 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Mary, woman, the physical and sex.
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
Something for the feast of the Assumption!
I was with a group of people recently at worship and the 'litany of our lady' was said.
Here are some of the biddings we said;
Mother most pure
Mother most chaste
Mother inviolate
Mother unstained
I do wonder about all this in relation toMary. I think it removes her from being the everyday woman who said YES to God, in whom I believe.
I also feel it suggests being physical, and sex itself is rather dirty.
I hope we can 're-vision' (if such a word exists) Mary so that she may inspire women and men. Is such re-visioning going on?
[ 02. November 2012, 20:40: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
This has been referred to very recently on the thread "When is truth not truth." The perpetual virginity of Mary was one of the Catholic doctrines the OP mentioned...it was discussed a little.
It's one of the consequences of virginity's being considered a holier state than matrimony at a certain period in Church history...or perhaps a historian would qualify it as being the attitude for most of church history...I am not sure...
cara
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Something for the feast of the Assumption!
I was with a group of people recently at worship and the 'litany of our lady' was said.
Here are some of the biddings we said;
Mother most pure
Mother most chaste
Mother inviolate
Mother unstained
I do wonder about all this in relation toMary. I think it removes her from being the everyday woman who said YES to God, in whom I believe.
I also feel it suggests being physical, and sex itself is rather dirty.
I hope we can 're-vision' (if such a word exists) Mary so that she may inspire women and men. Is such re-visioning going on?
Well, speaking as an Anglican who sometimes attends churches that venerate Mary, I know we don't pay so much attention extolling her complete unsluttiness.
Statements like the one you list raise two questions:
1) Mary was engaged to be married to Joseph when she conceived Jesus. Presumably she married Joseph at some point. Why does the Catholic tradition hold that she was celibate after the birth of Christ? Why would such a fact be important?
2) The whole sex-negative thing with the Catholic Church... it's been overplayed by secular critics, but it's definitely there. Why? There was certainly nothing I'm aware of in the Jewish tradition which suggested that married sex somehow tainted or defiled women. In fact, women are expected to get married, be fruitful and multiply. It's considered a divine command to all Jews.
There's Paul's discussion about the merits of marriage vs. celibacy, but Paul's argument for celibacy focuses on the fact that if you don't have to worry about marriage or children, you've got more time to serve Jesus out in the field. He doesn't argue that sex makes you gross or unclean or dirty.
The whole fixation on Mary's hymen is bizarre to my eyes.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
This argument is always bass-ackwards. "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin. Yet the Catholic Church says she was. Why did they do that?"
When Protestants discuss this, the first sentence is never brought into question.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
Yes indeed! It does seem to me to be men worried about women's sexuality, at times.
So then the men hold as virtuous the pure virgin.
I also feel some more 'modern' terms for litanies such as the one I quoted could help rehabilitate Mary and even women in the church.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This argument is always bass-ackwards. "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin. Yet the Catholic Church says she was. Why did they do that?"
When Protestants discuss this, the first sentence is never brought into question.
Care to elaborate? The perpetual virginity of Mary is not part of the dogma of Anglicanism, as far as I know, and I don't know where the idea that she never had sex with her husband comes from. I'm asking in earnest and I'm open to education. Is there biblical authority for that or is it part of the tradition of the Church?
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
As a gay man, I find it rather liberating that Christianity doesn't think everyone has to be married, have an active sex life and have children to be fulfilled.
Sex is intimately connected with violence and domination - the virgin birth can be interpreted as saying in the clearest possible way that a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This argument is always bass-ackwards. "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin. Yet the Catholic Church says she was. Why did they do that?"
When Protestants discuss this, the first sentence is never brought into question.
Care to elaborate? The perpetual virginity of Mary is not part of the dogma of Anglicanism, as far as I know, and I don't know where the idea that she never had sex with her husband comes from. I'm asking in earnest and I'm open to education. Is there biblical authority for that or is it part of the tradition of the Church?
