homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Almost thou persuadest me (to the Roman Catholic Church) (Page 9)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Almost thou persuadest me (to the Roman Catholic Church)
Amanda B. Reckondwythe

Dressed for Church
# 5521

 - Posted      Profile for Amanda B. Reckondwythe     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
At most, it’s evidence that the gospel writer either didn’t know, or didn’t care to tell us, what level of intimacy applied afterwards.

If it is true that the writer was inspired by God, it also argues that God didn't think it important enough to be written down.

--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.

Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which gets us pretty far. It isn't a 50:50, binary, heads-tails proposition. The distinctive, mandatory post-Jewish Christian and post-apostolic dogmata all need a leap of faith extra to Jewish and apostolic faith.

Only 1:1000 people can make that in the West.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well it's WAYYY better than that. 1:40 2.5%

But 4 x that have left. 10%

The halflife of converts is one year in the first year.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab
Consider these three sentences:

A: “I was feeling hungry that evening, so I didn’t have sex with my wife until after dinner”.

B: “I got a divorce. My ex-wife wouldn’t have sex with me from 2005 until I left her in 2012”.

C: “I knew she’d had an affair when I found out she was pregnant in November – we hadn’t had sex from January until then”.

A and B are covered by your categories. In A, the strong implication is that the speaker did go on to have sex after his first priority of dinner had been addressed. In B, the implication is that no sex occurred after 2012, the opportunity for such having then come to an end. C, though, doesn’t imply either. The period defined by “until” marks the broad outlines of the times where it is important, for the conclusion of adultery to be valid, that the parties had not had sex. It tells us nothing about whether they subsequently parted never to speak again, or reconciled and went on to have a joyously fulfilling sexual relationship.

I think that I have covered the kind of scenario described in example C. The context concerns the cause of the pregnancy. The woman's husband had not had sex with her for a long period before he discovered that she was pregnant, and therefore he deduces that she must have had an affair. The word 'until' marks the end of the period in question, and this comes at the end of the "period of possibility" or "period of opportunity" for any act of sexual intercourse that could have caused this pregnancy. If they reconciled and renewed their sexual relationship after this cut-off of November, then this would be completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion, namely, the cause of the pregnancy. Clearly sexual intercourse after the discovery of the pregnancy is irrelevant. So the 'until' here is located at the very end of the period during which the relevant kind of sexual intercourse (i.e. sex causing this pregnancy) could take place.

This is somewhat similar to one of the biblical quotes IngoB brought up - John 5:17 - "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working." As I explained in an earlier post, Jesus was explaining to the Jews, who were seeking to condemn Him, that the works for which they were judging Him had been performed by God the Father. The fact that God continued to work after the 'until' is irrelevant, because from the vantage point of the saying of Jesus, future actions could not have been judged by the Jews. So therefore the act being referred to was one which had to cease at the point at which Jesus made his remark. This is why I said that the 'until' came at the end of the "period of possibility", not the middle of it.

Now I suppose you could argue that exactly the same dynamic is evident in Matthew 1:25. Mary is pregnant and the text makes clear that Joseph was not responsible for it, and therefore the 'until' comes at the end of the period during which it was possible for Joseph to engage in that kind of sexual intercourse - i.e. intercourse that would cause Mary to become pregnant for the first time. The problem is, as I have already made clear in an earlier post, is that the 'until' appears at the birth (or "bringing forth") of Jesus not at His conception. This undermines the claim that the verse is simply telling us that Joseph is not the biological father.

It would be rather like your example reading thus: "I knew she’d had an affair when I found out she was six months pregnant in November, because we hadn't had sex from January until then”. This reading would not make sense, because sex in the last few months up to November would have had no bearing on the cause of the pregnancy (being well advanced in November), and therefore the statement is simply absurd.

So either Matthew 1:25 is absurd, or the 'until' does not come at the end of the period during with the referenced activity ('knowing Mary') is possible, and therefore, on that basis, the activity began after the point in time denoted by 'until'.

Therefore the most logical explanation, which is most consistent with the language of the text, and the meaning of the context, is that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage, including sexual relations, after the birth of Jesus. This is the natural reading and the logical reading. The examples given in which 'heos' appears, which are used to support the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, operate under a different principle, as I have explained, and therefore they are not admissible as fair examples.

--------------------
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

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
At most, it’s evidence that the gospel writer either didn’t know, or didn’t care to tell us, what level of intimacy applied afterwards. I don’t think that gets us very far, though.

That certainly would be relevant though. If true, that would imply it wasn't a super-important fact to him.
Or the writer, in the context of his historical time and place, and writing to people in the same time and place, knew that they would draw the right inference from what he said, whereas we, 2000 years later and oh, so much wiser, draw the opposite.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What I don't get here is why Catholic thought is quite so womb-fixated.

If I say that the importance of Viola Armstrong is that she's Neil Armstrong's mother, then you know pretty much what I mean. If I say that the important thing about Viola Armstrong is her womb, it sounds like I'm making some sort of feminist point in opposition to that meaning.

