How is mary a virgin?

[Catholic_Dude]

They began a normal marriage relationship with Mary that produced many children. Praise the Lord!

Where was his family while he was on the Cross? Why did he have to put his mother in an apostle’s care?

 

[doulos1]

serendipity:

Do you not have this verse in your abridged Bible?

As far as Mary and Joseph having other children, where is the proof, aside from the word brother which was also used to interpret cousin during the time?

Besides the family of Jesus, which you dispute, can you give me an example of the words “adelphos” or “adelphes” IN THE FIRST CENTURY literature (not the LXX) when used of a blood relation being anyone but a natural brother or sister?

James the Less is known to be the cousin of Jesus. He was a son of Mary and Cleopas. Cleopas is believed ot have been the broth of Joseph.

 

[Axion]

michaelp:

If you want to know the truth, the doctrine of perpetual virginity does not make any difference to me theologically speaking one way or the other.

So why do fundamentalists spend so much of their time trying to “prove” that the Virgin Mary wasn’t a virgin?

To me, it does seem to be spoken against in Scripture in many places concerning “until” “brothers and sisters” and “first-born.”

This is because you fail to either understand or take into account the culture the words were written in. And you instead try to apply modern western cultural interpretations to 1st century middle eastern institutions. It’s like arguing that someone working in a **galley ** has to be a ship’s cook - since that is what galley means today. Of course a Roman galley-slave might disagree with that!

Of course “firstborn” is a legal title. In jewish law the title firstborn entails certain obligations and perogatives - and is applied whether or not there are subsequent children.

“Brothers” and “sisters”, in Aramaic and other non-western cultures are looser terms that are better translated “kinspersons”. This has been proved many times from the bible and elsewhere, yet people keep bringing the same tired objections up time and time again.

Third, it has been shown that “until” does not in any way indicate what happens after the limiting event. Since your whole case is based on stating that in **every case ** “until” means a reversal happens after the limiting event, your whole argument based on “until” is already blown out of the water…

It is also never spoken of, explicitly or implicitly, as being truth in Scripture. It was never part of the regula fidei (rule of faith) of the early church.

Wrong on both counts.

the historical evidence is not in its favor since it reigned at a time when sex itself was looked down apon. Most through the early and medeval church through that the act of sex itself was sin.

Again nonsense. Celibacy was considered the superior life path. Based on the lives of Jesus and Mary. But sex and marriage was considered a valid way of life, and certainly not sinful! In fact it is the Apostolic churches that consider marriage a sacrament.

This stemmed from a Gnostic separation between the physical and the spiritual.

In some half-baked agnostic theory perhaps. In reality, no. Your facts are wrong.

Now there is no need for Mary to be perpetually a virgin. In fact, it would have been more dishonoring, from my understanding, to remain a virgin even though she was married to Joseph.

Mary was betrothed to Joseph. No marriage occurs in scripture. To have had relations with another man while the father of her child was alive would have made Mary an adulteress, and would also compromise the legitimacy of Jesus or any other imagined children. It would have been unthinkable. Just as it would have been unthinkable for a believing Jew like Joseph to consider having physical relations where the Holy God of Israel had made His sanctuary!

 

[Axion]

doulos1:

Of the people who knew Mary who said plainly that she remained a virgin? Where in the Scripture does it say "and Mary remained a virgin? I think you will search in vain for this passage.

Where in scripture does it say that Mary had any other children apart from Jesus? Nowhere.

All you can do is build a tottering edifice of error upon a shaky misunderstanding of what “brother”/ kinsman meant in the middle east 2000 years ago.

In fact scripture identifies three of the four named “brothers” of Jesus as sons of Mary’s “sister” (cousin) Mary, wife of Cleophas.

God teaches here that Mary did not remain a virgin!

God teaches no such thing. Why would God ever teach that His son was illegitimate, and that His holiness was defiled?!

The RC church is wrong according to God’s word!

The church for 2000 years has been wrong, and you, your pastor and your dodgy modern bible translation are right?? I don’t think so.

But that is the point of your whole sordid attack on the Virginity of Mary, isn’t it? To try to prove the historic Church wrong?

 

[Emmanuel]

2 Peter 1:20 At the same time, we must recognize tht interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a mtter for the individual. For no prophecy ever came form human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them.

