Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Uphill Battle]

After looking over this issue, I'd like to give my opinion (although I'm sure it's not welcome to whomever doesn't like to hear it.)

I personally think that CJ has been treated rather shoddily. You don't like HOW he says something, and call him names, report him, (if all that is true) and HE is the problem?

I know that your take on virginity in Mary is more than abstinence from sexual relations, but it is the entirely moot if she was NOT physically virgin! Everyone on this thread knows this. It's absolutely true. The EO, the RC, TEACH that Mary remained PHYSICALLY ever virgin. they teach more, but they DO TEACH it.

the browbeating that CJ is taking over it is IMHO, a bit much.


I'm sure that I've only made enemies in saying so.

 

[Thekla]

After looking over this issue, I'd like to give my opinion (although I'm sure it's not welcome to whomever doesn't like to hear it.)

I personally think that CJ has been treated rather shoddily. You don't like HOW he says something, and call him names, report him, (if all that is true) and HE is the problem?

I know that your take on virginity in Mary is more than abstinence from sexual relations, but it is the entirely moot if she was NOT physically virgin! Everyone on this thread knows this. It's absolutely true. The EO, the RC, TEACH that Mary remained PHYSICALLY ever virgin. they teach more, but they DO TEACH it.

the browbeating that CJ is taking over it is IMHO, a bit much.


I'm sure that I've only made enemies in saying so.

No, I'm not offended. But I disagree. I don't know the contents of the reports an pms that are claimed. I do know this issue has been discussed and answered over months (May?) with a constant renaming of the teaching as "no sex ever" which is not what the term means. And yes, I have been offended by the sometimes explicit language and the personal nature of some of the posts. But as CaliforniaJosiah claims they were reported, and I don't recall posts being removed, apparently PG-13 is not a CF Mariology standard.

Frankly, it doesn't matter. What matters (take a look at the threads I linked) is that a glut of threads in this subforum have boiled down to a discussion on intercourse. I thought this forum was about hagiography.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

After looking over this issue, I'd like to give my opinion (although I'm sure it's not welcome to whomever doesn't like to hear it.)

I personally think that CJ has been treated rather shoddily. You don't like HOW he says something, and call him names, report him, (if all that is true) and HE is the problem?

I know that your take on virginity in Mary is more than abstinence from sexual relations, but it is the entirely moot if she was NOT physically virgin! Everyone on this thread knows this. It's absolutely true. The EO, the RC, TEACH that Mary remained PHYSICALLY ever virgin. they teach more, but they DO TEACH it.

the browbeating that CJ is taking over it is IMHO, a bit much.


I'm sure that I've only made enemies in saying so.

Thank you, Uphill, but here's the thing. None of these people have anything personal toward me. And I never Reported anything, because I know that and I recognize passion when I see it.

It's not me, it's what I posted that SO very strongly offends. "Mary had no sex ever" THAT'S what caused the whole firestorm. Now, when it seemed that I was being told I was wrong, in the EO this has nothing to do with sex, I TRIED to see how so, how the EO view was so different than the CC view, how "virginity" is purely spiritual and has nothing to do with sex. I really, sincerely, TRIED - knowing that I'm "western" and the East just "thinks" a bit differently (said with all due respect), I TRIED. But one thing became obvious: virginity seems to offend some Orthodox enormously, and there seems to be some HUGE issues with marital sex, virginity and women - but I just didn't (and don't know), but all these HUGE emotions made any discussion of this impossible. I gave up. SOMEHOW, it's horrible, VERY wrong, immature, pathological to say "Mary had no sex." But okay to say, "Mary was a perpetual virgin" because "virgin" has nothing to do with sex.

But when the discussion was renewed, it was actually stated that Mary never had sex. Now, how is "Mary had no sex ever" so very pathological, immature, wrong, Fruedian, patholigical and psychotic but "Mary never had sex" is the respectful, Orthodox way to state it? :o :o THAT has always been my question. I was off on that "wild goose chase" for awhile with "Virginity has nothing to do with sex" argument, it seems it does after all.

This has got to be one of the weirdest conversations I've never had on the net. And NEVER have I been accused of these things before. And so many good staff have been dragged in for HOURS of work on this.

How is "Mary had no sex ever" so very immature, sex-crazed, wrong, Fruedian, patholigical and psychotic but "Mary never had sex" is the Orthodox position. :o :o THAT has always been my question. I still don't have a clue. I never will. I gave up.


