Posted                       

quote:

---

I remember once even trying to pray to Mary, and it was about the most spiritually dead experience I have ever had (and I am not saying that because I have slipped back into "nasty mode". It's just the truth about how I felt).

---

quote:

---

I am an annoying "picker and chooser" when it comes to doctrines. I feel I am almost genetically incapable of just submitting to a denominational package wholesale, and believing stuff simply because "my church says so". I just cannot do it. Maybe it's just an annoying "ooh look at the emperor, he's got no clothes on" syndrome! [Big Grin]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by roybart:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

I remember once even trying to pray to Mary, and it was about the most spiritually dead experience I have ever had (and I am not saying that because I have slipped back into "nasty mode". It's just the truth about how I felt).

---

You describe perfectly they way I often felt in my youth, when I was trying hard to adopt and live up to Roman Catholicism.

Nowadays, instead of prayingto Mary, I often find myself talking to her. Wondering what she would say or do about something troubling or perplexing me. Imagining her responses. Listening. Trying to learn from what I think she would do or say, based on what I know about her life, her times, and her unique relationship to Jesus. All of that is possible for me now, and actually quite comforting. Something to be grateful for.

quote:

---

I am an annoying "picker and chooser" when it comes to doctrines. I feel I am almost genetically incapable of just submitting to a denominational package wholesale, and believing stuff simply because "my church says so". I just cannot do it. Maybe it's just an annoying "ooh look at the emperor, he's got no clothes on" syndrome! [Big Grin]

---

This is one of the reasons I always pay attention to your posts, EE, and often learn from them. While it can educational to read the posts of those who seem to have bought the complete package of this or that orthodoxy, it's more fun and stimulating to read what thoughtful, self-aware pickers and choosers have to say.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If I were going purely on experience I'd have crossed the Bosphorus at that point.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:
Thanks for sharing your views, and hello. I think you're the first non-Christian I've met here.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Anselmina,

I was mainly thinking of a previous post made by L'organist, though I do think some of the reasoning in your post comes dangerously close i.e. that the belief in the perpeutual virginity of Mary arose from a "need" due to unhealthy views about women by men. It seems rather simplistic, if you ask me, and a non sequitur. It uses modern feminism as the rule by which the belief should be judged without ever establishing whether or not the belief is actually true.

---

Thanks for your answer, and the point you make; which is very well made and valid.

I don't think I'll ever agree with some Orthodox or Catholic views on Mary for reasons stated, but I do have respect for them and those who hold them. If by making my reasons for rejecting these views sound too simplistic, it seems as if I'm denigrating Mary, that's not my intention. She is most definitely worthy of a special and unique place in our faith. She's definitely a hero.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
In the spirit of good will, an all that, I don't think anyone is deliberately denigrating the Virgin Mary. I just think the reasoning is wrong.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
**Hearsay, tradition, wishful thinking, nice warm feelings, voices in one’s head, arguments from authority by men in fancy dress, stories invented/embraced by nomadic stone-age goat herders and uncorroborated writings chosen as sacred by a group commanded by a despotic emperor do not meet the standards normally required for “solid evidence”.

---

I sure would love to see the extraordinary atheistic claims about reality meeting the standards normally required for "solid evidence"! I seem to remember my thread entitled "evidence" some months ago, which resulted in one atheist having to resort to "paraconsistent logic" (aka non-logic) to defend his position, such was his level of desperation!

Still, I suppose we all hear different voices in our heads...

[/tangent]

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Her womb was sanctified by our Lord's presence. To use a similitude, once a chalice has been consecrated as the vessel of our Lord's blood in the Eucharist it is no longer a common drinking vessel and it would be a sacrilege to use it as such.

---

I know some people think this way, but it seems to me a form of magical or superstitious thinking.

My reading is that Jesus would be only too happy to see His chalice used to give a drink of water to a passing tramp.

Best wishes,

Russ

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I explained why I believe the reasoning to be faulty in my post to Anselmina.

---

quote:

---

As for the historical-critical method, no, I have no time for it at all.

---

The origins of ancient biblical texts, the 'world behind the text' is of no interest to you?


So, have we come to a conclusion yet on how exactly Our Lady gave birth to Jesus?

Because my vote is for a normal birth.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
stereotypical, Antipodean view of anything more than a few decades old ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I explained why I believe the reasoning to be faulty in my post to Anselmina. As for the historical-critical method, no, I have no time for it at all.

---

quote:

---

46 And Mary said:

‘My soul glorifies the Lord
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour,
48 for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me –
holy is his name.
50 His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.