I made no claim about either the truth of the claim or the origin. That wasn't the point of my post. I might get into that later or I might leave it to more capable hands.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Sex is intimately connected with violence and domination
Whoa, time out. This is a fucked-up sick idea of sex. I've had sex multiple times, and not once was it ever connected with violence or domination (intimately or otherwise). I imagine there are many, many other people for whom this is true. Violence and domination can be coupled (excuse pun) with sex, but violence and domination can be coupled with child rearing too, and we wouldn't say that child rearing is "intimately connected" with violence and domination.
*************
Back to the "assuming it's false" theme: What I'm cautioning against of course is Bulverism. Here's how the Source of All Wisdom and Knowledge defines Bulverism. First word links to full article.
quote:
Bulverism is a logical fallacy in which, rather than proving that an argument in favour of an opinion is wrong, a person instead assumes that the opinion is wrong, and then goes on to explain why the other person held it. It is essentially a circumstantial ad hominem argument. The term "Bulverism" was coined by C. S. Lewis.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I guess that many of those who are happy to apply terms like
Mother inviolate
Mother all pure.... May well dislike the idea of Mary being sexually aroused, or of her having sexual touch with or from another, even if it did affect her virginity.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I don't know that it does any good to make general assertions about the psychology of those who use such phrases. I feel rather uncomfortable with them myself; but not being able to climb into the skulls of those who wrote it, it's hard to judge.
Maybe you could get on with the positive side of things (writing something better) instead of worrying about the possible mindset of those who find the other stuff helpful?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I'm a good Anglican, so I don't have that instinct to disbelieve and hate anything not in the Bible. I just can't see why the Christian Gospel should stand or fall on Mary remaining a virgin after Jesus was born.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I guess that many of those who are happy to apply terms like
Mother inviolate
Mother all pure.... May well dislike the idea of Mary being sexually aroused, or of her having sexual touch with or from another, even if it did affect her virginity.
Did Mousethief just pay you so perfectly to illustrate his Bulverism point?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Zach, are you concerned with being contrarian that you don't actually read the posts?
Mockingale said quote:
The perpetual virginity of Mary is not part of the dogma of Anglicanism, as far as I know, and I don't know where the idea that she never had sex with her husband comes from.
Or are you convinced that Anglicans are just closet RCs?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Zach, are you concerned with being contrarian that you don't actually read the posts...Or are you convinced that Anglicans are just closet RCs?
Uh, is this thread only for Anglicans or something? I missed that part. Could you point that out for me?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
There's Paul's discussion about the merits of marriage vs. celibacy, but Paul's argument for celibacy focuses on the fact that if you don't have to worry about marriage or children, you've got more time to serve Jesus out in the field. He doesn't argue that sex makes you gross or unclean or dirty.
Paul goes even further and says that it's wrong for a person to deny the spouse's conjugal rights.
I grew up protestant, believing that Mary had born other children. I have no trouble venerating her. I was taught that she was chosen to be Jesus' mother because of her perfect holiness and her unquestioning obedience to God. Anybody can be a virgin but how many people would have accepted the angel's message with such absolute faith?
I agree with Lamb Chopped that we can't be sure what the thinking was of the "Mary was all pure," writers. "Pure," means without sin more often than it means virginal.
[ 15. August 2012, 00:39: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
harlot in earth, virgin in heaven - read yr mythopoeia, dude
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
...
I hope we can 're-vision' (if such a word exists) Mary so that she may inspire women and men. Is such re-visioning going on?
Sounds as if this 're-visioning' comes contingent on accepting the suppositions you have already made? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Sex is intimately connected with violence and domination
Whoa, time out. This is a fucked-up sick idea of sex. <snip>
TANGENT: This theory may have been advanced by others prior to her writing about it, but Elaine Morgan, in [I]The Descent of Woman[I], theorizes that changes in the human anatomy during the evolutionary processes leading from proto- to present-form humanity made the frontal heterosexual approach more common in humans, a departure from the majoritarian sexual habits of other primates. Since frontal approaches also characterize combat, attack, etc. among primates and the supine position often assumed by the female in frontal sex can also be characteristic of defeat and domination, sex and violence have, alas, become conjoined somewhere in the depths of the human psyche.