Yes, Mary's womb held Jesus, Son of God, our Saviour. And her breasts fed him and her hands held him and changed his nappy. But we never hear of the other parts of her body, (except her heart, and then only its symbolic rather than biological function).

Imagine if St Luke had met Mary, and he'd refused to touch her hand saying something like "I'd rather cut my hand off with an axe than desecrate your holy flesh which held my Lord, and must never be used for mundane purposes".

She'd have said "silly man" and gone back to making the supper.

So why treat her womb as having this huge sacred significance ?

Just because we can ? Because it's more possible to imagine a womb being set aside and never used again than it is a hand, a mouth, a voice or a brain ?

Because traditionally theology has been done by celibate men for whom wombs are mysterious and thus speak to them of God who is mysterious ?

Because to talk of Mary's breasts in that way would bring to mind the woman who said to Jesus "blessed are the breasts that suckled you" and his reply made it very clear that she'd totally missed the point ?

Or just because we've always done it that way...

The explanation so far, about Sacred Things, doesn't seem like the whole story.

Best wishes,

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
EE it's all about what we interpolate in to the white space. There is NOTHING in the text or its culture that can be used to fill the white space. And everything. What comes out of the white space comes first. And that is sacred to us. It changes the minimal, sparse text any way we like.

What fills our white space is our over-fermented culture. Just at it did the desperately fraudulent unknown second century Greco-Roman writer of the Gospel of James.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So why treat her womb as having this huge sacred significance?

It's both the place where and the means by which God entered this world in the flesh.

Furthermore, the act of sexual intimacy by which a man and a woman intentionally bring a new life into the world is love-making in the fullest sense. What happened to Mary elevated this to Love-making between God and a woman, to bring new life to all the world. It is a kind of reinterpretation of biological into spiritual reality, just not in theory but in practice.

Finally, in a more prosaic sense pretty ancient cultures saw the basic necessity of dedicating sexual access to a woman exclusively to the father of her children. If you want to be cynical about it, then this is because mother knows which children she is the mother of, by physiology, but a father doesn't. Whatever you may think about that, this certainly is the word view under which Joseph and Mary operated. And then, if God had a child with this woman, it was pretty unthinkable for Joseph to do the same. He would not have done this to the woman another man had children with, unless that man now was dead. He certainly would not have done this to the woman God had a child with, a God that lived eternally.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think it was me who raised the issue of the implications of 'until' in Matt 1; 25. I've now had a look at at least Matthew's other uses of the word and I do concede that the Gk 'heos' does mean 'up to' without any necessary implication that subsequently it must change. The text is therefore, I think, not definitive that after Jesus' birth Joseph did 'know' Mary.

However, it's not definitive the other way either. 'heos/until' can also mean that something doesn't happen 'until' a particular event, and subsequently it can/does. One fairly clear example is Matt 17; 9 - coming down from the mountain of transfiguration, Jesus tells the disciples to keep that secret until he is resurrected. Presumably they obeyed that instruction to keep the secret; but the very fact that it's now in the gospel shows that afterwards they did tell people - i.e., a situation parallel to Joseph not 'knowing' Mary until Jesus' birth, and then 'knowing' her afterwards. And some of the other occurrences are similar.

I'm not aware of any other biblical evidence about Mary's perpetual virginity, or indeed offering a reason for its necessity. Other texts, like the mention of Jesus' siblings, at least suggest that she did not remain virgin. Again I concede that these are not definitive - but on the whole the natural reading would be the reading that Mary and Joseph had children after Jesus.

The notion of Mary's perpetual virginity is therefore a matter of extra-biblical tradition, not of what Scripture teaches. The RCC claims that it has a special position of authority via the papacy, what on the ship is often referred to as 'capital-T Tradition', so that when it makes declarations beyond Scripture it can be relied upon. That 'Tradition', as I understand it, is not supposed to contradict Scripture; and therefore is subject to testing by Scripture.

In the present case Scripture is probably not definitive; but as best I can see, favours the view that Joseph did eventually have a normal marital relationship with his wife.

The Roman Catholic Church's claim to special authority in terms of 'capital-T Tradition' is much wider than this single issue. For me personally that claim fails with the link to the state established under Theodosius and resulting in the RCC's involvement in such activities as the Crusades and the persecution of heretics.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
However, it's not definitive the other way either.

I don't believe any of us have claimed so. The verse is used by anti-PV arguers; I've never seen it used in a pro-PV argument.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In the present case Scripture is probably not definitive; but as best I can see, favours the view that Joseph did eventually have a normal marital relationship with his wife.

Speaking as a Protestant, I don't think I would agree. I would say Scripture is not definitive in and of itself and can be used to support either the pro- or anti-PV view.

