterized as "rude" "offensive" "totally wrong" "immature" "sex-crazed" "hormone-driven" "pathologocial" "Fruedian" "psychotic" and a rule violation for posting here at CF.

That is what I've been trying to understand - for months.

And yes, some of you Orthodox need to review what you've posted to me. And what you PM'ed to me. And what you reported about me.


The HUGE firestorm over this, the AMAZING reaction to what I posted, the persistence in that, the evasions, the diversions, they seeming contradictions - they all lead to one pretty unavoidable conclusion: Some Orthodox have major, huge, issues with women, marital sex and virginity - and this dogma really brings that out. And it does seem limited to Orthodox (note that no Catholics joined in on this, although they too embrace the dogma). Now, IS that conclusion true? I don't know. I only know it's the unavoidable conclusion from these hundreds of posts on this.


Again, I gave up.
Thekla is right. This issue CANNOT be discussed with Orthodox.



YES, the reaction to my statement, "Mary had no sex ever" from Orthodox (alone) has been absolutely amazing and very puzzling. ESPECIALLY in the light of the stated correctness of the statements: "The Virgin Mary never had sex" "The Ever-Virginity of Mary" and "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary." The personal attacks, accusations, PM's, Reports to Staff. I'm "psycholotic" "Fruedian" "pathological" "sex-crazed" "immature" "hormone-driven." Absurd. SOMETHING is afoot here, and it has nothing to do with me and a LOT to do with those stating such. WHAT, I'm not sure, but obviously MUCH. I stepped on a hornet nest here - and I don't know why or what that nest is all about.






.

 

[Thekla]

3. How do Christ and Paul affirm "the Virgin Mary never had sex" as accurate and respectful but denounce "Mary had no sex ever" as flaming, immature, sex-crazed, Freudian, psychotic, pathological, and offensive?

Frankly, I don't recall either Christ or Paul really speaking explicitly about sex ...

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

CJ says he cannot "discuss" with us.
LOL

Hypothetical discussion:

EO: "Goodmorning, CJ"
CJ: "Aren't you REALLY saying that it is morning?"
EO: "No, we're greeting and wishing you well."
CJ: "But it IS morning"
EO: "That's not the point."
CJ: "You Orthodox MUST have something against mornings."
EO: "Why are you obsessed with mornings?"
CJ: "You're going to report me, aren't you.."

Note that I used no size 75 font in my post.

But here's the point: what CJ has conducted is not a "discussion." Lecture, argument, something else- but not discussing.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Frankly, I don't recall either Christ or Paul really speaking explicitly about sex ...

..but then again, they didn't live in a post-Freudian (get the quote right, CJ) culture with its attendant sensibilities.
Strike that: attendant obsessions.

 

[Musa80]

Note that I used no size 75 font in my post.

Now how will anyone take you seriously with such small and colorless fonts?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But here's the point: what CJ has conducted is not a "discussion." Lecture, argument, something else- but not discussing.

I asked a question of the Orthodox:

Why is "The Virgin Mary never had sex" "The Ever Virgin Mary" and "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" all right, correct and good but "Mary had no sex ever" is a lie, immature, carnal, sex-crazed, hormone-driven, pathological, psychotic, Fruedian and a rule violation?

So far, in all these months, no one has explained that. Just repetitions of it.

Lots of jokes, accusations, condemnations, ridicules, evasions, diversions - no explanations. After all these many posts over all these months in all these threads, I'm not expecting anything. Nor am I getting anything.






.

 

[Thekla]

but I honestly don't understand, CaliforniaJosiah --

I quoted your post from 2008 that indicated you knew the "physical definition" of virgin (per EO, RC) was part of the understanding of ever-virgin. What is confusing ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

but I honestly don't understand, CaliforniaJosiah --

I quoted your post from 2008 that indicated you knew the "physical definition" of virgin (per EO, RC) was part of the understanding of ever-virgin. What is confusing ?

Read the question I've been asking.
Answer it, if you wish.
Or not.


.

 

[Thekla]

Read the question I've been asking.
Answer it, if you wish.
Or not.
.

If you read over the previous threads, perhaps you might note that it was the tone, manner of expression, mode of inquiry, and the excessive repetition (often re-posts, though sometimes rearranged) that elicited response.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I asked a question of the Orthodox:

And you received a plethora of responses.

Why is "The Virgin Mary never had sex" "The Ever Virgin Mary" and "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" all right, correct and good but "Mary had no sex ever" is a lie, immature, carnal, sex-crazed, hormone-driven, pathological, psychotic, Fruedian and a rule violation?

Strawman- the question was answered, and you ignored responses, insisted on your phrasing and interpretation, distorted, and whined about the fact that we don't dance to your tune.

And once again, in font you seem to prefer
POST-Freudian.

So far, in all these months, no one has explained that. Just repetitions of it.

Lots of jokes, accusations, condemnations, ridicules, evasions, diversions - no explanations.

lie

After all these many posts over all these months in all these threads, I'm not expecting anything. Nor am I getting anything.

And yet you carry on.

 

[prodromos]

I asked a question of the Orthodox:

Why is "The Virgin Mary never had sex" "The Ever Virgin Mary" and "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" all right, correct and good but "Mary had no sex ever" is a lie, immature, carnal, sex-crazed, hormone-driven, pathological, psychotic, Fruedian and a rule violation?

So far, in all these months, no one has explained that. Just repetitions of it.

It was explained to you months ago, I remember giving you a clear explanation in August last year but my post was ignored by you and you continued in the same manner as you continue even now.

Suggestions that your posts are driven by some of the above colorful terms is actually due to an unwillingness to attribute malicious intent. Few of us want to believe that you are posting in this manner deliberately so we try to come up with viable alternatives.

John