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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tZj6dRJcG0&feature=related
circular thinking......turns my stomach..........................
This is not what I asked you...go back and answer it... if you want to dialogue without straw man or quoque... just answer the post...CJ...ALL the attacking is from your end.
I thought you insisted that it was doctrine, not dogma?
I NEVER said that it is a rumor. Over and over I've made that clear. Nor have I said that it's wrong or unbiblical or unreasonable or impossible or heretical. I've noted WHAT THE CATHOLIC CATHECHISM (NOT ME!!!!!! READ IT THIS TIME, NOT ME!!!!!!) says that if a report ABOUT A PERSON (read those words this time, "ABOUT A PERSON) is not substantiated, then it is a rumor and it is a SIN (as I've noted, that's the RCC's term, NOT MINE) to spread it. Substantiation is the point for the RCC. I have written several times, that I don't know what the EO's stand on that is, I've asked a few times but it was always ignored, I don't know if the EO believes that if the ones spreading a story say it's true therefore it's fully substantiated to the level of doctrine or dogma and thus isn't a rumor, I don't know, you've never answered by questiona bout that. What I've said is that IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, according to THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, when speaking of a PERSON (such as Mary), it is a SIN (their word, not mine) to spread a report about them unless it is substantiated.
YOU are the one doctrinally insisting that Mary had no sex EVER.
YOU are the one telling everyone. THIS is SO important!!!!!!
YOU are the one judging others (including me).
YOU are the one who is responsible before God at the Judgment for the truthfulness of this obsessive insistence of yours about Our Lady's sexual practices or not, and for any hurt, pain, embarrassment or offense such MIGHT cause to Her and Her Son.
You noted that Christ is silent on this point.
So am I.
So are the 29.998 denominations that are in the same "camp" with Jesus on this.
Philothei said:This is not what I asked you...go back and answer it... if you want to dialogue without straw man or quoque... just answer the post...CJ...
You are not wrong because you have no position... IMO it is the attacking you do on those who do... and as far as I am conserned attacking a dogma as a rumor is a straw man... as even if we give you the evidence you will still go on doubting it... Thus your issue is not to be convienced or to "examine" the issue rather to declare that those who have a position on the issue are at "fault" .... Lucky you the same can apply to any dogma though even for God ....since there is no evidence He exists either thus the "method" of scrutinizing that dogma can be applied for your premise too.... Thus you by sitting on the fence... you have to sit there for all dogmas that have to do with faith... even God...
Josiah said:ALL the attacking is from your end.
I thought you insisted that it was doctrine, not dogma?
I NEVER said that it is a rumor. Over and over I've made that clear. Nor have I said that it's wrong or unbiblical or unreasonable or impossible or heretical. I've noted WHAT THE CATHOLIC CATHECHISM (NOT ME!!!!!! READ IT THIS TIME, NOT ME!!!!!!) says that if a report ABOUT A PERSON (read those words this time, "ABOUT A PERSON) is not substantiated, then it is a rumor and it is a SIN (as I've noted, that's the RCC's term, NOT MINE) to spread it. Substantiation is the point for the RCC. I have written several times, that I don't know what the EO's stand on that is, I've asked a few times but it was always ignored, I don't know if the EO believes that if the ones spreading a story say it's true therefore it's fully substantiated to the level of doctrine or dogma and thus isn't a rumor, I don't know, you've never answered by questiona bout that. What I've said is that IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, according to THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, when speaking of a PERSON (such as Mary), it is a SIN (their word, not mine) to spread a report about them unless it is substantiated.
Josiah said:YOU are the one doctrinally insisting that Mary had no sex EVER.
YOU are the one telling everyone. THIS is SO important!!!!!!
YOU are the one judging others (including me).
YOU are the one who is responsible before God at the Judgment for the truthfulness of this obsessive insistence of yours about Our Lady's sexual practices or not, and for any hurt, pain, embarrassment or offense such MIGHT cause to Her and Her Son.
You noted that Christ is silent on this point.
So am I.
So are the 29.998 denominations that are in the same "camp" with Jesus on this.
You noted that Christ is silent on this point.
So am I.
So are the 29.998 denominations that are in the same "camp" with Jesus on this.
We didn't have the luxury when the likes of Celsus came to call
Celsus, not a Christian, denied that Mary was a virgin AT THE BIRTH OF OUR LORD. Another doctrine for another day and thread. No one here is discussing whether Mary was a virgin at the birth of our Lord. And that's NOT the issue of the dogma/doctrine before us. It says that she was ALWAYS a virgin, perpetually, she NEVER had sexual intercourse. Apples and oranges.
They were a 1st c. sect; the 1st c. Christians were already fighting the battle on the matter.
Not that I can tell. Celsus said NOTHING about the dogma/doctrine before us, which is that Mary had no sex EVER.
More diversions....
.
While you agree that Christ and Scripture are silent on this, you also state that silence on a subject makes us wrong and dangerous.
No, I have stated neither; I accept the OT prophecies re: the Theotokos. I accept her witness of chastity stated in response to Gabriel.
While you seem to suggest that it is a matter of supreme respect, highest honor and above all LOVING to tell the whole world how often Mary had sex during her entire lifetime, it seems to not be in your case. While you insist that Mary might be offended that Her Son and I and 29,998 denominations have no dogma or doctrine on how often she had sex, you insist she is honored above all that you insist she had sex not once. For reasons not clear to me, what you regard as private is nonetheless to be supremely public; what you seem to be suggesting is none of our business for you is everyone's business to the level of doctrine for Mary.
