Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What does it mean therefore that many if not most Protestants hold fast to a doctrine that is not defined by their denomination?I have no position on how often Mary had sex.
I have no dogma.
I have no doctrine.
I have no official teaching.
NO Protestant denomination known to me does.
.
CaliforniaJosiah,
If you've been in GT, you might have seen the thread on the Church of Laedocia - neither hot nor cold.
The fact of the matter is, on the subject of the "things of God", Christians MUST take a position, we cannot remain neutral. We cannot say, if we love Christ, that maybe the "christ of Arius, or the christ of the gnostics, et al" are true; we must witness firmly that there is only one true position on the matter.
The detractors of Christ attacked His mother repeatedly over the centuries; earlier in this forum I posted links to some of those extant attacks. The Church knew the attacks were false teachings, the Church - as with the 1st century writings - knew some were patently false (gnostic writings et al) and when the falsehoods became threatening to the Church, to the "things of God", the Church took a stand. The Church did not sit on the fence, but proclaimed dogma (within Church teachings) as doctrine.
I've shown why your position of "no position" is dangerous. Why do you think the Church finally spoke up ? The Church had to take a stand on the "things of God". We are all called to do so. To take no position is to allow a wrong teaching to fester and grow, to tacitly support it. This is what your "no position" does; it tacitly supports the slander and falsehood of Celsus and others.
It seems quite clear, as I said before, that your beef is with the RC, not with the teaching. But now that you've chosen to attack the teaching, you have tacitly supported slanderous false teachings and those who seek to slander Christ. I don't think this was your intention, but this is certainly the result.
This is why it is dangerous to attack a Church; and if you insist on attacking, choose carefully what you choose to attack with !
I think the intent is to show that the PV belief is based on rumor alone no matter who believes it.
Even if he unintentionaly implied that is a possibility, it doesn't amount to a statement of rumor as fact.
He confronted PV believers with the RC definition & catechism teaching on "rumor".
He simply observed how they impale themselves.
He confronted PV believers with the RC definition & catechism teaching on "rumor".
He simply observed how they impale themselves.
He confronted PV believers with the RC definition & catechism teaching on "rumor".
He simply observed how they impale themselves.
No, he has set up a false dichotomy.He confronted PV believers with the RC definition & catechism teaching on "rumor".
He simply observed how they impale themselves.
What does it mean therefore that many if not most Protestants hold fast to a doctrine that is not defined by their denomination?
I don't demand verification that the NT isn't rumor.quote=Thekla; Rick,
you have failed to apply your standard of rumor to the New Testament; inconsistency is inconsistency. If you demand verification, you should also apply to yourself.
Josiah has tacitly supported many who over the centuries have repeatedly attacked Christ by attacking His mother.
We get lumped in with all kinds of ilk.Are you guys really so enamored of your position that you want to join up with this ilk ?
"The Church" didn't take a stand. The Church officials took a stand.I don't think you are, but now that the subject is broached, you have to take a position or tacitly support the detractors. Why do you think the Church took a stand ?
Many motivations were present, not all honorable.Why do you think the Church finally 'publicaly stated' what had been taught ?
I'm sure you believe that.This, in part, is why the teaching on Mary is about Christ.
The teaching itself is in part a degredation of Christ.The adversary tries to erode the borders -- the ever-virginity is "avaton" - don't step there. Because to step there breaks one more barrier to degraded teachings on Christ.
I don't consider the PV teaching a thing of God.This is the idea of "set apart", this is in part the reason for reverence for the "things of God". We have a responsibility to set aside, keep, hold, protect "the oracles" as Paul says.
I believe organized religion is guilty of making it so.The tenor of Josiah's posts kept pushing us to abrogate "avaton", and it was hard to respond without the diminishing language that indicates degradation. It not about sex, DUH. I have six kids. Its about abaton.
Sex is not dirty or degraded - though like anything, some make it so.
I wish that were true.Its about avaton -- Mary's value is not about anything other than Christ.
Perhaps then Mariology is just such a dilution of actualy talking about Christ.If we're constantly talking about sex, or toyotas, or anything else, we're diluting the value to us of what we're actually talking about.
We agree. Over-reverence & undue respect are also problems.This society is not much one for reverence or respect.
Introducing a multitude of new & sophisticated terminology doesn't change the basic fact that there are no facts, only beliefs re: PV. regardeless of the legitimacy of the source material (NT).Or gentleness. Maybe avaton looks silly to those in the USA. But that doesn't mean it needs to be attacked. Doesn't mean it has no value. And in this case, in this thread, it is abundantly clear that the ignorance of avaton has grave consequences -- tacit alignment with those who slander Christ.
I think the position defies its holders own terms.No, he has set up a false dichotomy.
He defines the doctrine as rumor because is it not explicitly defined in the Bible.
However, Catholics (and Orthodox) accept the whole of Sacred Tradition in forming doctrine, not just Scripture. The belief that all doctrine in order to be correct must be explicitly stated in the Bible is the only real rumor running amok in this thread.
It's quite easy to argue a point when you get to define the position of the other person based upon your terms and not theirs. That is what Josiah has done, which would only impress others who tend to do the same thing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?