The RCC and the Orthodox resolve this lack of definitiveness in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity. I'd have to say they have early Christian writings on their side, and some weight could perhaps be given to the ideas that those early Christians were closer linguistically and culturally to the biblical context, so perhaps had a better grasp of things like what might have been meant by "brothers" of Jesus.

The Orthodox, if I've understood this thread properly, stop short of declaring the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity binding on all of the faithful, but do consider it part of the fullness of the Faith. The RCC takes it one step further by declaring it binding dogma.

As has been noted, Luther, Zwingli and Calvin all accepted the doctrine. But as I understand it, they did not consider the doctrine to be necessary for salvation. That would be consistent with a classical Protestant understanding of sola Scriptura—that only those doctrines clearly taught or flowing from Scripture can be considered necessary for salvation and should be considered binding. As to matters about which Scripture is unclear or not definitive, faithful Christians can disagree and their consciences cannot be bound.

Personally, I find myself leaning toward agreement with Calvin and Luther, though I can't say I'm sure about it, and my faith would in no way be shaken should I be wrong. Sadly though, I think all too often now, too many Protestants reject PV primarily because Rome teaches it. Proving Rome wrong seems to be more important than wrestling with the pertinent Scripture passages.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So it IS 50:50 then?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think Nick Tamen is on the money. Protestants oppose this and other RC teachings purely because the RCs teach it and not because scripture has anything definitive to say on the issue.

I'd be interested to know when the belief in the PV began to die out among Protestants. How long did it last after the first generation or so of Reformers? Wesley appears to have believed it too so it must have been prevalent among 18th century Anglicans - although I suspect it died out among the Dissenters somewhat earlier.

Whatever the case, I think the Orthodox would agree with Nick Tamen too - to a certain extent.

I've heard Orthodox priests suggest that one of the reasons many Protestants struggle with concepts like the Real Presence in the eucharist is because Rome 'started to play games with it' - ie. practicing Benediction and Exposition and so on, placing the consecrated Host into a monstrance to be venerated and admired rather than something to be shared and partaken of ...

Wierdly, perhaps, whilst my Protestant sensibilities turn cartwheels at Benediction/Exposition - and I have attended one and it made me feel jolly uncomfortable - I feel less uncomfortable with the way the Orthodox parade the elements around in their Liturgy before the faithful partake of communion. I wouldn't say I was entirely comfortable with it, but I'm more comfortable with it than I am with Benediction/Exposition.

I can't put my finger on why that should be, unless it's some kind of residual anti-RC traces in my spiritual DNA. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that Benediction/Exposition is wicked and evil. I wouldn't get a hammer and smash the monstrance. If I'm honest, I did 'feel' something ... a sense of presence - but then I don't particularly trust religious 'feelings' in and of themselves. I'm pretty susceptible to cues and things so I've learned to be wary.

I'm a lot more comfortable with 'higher up the candle' stuff these days but still think that there are marks that can be over-stepped, as it were.

I also tend to think that Rome tends to over-prescribe things - and, like Nick, am still sufficiently Protestant to believe that consciences should be left free and unbound.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The text is therefore, I think, not definitive that after Jesus' birth Joseph did 'know' Mary. However, it's not definitive the other way either. 'heos/until' can also mean that something doesn't happen 'until' a particular event, and subsequently it can/does.

Correct. Nobody of the "pro" side has argued that there is proof in this particular verse of perpetual virginity, just that there is no counter-proof to be found there. A claim that really is hard to argue against, though some feel compelled to try...

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm not aware of any other biblical evidence about Mary's perpetual virginity, or indeed offering a reason for its necessity. Other texts, like the mention of Jesus' siblings, at least suggest that she did not remain virgin. Again I concede that these are not definitive - but on the whole the natural reading would be the reading that Mary and Joseph had children after Jesus.

The most natural reading of scriptural evidence is rather that Mary became a "no-male-protector" widow with Jesus' death - see my previous post here, last paragraph. The situation speaks strongly against any actual brother of Jesus, at least, and probably against any actual sisters as well (who likely would have been there to support Mary as well). Furthermore, there is a clear suggestion in scripture that the named brothers of Christ are not in fact the children of Mary, as StevHep pointed out above. Together with the knowledge that applying blood relationship terms loosely was common in both the spoken language and the recording written language, we have a pretty good idea that Jesus was a single child. And that's before considering the - scriptural - argument that Joseph would not touch a woman touched by God. And before considering a really strong tradition among early Christians.

There is no "knock down argument" to be had about this from scripture alone, but that does not mean that things are even. It is pretty clear IMHO that scripture supports the tradition of early Christians and the teachings of the RCC more than not in this case. It is rather unclear to me what exactly Protestants who deny this would lose if they admitted it. But it seems to me that it is mostly a proxy battle that is being fought there. And somewhat absurdly so, since liberal Protestants could actually be quite happy with a single child mother in a foster care marriage. But apparently the sexual continence of Mary is a threat to be combatted at all costs...

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen
Sadly though, I think all too often now, too many Protestants reject PV primarily because Rome teaches it. Proving Rome wrong seems to be more important than wrestling with the pertinent Scripture passages.