2 Peter 2:1 As there were false prophets in the past history of our people, so you will have false teachers, who will insinuate their own disruptive views

Me: I read something recenlty that said when an individual sets out to interpret the Bible on his own accord, he kmakes himself equal of the Bible, or even its superior, if he diecdes that what is written in the Bible is less valid than his own interpretation of the past. I can’t remember who was claiming this; some one who worked as a Protestant evangelizer, but through studying the Bible decided that Catholcism had the aproach that most repsented the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. It was either Daivd Currie or Dave Armstrong. I think it makes much sense.

We have been told many times in the Bible that when two or more are gathered in God’s name, he is there in their midst. We don’t get that guarantee when we are all alone, figuring things out for ourselves. The apporach to Biblical study under the Catholic tradition does not say we can not read the Bible for guidance on out own. What it implies though, is that to be assured that our interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirt, we should consider other sources.

And the Catholic tradition has the longest and most consistent approach to studying scripture; sop we look to the words of the early church fathers for their itnerpretations and other scholars who come form that traidition for advice. We don’t need to consult a priest specifically, but we are foolish not to utilize such a resource,who does not speak from a historical vacuum with and independent voice, but instead culls his adivce on interpretation from thousands of years of church wisdom.

*>>> Thank You Serendipity! What you just said gave me a sense of relief. May I have your permission to use your words in my discussions with my Bible Christians friends? I am new to this forum and I am glad the Lord showed me this site. It is always a wonderful feeling that the Lord is always working to ensure our Salvation. *

 

[Emmanuel]

2 Peter 1:20 At the same time, we must recognize tht interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a mtter for the individual. For no prophecy ever came form human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them.

2 Peter 2:1 As there were false prophets in the past history of our people, so you will have false teachers, who will insinuate their own disruptive views

Me: I read something recenlty that said when an individual sets out to interpret the Bible on his own accord, he kmakes himself equal of the Bible, or even its superior, if he diecdes that what is written in the Bible is less valid than his own interpretation of the past. I can’t remember who was claiming this; some one who worked as a Protestant evangelizer, but through studying the Bible decided that Catholcism had the aproach that most repsented the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. It was either Daivd Currie or Dave Armstrong. I think it makes much sense.

We have been told many times in the Bible that when two or more are gathered in God’s name, he is there in their midst. We don’t get that guarantee when we are all alone, figuring things out for ourselves. The apporach to Biblical study under the Catholic tradition does not say we can not read the Bible for guidance on out own. What it implies though, is that to be assured that our interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirt, we should consider other sources.

And the Catholic tradition has the longest and most consistent approach to studying scripture; sop we look to the words of the early church fathers for their itnerpretations and other scholars who come form that traidition for advice. We don’t need to consult a priest specifically, but we are foolish not to utilize such a resource,who does not speak from a historical vacuum with and independent voice, but instead culls his adivce on interpretation from thousands of years of church wisdom.

>>> Thank you for your very practical answer, Serendipity! I am new to this forum and I am glad that the Lord directed me to this site. With your permission, I would like to use your thinking when I am in a discussion with my friends who are “Bible Chri**stians”. God Bless you!

 

[john_doran]

doulos1:

Actually the Greek for “had no union with” is “ouk gnowkein” which is an imperfect tense. This means continous action in the past. Hence Matthew brings it into the present with the word “heos hou.” It means that the action of the main verb “not knowing” i.e. not having sexual relations with is reversed. They began a normal marriage relationship with Mary that produced many children. Praise the Lord!

not so. see here: members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/mary5.html

a summary:

“The original Greek was ‘heos hou eteken’. It is important to note that in this clause *‘heos’ *temporalizes the verb ‘tikto’, which is in the indicative mood. Had Matthew intended to suggest the future contingency that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the Nativity, then he would best have used the subjunctive mood for the verb (see, e.g., Daniel B. Wallace, “Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics” [Zondervan, 1996], p. 479). As it is, in the indicative mood, this clause serves to establish the state of affairs during the period of time that Mary was with child, without any necessary contingent reference to what happened after the birth of Jesus.”

another good synopsis:

orthodoxonline.com/ever_virginity.htm#_ftn2

axion makes another key point: mary and joseph are only ever said to be betrothed, in which state sexual relations were prohibited; bethrothed couples had all the responsibilities of married couples, but none of the prerogatives, and were not permitted to “know” each other until they were actually wedded…

so. where does it say that mary and joseph got married? i mean, if we’re only going to accept what’s actually and expressly in the bible…

luther, calvin, and zwingli - patriarchs of the protestant reformation - all preached the perpetual virginity of mary; indeed, after jerome’s refutation of the contrary idea in the 4th century, nothing was heard of the idea that mary had losy her virginity at some point - for more than another thousand years…

do you guys really think that you’ve hot on something that has eluded everyone else for 1500 years?