As far as I know, your denomination (per my questions and your silence) has neither dogma nor doctrine. Why would anyone expect they would speak on "any" matter ?
If after my parents died, someone arose and started emailing everyone, texting everyone, putting up websites, doing all they can to inform all the peoples of the earth that my mom "did it" on average of 2 times per week, I'd have 3 issues:
1). Why are they so obsessed on THIS issue? Why is the issue that Mom had sex THIS many times a matter of such great emphasis? Of course, the issue before us is many times greater since it's not my mom we're talking about, it's Mary. And it's not one person, it's two denominations. And it's not just "I say" but an issue of doctrine and dogma! The RCC says that to deny a dogma is to be a heretic and ones salvation is in question!!!
2). How do they know this? I lived at home for 16 years, and I don't know how often they have sex. Of course, in this matter, it's much,much, much greater. Because the RCC says (not me) that to spread a story about a person that is not substantiated is to SIN against them (its word, not mine), thus substantiation is the whole issue. And again, it's not just my mom, this is Mary!
3). What permission do you have to spread this, even if you know it's true? IF the first two things were attained, I'd still regard my parents sex lives together to be a private, marital issue. I wouldn't discuss it with others EVEN IF I KNEW (to the level of dogma or doctrine) what it was. Whatever happened to privacy, respect? Is EVERYTHING about EVERYONE now public property to discuss willy-nilly? Now, all this is MUCH, MUCH greater in this subject. Because two of the supposed 30,000 denominations call this a matter of highest importance to tell the whole world. THIS!!!!! The RCC says that to deny it is to be a heretic and thereby salvation is questionable.
Your parents were active participants in the Incarnation
Again, the dogma is that Mary Had No Sex EVER.
It's not that Mary had no other kids.
It's not that Mary was a virgin at the birth of our Lord.
It's not that Mary was sinless or pure or undefiled.
It's not that Mary held the sinless Christ.
It's not that Mary was unmarried.
It's not that Mary did no immoral act.
It's that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin.
Let's say on topic.
We've been over the passages in scripture before.
And, as you know, there is no evidence that Mary married. And her statement of chastity. Unless she behaved immorally - what would that mean ?
I still find it quite remarkable that you believe you can define the grounds for what constitutes 'substantiation', and then judge others based upon your standard. As far as I am concerned, the belief is quite substantiated, it in no way qualifies as a rumor, anything the catechism says about rumors is not applicable, and your point is quite moot.Of course, in this matter, it's much,much, much greater. Because the RCC says (not me) that to spread a story about a person that is not substantiated is to SIN against them (its word, not mine), thus substantiation is the whole issue. And again, it's not just my mom, this is Mary!
.
But I assume you'd be okay if they discussed your mother's sex-life before she was married? Because you don't seem to think that's a problem with Mary, don't feel it was inappropriate for people to speak about or write about it etc. So why in your view is it okay for you to talk about her sex-life before she's married and to be 'obsessed' with it, but then completely inappropriate to mention anything about after she's married?If after my parents died, someone arose and started emailing everyone, texting everyone, putting up websites, doing all they can to inform all the peoples of the earth that my mom "did it" on average of 2 times per week, I'd have 3 issues:
1). Why are they so obsessed on THIS issue? Why is the issue that Mom had sex THIS many times a matter of such great emphasis? Of course, the issue before us is many times greater since it's not my mom we're talking about, it's Mary. And it's not one person, it's two denominations. And it's not just "I say" but an issue of doctrine and dogma! The RCC says that to deny a dogma is to be a heretic and ones salvation is in question!!!
2). How do they know this? I lived at home for 16 years, and I don't know how often they have sex. Of course, in this matter, it's much,much, much greater. Because the RCC says (not me) that to spread a story about a person that is not substantiated is to SIN against them (its word, not mine), thus substantiation is the whole issue. And again, it's not just my mom, this is Mary!
.
What permission do you have to speak about her sex-life prior to her marriage? And let's do remember, that 2 of the 3 major branches of Christianity, representing about 65% of all Christians accept this doctrine, so your repeated attempts to present it as a small minority position fall quite flat.What permission do you have to spread this, even if you know it's true? IF the first two things were attained, I'd still regard my parents sex lives together to be a private, marital issue. I wouldn't discuss it with others EVEN IF I KNEW (to the level of dogma or doctrine) what it was. Whatever happened to privacy, respect? Is EVERYTHING about EVERYONE now public property to discuss willy-nilly? Now, all this is MUCH, MUCH greater in this subject. Because two of the supposed 30,000 denominations call this a matter of highest importance to tell the whole world. THIS!!!!! The RCC says that to deny it is to be a heretic and thereby salvation is questionable.
.
You may believe it's ABOUT anything you like.
But the DOGMA is this: MARY IS A PERPETUAL VIRGIN.
"Perpetual" = Always, forever, without exception.
"Virgin" = one who has never had sexual intercourse.
Mary had no sex ever.
That's the dogma.
Now, you can draw whatever implications, conclusions, thoughts, etc. that you like FROM that, but that does not change the dogma. We all know what the dogma is.
.
Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah
You may believe it's ABOUT anything you like.
But the DOGMA is this: MARY IS A PERPETUAL VIRGIN.
"Perpetual" = Always, forever, without exception.
"Virgin" = one who has never had sexual intercourse.
Mary had no sex ever.
That's the dogma.
Now, you can draw whatever implications, conclusions, thoughts, etc. that you like FROM that, but that does not change the dogma. We all know what the dogma is.
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?