Well, Nick, I am grateful that you have the generosity and wisdom to acknowledge - or at least imply - that not all Protestants reject PV for the reason you have given. Some Protestants are more concerned to wrestle with Scripture, and to seek to discern what is actually true, irrespective of whether the conclusion conforms to some party line.

--------------------
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

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think Nick Tamen is on the money. Protestants oppose this and other RC teachings purely because the RCs teach it and not because scripture has anything definitive to say on the issue.

In case I wasn't clear, EE has it right—I think some Protestants oppose this and other RC teachings purely because the RCC teaches them. Not all Protestants, by any means.

quote:
I'd be interested to know when the belief in the PV began to die out among Protestants. How long did it last after the first generation or so of Reformers?
I don't know exactly, but I think many of my Reformed brethren and sistren might be surprised to find that the Second Helvetic Confession (1560s)—which is one of the most widely accepted Reformed confessions—refers to Mary as "ever virgin." That confession has official status in my own denomination, so while I doubt anyone could suggest that the perpetual virginity of Mary is, as we would put it, an essential tenet of the Reformed Faith, the fact remains that our confessions do acknowledges it.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sure, I accept that's what you were saying, Nick and I worded my reply rather clumsily ...

I accept that not ALL Protestants reject RC views simply because they are RC views.

Nevertheless, I would maintain that all Protestants - however much they wrestle with the scriptures - wrestle with these issues within the context of their own particular traditions. They aren't coming at it in some kind of vacuum or void.

None of us are.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But apparently the sexual continence of Mary is a threat to be combatted at all costs...

Interesting, that, isn't it?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen
Sadly though, I think all too often now, too many Protestants reject PV primarily because Rome teaches it. Proving Rome wrong seems to be more important than wrestling with the pertinent Scripture passages.

Well, Nick, I am grateful that you have the generosity and wisdom to acknowledge - or at least imply - that not all Protestants reject PV for the reason you have given. Some Protestants are more concerned to wrestle with Scripture, and to seek to discern what is actually true, irrespective of whether the conclusion conforms to some party line.
Golly, if only Catholics and Orthodox cared about truth. What a better world it would be.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But apparently the sexual continence of Mary is a threat to be combatted at all costs...

Interesting, that, isn't it?

For those of us who see it as a minor (or for some major) sexism, that is not to be wondered at, is it? I am not even slightly prejudiced against things that are Catholic (or Orthodox) and I am fully aware that you all have logical reasons for your beliefs that have nothing to do with sexism. Even so if I consider the general belief sexist, I could not in good conscience accept it.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Golly, if only Catholics and Orthodox cared about truth. What a better world it would be.

Well, if snarkiness is the method Catholics and Orthodox employ to address issues, then clearly I've got a point. Or to put it another way... QED.

I suppose if I refuse to just roll over and submit to your point of view, then that surely proves that my motives are suspect. Yeah, right!

--------------------
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

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But apparently the sexual continence of Mary is a threat to be combatted at all costs...

Interesting, that, isn't it?

For those of us who see it as a minor (or for some major) sexism, that is not to be wondered at, is it? I am not even slightly prejudiced against things that are Catholic (or Orthodox) and I am fully aware that you all have logical reasons for your beliefs that have nothing to do with sexism. Even so if I consider the general belief sexist, I could not in good conscience accept it.
Er, how is it sexist? Why the need for some to see everything in sexist terms?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You imply that the only reason I would see it as sexist is because I "need" to. If that is going to be your attitude, I see very little point in replying at all. Besides I think people have previously in this very thread expressed many of the points about why that view is troubling. Heck, I could very well say that my experience of the church, history, and tradition tells me that humans do not seem capable of holding such a view without being led into sin. For that reason, if Mary and Joseph didn't have sex, well dandy, and I don't have any clear belief on whether or not they did (besides some natural scepticism) but I would not hold to the belief that they did not as a doctrine because I see what such views have done to humans and women in the past.

But seriously if you believe I see it as sexist because I need to, let's just agree to disagree. We won't get anywhere.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
You imply that the only reason I would see it as sexist is because I "need" to. If that is going to be your attitude, I see very little point in replying at all. Besides I think people have previously in this very thread expressed many of the points about why that view is troubling. Heck, I could very well say that my experience of the church, history, and tradition tells me that humans do not seem capable of holding such a view without being led into sin. For that reason, if Mary and Joseph didn't have sex, well dandy, and I don't have any clear belief on whether or not they did (besides some natural scepticism) but I would not hold to the belief that they did not as a doctrine because I see what such views have done to humans and women in the past.

But seriously if you believe I see it as sexist because I need to, let's just agree to disagree. We won't get anywhere.

It annoys me because those of us who believe in the perpetual virginity of the blessed Theotokos have the explained the the reasons which can be summed up in the name the Church has given her, Theotokos (Godbearer). It has nothing to do with sexism. Therefore to insist that the belief is sexist rather proves my point, don't you think?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
It is rather unclear to me what exactly Protestants who deny this would lose if they admitted it.