 

[doulos1]

"

Mary. + Logic=Virgin

I don’t think anything in Scripture is by chance, it all has a purpose. I’m not a quoter, I feel giving exact verses often results in taking things out of context, so I will only site chapter, read it all, it won’t hurt.
I find it interesting that, Mt and Lk approach the annunciation (of the birth of Jesus) from different perspectives. Mt, Chap 1 addresses the annunciation from Joseph’s side, while Lk Chap 1 addresses it from Mary’s. I think this is very significant when viewed from the OT book of Numbers.
We know Mary is a young teenager engaged to be married to Joseph. We know they are both good and pious Jews. We know Mary has knowledge of how children are conceived (I know not man). We know that at that time it was not unusual for engaged couples to have sexual relations, actually being engaged was considered a part of being married. We also know that Mary and Joseph did not yet have sexual relations. The question we must ask ourselves is, did Mary and Joseph intend to have sexual relations after their marriage? Now before you go ballistic, it was not uncommon to dedicate yourself to God, actually if we read Numbers chaps 27-30 we’ll find there were even laws concerning these vows. So the question we need to ask ourselves is, did Mary and Joseph intend to have normal sexual relations after their marriage?
First we’ll take the position of yes, they intended to have sexual relations. When we read the rendering in Lk, the angel greets her, and tells her she is to conceive in her womb and bare a son. Sounds simple enough doesn’t it? Put yourself in Mary’s place. So, I’m engaged to Joseph, we will marry, and have a child, it will be a son. Any question? Shouldn’t be “if” we intended to have sexual relations after marriage. “If” we didn’t intend to have sexual relations after our marriage then we’d ask “how can this be”? She asked the Archangle ,“How an this be?”
The question “how can this be"? makes absolutely no sense if they intended to have sexual relations, remember she knew “how”. So why did she ask “how can this be”?
Now we’ll take the position of no, they did not intend to have sexual relations, Mary was a consecrated virgin, under a vow of virginity. Read Lk again. The angel greets her, and tells her she is to conceive in her womb and bare a son. Wait a second!!! I’m a dedicated virgin, under a vow of virginity, “how can this be?” This question of her’s only makes sense if she did not intend to have normal sexual relation, if she were under a vow of virginity. Now read Numbers chap 30 about a man taking a woman into his house as his wife who is under a vow. This is the reason Mt talks about Joseph’s side, to insure he knows of the vow, to make sure he knows the true “Father” of the child, to make sure he knows the intimate relationship between Mary and God. You see Mary took a vow of chastity as a small girl in the Temple.

I have read this all before. It is all a pitiful attempt to read RC theolgoy back into the Scriptures. Eisegesis is you all. The question “how can this be” is modified by the statement “seeing I know not a man.” Again the familiar euphamism “know” being for sexual relations. And it is in the present tense meaning she was not then in a normal marriage relationship of ongoing sexual relations to her husband. And Numbers 30 is not about your eisegetical interpretation of reading celibacy back into the Bible. (the idea of life long celibacy with in marriage is not found in the Bible). It is the law of vows for women as it regards the authority of her father and her husband. This is all to sad

 

[Benadam]

michaelp:

Benadam, If you want to know the truth, the doctrine of perpetual virginity does not make any difference to me theologically speaking one way or the other.

To me, it does seem to be spoken against in Scripture in many places concerning “until” “brothers and sisters” and “first-born.” It is also never spoken of, explicitly or implicitly, as being truth in Scripture. It was never part of the regula fidei (rule of faith) of the early church. There is just no reason for me to believe it at all. This work that you all are doing on the word until is just a little out there. It seems like you all are stretching into the most unlikely of interpretation to get by all of these issues.

Not only is there this positive evidence against it. But the historical evidence is not in its favor since it reigned at a time when sex itself was looked down apon. Most through the early and medeval church through that the act of sex itself was sin. This stemmed from a Gnostic separation between the physical and the spiritual. The Church has gotten past that. Now there is no need for Mary to be perpetually a virgin. In fact, it would have been more dishonoring, from my understanding, to remain a virgin even though she was married to Joseph.

