Perpetual Virginity and Common Sense

[barsapp]

Angainor:

Yes, if he did say that, I think he was wrong.

you say that your founding father is wrong because he has not authority over you. he has no authority over you because you are free to interpret the Scripture the better way fits you (as he taught). so, there is no an objective true. it is true if fits you well. that is the cause of more than 40000 denominations. that is the consecuence of subjectivism.

 

[barsapp]

Prodigal_Son:

Sex is wonderful, and pure, and holy – and all the moreso if saints are having it!

where did you get this?

 

[MariaG]

Angainor:

I have no reason to doubt you that Luther said that. Yes, if he did say that, I think he was wrong.

This is where Catholics and Protestants have the most “I don’t get it”.

You see nothing wrong with disagreeing with a doctrine espoused by the man who founded your denomination. God using fallible humans to bring about change.

Catholics see everything wrong in a false doctrine being espoused by a church. We have recorded in the Bible that the “Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth”. To have a church espouse a false doctrine is unacceptable.

But this perhaps is the most striking difference, Catholic Christians believe God is strong enough to lead a whole Church, but Non-Catholic Christians seem to believe He is only capable of leading an individual to all truth on a personal level.

Sigh, but as interesting as this is to me, it is off topic and another thread.:crying:

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Shlemele:

During the time Mary was pregnent they were engaged to be married. I have no problem with the fact that she was a virgin when she gave birth, this is clear in the bible. It is the afterward that is really in question.

Shlemele,

If you were married to the woman who was going to give birth to the Son of God… could you have sexual intercourse with her? I would be fine just being in the presence of God on Earth and knowing that I would have nothing at all to ever worry about again.

 

[reggie]

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned here is that no where in the Bible does it say that Mary and Joseph were in love. In their time marriages were arranged for a variety of reasons. One that I have often heard regarding Mary and Joseph is that he was elderly and their marriage was arranged for Mary’s care because she was consecrated to God and therefore could not marry a man who would expect normal marital relations.

Remember also that God chose Mary and just as she was saved from the effects of sin from conception, so too could God have arranged that she would also be in a marriage that would not be of the normal kind. God didn’t leave her earthly spouse up to chance did He?

Also, people who are not brought up in the Catholic Culture sometimes have a hard time understanding Catholic thought and belief. This is why priestly celibacy seems to be so hard for many non Catholics to understand. Celibacy does not mean that priests have no sexual desires or feelings, it means that they control those feelings and channel them elsewhere. To say that Joseph must have wanted normal sex doesn’t mean that he could not have accepted and practiced celibacy in his marriage.

We have to let go of our contemporary understanding of things and try to see the world through the lens of the times.

 

[Angainor]

MariaG:

Sigh, but as interesting as this is to me, it is off topic and another thread.:crying:

OK, I’ll start a [thread=80636]new thread[/thread].

 

[Angainor]

E.E.N.S.:

Care to elaborate??

The cornerstone of Protestantism could be said to be anti-subjectivism. It’s why we don’t take the Pope’s word for it.

 

[barsapp]

Angainor:

The cornerstone of Protestantism could be said to be anti-subjectivism. It’s why we don’t take the Pope’s word for it.

could you answer #41? or define in which sense you use words as “subjectivism” and “anti-subjectivism”.
as i understand if you can interpret the Scripture in any way possible you want (also contrary Luther’s interpretation), that’s “subjectivism”.
from “subject”: you are the subject who gives the interpretation.
“anti-subjectivism”, or the Catholic way: there is only one objective valid interpretation that does not depend on the “subject”, totally independent of the subject.

 

[barsapp]

Semper Fi:

If you were married to the woman who was going to give birth to the Son of God… could you have sexual intercourse with her? I would be fine just being in the presence of God on Earth and knowing that I would have nothing at all to ever worry about again.

Knowing that ”there is nothing less common than common sense”, one question:

If you have given the flesh to “the way and the truth and the life” (John 14,6), if you share your days in total intimacy with the “resurrection and the life” (John 11,25), if each and every day of your life you can see, heard and touch the Word made flesh (John 1,14), if, if, and many more if, who is going to even think about sex?

You would be like an angel…

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Angainor:

To be honest, I think that idea defies common sense. What was involved with Mary bearing the baby Jesus?

While Mary was with child, I imagine there would be sore feet involved, as well as sore back, nausea…

After the birth of Jesus there would be nursing and many changings of diapers…

I think any kind of divine awe of the situation would quickly wear off in favor of normal man’s love of his wive and family.

Thanks Angainor. This was the sort of no nonsense common sense answer I was looking for. I disagree with you, but respectfully do so. I don’t think I could overlook the undertones of the situation, regardless of the dirty diapers and 4:00 A.M. feedings. And, yes, I’ve been through it as a dad.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

The perpetual virgin issue is a great study in special pleading. The anti-perpetual polemic insists that the Church produce explicit biblical passages for it (never mind that this will create huge difficulties for the Trinity and absolutely murder Sola Scriptura), meanwhile all the opponents have to do is throw out alternatives. Anyone can come up with alternatives. Heck. They may even be able to make a case for its unlikeliness. What they can’t do (and I think many of them know this and seeth) is make it untenable. It is seems the only way when one’s theology is all anti-historical abstraction.

Scott