Speak lovingly of Mary

[Rick Otto]

Wrong.

To deny a dogma is to be a heretic.




.

Oh.
Sorry.
Go ahead & freak out, Phil.
My bad.

 

[Thekla]

Why bother? My concern priority is the veracity of the the information conveyed, not the pedigree of the source. The information conveyed reV is nor referred to as fact in any source, only that it was believed & the reasons why are all speculation & inference. It is an obsession with her plumbing that necessarily detracts from her per spiritual character which was proven by the character of her response to God, not her physical state.

Because you have appealed to the veracity of the source of PV, and have introduced the veracity of sources as important. You also appeal to the NT as the highest source for showing the absence of the PV teaching. So support your source (NT) as being not spurious.

 

[narnia59]

Not 29,998 of the world's 30,000 denominations (according to Catholics)





.

According to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and the World Christian Encyclopedia.

Two out of the three main branches of Christianity believe Mary was ever-virgin. One does not. Within that one there is no defined doctrine (which you say is silent), but I would dare say seeking the view of the majority of its adherents would find it is not silent at all. We could set up a poll in GT I guess to confirm my thought I suppose.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yes, we call her ever-virgin.
Your'e the one suggesting she may have engaged in illicit sex (but you'll cover yourself by not stating it and hide under "no position")

You're not reading my posts....

YOU are the one obsessively insisting to the level of doctrine that She was a perpetual virgin.

I did NOT say that she engaged in illicit sex.
Or licit sex
Or any sex at all.
THE POSITION IS YOURS, NOT MINE.

I AM at a loss why, after nearly 200 pages, this entirely eludes you.
IF I could just figure out what part of this you don't understand, I would be glad to address it.










.

 

[MamaZ]

Once again.. The dogma or doctrine what ever you want to call it states that if Mary would have had marital relationship with Joseph she would have been defiled.. This is not true.. For the marraige bed is Holy unto God.. He created it and He ordained it.. This is why it is for marraige only..Fornicators and adulterers God will judge.. But the the married couple it is a Holy Act..

 

[Thekla]

I did NOT say that she engaged in illicit sex.
Or licit sex
Or any sex at all.

No position = either option is possible:

the position that she engaged in illicit sex is contained within your position of "no position".

 

[Thekla]

By stating "no position" to the question of her ever-virginity, you are stating that she may or may not have had sex. There is no evidence that she was married. Your "no position" in the absence of evidence of her marriage implies that you believe that she might have had sex despite not being married.

In contemporary polite terminology, "no position" = *wink, wink* she may have been a woman of loose morals, but I'm too polite to say it. Though more polite, this supports the position of Celsus and some of the Jews that she was *indeed* a woman of loose moral character.

Nice job, Josiah.

 

[narnia59]

Once again.. The dogma or doctrine what ever you want to call it states that if Mary would have had marital relationship with Joseph she would have been defiled.. This is not true.. For the marraige bed is Holy unto God.. He created it and He ordained it.. This is why it is for marraige only..Fornicators and adulterers God will judge.. But the the married couple it is a Holy Act..

Please show me any Orthodox or Catholic writing which states what you just said, rather than re-defining the doctrine to meet your own understanding and then refuting it. It does no good to try to refute a doctrine to someone when you're mis-stating it completely.

And how can it be a 'holy act' if you believe that in all circumstances the flesh profits nothing? Your ability to dismiss anything of the flesh and then elevate it to holy on a whim is quite interesting.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No position = either option is possible

No. No position means I have no position.
I dont have a position (and certainly not doctrine) on how often you have sex, either.


You do have a position. In fact, it's DOCTRINE.
Mary had no sex ever!!!!
This is a doctrinal, binding FACT.
And you must be 100% absolutely certain that THIS is such AND that Mary (and Her Son) are not embarrassed, hurt, offended by your obsessive doctrinal insistence on this and your telling of this to all generations in all the world but since you would regard it as supremely honoring and distinctively loving if all would hold as doctrine and tell the whole world how often y ou have sex, so you are even more sure that Mary feels the same way. Kinda important since we are held accountable for what we say (Matthew 12:36) - and I think this includes our DOCTRINE about Our Lady.




.

 

[Thekla]

In short, Josiah, in what seems to have started as an "expression of discontent" with the RC, you have ended up impugning Mary.

You have in part aligned yourself with Celsus and other detractors of Christ by taking "no position" on Mary's PV.

It is better to state that you disagree with the RC than attack the RCChurch - in trying to prove your point, consider whom you have implicitly supported, and who they attack.

 

[Thekla]

No. No position means I have no position.
I dont have a position (and certainly not doctrine) on how often you have sex, either.


.

Josiah,

NO POSITION = EITHER CONDITION RE: VIRGINITY (AN IS/NOT IS CONDITION) IS POSSIBLE.

YOUR NO POSITION = SHE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAD SEX.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SHE WAS MARRIED.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In short, Josiah, in what seems to have started as an "expression of discontent" with the RC, you have ended up impugning Mary.