So, historically and biblically, this doctrine seems to be wanting.

But that is just my fallible opinion.

Michael

michael, you seem like a very level headed guy. I agree that Mary’s virginity isn’t explicit in the text but I disagree with your conclusion that it wasn’t believed. It wasn’t an item within the faith that was given much importance. Abstaining from sexual activity wasn’t such a radical decision as it is today. I disagree with the thought that the modern mind of western culture has risen above it’s puritan parentage and has gained clarity about the matter. The fact is the conjugal act has fallen to it’s beastly enterpretation as merely a part of the pairbonding process. At the same time it has risen in it’s power over our culture because it’s unconsciously recognized for it’s true meaning as an exclusive physical expression of fulfillment and divine union.

Technically it’s impossible to have sex without sinning since it invariably involves the need for external stimuli in order for the body to obey the decision of the will.

The seperation of the physical and spiritual results in the use of contraception that divides the purposes of the act into an act that is sometimes ( most always) to achieve the results of it’s unitive purposes. This reduces sex as something described as just ‘for fun’. Sometime ( almost never) it is done to achieve it’s procreative purpose. This is when it is defined as ‘we’re trying’ ( wipe sweat off brow) or not fun anymore.

The true theology of the conjugal act is much less understood today and the seperation between what it realy means and how it is treated causes a polarity in behaviour towards it. That confusion is masked by it’s seemingly ‘proper’ delegation to a less important meaning but revealed in the disruption of family and culture as man reimages himself in a self determined image of God…

The need to rise above our definition of self rooted in gender is even more necessary for man today. The end meets the beginning in that Adam discoverd his masculinity when God gave him Woman. This meaning is prevelant today as well. How many people define their worth in the measure they are breedable?.. more than would admit.

 

[doulos1]

john doran:

not so. see here: members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/mary5.html

This article is unconvincing because it is the same old tired argument of what “heos hou” sometimes means and because it sometimes means onging or indefinite action it must mean this here because our church says so. Well this is really a veiled ipse dixit fallacy and I reject it as wrong reason.

a summary:

“The original Greek was ‘heos hou eteken’. It is important to note that in this clause *‘heos’ *temporalizes the verb ‘tikto’, which is in the indicative mood. Had Matthew intended to suggest the future contingency that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the Nativity, then he would best have used the subjunctive mood for the verb (see, e.g., Daniel B. Wallace, “Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics” [Zondervan, 1996], p. 479). As it is, in the indicative mood, this clause serves to establish the state of affairs during the period of time that Mary was with child, without any necessary contingent reference to what happened after the birth of Jesus.”

This is wrong Greek thinking. The subjuctive is less definite than the indicative. The subjuctives tells of events that might happen, the indicative makes statments about what did happen. So I do not trust this quote at all.

another good synopsis:

orthodoxonline.com/ever_virginity.htm#_ftn2

axion makes another key point: mary and joseph are only ever said to be betrothed, in which state sexual relations were prohibited; bethrothed couples had all the responsibilities of married couples, but none of the prerogatives, and were not permitted to “know” each other until they were actually wedded…

so. where does it say that mary and joseph got married? i mean, if we’re only going to accept what’s actually and
expressly in the bible…

It says in Matt. 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

And then in Matt. 1: 20 it says But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Why would God tell Joseph to take her as his wife if he intended that they remain enaged or espoused? He would not. And because they were married, after the birth of Christ they began a normal marriage relationship, a normal sexual relationhship that produced many children (Mark 6:3).

luther, calvin, and zwingli - patriarchs of the protestant reformation - all preached the perpetual virginity of mary; indeed, after jerome’s refutation of the contrary idea in the 4th century, nothing was heard of the idea that mary had losy her virginity at some point - for more than another thousand years…

If all held this view (I doubt Calvin did) then all were wrong. You seem to think that Luther et al are Popes. They are not. If they held Mary to be a virgin perpetually then they were simply wrong. God tells us that she was not!
do you guys really think that you’ve hot on something that has eluded everyone else for 1500 years?

Another fallacy appeal to the age of a certain held belief. The treating of women as chattle was a long held belief in most cultures does the age of this belief make it correct? I think not. Your church held a terrestriallly centered universe in contrast to Gallileo’s heliocentric universe, did your Pope’s view, (though he sent Gallileo to jail) change the nature of the universe (we should call this "again the Pope is proved wrong)!