As I have said before, I couldn't care less whether Mary was a virgin or not after giving birth to Jesus, because her private life was (and is) none of anyone else's business. There is something deeply unhealthy and voyeuristic about this obsession with Mary's sexuality. I don't go around speculating as to what other people do in their bedroom. Who cares?

But to say that I don't care, doesn't mean that I should be railroaded into accepting an idea for which there is zero evidence other than "we say so". The text is not conclusive, but the natural reading of Matthew 1:25 tends very strongly to the view that Joseph 'knew' Mary after she had brought forth Jesus. While it makes not a scrap of difference whether Joseph and Mary had sex frequently, infrequently, or they chose freely not to have sexual relations at all (which was their business and no one else's), the question of whether sex was prohibited to them after Jesus' birth does matter. Why do I say this? Because it implies something about how God sees the relationship between sex and spirituality, and in fact how God defines spirituality generally. Is spirituality authenticated by sacrifice and deprivation or by love and mercy, and a celebration of God's creation?

I am quite relaxed about believing that Mary and Joseph were freely celibate after the birth of Jesus. To choose to be celibate (assuming that it really is a genuinely free choice, and not the result of any kind of religious pressure to any degree) is a perfectly healthy sexual choice. It may very well be that God desired that Mary and Joseph remained celibate, but He would have put this desire in them, so that they genuinely preferred to abstain from sex than indulge in it. Fine. But to suggest that there was some kind of solemn ban on Mary having sex, because her womb was now a kind of "no go area", because God had used that piece of equipment to bring Jesus into the world as a human being, is to deny the fullness of the incarnation. It is also illogical, because we could use the same argument concerning the "social womb" (i.e. the community at Nazareth) that God used to bring Jesus up from boyhood into adulthood. Why not say that that town was a no-go area, being consecrated ground, and therefore should not have been inhabited by those smelly ordinary people?! It really is such a poor argument, as it denies the shocking reality of the incarnation.

I agree thoroughly with what Anselmina wrote on a thread last year on this subject. Brilliant post. To quote:

quote:
It's funny. The whole point of God incarnate, was to bring God down to us, so we would know he is with us, and in that way we can be with him. And the Church responds by working for centuries to elevate back up into the heavens - not Christ - but a thoroughly human person to a position completely unreachable morally, spiritually and physically. Even to the point that in some people's ideas Mary is herself the guarantor of salvation. Unbelievable.
Quite.

--------------------
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

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I couldn't care less whether Mary was a virgin or not after giving birth to Jesus, because her private life was (and is) none of anyone else's business. There is something deeply unhealthy and voyeuristic about this obsession with Mary's sexuality. [...] Who cares?

On the evidence of this thread, you clearly do.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The text is not conclusive, but the natural reading of Matthew 1:25 tends very strongly to the view that Joseph 'knew' Mary after she had brought forth Jesus.

This is precisely what you have failed repeatedly to demonstrate.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

To choose to be celibate (assuming that it really is a genuinely free choice, and not the result of any kind of religious pressure to any degree) is a perfectly healthy sexual choice. It may very well be that God desired that Mary and Joseph remained celibate, but He would have put this desire in them, so that they genuinely preferred to abstain from sex than indulge in it. Fine.

How are you defining "religious pressure" here, because it doesn't seem to include "God told me to"?

Or are you saying that if God tells you to do X, then that is religious pressure, but if God places a compelling desire to do X in you, then it isn't?

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc
On the evidence of this thread, you clearly do.

What I care about is resisting theological fascism - i.e. being pressured into believing something simply because a particular denomination, which arrogates to itself the status of the One True Church, says it is true. I am also concerned about the tendency to construct doctrines which deny the fullness of the incarnation.

Perhaps you should actually read my last post carefully, and see that I explain why the issue matters. And it is not simply to do with trying to work out whether Mary had sex after the birth of Jesus.

quote:
This is precisely what you have failed repeatedly to demonstrate.
In your opinion, to which you, of course, are entitled.

[ 06. June 2014, 14:29: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

--------------------
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

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I couldn't care less whether Mary was a virgin or not after giving birth to Jesus, because her private life was (and is) none of anyone else's business. There is something deeply unhealthy and voyeuristic about this obsession with Mary's sexuality. [...] Who cares?

On the evidence of this thread, you clearly do.
I really think you've misunderstood EE's point, then. It's not that EE has a problem with Mary and Joseph choosing celibacy or even an interest in this question at all; the problem comes when Mary's continued virginity is required, theologically speaking. EE thinks, and I agree, that this would constitute a misconception of what God thinks about physicality and, specifically, sexuality.

[Cross-posted with EE, sorry!]

[ 06. June 2014, 14:31: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I care about is resisting theological fascism - i.e. being pressured into believing something simply because a particular denomination, which arrogates to itself the status of the One True Church, says it is true.

