Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Philothei]

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

so the writtings of the Fathers are all the above the official sources we presented too... Dirersion is something that takes away... We merely used the Church's official tittle of what a Virgin is... The ball is in your court to prove it otherwise...But you cannot as no one Orthodox uses but the word VIRGIN .

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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

So, rather than addressing why "Mary had no sex ever" is horrible, inaccurate and offensive but "The Virgin Mary never had sex" is correct, appropriate and respectful - you think that calling me immature, sex-crazed, hormone-driven, psychotic, pathological, "post" Fruedian, and reporting me for violating Rules for posting is a better alternative and reveals your respect for me? I'm not sure I understand....





.

 

[katholikos]

So, rather than addressing why "Mary had no sex ever" is horrible, inaccurate and offensive but "The Virgin Mary never had sex" is correct, appropriate and respectful - you think that calling me immature, sex-crazed, hormone-driven, psychotic, pathological, "post" Fruedian, and reporting me for violating Rules for posting is a better alternative and reveals your respect for me? I'm not sure I understand....

You do seem obsessed with the subject

 

[Musa80]

You do seem obsessed with the subject

Obsessed? If the Blessed Virgin were still living a mortal life, we would be well within restraining order territory at this point.

 

[Thekla]

OK, CaliforniaJosiah ...



take a look at quotes from some of your previous posts:

#105

There are only two denominations known to ME that have an official view (dogma in both cases) regarding the sex life of Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born, a dogma about how often they did it (both insist - dogmatically - it's zero).

#106

The issue here is the Dogma of "Mary Had No Sex EVER." It's dogma in two denominations (known to me) - the CC and EO. No other denomination (known to me) has any dogma about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born or how often Mary and Joseph "did it."

#112

That's why there is no biblical basis for a Dogma that "Mary Had Sex" and nor is there any biblical basis for a Dogma of "Mary Had NO Sex EVER." Of course, the first doesn't exist. No denomination (known to me) has a formal doctrine of "Mary Had Sex." But two denominations (known to me) have a formal doctrine (in fact it's dogma) of "Mary Had NO Sex EVER."

#114

But I think that perhaps you are missing the point here. Protestants have no doctrine on Mary's sex life and the frequency of "doing it."

#126

But MY point remains the same. Those are the only denominations known to me to have any dogma (or even doctrine) about her sex life and how often she did (or didn't) do it.

#139

There are only three denominations that have ANY dogma about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born and how often she "did it" (or not). YOU are the one with the dogma.

#144

For reasons unclear to me, you rather passionately want to discuss non-doctrines that don't exist anywhere rather than your denomination's very specific dogma, but only on the issue of Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. It is a bit of a puzzle to me.

#145

Now, back to our discussion. There are three denominations with a DOGMA on this issue of how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born.

#150

That's not the issue of this thread. The issue is whether it is a dogmatic fact that Mary had no sex ever.

from: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5323376

I started looking on page 11 of a 16 page thread.

If you'd like, there are the rest of the threads to go through, and posts of more explicit content.

That resulted in an amazing, stunning firestorm - aimed quite personally at me, and it lasted for months. Posts, PM's, Reports and more.

I wonder what you mean precisely by "firestorm" ?
You posted on the matter for several months (my impression is 6-8), thus it would be expected that others would post for months as well.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

/cue Norman Bates shower scene sound and visual effects.


Seriously though: We know our doctrine. We have explained our doctrine. We have run smack into CJ's interpretive ethnocentrism, and are now being regailed by him with off-topic anecdotal complaints.

As best as I understand it, this thread is about the PV, and not about CJ's harrowng experiences on GT.

 

[Philothei]

Greek Orthodox has a "hung up " with sex...

yeah sure... Like they do not want their kids to get married.....hehehe.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnm9KYyc0B8

 

[katholikos]

/cue Norman Bates shower scene sound and visual effects.


Seriously though: We know our doctrine. We have explained our doctrine. We have run smack into CJ's interpretive ethnocentrism, and are now being regailed by him with off-topic anecdotal complaints.

As best as I understand it, this thread is about the PV, and not about CJ's harrowng experiences on GT.

Wow.; Its amazing. Its been months since Ive been here and the same ground is being covered. I guess I didn't miss anything

 

[Uphill Battle]

wow it's amazing, the same post in numerous threads I guess NOBODY is missing anything.

 

[katholikos]

wow it's amazing, the same post in numerous threads I guess NOBODY is missing anything.

I don't understand

 

[Thekla]

To continue, CaliforniaJosiah,

for months, the Mariology forum became a "forum protected and set aside for the discussion of sex". During this time span, the majority of threads on Mary included frequent posts by yourself, the majority -if not all- in these threads mentioning sex.
The illustration to support your arguments included whether or what you knew about your mother's sex life. Your sister's sex life. You inquired about the sex life of other posters. As above, how often someone "did it" (your term). Every post, almost every thread. Phrases, sentences,whole paragraphs posted by you were continuously reposted. It seemed, for months, we could not discuss anything about the Virgin Mary without an inquiry from you which included "sex".