---

quote:

---

4 Every valley shall be raised up,
every mountain and hill made low;
the rough ground shall become level,
the rugged places a plain.
5 And the glory of the Lord will be revealed,
and all people will see it together.
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
I'd be wary, EE, of using feelings and impressions as a bench-mark. If you didn't 'feel' anything when you attempted to 'pray to' Mary then that, in and of itself, doesn't invalidate the practice.

I once went to an Orthodox service where they were all venerating a famous Russian icon of the Virgin Mary that was on tour of the UK. I plunged in and did exactly what they were doing. I found it strangely uplifting spiritually, even though the 'logical', Protestant part of my brain and psyche was doing triple somersaults.

What does this mean?

If I were going purely on experience I'd have crossed the Bosphorus at that point.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:
Thanks for sharing your views, and hello. I think you're the first non-Christian I've met here.

---

And hello to you too.

May I presume as an atheist- (that is one who does not believe in a god or gods and therefore has no dogmatic axe to grind) to offer a little advice.

I understand your zealous confidence and your certainty of conviction – you remind me, accurately or not, of the somewhat priggish and undoubtedly arrogant child/youth that I was. My christianity may have been rather differently nuanced to yours but it was just as sincere, just as important and just as real to me as I’m sure yours is to you.

On these boards you will meet many people, mainly self-avowed christians but with a leavening of atheists and agnostics – many of whom will be more knowledgeable, more experienced and more generous of character than your contributions so far suggest you to be. If it’s any comfort most of them are (in matters of christian dogma) a lot more knowledgeable than I and probably more than a few of them are much nicer people than I ever could be. There are also, IMHO, some whose desires for the thrill of debate and the chance to display their (at least sometimes) undoubted erudition has led them to embrace nit-picking dogma to an extent which, were it to exist, would drive the Holy Ghost to despair as they crash unheedingly through others’ attempts to facilitate the great commission.

What I guess I’m trying to say is that, dependent upon your motivation for posting on SoF, you may wish to present your sincerely held beliefs either as such or as teachings of the organisation to which you have chosen submission. ISTM that sometimes your posts suggest that you think you are handing down eternal truths vouchsafed to you for the greater edification of we unfortunates of lesser understanding*. If, of course, you can demonstrate by means of solid evidence** that they are eternal truths etc. I for one would be fascinated to have the detail of that evidence.


*Examples available upon request

**Hearsay, tradition, wishful thinking, nice warm feelings, voices in one’s head, arguments from authority by men in fancy dress, stories invented/embraced by nomadic stone-age goat herders and uncorroborated writings chosen as sacred by a group commanded by a despotic emperor do not meet the standards normally required for “solid evidence”.


My apologies to Hosts if I'm straying into their domain.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@ Kaplan, ha ha ...

Mind you, I've always thought of the Brethren as being overly literal ...

'Crossing the Bosphorus,' is, of course and as you well know, an analogous term to 'crossing the Tiber' (or 'crossing the Thames' come to that).

---

quote:

---

I think I might have mentioned 'crossing Lake Geneva' at some point, but I must admit I've not looked at an atlas to check whether I'd need to cross the lake to get to the town from here.

I wonder what the equivalent term would be for joining one of the Free or non-conformist churches? We could start a jolly thread on that one. ...

---

Crossing the Waters of Leith? Or for one of the more stringent varieties, crossing the Minch? Or for joining the Brethren, crossing the Tamar, except that in literal terms, the Tamar is on the Cornwall side, so crossing the Plym is more accurate?


--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Oh you mean the one quoted by Anselmina here?

But that's just a rantish assertion. It shows what you believe but it does not address any reasoning. It is a classic piece of Bulverism.

And of course it stimulated ken's "vomitarium" post.

Again, it tells me where you are coming from but I don't have the least idea why. If findings coming out of historical criticism or arguments coming out of feminism are wrong, you can criticise the findings and arguments on their own merits, including going back to underlying premises if you like. That's fine. That's the way serious argument is done.

You don't prove anything by asserting underlying prejudices, either in processes or people.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The reason I reject the historical critical method is because it is completely detatched from Tradition.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The reason I reject the historical critical method is because it is completely detatched from Tradition.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Knowing a bit about how to 'do' history, the idea of not applying a dose of historical common sense to scripture, yet alone tradition, strikes me as deliberately obscurantist. It also means that even if you have a high view of the status of the text, you miss a lot of stimulating nuances that are clearly there if you have the eyes to see them.