And who, exactly, is jackbooting you into believing anything purely on Catholic authority?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am also concerned about the tendency to construct doctrines which deny the fullness of the incarnation.

Me too. Again, who do you think is doing this?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
This is precisely what you have failed repeatedly to demonstrate.
In your opinion, to which you, of course, are entitled.
Just to confirm: you think you have actually demonstrated that, on the balance of evidence, the passage in question positively indicates that the BVM did not remain a virgin after the Saviour's birth?

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Madeleine L'Engle saw the insistence that Mary had sex as sexist. Her idea was that men were made insecure by the idea that she didn't need them to be a mother, or to be a complete and fulfilled woman.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Chesterbelloc. You are. Roman Catholicism does. As does Orthodoxy to a lesser extent. It's just a fact mate. You exclude on the basis of extra, mandatory, esoteric articles of faith, required, extrapolated beyond New Covenant, Jewish, Apostolic faith. As you must. Conservative Protestantism is far worse of course.

You create others. You engage in the first step of tyranny. Us and them. And 'they' don't like it. Funny that.

And yes, coming to the narrative, it's common sense obvious. It's got nothing to do with Protestantism, apart from the cultural head space that allowed.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perhaps you should actually read my last post carefully, and see that I explain why the issue matters. And it is not simply to do with trying to work out whether Mary had sex after the birth of Jesus.

This is precisely what you have failed repeatedly to demonstrate.
In your opinion, to which you, of course, are entitled.
This, of course, cuts both ways.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ad Orientem, note that I tried to specify very clearly that I understand that the Catholic and Orthodox positions on the topic have non-sexist reasons for them. Certainly I do not imply that anyone on this thread supports the perpetual virginity of Mary for sexist reasons.

mt, actually I completely see that point. An extreme need to believe that Mary had sex is probably often either making Mary in one's own image or sexist though I'm sure there are other less common reasons too. (No, that's not meant to be about anyone on this thread any more than the previous post was.)

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht
How are you defining "religious pressure" here, because it doesn't seem to include "God told me to"?

Or are you saying that if God tells you to do X, then that is religious pressure, but if God places a compelling desire to do X in you, then it isn't?

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

Well, does God tell us to do something and then expect us to do it in our own natural strength, kicking and screaming?

Philippians 2:13 suggests a different approach: "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure"

God's work in us transforms and reorients our will.

[ 06. June 2014, 15:46: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

--------------------
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

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
This, of course, cuts both ways.

Thank you for teaching me this precious truth.

I would never have thunk it otherwise!!

--------------------
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

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707

 - Posted      Profile for seekingsister   Email seekingsister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Sadly though, I think all too often now, too many Protestants reject PV primarily because Rome teaches it. Proving Rome wrong seems to be more important than wrestling with the pertinent Scripture passages.

Agree that this happens but I don't see much of it in this thread.

One would have to wrestle very hard with Scripture indeed to come to the conclusion from reading it that not only was Mary immaculately conceived and perpetually a virgin, but that these are binding doctrines essential to Christian faith.

I put these two items in the same category as baptism of infants vs. adults, wine vs. grape juice for communion, abstaining from meat on Fridays, etc. Issues that differ between denominations and Christian traditions but that are neither Scripturally prescribed nor proscribed.

The problem is that while most of us outside of the RCC are content to view these issues in such a lens, the RCC insists that its traditions are THE traditions and that the rest of us are either in wilful rebellion from God's church or woefully deceived by nasty Protestant ministers. Which causes the phenomenon that you describe, where many Protestants throw the baby out with the bathwater due to a deep distrust of the RCC.

Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
This, of course, cuts both ways.

Thank you for teaching me this precious truth.

I would never have thunk it otherwise!!

I know.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Big Grin]

--------------------
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

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc
Just to confirm: you think you have actually demonstrated that, on the balance of evidence, the passage in question positively indicates that the BVM did not remain a virgin after the Saviour's birth?

I confirm that I am convinced that the form of words of Matthew 1:24-25, the context, the internal logic of the text and the usage of the word 'heos' (taking into account its use elsewhere), indicate very strongly indeed that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage experience after the birth of Jesus. This normal marriage experience could have included an entirely voluntary mutual celibacy. No sin against God's holiness would have been committed if they had chosen to have a sexual relationship.

The opposite claim puts enormous strain on the text, and is not the natural reading.

This is my view, based on what I consider to be a fair evaluation of the evidence. I am very willing to concede that I am wrong, if, and only if, proper evidence* is presented to refute my position.


* "The RCC / Pope / Magisterium / Tradition etc says so" does not count as proper evidence.

--------------------
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

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The thing is, though EE, is that RCs and Orthodox would contend that Tradition constitutes 'proper evidence'. You won't accept Tradition as being 'proper evidence' so they are never going to convince you.

It's a circular argument.