Morgan explains it much more persuasively than I can (and it is a theory few anthropologists subscribe to). I am not an anthropologist either, and stake no bets either way. But the theory exists.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Back to the "assuming it's false" theme
Protestants don't "assume" that the dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity is false because it is promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church.
They believe it to be false because there is no evidence for it.
Bulverism doesn't come into it.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Sex is intimately connected with violence and domination
Whoa, time out. This is a fucked-up sick idea of sex. <snip>
TANGENT: This theory may have been advanced by others prior to her writing about it, but Elaine Morgan, in [I]The Descent of Woman[I], theorizes that changes in the human anatomy during the evolutionary processes leading from proto- to present-form humanity made the frontal heterosexual approach more common in humans, a departure from the majoritarian sexual habits of other primates. Since frontal approaches also characterize combat, attack, etc. among primates and the supine position often assumed by the female in frontal sex can also be characteristic of defeat and domination, sex and violence have, alas, become conjoined somewhere in the depths of the human psyche.
Morgan explains it much more persuasively than I can (and it is a theory few anthropologists subscribe to). I am not an anthropologist either, and stake no bets either way. But the theory exists.
It exists, and it's fucked up.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Back to the "assuming it's false" theme
Protestants don't "assume" that the dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity is false because it is promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church.
They believe it to be false because there is no evidence for it.
Bulverism doesn't come into it.
You clearly don't understand Bulverism. The point is not WHY you believe it false. The assumption it's false is the starting point, and how you got there is irrelevant to whether or not it's Bulverism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I actually agree with you, MT. I simply take Mary's perpetual virginity as true because the Church has generally believed it to be true. I can't understand why it is so reviled in some circles.
But to me it just seems to float apart from the other dogmas of the Church. I would like my assent to be more than "Sure, I guess."
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the doctrine of perpetual virginity, the veneration of a woman depicted as particularly 'pure' certainly has its impact. As Percy B said in the OP, there's this hint of sex, and women's sexuality in particular, being a bit 'dirty'.
I'm a massive fan of the singer Tori Amos, and she has a BIG bee in her bonnet about this. She is the daughter of a Protestant minister, and had an extremely strict Puritan-like grandmother, so it's not simply a Catholic Church issue. A recurring theme in Amos' work is the contrast between Mary, mother of Jesus, depicted as pure and chaste and sexless, and Mary Magdalene, one of the women closest to Jesus but traditionally depicted as a prostitute despite there being no real textual basis for this. Amos sees the traditional patriarchy as basically dividing women into two roles/categories, mothers and whores.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
We know Jesus had brothers who tried to stop him at the beginning of his ministry. We also the names of four of his brothers: James, Joseph (or Jose), Simon and Judas. Some would argue that these brothers were actually cousins, but the Greek word for brother is adelphios comes from the Greek word adelphys which literally means "of the same womb."
While we know the name of the four brothers, that does not exclude the probability he also had sisters.
Most Lutherans do not believe in the assumption of Mary.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The principal stance that I have heard about Marian dogmas in Anglicanism is that they don't touch the essential matters of salvation. It does not impact Christ's saving work if Mary and Joseph had sexual relations or if Mary indeed refrained from sex all her life.
So people are free to believe in Marian dogmas if they find it edifying. However, at the same time, people can't impose Marian dogmas on others. Nor can disagreement over a Marian dogma be grounds for excommunication of anyone.
For me, Mary lived a life of complete obedience to God. She freely consented to this life of grace and is an integral part of salvation history. She rightly deserves the titles of Mother, Queen, and Virgin. The Church is right to magnify her for she has done something that no one on earth has ever done.
She gave birth, nurtured and raised the Word made flesh.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Is this one of those things that matters to people who know some fine details that are irrelevant to the most of us? Like transubstantiation versus consubstantiation? Frankly, I hope that if Mary had sex that she enjoyed it, at any point in her life she so chose. It appeals that she had other children. They could have been before and after Jesus for all that that matters.
And it matters not at all whether she did and what we think. I did not ask my mother nor father about their sex life, suspect that Jesus didn't ask Mary, Joseph nor God about their's. I don't know that anyone else interviewed her to find out, and I certainly hope they didn't. Some things are personal, this is right up there with bowel habits.