Why, for example, did Jezebel have to have Naboth accused specifically of treason? Why couldn't she have arranged to have him quietly done in? Or just grab the vineyard anyway? There is a good reason for this.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think a lot of conservative Protestants and RCs would take the same view of that tendency within modernism, Ad Orientem. That doesn't mean to say that there's nothing to learn from the modern, critical approach though ... Bishop Kallistos clearly felt it was possible to learn from it without it posing any threat whatsoever to Tradition (or tradition come to that).

---

quote:

---

I can see a both/and here.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Do you always 'feel' anything when you pray to Almighty God?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
God the Father: "Let's put a bush right in the middle of the desert, so that Moses will know that something special is going on."

His Son: "Daddy, put fire to the bush!"

---

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But that's just a rantish assertion. It shows what you believe but it does not address any reasoning. It is a classic piece of Bulverism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Do you always 'feel' anything when you pray to Almighty God?

---

In a general sense, yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course, the Church has retrospectively discerned these aspects and elements - effectively 'Christianising' the OT. Perhaps the Suffering Servant in Isaiah is the paradigm example of this.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
@ EE - I'm still thinking about your comment about 'feeling' something in general terms when you pray to God. I'm not sure what you mean by that...

---

quote:

---

It's difficult to quantify but I would suggest that I've developed a greater appreciation and indeed veneration for her as result. How could it be otherwise? If someone or something becomes an object of our devotion - however expressed - then the 'feelings' are going to follow, I would suggest.

'If at first you don't succeed.'

For all you or I or any of us know, had you persisted in 'praying to Mary' then sooner or later you could have developed a sense of personal devotion to her in the way that loggats or Ad Orientem have.

Who knows?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
Subjective emotional feelings (which is of course triply redundant) are a wobbly criteria for spiritual reality, and a dangerous one.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But that's just a rantish assertion. It shows what you believe but it does not address any reasoning. It is a classic piece of Bulverism.

---

I thought we had established that there's nothing wrong with Bulverism, and indeed it's just a nasty name to fling at people with no cognitive content?

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Do you always 'feel' anything when you pray to Almighty God?

---

In a general sense, yes.

---

Not to do "guilty by association" but this is how Mormon missionaries draw in their victims. "Read the Book of Mormon, and see if you don't feel a burning in your heart."

Subjective emotional feelings (which is of course triply redundant) are a wobbly criteria for spiritual reality, and a dangerous one. The devil is capable of appearing as an angel of light.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course, the Church has retrospectively discerned these aspects and elements - effectively 'Christianising' the OT. Perhaps the Suffering Servant in Isaiah is the paradigm example of this.

---

I think it depends on whether you think Christianity was a tack-on or accidental outgrowth of OT religion, or the natural and intended outcome. I'd imagine you can guess which side of that I come down on.

Oh and, "[Ye] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Paul too is very explicit that the OT saints looked forward to Christ, and that the NT Church is what the whole shebang was set up for.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
[qb] Paul too is very explicit that the OT saints looked forward to Christ, and that the NT Church is what the whole shebang was set up for.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But that's just a rantish assertion. It shows what you believe but it does not address any reasoning. It is a classic piece of Bulverism.

---

I thought we had established that there's nothing wrong with Bulverism, and indeed it's just a nasty name to fling at people with no cognitive content?

---

quote:

---

That's because some people have a real big chip on their shoulder, that is certain breeds of feminists, mainly the rabid kind. They're unable to see things in any other terms except "You're a man, you're oppressing me." So, if you like women to be feminine, "Fuck of and die, mysoginist!" Or if you believe in the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, "Virginity infantilises women and leads to oppression."

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The reason I reject the historical critical method is because it is completely detatched from Tradition.

---

The belief in Mary's perpetual virginity was something developed by the Church Fathers over time, it's not a doctrine that is immediately deducted from the New Testament or that Scripture hands over to us like a neatly packaged box with a ribbon on top. I'm not saying this to bash that particular belief or the Church Fathers, merely pointing out that the traditions of the church have developed organically over time. Which is why it took the Church three centuries to work out a satisfactory Creed that all Christians can say and why it took the Church a long time to formulate a good theology of the Trinity (which can be deduced from Scripture but needs careful working out).

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The belief in Mary's perpetual virginity comes from the blessed Theotokos herself. It is also easily deduced from the scriptures by looking at who Christ is - God. Tradition, which is really only the scriptures properly understood does not "develop".

---