 

[doulos1]

Axion:

Where in scripture does it say that Mary had any other children apart from Jesus? Nowhere.

Mark 6:3

All you can do is build a tottering edifice of error upon a shaky misunderstanding of what “brother”/ kinsman meant in the middle east 2000 years ago.

I don’t think so. Paul called James Jesus brother, and yet called Mark Barnabas’ cousin. There is a Greek word for cousin. If Paul knew James was Jesus cousin then he would have used the same word here! He didn’t because James was the son of Mary and Jospeh.

In fact scripture identifies three of the four named “brothers” of Jesus as sons of Mary’s “sister” (cousin) Mary, wife of Cleophas.

I don’t buy your tortured interpretation and conjecture of these verses. The names among extended families were often repeated among the families. It won’t wash with me! These could have simply been cousins with the same name as related to Jesus actual brothers.

God teaches no such thing. Why would God ever teach that His son was illegitimate, and that His holiness was defiled?!

Why would you say Jesus would be illegitimate if Mary were not perpetually a virgin?

The church for 2000 years has been wrong, and you, your pastor and your dodgy modern bible translation are right?? I don’t think so.

Was the church right in believing that the earth was the center of the universe for 1500 years? Was it right in granting the right to take slaves in the new world? Were the deeds of Pope Alexander the VI correct? I would be careful with arguments like this. This is the fallacy of a faulty appeal to age and it is a two edged sword!

But that is the point of your whole sordid attack on the Virginity of Mary, isn’t it? To try to prove the historic Church wrong?

 

[doulos1]

michaelp:

Benadam, If you want to know the truth, the doctrine of perpetual virginity does not make any difference to me theologically speaking one way or the other.

To me, it does seem to be spoken against in Scripture in many places concerning “until” “brothers and sisters” and “first-born.” It is also never spoken of, explicitly or implicitly, as being truth in Scripture. It was never part of the regula fidei (rule of faith) of the early church. There is just no reason for me to believe it at all. This work that you all are doing on the word until is just a little out there. It seems like you all are stretching into the most unlikely of interpretation to get by all of these issues.

Not only is there this positive evidence against it. But the historical evidence is not in its favor since it reigned at a time when sex itself was looked down apon. Most through the early and medeval church through that the act of sex itself was sin. This stemmed from a Gnostic separation between the physical and the spiritual. The Church has gotten past that. Now there is no need for Mary to be perpetually a virgin. In fact, it would have been more dishonoring, from my understanding, to remain a virgin even though she was married to Joseph.

So, historically and biblically, this doctrine seems to be wanting.

But that is just my fallible opinion.

Michael

Another good post!

Excellent Michael!

 

[doulos1]

SusanG:

Hmmm, does anyone else notice the irony here. We have gentlemen that presumably follow the sola scriptura doctrine…which cannot possibly include the NT as it was not even Scripture until declared so by whom? Oh yes, that’s right, the Catholic Church. These same gentlemen refuse to answer to the other texts using similar language because why? They were not taught to refute those you see.

So the Bible is open to personal interpretation, okay. But you cannot pick and choose guys. If word choice means something in one verse it must therefore mean the same or very similar in others, n’est pas? Literal or figurative, you can’t have it both ways. There needs to be an ultimate authority, we accept that and you don’t.

Please address the valid points brought up by our mutual friends and then we will have a good ole fashioned discussion going on.

Blessings.

Yet another tired attempt to really say that there are so many meanings for the word "until’ that it is so confusing that just let the Pope do you the favor of telling you what it really means. Sorry, I think I am qualified to read and understand what God has written in this single word. It means what it says. If God had meant to imply Mary were a virgin forever then the verse would have read “And Jospeh kept her a virgin.” Notice the period at the end. He would have not gone on to say “until…” But He did so Mary is no longer a virgin, and the Pope is wrong!

 

[doulos1]

Tantum ergo:

Well, if you think that the argument is weak, despite all the evidence (which, BTW, is NOT <<>>), then I guess that you just think that Michal had children after she died, that Jesus will no longer reign once all nations are subject to him, etc.

Imagine, for close to 2000 years nobody even questions the meaning of “until” to mean what you have postulated it to mean in this or any other Biblical text using it.

Of course, the word was never even the English “until”, since the original manuscripts in the O.T. used Hebrew, the N.T. Aramaic and Greek, and the very, very first Bible written used Latin. . .but, what the heck, obviously St. Luke used 21st century vernacular English in the opinions of some people. . .