We might consider that a good measure of those who hold out chastity and virginity for Mary appear themselves to promote something they do not practice very well despite their vows. Both in history and currently.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
The terms describing Our Lady with which I expressed personal discomfort are of course accepted by a great number of Christians. They are in the tradition.
I feel, personally, they do not sit well in the 21st century.
I guess some terms once used are later dropped. Seeing Our Lady as a priest was, I believe, later discouraged.
I am sure it is right to draw in more positive terms, and from the wealth of the tradition. I guess there are also new treasures of Marian liturgies as well as the old which can be drawn upon.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
And it matters not at all whether she did and what we think. I did not ask my mother nor father about their sex life, suspect that Jesus didn't ask Mary, Joseph nor God about their's. I don't know that anyone else interviewed her to find out, and I certainly hope they didn't. Some things are personal, this is right up there with bowel habits.
Some things, including the two examples you have just cited, can be more personal or less so from one culture to another, and even from one social group to another, and even from one group of family and friends to another.
Just listen to conversations among groups of pregnant women to hear examples of what I mean about open discussions of the most intimate of bodily functions. The same is often true of groups of friends who are making a joint effort to lose weight or who otherwise just have the level of comfort with each other that they feel able freely to discuss health issues and physical processes.
There is a whole host of different social attitudes to discussing these matters, and that is just now, in the present day. To take the assumptions of just one of these attitudes and transpose it onto a different culture, 2000 years ago, seems like very poor reasoning to me.
It just doesn't hold together.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Is this one of those things that matters to people who know some fine details that are irrelevant to the most of us? Like transubstantiation versus consubstantiation? Frankly, I hope that if Mary had sex that she enjoyed it, at any point in her life she so chose. It appeals that she had other children. They could have been before and after Jesus for all that that matters.
Agreed.
A more interesting question is 'Why do some people need Mary to have been a virgin?'
We'll never know. Just as I'm the only one who knows how long I was a virgin. It should be nobody's business but her own - as it should be for everyone else.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Percy B: I think it removes her from being the everyday woman who said YES to God, in whom I believe.
This is how I like to think about her too.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Something for the feast of the Assumption!
I was with a group of people recently at worship and the 'litany of our lady' was said.
Here are some of the biddings we said;
Mother most pure
Mother most chaste
Mother inviolate
Mother unstained
I do wonder about all this in relation toMary. I think it removes her from being the everyday woman who said YES to God, in whom I believe.
I also feel it suggests being physical, and sex itself is rather dirty.
I think that this issue of viewing sex negatively, while related, is perhaps a different issue from the matter of Perpetual Virginity.
Of course I believe in the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God, not because anything else would be nasty or disgusting, but for the secondary reason that it makes sense within the wider context of the Incarnation, and primarily for the reason that it is what has been handed down as part of the Christian Tradition and I have never seen any reason to doubt the truth of it. As with anything, if it's true, then it's true - it doesn't need a reason to be true.
However, I do see how people could potentially struggle with the implications of language such as "thou who without defilement (some translations say "without corruption") gavest birth to God the Word". It is actually saying something positive about the Mother of God and her perpetual virginity but I can see how it could be perceived as indirectly saying something negative about sex and the usual way of human procreation.
Terms like "chaste", "pure", "inviolate", "undefiled", and so forth, pose no problem for me. There is nothing about affirming chastity that suggests that anything is wrong with sex. Likewise for purity, (which needn't be seen as any sort of reference to sex at all, as has already been pointed out). Similarly, for somebody who has a lived understanding of the theology of consecration, then a purpose that disregards that consecrated purpose is a violation - a defilement - even if that purpose is otherwise morally neutral or good.
I know a lady who bakes bread for the Eucharist. All of the utensils, baking trays, and so forth, that she uses for that purpose are used only for that purpose. They are set apart and special, for a holy purpose. If her husband were to use one of her eucharistic baking trays to make some bread pudding, she would see that as a violation of its holy purpose. That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with bread pudding (it's actually very nice, if perhaps a little fattening) but once something is set apart for holy use - once it is consecrated - then it isn't returned to common use.