I'm not sure why this entirely eludes you.
No, I have expressed no "discontent" with your position.
All the "discontent" and condemnations and announcements of heresy have come from the direction of those holding to the position that Mary had no sex ever.
I have not impugned Mary. You, however, may have impugned Christ and the Bible when you noted that they (like me) are silent on this issue..

It is better to state that you disagree[with the RC than attack the RCChurch

I have done neither.
You have stated that you doctrinally disagree with those who are silent, and have attacked me.

YOU are the one with the doctrine.
YOU are the one insisting that She had no sex ever.
YOU are the one with absolute, eternal certainty that Mary agrees with you and regards it as of highest importance, greatest honor and supremely loving that all the world and the world's generations DOCTRINALLY affirms how often one has sex. And since our words will be judged, we personally are responsible for the truthfulness and any pain caused otherwise, you are certain that just as you would be supremely honored by everyone affirming as doctrine how often you have sex, you are sure Mary feels the same way. Okay. At least you've thought it through and decided you (unlike Christ and the Bible) will insist on THIS report and will tell everyone that it is a doctrinal, binding fact. I don't judge you or condemn you, you will be judged by God. For now, I'm standing with Christ and the Bible on this, which as you noted, are both silent on this issue. I also have no doctrine on how often you have sex. Okay?






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah,

NO POSITION = EITHER CONDITION RE: VIRGINITY (AN IS/NOT IS CONDITION) IS POSSIBLE.

YOUR NO POSITION = SHE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAD SEX.

Let me try yet again.
I'm NOT saying ANYONE is right or wrong about how often Mary had sex.
YOU are.

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.

I have no pious opinion.
I don't even have a pure spectulation.
I'm not saying it's possible.
I'm not saying it's impossible.
This seems to completely elude you.
Why, I just don't know.
For over 200 pages of posts.
I would be glad to try to clarify it for you, but I'm quite at a loss to know what part of it is not understood by you.

NO Protestant denomination known to me has a dogma or doctrine that Mary has had sex once.
Or twice.
Or thrice.
Or 50 times.
Or 500 times.
Or 5000 times.
Or 50000 times.
Or at all.
With Joseph
Or with anyone else.
That she could have had sex.
That she could not have had sex.

We have no position to substantiate here for one reason that entirely eludes you - for over 200 pages of posts. WE DON'T HAVE A POSITION. We're not the "opposite" of any position because we don't have ANY official position. Is there something about this that, after all these pages of posts, STILL eludes you?

You do.
You DO have a position.
You ARE saying amazingly private things about Mary.
Things you admit Christ and the Bible are silent about (ie have no position)
You insist that Mary Had No Sex EVER.
It's DOCTRINE in the EO.
It's DOGMA in the RCC.
You DO have a position.
A very precise one.
A very high level one.
It's entirely about Mary.
It's entirely about sexual intercourse.
It's that this one person never had intercourse.

Since you have the position, you have the "burden of proof."

And to the issue of this thread, you are the one that needs to show that it is distinctively LOVING to tell the whole world how often a person has sex (or not).

You insist that it is not "rude" to tell about Jesus' mother's sex life (even though it seems so for every other mother), that it is critically important for all the world to know how often Mary had sex (if at all) and this is supremely and distinctively respectful and loving to her, and yet you have yet to tell us all how often you have sex and that you regard it as supremely and distinctively respectful and loving to you if we tell the whole world.

As you noted, I'm with Christ and the Bible on this: Silent.
Two are not: The RCC and EO.
And yes, each person who spread this is eternally and personally responsible. NOT to me, not to you, not to any denomination, but to God.






.

 

[Thekla]

I'm not sure why this entirely eludes you.
No, I have expressed no "discontent" with your position.
All the "discontent" and condemnations and announcements of heresy have come from the direction of those holding to the position that Mary had no sex ever.
I have not impugned Mary. You, however, may have impugned Christ and the Bible when you noted that they (like me) are silent on this issue..

No,
1. the Bible pre-dates the wide false teaching of the loose moral character of her
2. the Bible was used along with tradition; you forget, the RCChurch teaches from both the Bible and tradition, and tradition holds the ever-virginity of Mary.In the EO, the Bible is a part of tradition and as St. Basil states, there is kerygma and dogma. The Bible contains kerygma.
3. You impugn Mary by the implicit statement of your "no position" meaning she may have had sex -- by trying to "play it safe", you agree with both the RC and the detractors of Christ and His mother. You sit on the fence, with your feet planted firmly on the ground on either side of the fence.

I have done neither.
You have stated that you doctrinally disagree with those who are silent, and have attacked me.

I have pointed out the logical conclusions that are given from your "no position".

