Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If having no position is equated with neutrality, why discuss the matter -- especially in such an extreme manner ?

1. Because truth matters.

2. If this is true, I need to embrace it. I have changed many of my views because I learned I needed to. If I need to take a position on THIS one, then it's important to me that I do. I do not fear truth or change.

3. Because I'm being told I'm WRONG in a fundamental matter of highest importance and greatest certainty; I'm apostate. That matters to me, as I hope you think it should.

4. Because Christianity is being divided over THIS.

5. Because the world is being told - loudly, boldly - that THIS, how often Mary and Joseph had ___ after Jesus is born - is a matter of highest importance, thus knowing WHY it's true and so very, very important is critical.

6. I'm more than curious WHY two (out of the millions you say exist) are SO very, very, very interested in how often Mary had ____; why so many so insist that Mary's ___ life is a matter of extreme importance think it's RULE, offensive and flaming to even discuss the very same issue; why so those two (out of millions, it is claimed) are so often evasive, defensive, ridiculing (and frankly out of character) when THIS - THEIR DOGMA - is brought up? Why there is this profound double standard: when one or two non Catholic, non-EO denominations have a view (even if it's nowhere near dogma) - they are accountable for it, they must show it true, but when the CC or EO believes something, it's just true and it's insulting to ask about substantiation. I ASSURE you, I will stay on top of this topic for as long as it takes to answer these questions.


Back to the issue....


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Philothei]

1. NONE of them ever embraced it as dogma.

so those who did prior to 200 years ago were living in sin? or they 'divided Christianity" and how this is not 'accusing" and slandering those 2 MAJOR christian Churches who uphold it.? No EO burn anyone on the stick for not believing in the EV that is truly slander....neither anyone got excommunicated (except those who preached that Christ was ONLY human) !!!! This is slanderous.

 

[Dorothea]

1. Because truth matters.

We already told you the truth, but you don't want to read it or accept it. End of story.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

so those who did prior to 200 years ago were living in sin?

Perhaps according to YOU, not according to 999,998 denominations (according to your claim). There are 2 that have dogma on this, two shouting that THIS is a matter on which to divide Christianity, that Mary's ___ life after Jesus is born is a matter of such enormous importance so as to be a factor in who is Christian and who is apostate. Again, you seem to have the situation reversed. There are TWO shouting "You are WRONG!" There are 999,998 not saying that to anyone. There are TWO shouting "you're sinning!" and 999,998 that aren't.


Again, I'm pursuing this (and will continue to do so) because....

1. Because truth matters.

2. If this is true, I need to embrace it. I have changed many of my views because I learned I needed to. If I need to take a position on THIS one, then it's important to me that I do. I do not fear truth or change.

3. Because I'm being told I'm WRONG in a fundamental matter of highest importance and greatest certainty; I'm apostate. That matters to me, as I hope you think it should.

4. Because Christianity is being divided over THIS.

5. Because the world is being told - loudly, boldly - that THIS, how often Mary and Joseph had ___ after Jesus is born - is a matter of highest importance, thus knowing WHY it's true and so very, very important is critical.

6. I'm more than curious WHY two (out of the millions you say exist) are SO very, very, very interested in how often Mary had ____; why so many so insist that Mary's ___ life is a matter of extreme importance think it's RUDE, offensive and flaming to even mention the very same issue they insist is a matter of extreme and highest importance; why so those two (out of millions, it is claimed) are so often evasive, defensive, ridiculing (and frankly out of character) when THIS - THEIR DOGMA - is brought up? Why there is this profound double standard: when one or two non Catholic, non-EO denominations have a view (even if it's nowhere near dogma) - they are accountable for it, they must show it true, but when the CC or EO believes something, it's just true and it's insulting to ask about substantiation. I ASSURE you, I will stay on top of this topic for as long as it takes to answer these questions.


Back to the issue....




.


.

 

[Philothei]

2. If this is true, I need to embrace it. I have changed many of my views because I learned I needed to. If I need to take a position on THIS one, then it's important to me that I do. I do not fear truth or change.

and this is indeed a personal struggle that you have to find out.... We have already decided and we are ok with that decision just like we accpet (and you also do accept) that Trinity although not in the bible still it is part of DOGMA that all Major protestant denominations uphold..... So it is no different you base Holy Trinity on Tradition as you "ASSSUME" from the Bible that the concept of Trinity is valid as NOWHERE in the Bible the WORD TRINITY is metnioned....You go by faith alone and the decsions of the Ecumenical council

Second example is the Bible....YOU accept a cannon that was put together by an ECUMENICAL council...or not? Where in theBible it says which books to include? (NOWHERE) ..... So why the inconsistnancy here? Cause some scholar 200 years ago decided it would be hip to doubt the EV like others thought it would be hip to doubt sainthood, celibant lifestyle, monasticism, the sacraments and the list goes on.... Now who is beingincosistant here the CC the EO or the protestant theology? how can you pick and chose what to keep .....and then tell someone they are wrong? The fact you accept the Trinity and the Bible but toss out the rest is proof of the incosistency in the "dogma" you claim not to uphold .....Still you still do .... despite the fact you want to persuate others that you do not....*mind boggling*

 

[Philothei]

999,998 denominations (

what with 20 people each ? please be real ..... The RC and EO together make up the majority of Christendum.. in the world. Please do not cut and paste those posts they are bothersome and do not add to the discussion.... They are so irrelevant too...as they prove nothing.....nothing at all...

 

[Philothei]

that source raises lots of good arguments

The Virgin Mary - part 1 (an Orthodox perspective)
it comes in 3 parts and i posted one so that we can get an idea about the EV subject matter esp. the Prtotestant "view" on the EV.

^ this is the reply:

to your post bellow:


.

Because truth matters.

2. If this is true, I need to embrace it. I have changed many of my views because I learned I needed to. If I need to take a position on THIS one, then it's important to me that I do. I do not fear truth or change.

3. Because I'm being told I'm WRONG in a fundamental matter of highest importance and greatest certainty; I'm apostate. That matters to me, as I hope you think it should.

4. Because Christianity is being divided over THIS.

5. Because the world is being told - loudly, boldly - that THIS, how often Mary and Joseph had ___ after Jesus is born - is a matter of highest importance, thus knowing WHY it's true and so very, very important is critical.

6. I'm more than curious WHY two (out of the millions you say exist) are SO very, very, very interested in how often Mary had ____; why so many so insist that Mary's ___ life is a matter of extreme importance think it's RUDE, offensive and flaming to even mention the very same issue they insist is a matter of extreme and highest importance; why so those two (out of millions, it is claimed) are so often evasive, defensive, ridiculing (and frankly out of character) when THIS - THEIR DOGMA - is brought up? Why there is this profound double standard: when one or two non Catholic, non-EO denominations have a view (even if it's nowhere near dogma) - they are accountable for it, they must show it true, but when the CC or EO believes something, it's just true and it's insulting to ask about substantiation. I ASSURE you, I will stay on top of this topic for as long as it takes to answer these questions.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

what with 20 people each ? please be real

YOU are the one making the point that TWO hold to this dogma and 999,998 don't. Don't be insulted by your own posted opinion. Whether it be that only two out of ONE MILLION have a position here, are calling ANYONE wrong, apostate, unchristian or "sinning" in the mater of Marys' ____ life after Jesus was born OR whether it's rude to mention the issue regarded by two to be of highest importance.


Again, I'm pursuing this (and will continue to do so) because....

1. Because truth matters.

2. If this is true, I need to embrace it. I have changed many of my views because I learned I needed to. If I need to take a position on THIS one, then it's important to me that I do. I do not fear truth or change.

3. Because I'm being told I'm WRONG in a fundamental matter of highest importance and greatest certainty; I'm apostate. That matters to me, as I hope you think it should.

4. Because Christianity is being divided over THIS.

5. Because the world is being told - loudly, boldly - that THIS, how often Mary and Joseph had ___ after Jesus is born - is a matter of highest importance, thus knowing WHY it's true and so very, very important is critical.

6. I'm more than curious WHY two (out of the millions you say exist) are SO very, very, very interested in how often Mary had ____; why so many so insist that Mary's ___ life is a matter of extreme importance think it's RUDE, offensive and flaming to even mention the very same issue they insist is a matter of extreme and highest importance; why so those two (out of millions, it is claimed) are so often evasive, defensive, ridiculing (and frankly out of character) when THIS - THEIR DOGMA - is brought up? Why there is this profound double standard: when one or two non Catholic, non-EO denominations have a view (even if it's nowhere near dogma) - they are accountable for it, they must show it true, but when the CC or EO believes something, it's just true and it's insulting to ask about substantiation. I ASSURE you, I will stay on top of this topic for as long as it takes to answer these questions.


Back to the issue....




.

 

[Philothei]

Now think about this for a moment. An angel of God actually came to Mary and spoke God's will. She not only believed by faith alone, but God revealed His will unto her through His angel. Mary's response was an incredible act of faith and devotion because it showed pure and unconditional obedience to God. Then Mary said, "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word." (Luke 1:38)
Mary took on the responsibility of bringing forth the Son of God in a society where unwed mothers were subject to terrible shame and immediate stoning. She submitted her body and soul to God's will in order that Jesus Christ may come into the world. Isn't it just a little bit ridiculous to think that once she gave birth to Christ she became just another woman? Isn't her devotion to God sufficient to realize that once she gave birth to the Son of God all her other worldly concerns took a back seat.
All of us readily accept the idea that thousands of men and women every year take a vow of celibacy and choose to devote body and soul to God. These men and women voluntarily choose and ascetic life and become monks and nuns. They do so of their own free will based on sheer faith and devotion to Christ. They are not visited by angels of God, and they are not asked to bear our Lord Jesus Christ in their womb. If we believe these Christians can renounce physical desires and subscribe their lives to Christ, why is it so hard to believe that the Virgin Mary renounced her own physical desires and submitted her life to God. Protestants seem to hold ordinary men and women to a higher standard than the one and only mother of the Son of God. Now, that doesn't seem logical does it?
What's even more interesting is that Protestant Christians today don't seem to question the ability of Buddhist monks or other eastern spiritualists to completely submit control of their physical bodies to the power of the mind and spirit. Their abilities, and that of many others like them, are neither challenged, nor looked upon suspiciously, nor considered impossible. They are simply asserting control of mind over matter. But God forbid that such physical subordination should be the result of spiritual faith, purity of soul, and complete devotion to the one true God!
Spiritual superiority and abstinent lifestyles seem to be relegated only to other faiths and other people, except members of Christ's family and the early followers and Disciples of Christ. Those who walked with Jesus apparently could not master their physical urges and achieve the saintly transformation we have witnesses millions of times since the foundation of the Christian faith.
The lengths and contortions through which modern Protestant scholars go to justify their illogical theological theories have to be counteracted with an equally strong argument. This must be done in order to show just how out of touch they are with common sense, historical traditions, and the truth. I hope this series achieves that purpose and exemplifies the profound bias that is so evident to me personally. If someone has a personal encounter with the angel of the Lord you can be certain that experience will leave a lasting and significant impact on that person's life. Now add to that Mary's extraordinary faith and complete submission of body and soul to God, her absolute purity and sanctity of spirit, and her essential task of raising and caring for the Son of God, and I think you'll understand why the idea that Mary just kept on living a regular, "run of the mill" life seems more and more preposterous.

Just in case someone might have missed it . Sometimes i feel we talk passed each other... Sorry if anyone feels that this is not acceptable. I will try to find more appropriate sources here to clarify the EO postition
Enjoy

 

[Philothei]

YOU are the one making the point that TWO hold to this dogma and 999,998 don't. Don't be insulted by your own posted opinion. Whether it be that only two out of ONE MILLION have a position here, are calling ANYONE wrong, apostate, unchristian or "sinning" in the mater of Marys' ____ life after Jesus was born OR whether it's rude to mention the issue regarded by two to be of highest importance.

find me where I call anyone an apostate if you have a problem with the EO and CC this is not the place to take up your grievances Josiah...There are more 'edifying' ways and positive measures. Look at all the charities they do (both churches) and their mission all over the world. I am sure the Lutheran is as invloved as they are. So.... if you do not like to be told the EV is a dogma you should not uphold that as a grudge against anyone. if the CC told you in order to join them you will have to believe that is their right to say so not their problem. If I join the Lutheran chruch I am sure I will have to abide to certain responsibilites even give certain dues etc. that is how each faith deals with their beliefs others are more strict others are not. That by no means means that they are 'bad' or backwards. we are here to share our faith not to condemn it Please try to understand that upholding dogma is a right a church has. Under the law of the land this dogma is not obligatory to anyone else but its members so be it.....

 

[Standing Up]

Isn't dogma an issue of 'in the house' or 'out of the house'? If so, then when a Christian doesn't believe the dogma, he's 'out of the house'.

If you want in, then you have to accept what that house says, else show that one wouldn't want to be in that house because it is out of the house.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

and this is indeed a personal struggle that you have to find out.... We have already decided and we are ok with that decision

Mormons have views. They are okay with them. They call you apostate for not agreeing. Is it your position that that's just fine? NO ONE should be the least concerned whether the LDS is right and thus you are wrong? Does truth matter to you?

Again, I'm not calling you wrong. The 999,998 are NOT saying the EO is wrong about this, the EO is saying the 999,998 are wrong. The 999,998 are not saying it is not "okay" for you to believe that (actually, they are saying it IS okay for you to believe this), YOU are saying it's NOT okay for me to have no position. Again, you seem to keep wanting to reverse the situation and then defend the opposite of your position.

Second example is the Bible....YOU accept a cannon that was put together by an ECUMENICAL council...or not?

The NT list of books is not dogma and is not a dividing point in Christianity. And since I don't accept The Council of Trent as authoritative, obviously its declaration as nothing to do with the world's embrace of what is and is not Scripture. Why this constant diversion, this constant unwillingness to address the issue declared to be of highest importance?

TWO of the 999,998 are saying THIS - Mary's ___ life after Jesus was born - is a matter of highest importance, a "line in the sand," a dividing point for Christianity. Unless you are willing to say substantiation for DOGMA doesn't matter (and you are willing to say that toward whatever I say or Joel Osment or Joseph Smith or Pope Benedict), then what I'm pursuing is more than relevant.

then tell someone they are wrong?

I'll need to add to my list the things that puzzle me about THIS topic, why is it that the supporters of it think that if they take the OTHER "side" in this and rebuke their OWN position, that reveals the wisdom of their own position?

For reasons I must understand, everything seems reversed when THIS issue is discussed. "You're WRONG if you take the position I'm defending as right!"

As you yourself have been saying 999,998 are not telling ANYONE that they are wrong. TWO are. Yours is one of them. You are suppose to be DEFENDING your position, not rebuking it. YOU have decided to making THIS issue - Mary's ___ life after Jesus was born, as a defining, foundational, most important issue, shouting to the very strongist, highest way possible, that others are WRONG (maybe therefore apostate, heretical, unchristian) if they don't agree. I'm not saying that. The 999,998 aren't saying that. YOU are. There are only TWO shouting ANYTHING about "wrong" on this point.




.

 

[Thekla]

1. Because truth matters.

Truth is a person; Jesus Christ.
He is at the center of all truth.

2. If this is true, I need to embrace it. I have changed many of my views because I learned I needed to. If I need to take a position on THIS one, then it's important to me that I do. I do not fear truth or change.

I wonder, why does your quest for truth challenge only one position ?

3. Because I'm being told I'm WRONG in a fundamental matter of highest importance and greatest certainty; I'm apostate. That matters to me, as I hope you think it should.

I don't recall anyone here calling you an apostate.

4. Because Christianity is being divided over THIS.

This is a symptom, not a cause.

5. Because the world is being told - loudly, boldly - that THIS, how often Mary and Joseph had ___ after Jesus is born - is a matter of highest importance, thus knowing WHY it's true and so very, very important is critical.

How is it being told "loudly, boldly" ? Where in mass media, culture, society, street corners is this being shouted ? It is the actual shouting going on in the world that has degraded the ears and the heart.

6. I'm more than curious WHY two (out of the millions you say exist) are SO very, very, very interested in how often Mary had ____; why so many so insist that Mary's ___ life is a matter of extreme importance think it's RULE, offensive and flaming to even discuss the very same issue; why so those two (out of millions, it is claimed) are so often evasive, defensive, ridiculing (and frankly out of character) when THIS - THEIR DOGMA - is brought up? Why there is this profound double standard: when one or two non Catholic, non-EO denominations have a view (even if it's nowhere near dogma) - they are accountable for it, they must show it true, but when the CC or EO believes something, it's just true and it's insulting to ask about substantiation. I ASSURE you, I will stay on top of this topic for as long as it takes to answer these questions.

If it is truth you seek, you might start with having a 'straight' view of persons; not replacing their "isness" with your way of seeing it. You might try seeing others as Christ sees them.

 

[Philothei]

Evasion is to be inconsistent? Evasion is to accept the some but not all of a tradition? nope it is keeping tabs on the truth.... the one you were talkign about ...but no answer as expected... And as far as the rest... already been answered for ya

 

[Philothei]

Isn't dogma an issue of 'in the house' or 'out of the house'? If so, then when a Christian doesn't believe the dogma, he's 'out of the house'.

If you want in, then you have to accept what that house says, else show that one wouldn't want to be in that house because it is out of the house.

Why if I do not call jESUS Christ the lord and saviour ....am i saved if I was a born again Christian? Any denomination has "dogma" ...if they are 'something' they have to have 'certain' beliefs except the unitarians universalists....that uphold 'many" they still though uphold ....but they are not "mantatory" that is the difference. We do not 'ASK our members if they believe in the EV perce.... We even understand that it may take some time to embrace that as a dogma we allow for that for our converts so they can see it for their own. In time those who disagree would not want to be EO anymore on this account. And anyhow this is a spiritual matter fit for a priest to discern as faith is something personal like i said before. It is not one "suit fits all" everyone has its own struggle and paths
No we do not require that to be "saved" you have to beleive in the EV ..... That is God's call not ours.... as with all matters of salvation so to accuse that we do ...It is slanderous.

 

[Philothei]

Because Christianity is being divided over THIS.

how so? I would not mind if you as a Lutheran do not believe in it... I mean in which way am I 'divided" from anyone who does? do I say that they are "bad" "non-christian" "un-saved" even "heretic" ? Nope.. I just say I like to believe that is what is truth about the Mother of God. I teach my kid that this is the ONLY truth we know. Now if so and so feels that this way he is told that he is "wrong" this is not our call.... That is God's call. The fact remains EV was always taught by the Fathers as the truth. Trinity was taught it was truth. Should I feeel 'bad' that the non trinitarians are not holding up the truth? NO. Do I condemn them for it ? NO. should that make me feel 'guilty' that I believe in the holy Trnity and they do not? Should I change my dogma to include their disbelief in it to make them 'feel better"? I think NOT.

These truths we uphold we do it as it was given to us by the Tradition of our Church the Church preserved the faith and it is the one that "shaped" the NT the very Bible we have. If today's scholars decide to write up or "inverstigate" something 'we never thought it was true then" should we then speculate on Christ's celibacy, Christ gender orientation etc. because someone has a theory? I think not...

 

[pdudgeon]

MOD HAT ON

putting in a temporary closure mod hat here while staff discusses several issues with the thread. thanks for your consideration.