SOMETHING is behind all this for these Orthodox and this dogma. I just don't have a clue what it is. Maybe it's a cultural thing, I just don't know.

Thekla is right: no discussion of this is possible.




.

 

[prodromos]

After looking over this issue, I'd like to give my opinion (although I'm sure it's not welcome to whomever doesn't like to hear it.)

Your opinion is always welcome

I personally think that CJ has been treated rather shoddily. You don't like HOW he says something, and call him names, report him, (if all that is true) and HE is the problem?

He is the problem when it has been explained to him that his approach is crude and offensive, and he then persists in that approach.

the browbeating that CJ is taking over it is IMHO, a bit much.

He only brings it on himself. Persisting in behavior that you know causes offense does not win many friends.

I'm sure that I've only made enemies in saying so.

Oh dear, is CJ's martyr complex rubbing off on you?

John

 

[Thekla]

It does seem curious that in the fall of 2008, it seemed to be understood that the EO position was that Mary's virginity included abstinence from intercourse.

should I quote posts ?

 

[prodromos]

Now, when it seemed that I was being told I was wrong, in the EO this has nothing to do with sex

This is a further misrepresentation of our responses to you. You either have a serious problem with reading comprehension or you are not being honest, whether this is deliberate or not I cannot say.

John

 

[Thekla]

2 Sept. 2008:



CaliforniaJosiah's post (#416)

No, the issue here is the DOGMA of the PERPETUAL (always) VIRGINITY (no sex) specifically of MARY. This is a dogma in the RCC and EO.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7235674&highlight=speak+lovingly+mary&page=42

 

[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.




.

 

[Uphill Battle]

No, I'm not offended. But I disagree. I don't know the contents of the reports an pms that are claimed. I do know this issue has been discussed and answered over months (May?) with a constant renaming of the teaching as "no sex ever" which is not what the term means. And yes, I have been offended by the sometimes explicit language and the personal nature of some of the posts. But as CaliforniaJosiah claims they were reported, and I don't recall posts being removed, apparently PG-13 is not a CF Mariology standard.

Frankly, it doesn't matter. What matters (take a look at the threads I linked) is that a glut of threads in this subforum have boiled down to a discussion on intercourse. I thought this forum was about hagiography.

actually, it was originally meant to be only Mariology, so they could get all the arguments about Mary in one place. Somebody argued for Hagiography to be added, and it was.

Your opinion is always welcome
He is the problem when it has been explained to him that his approach is crude and offensive, and he then persists in that approach.
He only brings it on himself. Persisting in behavior that you know causes offense does not win many friends.
Oh dear, is CJ's martyr complex rubbing off on you?

John

I just don't understand the level of offence taken. It's strange to me. I'm trying to understand it, but I truly do not. Mary not having sex, IS technically very much a part of the whole issue.

And frankly, even if he DOES bring it on himself, it's no excuse. we're not supposed to treat our "enemies" any worse than our closest kin.

no, no martyr complex, I just can see there is some high emotion about the issue, that I can't quite grasp. I have no desire to make enemies over it, is all I really meant.

 

[bbbbbbb]

As most of you know, I bowed out of this discussion some time ago when it became apparent to me that the EO and RCC have willfully misread the Bible when three gospel writers clearly stated that Jesus Christ had a mother, Mary, and sisters and brothers. The brothers are named.

IMO, that provides more than sufficient proof that Mary and Joseph enjoyed a normal marital relationship and, by inference, that Mary had not remained a virgin following the birth of her first-born son, Jesus.

 

[Musa80]

As most of you know, I bowed out of this discussion some time ago when it became apparent to me that the EO and RCC have willfully misread the Bible when three gospel writers clearly stated that Jesus Christ had a mother, Mary, and sisters and brothers. The brothers are named.

IMO, that provides more than sufficient proof that Mary and Joseph enjoyed a normal marital relationship and, by inference, that Mary had not remained a virgin following the birth of her first-born son, Jesus.

It's not exactly bowing out if you pop back in to accuse people of "willfully misreading" the scriptures. The fact is the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus has been explained ad nauseum. If some people still insist on reading the Bible as if it were written in King James English in the 21st century, well there isn't much that can be done about it, though it's quite silly to say the least.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Yes, we "willfully misread the bible," because we care more for our tradition than the Lord.
Oh, and we cheat on taxes, laugh at the disabled, and pull the wings off flies.

That's how we roll.

'scuse me while I go throw nails in my neighbor's driveway.