YOU are the one with the doctrine.
YOU are the one insisting that She had no sex ever.
YOU are the one with absolute, eternal certainty that Mary agrees with you and regards it as of highest importance, greatest honor and supremely loving that all the world and the world's generations DOCTRINALLY affirms how often one has sex. And since our words will be judged, we personally are responsible for the truthfulness and any pain caused otherwise, you are certain that just as you would be supremely honored by everyone affirming as doctrine how often you have sex, you are sure Mary feels the same way. Okay.

I state that she is ever-virgin, yes.

You imply that she may have been a woman of loose morals.

 

[Thekla]

Let me try yet again.
I'm NOT saying ANYONE is right or wrong about how often Mary had sex.
YOU are.

I have no position on how often Mary had sex.

Which = maybe never, maybe any number of times.

Which means that one can -BASED ON YOUR "NO POSITION" conclude that Celsus might be right.

NO POSITION = MAYBE YES/MAYBE NO

You have also stated that you have "no position" on her ever-virginity.

NO POSITION = YES AND NO ARE BOTH POTENTIALLY VALID.
you are again in part aligned with Celsus

 

[Philothei]

But it's ironic you'd state this. The RCC was condemning, anathematizing, proclaiming people heretics and dispatching them to the afterlife ahead of schedule smelling like smoke for denying it's "dogma" LONG before any Protestant denomination was founded, here again, you seem to have the positions reversed.

Yeah they did did they? Then again if they did so did Protestants.... AM I okay to point out that to both denominations as "wrong" and point the finger tothem??? Would that be "christian of me" to do that????


I think not.

and many do not do that either...You are accusing them and us of spreading rumours about EV and calling us liers how is this not condemning??? it is ...defenately that ... Sitting on the fence while poinging fingers to this and that (being your fellow Chsitians with different traditions) is condemning...

You are merely "retaliating" on the fact that RC and EO And OO have a certain belief that some time ago the RC thought it was Okay that they would do holy inquisition to establish it... They were wrong in doing that... as it is as wrong for you to do what you are doing right now... No different...

But since you cannot defend yourself you are pointing the finger on others who indeed "have a position" since you claim" now you do not... so if you do not how is this any less offensive to Christ???
Where in the bible you see that be silent about the EV is okay or the opposite of for any position at all???


Christ will condemn and judge not you or me or anyone else... but as the RC made the mistake to condemn and persecute others .... so you should too??? You are no different in your approach since both ends is judgment and condemnation...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You are calling us liers how is this not condemning???

Let me TRY again....
I'm NOT saying ANYONE is right or wrong about this.
YOU are.
I've NEVER said you were lying. I've not even said you were wrong.
The RCC says those who deny this are HERETICS.
Again, you have the situation reversed.

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.

I have no pious opinion.
I don't even have a pure spectulation.
I'm not saying it's possible.
I'm not saying it's impossible.
This seems to completely elude you.
Why, I just don't know.
For over 200 pages of posts.
I would be glad to try to clarify it for you, but I'm quite at a loss to know what part of it is not understood by you.

NO Protestant denomination known to me has a dogma or doctrine that Mary has had sex once.
Or twice.
Or thrice.
Or 50 times.
Or 500 times.
Or 5000 times.
Or 50000 times.
Or at all.
With Joseph
Or with anyone else.
That she could have had sex.
That she could not have had sex.

We have no position to substantiate here for one reason that entirely eludes you - for over 200 pages of posts. WE DON'T HAVE A POSITION. We're not the "opposite" of any position because we don't have ANY official position. Is there something about this that, after all these pages of posts, STILL eludes you?

You do.
You DO have a position.
You ARE saying amazingly private things about Mary.
Things you admit Christ and the Bible are silent about (ie have no position)
You insist that Mary Had No Sex EVER.
It's DOCTRINE in the EO.
It's DOGMA in the RCC.
You DO have a position.
A very precise one.
A very high level one.
It's entirely about Mary.
It's entirely about sexual intercourse.
It's that this one person never had intercourse.

Since you have the position, you have the "burden of proof."

And to the issue of this thread, you are the one that needs to show that it is distinctively LOVING to tell the whole world how often a person has sex (or not).

You insist that it is not "rude" to tell about Jesus' mother's sex life (even though it seems so for every other mother), that it is critically important for all the world to know how often Mary had sex (if at all) and this is supremely and distinctively respectful and loving to her, and yet you have yet to tell us all how often you have sex and that you regard it as supremely and distinctively respectful and loving to you if we tell the whole world.

As you noted, I'm with Christ and the Bible on this: Silent.
Two are not: The RCC and EO.
And yes, each person who spread this is eternally and personally responsible. NOT to me, not to you, not to any denomination, but to God.












.

 

[Abel1337]

god bless you all

 

[Philothei]

As you noted, I'm with Christ and the Bible on this: Silent.

if you were silent.... you would not have been saying we are spreading rumours you are contradicting youself in your own post....

 

[Philothei]

Silent means no one mentions that claiming either way is condemned....so you come in and says what? Whoever says a peep about her sexual life is "condemned" .... YOU though not the BIBLE not JESUS not THE APOSTLES ...Thell me why shall we believe you???