The RCs and Orthodox believe that their view on this is perfectly consonant with the scriptures. You don't. On that basis unless they can produce a verse somewhere which says, 'Oh, by the way, Mary and Joseph remained celibate for the rest of their lives' then you aren't going to believe it whatever they say.

An analogous situation would be the belief in the Assumption - both the RCs and the Orthodox believe in that although they do differ on the details.

Asking them for a 'proof-text' from the scriptures to back up this belief is rather missing the point, because to them it's found in Tradition and that's good enough for them.

They don't need chapter and verse because they believe it's been in the Tradition all along. You might not consider that to be sufficient evidence but they do.

I'm not taking sides on that one particularly, simply pointing out that we need to understand their particular paradigm when it comes to Tradition. Otherwise all we do is talk past each other ...

On the PV issue - yes, I can see how a natural reading of the text suggests that Mary and Joseph had a conventional married life after the birth of Christ - but 'suggests' is about as strongly as I'd put it. As has been demonstrated by some of the RC and Orthodox apologists here the 'until' construction can be understood in a different way in the Greek. That's been conceded even by some of the hottest Prots among us.

Where I would agree with you is on the issue of these things being made into binding dogma - such as the RCs have - when it seems to me that there's wriggle-room and room for personal conscience/conviction here either way.

All that said, the fact that it appears to have been a very early belief and one current across pre-Schism and pre-Reformation Christianity does give me pause.

The early Church had the scriptures. Why would they suddenly adopt a PV position if they were convinced the scriptures indicated otherwise?

Ultimately, I don't see how a belief in the PV nor a non-belief in the PV affects our ultimate eternal destiny and salvation ... but I can understand how it can contribute to, or reinforce rather, a high Christology.

At the same time, I can see how it can also lead to unfortunate consequences such as squeamishness about sex - which was certainly there among some of the early Fathers - and sexist attitudes towards women.

I can see what you're getting at when you suggest that it undermines the Incarnation - the whole concept of which it is intended to protect (alongside other things of course, and not in isolation) - but I'm not sure this follows in practice.

In many ways I find both the RCs and the Orthodox to be more fully 'incarnational' in their approach than many - but by no means all - Protestants.

Sure, we Protestants can get embarrassed by the physicality of more Catholic forms of worship - but we can be in danger of floating off to the opposite extreme and taking a purely cerebral approach. I'm not including charismatics in that, I hasten to add, but certain types of Protestant do strike me as having lost their moorings when it comes to a proper grasp of the Incarnation. I heard some prayers in a particular non-conformist church the other week that smacked of outright Adoptionism, for instance.

I think you are right to be concerned about 'spiritual fascism' but has it not occurred to you that many RCs and Orthodox genuinely believe this stuff because they've come to their own conclusions about it and not because they've been brow-beaten into it by their respective Churches?

You might not see the 'evidence' but they presumably do. Simply because it's evidence you don't recognise or accept doesn't mean that they don't find it sufficient.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No sane person could reject PV just because Rome teaches it. There is nothing to wrestle with in the scriptures, unlike divorce and homosexuality. No so called hard sayings.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just for the sake of clarity, I'd like to know why:

* "The RCC / Pope / Magisterium / Tradition etc says so" does not count as proper evidence.

On what basis are you dismissing it as evidence save on the basis that you don't agree with them?

'I don't accept it as evidence therefore it doesn't count.'

As the old rhyme puts it, 'I am the master of Balliol College/And what I don't know isn't knowledge.'

What evidence can you provide that this doesn't count as evidence?

We are talking about issues of belief and faith here. Not mathematics.

Whilst many - if not most - Protestants would agree with you - what are they/we basing our contention on?

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Certainly I would argue that having always been believed counts as evidence. This is the "mind of the Church" someone (I can't remember) referred to on this or another thread (I can't remember).
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Just for the sake of clarity, I'd like to know why:

* "The RCC / Pope / Magisterium / Tradition etc says so" does not count as proper evidence.

I find it very interesting - and revealing - that you ask the question 'why?'

I take it that the use of 'why?' indicates that you are looking for the respondent to give a reason or reasons to justify his position. If that is not the case, then there is no point in asking 'why?' (and I might as well just answer by saying: "Because Elvis is the Queen of Timbuktu". In other words, give a totally nonsense answer to a meaningless question.)

So it is clear to me that you already believe in the validity of the very thing which is the answer to your question.

Reason.

--------------------
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

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why is this very interesting and revealing, EE? What does it reveal and how do you know what it reveals?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:I find it very interesting - and revealing - that you ask the question 'why?'

I take it that the use of 'why?' indicates that you are looking for the respondent to give a reason or reasons to justify his position. If that is not the case, then there is no point in asking 'why?' (and I might as well just answer by saying: "Because Elvis is the Queen of Timbuktu". In other words, give a totally nonsense answer to a meaningless question.)

So it is clear to me that you already believe in the validity of the very thing which is the answer to your question.

Reason.

