Mary, and Jesus’ Birth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Losing a tooth is both an injury and a natural event. A ruptured hymen is not pushed out by another hymen. It is merely ripped or torn. It is an injury.
 
De_Maria said:
Losing a tooth is both an injury and a natural event. A ruptured hymen is not pushed out by another hymen. It is merely ripped or torn. It is an injury.
Click to expand...
NOT IN THE THEOLOGICAL SENSE.

This is a theology discussion after all.

Maybe you have not yet read the 2 posts I recently put here explaining exactly why, theologically speaking, it is not an injury? Or are you just ignoring it?
 
De_Maria said:
Besides the point.
Click to expand...
That’s where you are wrong. Dead wrong.

It is PRECISELY the point.

The reason why it is precisely the point is because it is exactly the opposite of the reason why the Church Fathers made such an issue of the physical reality of virgo intacta

The secondary statements about the Virgin Birth of Christ are statements based on the false notion of the lack-of-dignity inherent in the female human body.

Refuting this false premise is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the discussion.
 
Why don’t you guys start another thread on whatever you’re talking about. The fact that the Church teaces that Our Lady was not injured in childbirth has been proven. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, what is there left to say?
 
Last edited:
De_Maria said:
The fact that the Church teaces that Our Lady was not injured in childbirth has been proven.
Click to expand...
Yep, got it. You don’t want to answer my carefully-phrased and direct question… because it does injury to your assertion.
 
De_Maria said:
Why don’t you guys start another thread on whatever you’re talking about. The fact that the Church teaces that Our Lady was not injured in childbirth has been proven. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, what is there left to say?
Click to expand...
Oh please.

No one has done any such thing.

Now what you are doing is just playing games with the word “injury.”

It’s a rather childish technique, and at this point, I assure you it shows.
 
De_Maria said:
And why have you evaded mine?
Click to expand...
I have provided a rather lengthy explanation of why it is not an injury theologically speaking.

You, on the other hand, have not even made the slightest attempt to dispute what I wrote.

Instead, you resort to a childish word-game around the word “injury.”

If you disagree with what I wrote, then it’s up to you to articulate why you disagree.
Thus far, you have not even attempted it.

I’m waiting.
 
I’m simply sticking to the topic. The Church Teaches that Our Lady wasn’t injured during childbitth. Do you deny it?
 
De_Maria said:
I’m simply sticking to the topic. The Church Teaches that Our Lady wasn’t injured during childbitth. Do you deny it?
Click to expand...
You just cannot help it can you?

All you are proving is that you are UNABLE to disprove what I’ve written.

Frankly, at this point, I must tell you that you’re behaving very childishly and yes, even making a fool out of yourself.

It’s rather amusing, but in a pathetic sense.
 
De_Maria said:
40.png
FrDavid96:
If you disagree with what I wrote, then it’s up to you to articulate why you disagree.

Thus far, you have not even attempted it.
Click to expand...
Because its off topic.
Click to expand...
Read what I wrote and show me how you disagree with it.

Repeatedly calling it off-topic only tells us that you feel incapable of disputing it.

It is the very foundation of the entire topic, so calling it off-topic is simply dishonest.
 
De_Maria said:
40.png
FrDavid96:
If you disagree with what I wrote, then it’s up to you to articulate why you disagree.

Thus far, you have not even attempted it.
Click to expand...
Because its off topic.
Click to expand...
Allow me to point out the obvious.

You keep repeating the question “was she injured?”

I answer you that it is not an injury and I show how it is not an injury.

When I ask you to explain why you disagree with me, you say that it is “off topic.”

Well then, explain this to me: if the question of injury is off-topic then…

Why do you keep repeating your question of “was she injured?”
 
Last edited:
De_Maria said:
Because its off topic.
Click to expand...
Then you tell us:

Is the subject of “injury” off-topic or is it on-topic?

Because you cannot make up your mind which one it is.

One moment you tell us to stay on-topic and discuss “injury.”

When I post an explanation of why it is not an injury, you say that an explanation of “injury” is off-topic.

So again, which is it? Off-topic or on-topic?
 
I provided a couple of Church documents. No one has provide any proof to the contrary.
 
De_Maria said:
I provided a couple of Church documents. No one has provide any proof to the contrary.
Click to expand...
There must be a 2,000 lb. bull around here because…

I have shown you where you are wrong. You have not even made the slightest attempt, not in the least way, to dispute what I’ve written.
 
FrDavid96 said:
40.png
De_Maria:
I provided a couple of Church documents. No one has provide any proof to the contrary.
Click to expand...
There must be a 2,000 lb. bull around here because…

I have shown you where you are wrong. You have not even made the slightest attempt, not in the least way, to dispute what I’ve written.
Click to expand...
You provided a document that says Our Lady was injured in childbirth?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top