If this is what it means to 'not have a hang-up', I embrace and celebrate my hang-up. I hope my sons and daughters grow up to have a similar 'hang-up'.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I don't understand

don't worry about it. It was inappropriate snide humor on my part. disregard it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You do seem obsessed with the subject

No.

There are only 2 (maybe 3) denominations on the planet that had a dogma about how often Mary did or did not have sex. None of them are Protestant, one of them is yours. As I stated, I have no dogma (not even a very fallible, personal theory) about it. In fact, I somewhat feel that it's none of anyone's business how often a married couple has sex. The obsession - to the extreme of dogma - is yours. I have no view whatsoever thus nothing of any nature remotely related to obsession. Your comment should be directed to those with a dogma about this - not those who don't even have a personal view or theory.

But we have here more diversion. My question was this and was directed to Orthodox only: Why is it good and right to insist (even as a matter of highest importance in all of Christianity): "The Ever-Virginity of Mary" (and "virgin" here includes sexual absentence), "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" (and "virgin" here includes sexual abstinence) and "The Virgin Mary had no sex" but to post "Mary had no sex ever" is rude, offensive, immature, sex-crazed, hormone-driven, "post" Fruedian, pathological, psychotic and a rule violation here at CF? THAT was the issue I've been trying to explore for some months. And it was directed primary to Orthodox. Rather than anwering it - I got months of "virginity has nothing to do with sex - wait a minute, actually it does" and a long chain of remarks about my person: ridicules, comments about my being immature and over-sexed, pathological, Freudian, psychotic, etc. And Reported to staff for my statement that Mary had no sex is a rule violation.

I don't expect any Orthodox to address the issue. Not after all these months of what obviously seems to be their extreme discomfort with their teaching. As I posted, it seems this issue cannot be discussed with them. Thus, I gave up. Must be some cultural thing about women or marital sex. And CF probably isn't the appropriate forum for such a cultural exploration anyway. I just concluded this: It seems Orthodox (well, some) have a huge discomfort with something they hold as dogma. I think I have no choice but to leave it there or else simply continue to be attacked.





Peace. Out.




.

 

[katholikos]

...I have no dogma (not even a very fallible, personal theory) about it.....

Then why does it seem that you argue so hard against something that you say you have no theory about?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Then why does it seem that you argue so hard against something that you say you have no theory about?

I've never argued against it.



.

 

[Thekla]

No.

There are only 2 (maybe 3) denominations on the planet that had a dogma about how often Mary did or did not have sex. None of them are Protestant, one of them is yours. As I stated, I have no dogma (not even a very fallible, personal theory) about it. In fact, I somewhat feel that it's none of anyone's business how often a married couple has sex. The obsession - to the extreme of dogma - is yours. I have no view whatsoever thus nothing of any nature remotely related to obsession. Your comment should be directed to those with a dogma about this - not those who don't even have a personal view or theory.

But we have here more diversion. My question was this and was directed to Orthodox only: Why is it good and right to insist (even as a matter of highest importance in all of Christianity): "The Ever-Virginity of Mary" (and "virgin" here includes sexual absentence), "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" (and "virgin" here includes sexual abstinence) and "The Virgin Mary had no sex" but to post "Mary had no sex ever" is rude, offensive, immature, sex-crazed, hormone-driven, "post" Fruedian, pathological, psychotic and a rule violation here at CF? THAT was the issue I've been trying to explore for some months. And it was directed primary to Orthodox. Rather than anwering it - I got months of "virginity has nothing to do with sex - wait a minute, actually it does" and a long chain of remarks about my person: ridicules, comments about my being immature and over-sexed, pathological, Freudian, psychotic, etc. And Reported to staff for my statment that Mary had no sex is a rule violation.

I don't expect any Orthodox to address the issue. Not after all these months of what obviously seems to be extreme discomfort with their teaching. As I posted, it seems this issue cannot be discussed with them. Thus, I gave up. Must be some cultural thing about women or marital sex. And CF probably isn't the appropriate forum for such a cultural exploration anyway. I just concluded this: It seems Orthodox (well, some) have a huge discomfort with something they hold as dogma. I think I have no choice but to leave it there or else simply continue to be attacked.





Peace. Out.




.

You belong to a Reformation/post-Reformation gathered Church.This Church defends belief on what it received - the Scriptures, and has developed a particular means of interpretation which includes one but eschews other methods of interpretation exampled in the NT.

The pre-Reformation Churches also defends belief based on what it received, which includes - but not exclusively - Scripture. We maintain the full count of interpretive method exampled in the NT.

We also maintain the descriptive language of the scripture. As neither Christ nor those who penned the NT use explicit sexual language, we maintain that as well - as this is received (by all Churches who received scripture).

As for the need to couch every discussion about the Virgin Mary in discussions about sex, 'my mom and sex', 'my sister and sex', 'how often other posters have sex', this may be a feature of Lutheran discussions about the Theotokos. It is not an EO feature of discussions about the Theotokos.

 

[katholikos]

I've never argued against it.

 

[Thekla]

You belong to a Reformation/post-Reformation gathered Church.This Church defends belief on what it received - the Scriptures, and has developed a particular means of interpretation which includes one but eschews other methods of interpretation exampled in the NT.

The pre-Reformation Churches also defends belief based on what it received, which includes - but not exclusively - Scripture. We maintain the full count of interpretive method exampled in the NT.

We also maintain the descriptive language of the scripture. As neither Christ nor those who penned the NT use explicit sexual language, we maintain that as well - as this is received (by all Churches who received scripture).

As for the need to couch every discussion about the Virgin Mary in discussions about sex, 'my mom and sex', 'my sister and sex', 'how often other posters have sex', this may be a feature of Lutheran discussions *about the Theotokos. It is not an EO feature of discussions about the Theotokos.

* I quoted my own post to respond to CaliforniaJosiah's post above and to edit my previous post (see asterisk in quoted post above).

My father studied at a US (east coast) Lutheran theological seminary. He has never discussed the ever-virginity of Mary in the manner evidenced in these threads ("no sex ever", the sex life of others, etc). Nor mentioned that this manner of discussion was utilized at the Lutheran seminary he attended. My father, mother, and I have discussed the explicit contents of the Mariology threads over these several months. Perhaps the differences in the character and tone of the discussions is an "east coast vs. west coast Lutheran" thing

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thekla, since it was stressed that "virgin" form the EO perspective is spiritual and not physical, that it is defined DIFFERENTLY than in the west, I think my quest to understand what is meant by this spiritual but not physical virginity was in order and appropriate. I think the diversion, evasions, and personal attacks on me were not.

And as I've stated a few times now, it seems moot since EVENTUALLY I was stated that from the EO perspective, actually "virgin" DOES include sexual abstinence - and so the whole thing was misleading and all the rebukes of me for trying to understand a spiritual but not physical "virginity" were inappropriate.

Again, I have NO IDEA why the Orthodox are hyper-sensitive to THEIR OWN dogma. NO idea why they insist that the Virgin Mary never had sex, Mary was ever a virgin and Mary was a Perpetual Virgin (and in each case, "virgin" includes sexual abstinence) are all accuate, respectful statements but it's pathalogical, psychotic, "post" Fruedian, sex-crazed, hormone-driven, immature and a rule violation for me to say that the EO beleives that Mary had no sex ever.

I gave up. SOMETHING HUGE is underpinning all this discomfort the EO seems to have with its OWN dogma. I don't know what it is. I've shared my theory.




.





.




.

 

[Thekla]

Thekla, since it was stressed that "virgin" form the EO perspective is spiritual and not physical, that it is defined DIFFERENTLY than in the west, I think my quest to understand what is meant by this spiritual but not physical virginity was in order and appropriate. I think the diversion, evasions, and personal attacks on me were not.

.

There was a thread specifically on the EO teaching of ever-virginity.
Two EO authors were quoted extensively and the original essays linked.
Given the exclusively physical and repeated sexual references in the bulk of the posts preceding this thread, it became abundantly clear that the spiritual content of the term had either been 'obliterated through repetition or was never understood.

In the (previous) dogma thread, and in other threads, there was an attempt to explain the fuller understanding (the full definition and soteriological, Incarnational and Christological origin of the "need to doctrinally state the evr-virginity of the Theotokos). We never got there - it was just back to discussions about sex. Your not infrequent response to these attempts of ours was along the lines of "what does this have to do with the dogma of 'no sex ever'". Either the spiritual aspects were too unfamiliar, foreign or apparently ignored - so we could get 'round (and then repeat) a discussion about sex, other people's sex lives, etc., It seemed needed by EO posters to try and return the conversation to the full EO meaning of virgin. Frankly, I was left with the notion that the western Christian definition of virgin was militantly and exclusively a matter of coitus.

My discussions with my parents re: the sexual character of the posts in these threads was met with distress. It was my father's observation that the secular sense of morality (as personalised as opposed to God centered) seemed to have invaded yet another 'corner' of Christianity, and that this was lamentable indeed. (We discussed postings in the Mariology forum for the umpteenth time on Friday). I guess my "hang-ups" come from my parents as well.

I would think that if the EO understanding of ever-virginity had been grasped 8 months ago, or 6 months ago, or even more recently, we wouldn't have been talking about sex so much here.