 

[Thekla]

As most of you know, I bowed out of this discussion some time ago when it became apparent to me that the EO and RCC have willfully misread the Bible when three gospel writers clearly stated that Jesus Christ had a mother, Mary, and sisters and brothers. The brothers are named.

IMO, that provides more than sufficient proof that Mary and Joseph enjoyed a normal marital relationship and, by inference, that Mary had not remained a virgin following the birth of her first-born son, Jesus.

You'll need to go back a few years and correct Plato on his use of the Greek language then; specifically, "adelphos"

 

[Thekla]

actually, it was originally meant to be only Mariology, so they could get all the arguments about Mary in one place. Somebody argued for Hagiography to be added, and it was.

Noted, I stand corrected (though the Virgin Mary is a saint, so it could just be called "Hagiography").

I just don't understand the level of offence taken. It's strange to me. I'm trying to understand it, but I truly do not. Mary not having sex, IS technically very much a part of the whole issue.

Again, the part is not the same as the whole; "no sex ever" is not = to ever-virgin. Or if you measure a room for a floor treatment, you're gonna come up short.

Further, as previously posted by me, the physical part of the teaching was acknowledged and understood by CaliforniaJosiah at least 5 months ago. I can look to find more posts to quote as exhibits if you wish. Or you can utilize the links to the threads I posted earlier to search for yourself.

And frankly, even if he DOES bring it on himself, it's no excuse. we're not supposed to treat our "enemies" any worse than our closest kin.

The charges of "PMs etc." were iterated in a post directed at me; I do not recall making such PMs, etc. If so, they can be pointed out.

I was and am distressed that - when I am reading or posting in Mariology - I must block the screen when my younger children are close by. As I stated, I thought CF was PG-13. My daughter is a member, but following my experience in Mariology (explicit language) I no longer permit her on CF.

I cannot apologize for what I do not know; if I messed up in this regard, let me see the posts, PMs, etc. where I was so, and I will act accordingly.

 

[prodromos]

I personally have never sent CJ a PM regarding this. It is possible that I may have reported him once regarding this though I can't find any evidence of it (response from mods).

John

 

[MamaZ]

You'll need to go back a few years and correct Plato on his use of the Greek language then; specifically, "adelphos"

Word games..

 

[MamaZ]

As most of you know, I bowed out of this discussion some time ago when it became apparent to me that the EO and RCC have willfully misread the Bible when three gospel writers clearly stated that Jesus Christ had a mother, Mary, and sisters and brothers. The brothers are named.

IMO, that provides more than sufficient proof that Mary and Joseph enjoyed a normal marital relationship and, by inference, that Mary had not remained a virgin following the birth of her first-born son, Jesus.

exactly

 

[Thekla]

Word games..

Perhaps you could provide a source citation discussing the Hellenistic Greek use of the term "adelphos" as soley "born of the same mother".

Otherwise, it seems prudent to acknowledge that extant Hellenistic Greek writing uses the term "adelphos" in reference to a broad swath of relationships.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Perhaps you could provide a source citation discussing the Hellenistic Greek use of the term "adelphos" as soley "born of the same mother".

Otherwise, it seems prudent to acknowledge that extant Hellenistic Greek writing uses the term "adelphos" in reference to a broad swath of relationships.

You just can't bother some people with facts- let alone questions, considerations, possibilities, alternatives, etc.

Especially since the bible was originally written in English.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Noted, I stand corrected (though the Virgin Mary is a saint, so it could just be called "Hagiography").

theoretically, yes.

Again, the part is not the same as the whole; "no sex ever" is not = to ever-virgin. Or if you measure a room for a floor treatment, you're gonna come up short.

Further, as previously posted by me, the physical part of the teaching was acknowledged and understood by CaliforniaJosiah at least 5 months ago. I can look to find more posts to quote as exhibits if you wish. Or you can utilize the links to the threads I posted earlier to search for yourself.

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.

The charges of "PMs etc." were iterated in a post directed at me; I do not recall making such PMs, etc. If so, they can be pointed out.

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

I was and am distressed that - when I am reading or posting in Mariology - I must block the screen when my younger children are close by. As I stated, I thought CF was PG-13. My daughter is a member, but following my experience in Mariology (explicit language) I no longer permit her on CF.

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?

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.

I cannot apologize for what I do not know; if I messed up in this regard, let me see the posts, PMs, etc. where I was so, and I will act accordingly.

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.

I personally have never sent CJ a PM regarding this. It is possible that I may have reported him once regarding this though I can't find any evidence of it (response from mods).

John

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