And here is the argument yet again. Since there are so many special meanings for the word, let the Pope decide! NOT!

 

[doulos1]

UKcatholicGuy:

it’s already been answered. check Catholic Answers. i think it’s under “mary and the saints” category, her perpetual virginity

Guess what? Catholic answers is wrong!!!

 

[Benadam]

doulos1:

Another fallacy appeal to the age of a certain held belief. The treating of women as chattle was a long held belief in most cultures does the age of this belief make it correct? I think not. Your church held a terrestriallly centered universe in contrast to Gallileo’s heliocentric universe, did your Pope’s view, (though he sent Gallileo to jail) change the nature of the universe (we should call this "again the Pope is proved wrong)!

Your interpreation of history is flawed by it’s limitation to concieve intent outside of it’s own experience. It does seem primative and beastly to treat women as property. In fact it is if not understood in the light of theconsequences it’s imposition was nuetralizing.A condition taken advantage of by lesser men and the cause of scandal in lesser women. Nevertheless it’s a spirit of rebellion against your fathers that blinds you to the possibility that there is the wisdom of the ages in regards to the original intentions when social rights were denied to women. Rest assured the rights of women were recognized as self evident to the shapers of societies and rest assured as well that the functionality of such social extremes will become and in fact are self evident today in certain societies cooperating in humanities struggle against a culture of death that is raising it’s ugly head to swallow us.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

doulos1:

Yet another tired attempt to really say that there are so many meanings for the word "until’ that it is so confusing that just let the Pope do you the favor of telling you what it really means. Sorry, I think I am qualified to read and understand what God has written in this single word. It means what it says. If God had meant to imply Mary were a virgin forever then the verse would have read “And Jospeh kept her a virgin.” Notice the period at the end. He would have not gone on to say “until…” But He did so Mary is no longer a virgin, and the Pope is wrong!

The Pope is right just like the time Jesus questioned His apostles ,“who do you say I am”.Your trying to turn God into one of these punkish guys who use someone and dumps them when their purpose is served.Do you even realise what you are saying?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

doulos1:

Guess what? Catholic answers is wrong!
According to who?You What Authority do you have?None

 

[Benadam]

Benadam:

michael, you seem like a very level headed guy. I agree that Mary’s virginity isn’t explicit in the text but I disagree with your conclusion that it wasn’t believed. It wasn’t an item within the faith that was given much importance. Abstaining from sexual activity wasn’t such a radical decision as it is today. I disagree with the thought that the modern mind of western culture has risen above it’s puritan parentage and has gained clarity about the matter. The fact is the conjugal act has fallen to it’s beastly enterpretation as merely a part of the pairbonding process. At the same time it has risen in it’s power over our culture because it’s unconsciously recognized for it’s true meaning as an exclusive physical expression of fulfillment and divine union.

Technically it’s impossible to have sex without sinning since it invariably involves the need for external stimuli in order for the body to obey the decision of the will.

The seperation of the physical and spiritual results in the use of contraception that divides the purposes of the act into an act that is sometimes ( most always) to achieve the results of it’s unitive purposes. This reduces sex as something described as just ‘for fun’. Sometime ( almost never) it is done to achieve it’s procreative purpose. This is when it is defined as ‘we’re trying’ ( wipe sweat off brow) or not fun anymore.

The true theology of the conjugal act is much less understood today and the seperation between what it realy means and how it is treated causes a polarity in behaviour towards it. That confusion is masked by it’s seemingly ‘proper’ delegation to a less important meaning but revealed in the disruption of family and culture as man reimages himself in a self determined image of God…

The need to rise above our definition of self rooted in gender is even more necessary for man today. The end meets the beginning in that Adam discoverd his masculinity when God gave him Woman. This meaning is prevelant today as well. How many people define their worth in the measure they are breedable?.. more than would admit.

I noticed doulos denied this response recognition as a good rebuttle to Michaels post. I repost it since he praised the post it was a rebuttle too and I would challenge doulos to a response of at the very least a recognition of understanding it’s concepts.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Benadam:

I noticed doulos denied this response recognition as a good rebuttle to Michaels post. I repost it since he praised the post it was a rebuttle too and I would challenge doulos to a response of at the very least a recognition of understanding it’s concepts.

Go Benadam,tell it.