I'm not sure that any of that necessarily follows from my question. I am simply asking you to clarify why you consider Tradition as inadmissible evidence.

Other people clearly don't find it so.

I'm simply asking on what grounds you dismiss it, other than simply because you don't believe it to be admissible evidence in the first place.

What evidence do you have that it is inadmissible other than that you believe it to be inadmissible?

That's the point I'm making.

It's not a meaningless question at all. In fact, I'd suggest - with all due modesty - that it is quite a good one and probably better than a lot of the questions I ask here.

This isn't about whether I accept Tradition/the Pope or Magisterium but what grounds you have for not doing so other than your distaste for these things - which in turn affects your decision whether or not to accept them.

[code]

[ 07. June 2014, 07:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In other words, at the same time as asking the question - and it is a genuine question - I am also suggesting that you are rejecting Tradition (small t) on the basis of your tradition (small t).

I'm suggesting that you have no more evidence to reject it than those who accept Tradition have to accept it.

Because both positions are faith positions and involve a step of faith on the part of the believer and aren't something that can be 'proven' either way.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
if God had a child with this woman, it was pretty unthinkable for Joseph to do the same.

I think I've said that I can see how Joseph might well think this way. If he had not been explicitly told by the angel that it was OK for him to take Mary as his wife.

I accept the assurances of shipmates that the original Greek doesn't carry the implication that things were different once the "until" condition expired.

But consider for a moment - exactly what hook does this get you off ? Of what charge does it show you to be innocent ?

Is it not the same charge that Jesus brought against the Pharisees, the religious establishment of his day - that of setting aside the word of God in favour of their own traditions ?

That, it seems to me, is the lurking suspicion in Protestant minds here. Maybe it's the Protestant equivalent of heresy...

Best wishes,

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, I meant to type 'you are rejecting Tradition (Big T) on the basis of your tradition (small t).'

In other words, you may consider that you have sufficient evidence to do so but those who embrace Tradition would also claim to have sufficient evidence to persuade them to embrace it.

If it's good enough for you to say that there is insufficient evidence then surely it's good enough for them to assert that there is. Because neither of you can 'prove' it empirically so it is something that is taken on faith - and yes, that doesn't mean that it's unreasonable or irrational. The RCs and Orthodox here have been giving reasons for why they believe what they believe.

You believe the Bible to be true. They believe the Bible and Tradition to be true. Both are faith positions.

They needn't cancel one another out or be mutually exclusive, of course.

But then, I've started answering my own question. Which may or may not be revealing ... [Biased]

But I am interested in your answer because so far you have given no grounds for rejecting Tradition other than that you reject Tradition.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My reason for not accepting claims simply on the basis of authority is because of...

REASON. (Something you apparently believe in, otherwise you would never ask anyone the question 'why?' as I explained in my last post).

The argument from authority is a logical fallacy. Here is an article about it from the ever trustworthy Wikipedia (!), but I would be happy to find a more reliable source if you really want that, but it'll do for now.

This fallacy is the basis of the claim that we must believe a proposition simply because the RCC / Pope / Patriarch / Magisterium / Tradition / Uncle Tom Cobley and all say it.

Of course, I have no problem with ideas that are part of the RCC Magisterium, if they are coherent and justified. That is a different matter altogether and their inclusion in the Magisterium is merely incidental.

Does that answer your question?

--------------------
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

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, cross-posted with Russ.

@Russ - yes, of course that is the standard Protestant objection against 'traditions of men' as the saying goes ... and yes, that thought does lurk at the back of Protestant minds on this thread as elsewhere because it's hot-wired into our spiritual DNA.

In fact, it's become part of our tradition to be suspicious of tradition ... that is, everyone else's tradition apart from our own.

What traditions was Christ challenging? The traditions of the Pharisees and Sadducees. He wasn't challenging anything that the RCs or the Orthodox had developed in terms of tradition as that hadn't yet come about - although they would both argue for continuity of course.

Of course, I agree with the principle of the challenge. It behoves all of us to submit our traditions to scrutiny.

But coming at it from a Sola Scriptura 'the Bible says' direction isn't going to cut any ice with RCs and Orthodox because that's not how their paradigm works. They don't believe that you have to pin everything down with a proof-text. Although they are more than capable of conducting theological debate using scripture of course.

These are complex issues and, I would suggest, far more complicated than 'I believe it because Tradition says so and Tradition is good enough for me.'

If I caricatured the Protestant position as 'I believe it because the Bible says so and that's good enough for me' then I'd probably be challenged - and rightly so - by Protestant posters saying that this was a reductionist caricature of their position.

Equally, I would suggest that the view that RCs and Orthodox believe what they believe simply because the Pope, Magisterium or the Tradition of their Church says so is equally reductionist and caricatured.

I'd also maintain that none of us approach scripture in a vacuum. We all of us, all of us ... I repeat all of us, read and interpret scripture within some kind of interpretative framework provided by our tradition. That applies whether we are Big T, small t or any points in between.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools