Respect and Spreading Rumors and Our Lady.....

[Thekla]

as the term usually translated as wife can also mean widow, betrothed, etc, do you translated as:

wife: has sex
betrothed: will have sex
widowed: used to have sex

 

[Kristos]

What about Esther? Wasn't she betrothed to Mordecai before she was picked as the new queen by Xerxes? Seems like it was common for young virgins to be betrothed to older men, as guardians of their virginity, not as husbands. When Mary left the Temple after 12 years, it wasn't to be a wife. She was betrothed to Joseph as a guardian of her virginity. Presumably, Joachim and Anna had passed on by this point because they were already very old when blessed with Mary.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Seems like it was common for young virgins to be betrothed to older men

1. Where is the substantiation that Joseph was an "older man?"

2. Are you implying that as an "older man" Jeseph therefore MUST have been sexually impotent and thus unable to have loving marital relationships, and thus Mary was always a virgin? If so, how do we know that? Would the spreading of that unsubstantiated theory be a "rumor?" Is such loving and/or respectful?

When Mary left the Temple after 12 years, it wasn't to be a wife. She was betrothed to Joseph as a guardian of her virginity.

1. Where is it stated that Mary left the Temple after 12 years? And what relevance does that have to any Marian dogma?

2. Where is it stated that Mary was betrothed to Joseph "as a guardian of her virginity" (whatever THAT means)? If we don't know that, is the spreading of that unsubstantiated theory loving and/or respectful toward her? Joseph?



Theories, speculation, opinions, possibilities are all fine, but they are not substantiation for dogma. And while such may be pious and sincere, if not correct, they are likely hurtful, disrespectful and unloving.



Thank you for the discussion.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Rick Otto]

as the term usually translated as wife can also mean widow, betrothed, etc, do you translated as:

wife: has sex
betrothed: will have sex
widowed: used to have sex

I think (at least today) it's:
wife: is through with sex
betrothed: is promising to have sex
widowed: forgot what sex is

 

[prodromos]

Are you implying that as an "older man" Jeseph therefore MUST have been sexually impotent and thus unable to have loving marital relationships

Ah, I see we are finally making some progress on the terminology. That is much better sounding and infinitely more respectful than "sex".

I must congratulate you. Well done!

John

 

[prodromos]

My dictionary: "Virgin" noun. From "maiden" or "shoot"

1. One who has not had sexual relations.

"sexual relations" embodies within its meaning a more positive and spiritual perspective which is simply not present in the word "sex". The former is what a husband and wife engage in, the latter is between males and females of the animal kingdom. I don't know why you couldn't have simply stuck with what your dictionary stated.

I hope now you are able to understand that I have in no way condemned marital sex as you claimed before. I simply reject your coarse, inadequate and provocative terminology.

John

 

[bbbbbbb]

What about Esther? Wasn't she betrothed to Mordecai before she was picked as the new queen by Xerxes? Seems like it was common for young virgins to be betrothed to older men, as guardians of their virginity, not as husbands. When Mary left the Temple after 12 years, it wasn't to be a wife. She was betrothed to Joseph as a guardian of her virginity. Presumably, Joachim and Anna had passed on by this point because they were already very old when blessed with Mary.

Actually, I recommend that you read the book of Esther sometime. You might find it curious that Mordecai was the son of her uncle (Esther 2:5-7) i.e. her cousin. If they were betrothed it would have been a clear violation of the Mosaic Law and considered to be incest in any society. Thus, the only possible biblical leg to your flight of fantasy here is disproven,

 

[Kristos]

Actually, I recommend that you read the book of Esther sometime. You might find it curious that Mordecai was the son of her uncle (Esther 2:5-7) i.e. her cousin. If they were betrothed it would have been a clear violation of the Mosaic Law and considered to be incest in any society. Thus, the only possible biblical leg to your flight of fantasy here is disproven,

I have read it - last night in fact. It clearly says that Esther was his WIFE.

Est 2:7καὶ ἦν τούτῳ παῖς θρεπτή, θυγάτηρ Αμιναδαβ ἀδελφοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὄνομα αὐτῇ Εσθηρ· ἐν δὲ τῷ μεταλλάξαι αὐτῆς τοὺς γονεῖς ἐπαίδευσεν αὐτὴν ἑαυτῷ εἰς γυναῖκα· καὶ ἦν τὸ κοράσιον καλὸν τῷ εἴδει.

This wouldn't be violating anything relating to incest, because there was not a sexual relationship. This is an example of betrothal in the jewish tradition.

 

[Kristos]

FYI:

Noun
γυναίκα (gynaíka) f.

1. wife

 

[Kristos]

FYI:

Noun
γυναίκα (gynaíka) f.

1. wife

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"sexual relations" embodies within its meaning a more positive and spiritual perspective which is simply not present in the word "sex". The former is what a husband and wife engage in, the latter is between males and females of the animal kingdom. I don't know why you couldn't have simply stuck with what your dictionary stated.

1. I DID go by what the dictionary said.

2. Whatever distain you have for marital sex is not shared by me (or God in His Holy Scriptures) nor was implied by me or the dictionary.


Now, do you have any substantiation for this late report about the frequency of sex between Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born - or not. If you don't, I'd invite you to look up the word "rumor" in your dictionary. You might then note the use of the word "rumor" in the Catholic Catechism's explanation of the Commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" and it's emphasis that respect and love require that what is said is known to be true.




.

 

[prodromos]

1. I DID go by what the dictionary said.

The dictionary entry you posted used the term "sexual relations", not "sex".

2. Whatever distain you have for marital sex is not shared by me (or God in His Holy Scriptures) nor was implied by me or the dictionary.

I really don't know what else to say. I have told you that you have misinterpreted what I posted yet you persist in this belief that you know my mind better than I do. I am somewhat dismayed at your hubris as I had held a higher opinion of you until now. Such a shame.

John

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The dictionary entry you posted used the term "sexual relations", not "sex".
I really don't know what else to say. I have told you that you have misinterpreted what I posted yet you persist in this belief that you know my mind better than I do. I am somewhat dismayed at your hubris as I had held a higher opinion of you until now.

... then I'm lost.

You seem to insist that there's nothing wrong with marital sex and yet only animals do such and people don't. There's nothing wrong with insisting, as dogma, that Mary was a "perpetual virgin" (the words literally mean she had no sex ever) and yet it's wrong to say she had no sex ever.... I AM confused.....

Look, this is the RCC/EO dogma. THEY are the ones insisting that this matter of how often they had intercourse (I'm going to use that word since the word "sex" seems offensive to you). I don't have a view on this; I've argued it's moot and frankly none of our business and an issue of marital privacy between Mary and Joseph. I don't NEED to know - and frankly I don't WANT to know - how often they had intercourse. But the RCC/EO passionately disagree, arguing this is a matter of highest importance. So, my confusion about your position is confounded. You seem offended by the issue of intercourse vis-a-vis Mary, and yet are defending the frequency of intercourse by her as the most important of all topics.

With that, I'm "bowing out" of that little sub-subject in this tread. Your continuous objections reveal you have some very passionate "issue" about marital intercourse and yet you say you don't. I think I'll just need to move on without a clue of what your position is. BUT, the issue remains. The RCC has declared that the frequency of intercourse by Mary is an issue of highest and greatest importance, and INSISTS - to the strongest degree - that she never, ever had intercourse. Now, is this known? If it is not known, then look up the definition of "rumor" in your dictionary. Then look up the explanation of the Commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" in the Catholic Catechism.


But friend, you have well made my point. You are not Mary, and yet even YOU are offended in some way by this obsession with Mary and intercourse. So, I'm wondering, why are you defending making this very subject a dogma - a matter of highest importance and centrality? If YOU are offended by any mention of intercourse, why do you think that Mary Herself is somehow honored and pleased by all this obsession and emphasis and focus on her the number of times she had intercourse (or not)? It is MY view that love involves respect (including of her privacy). And respect embraces truth. To spread rumors about an issue YOU seem to be highly sensitive about and find easy offense regarding, an issue which has zero subsantiation, even with the best of intentions, is that loving? Respectful? Or does it at least have the potentiality of being hurtful, painful and embarrassing? Let hope Mary is not NEARLY as easily offended by this topic than you are. For we both love Her.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[prodromos]

... then I'm lost.

You seem to insist that there's nothing wrong with marital sex and yet only animals do such and people don't. There's nothing wrong with insisting, as dogma, that Mary was a "perpetual virgin" (the words literally mean she had no sex ever) and yet it's wrong to say she had no sex ever.... I AM confused.....

The problem is that you are using terms interchangeably which are not equivalent though perhaps in your eyes they are. If we look at what you have just written above you have now used the term "marital sex" instead of "sex" and then even suggested that animals engage in marital sex! Animals, however, do not marry so how can they possibly be described as engaging in "marital sex". There is no love or caring or the fulfilling of the partner's needs in animal sex, it is purely driven by instinct. Since it is only in the purely physical aspect that it has anything in common with "marital sex" they are not equivalent terms nor is "sex" on its own a suitable word to describe a husband and wife making love. It is a crude expression which has perhaps in your generation been replaced by the "f" word. Certainly there are people who do simply have sex. In these cases it is an egocentric exercise where each person is only concerned with satisfying their own physical urges, using the other person as a means to an end. It is void of love and compassion.
I have stated a number of times that there are many other expressions which are acceptable to describe "marital sex" however you have remained dogmatic in your choice of the most provocative expression which can pass the automatic censoring of the forums. How you can claim to love Mary and yet use such crude terms to describe her is beyond me.

Look, this is the RCC/EO dogma. THEY are the ones insisting that this matter of how often they had intercourse (I'm going to use that word since the word "sex" seems offensive to you). I don't have a view on this; I've argued it's moot and frankly none of our business and an issue of marital privacy between Mary and Joseph. I don't NEED to know - and frankly I don't WANT to know - how often they had intercourse. But the RCC/EO passionately disagree, arguing this is a matter of highest importance. So, my confusion about your position is confounded. You seem offended by the issue of intercourse vis-a-vis Mary, and yet are defending the frequency of intercourse by her as the most important of all topics.

You have turned this whole affair into something it isn't. Our Church talks about virginity and you turn it into a discussion about coitus. If the subject was fasting you would no doubt turn it into a discussion of gluttony, or if the subject was non-drinking you'd keep bring up stuff about being drunk.

With that, I'm "bowing out" of that little sub-subject in this tread. Your continuous objections reveal you have some very passionate "issue" about marital intercourse and yet you say you don't. I think I'll just need to move on without a clue of what your position is.

I've made my position quite clear. I can't help that you can't see through all the straw you've been chucking about.

BUT, the issue remains. The RCC has declared that the frequency of intercourse by Mary is an issue of highest and greatest importance, and INSISTS - to the strongest degree - that she never, ever had intercourse. Now, is this known? If it is not known, then look up the definition of "rumor" in your dictionary. Then look up the explanation of the Commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" in the Catholic Catechism.

You should read it yourself. You've had no problem bearing false witness against me throughout this thread.

But friend, you have well made my point. You are not Mary, and yet even YOU are offended in some way by this obsession with Mary and intercourse.

I found your choice of terms provacative and inappropriate and explained why. I cannot be held to account for your inability to understand plain English.

If YOU are offended by any mention of intercourse

which I am not, just your choice of crude and vulgar terminology to express it. Amazingly you continue with your straw. It seems you are unable to do otherwise.

John

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Our Church talks about virginity and you turn it into a discussion about coitus.

Hello....

Virgin = one who has not had intercourse/sex/coitus....

It's what the word means.
A virgin is one who had not had sex. Look it up in your dictionary.
Perpetual means always, continously. Look it up in your dictionary.

You seem to have some deep, passionate, personal "issue" with marital sex/intercourse/coitus - as is abundantly OBVIOUS from your numerous posts here - in spite of your insistence that you don't.

I confess, I'm just lost....




.

 

[Thekla]

You seem to have some deep, passionate, personal "issue" with marital sex/intercourse/coitus - as is abundantly OBVIOUS from your numerous posts here - in spite of your insistence that you don't.

I confess, I'm just lost....




.

given the clearly monomanic character of your posts in this subforum, I'd suggest this is statement is at the very least "the pot calling the kettle black"

 

[SpiritDriven]

Rumor: noun

1. General talk not based on confirmed information. Gossip. Hearsay.
2. An unconfirmed report, story or statement in general circulation.


My mother taught me that it's disrespectful to spread rumors, even if well intended. The Catholic Catechism teaches that such is a violation of the Commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Thus, no matter how sincere or well intended, to talk of something based not on confirmed information is to gossip and spread rumors - a sin.


I love and hold Our Blessed Lady in highest esteem, as chief among the saints. IN A CERTAIN SENSE, I adore, revere and worship her. For that reason, I will not participate in the spreading of rumors or gossip about her - thus potentially offending, embarrassing and causing her pain (and therefore, also her Son).


God's Holy Scripture tells us very little about her. We know that she is the Mother of Our Lord (and thus the Mother of God), we know that she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and born, we know that all generations will call her blessed. That we can confirm.


Now, rumors about her began centuries after her death/undeath and LONG after the death of anyone who ever so much as met her. All of these rumors are entirely moot to anything whatsoever. Some of them are potentially very embarrassing, offensive and hurtful. None of them are confirmed by God's holy Scripture or anything from the First Century (and usually the second and often later). Therefore, while it's POSSIBLE that they are true (it's also POSSIBLE that she was 15 feet tall, had pink hair and lived entirely on tacos), there's no confirmation of such and therefore, it is, by definition, gossip and rumor.


I will adorate Our Lady for what we know, what is confirmed, what God told us. That is MORE than enough! BECAUSE I love, honor and respect her I will not participate in late, unsubstantiated rumor and gossip - even though I am certain such is sincere and well-intended and POSSIBLE (as would be her obsession with tacos). I'm not saying that it's a LIE (heresy) that Mary Had No Sex EVER! only that it's gossip I won't participate in by spreading it. It's moot, it's absolutely none of anyone's business, it's potentially highly hurtful and embarroussing, and it's unsubstantiated by anything that has any credibility.


Thoughts?



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

I feel that is rather more disturbing that it is an established fact that Graven Images in stone and wood have been made of Mary and people worship them.....

I guess mayby because a stone statue of Mary is made with white material or white washed, that makes this practice acceptable ?

Jesus said do not pray long prayers like the pagans.....so why disobey with a set of roseary beads....?

When people asked Jesus....how do we pray....Jesus gave them the prayer to use...but no...pray to graven images of sombody else, and using long prayers to boot.

It just seems to me, that not many if any in the alledged mainstream Church really do believe anything Jesus said....because they are certainly not doing what Jesus said.

Peace