It shouldn't take a big leap to see that Christians have traditionally understood the role of the Mother of God within the Incarnation in similar terms.
I think that this sense of consecration is somehow a very real part of the human way of thinking and feeling, and needn't necessarily be attached to any religious beliefs. An Anglican priest in a part of Greater Manchester known for its nuisance crime by people of a certain age once told me of the vandalism to which his church fell victim on an almost weekly basis: graffiti, broken windows, bonfires in the churchyard, and so forth. Then the church hosted the funeral of a local teenager who, fleeing the police (with whom he was well acquainted), had come off his motorcycle and died instantly. The church was packed for the occasion. It was some months later that he was recounting this story, and he said that, while the whole business was very sad, he couldn't help but notice that this funeral coincided with the end to the vandalism. There had been no more of these incidents at the church after that. I know that this isn't a direct analogy because vandalism is morally negative but the point is that, even without doctrines or theology, these people seemed to understand that building as having taken on a special significance that had to be honoured and respected. It seems a basic part of the human psyche.
[ 15. August 2012, 07:39: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Sex is intimately connected with violence and domination
I'd argue that by definition sex is consensual. If non consensual violence and domination are added then we stop talking about sex and start talking about rape.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You clearly don't understand Bulverism. The point is not WHY you believe it false. The assumption it's false is the starting point, and how you got there is irrelevant to whether or not it's Bulverism.
Let me walk you through this.
In Lewis's essay "Bulverism", "..its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver...heard his mother say to his father - who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third - "Oh you say that because you are a man". At that moment... there flashed across my opening mind...assume your opponent is wrong and then explain his error".
If Protestants began with the assumption that the perpetual virginity of Mary was not true, and then asserted, "You are only claiming that dogma is true because you are a Roman Catholic", we would have a classic case of Bulverism.
But they don't.
They believe it to be untrue because of the lack of any evidence that it is true, and some evidence that it isn't.
The fact that other traditions do believe the dogma is irrelevant and does not require citation.
This is not Bulverism.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
When you start gassing about "why would they believe this given that it's not true" and start coming up with bullshit about sex being icky, then you're Bulverizing. Maybe you haven't done that on this thread (yet). But it's done and it's being done right here right now. Perhaps you haven't noticed it? Go back and read the thread again.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...
I'm a massive fan of the singer Tori Amos, and she has a BIG bee in her bonnet about this. She is the daughter of a Protestant minister, and had an extremely strict Puritan-like grandmother, so it's not simply a Catholic Church issue. A recurring theme in Amos' work is the contrast between Mary, mother of Jesus, depicted as pure and chaste and sexless, and Mary Magdalene, one of the women closest to Jesus but traditionally depicted as a prostitute despite there being no real textual basis for this. Amos sees the traditional patriarchy as basically dividing women into two roles/categories, mothers and whores.
The medieval and totally unproven nonsense about Mary Magdalene has, over the centuries, caused all sorts of problems, including the false dichotomy which sees women as either "pure" or "fallen".
To me, Mary is a far more complex character than we will ever understand. Whilst I have no problems with accepting Traditional beliefs on Mary I can understand why people of the modern age find the traditional language of the litany Percy B mentioned a bit hard to take. However, I think going to what seems to be the exact opposite point of view and attempting to "ascertain" the supposed physical facts about Mary from no or contentious "evidence" (given the way Middle Easterners have tended to refer to members of their extended family, which is a topic in itself) is not much help.
To me, if you take the Traditional Christian beliefs as "myths" in the Joseph Campbell sense, which does not concentrate on ascertaining "facts", which we are basically unable to ascertain, but trying to understand what the story means, we might have a chance of glimpsing the point of the Immaculate Conception, which I contend is a truth on many levels.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
It seems a classic case of arriving at a doctrine and not being able to abandon it when presented by contradictory evidence.
I dont seen any reason to assume from the Greek that the 'brothers' mentioned were anything other than biological brothers and the references to them later in the New Testament dont suggest anything else either. Occam's Razor folks.
It seems a case where a Tradition is established which is considered more important than fact.
Might have been a hard one for the Church to retcon without having to devalue celibacy, and afirm healthy sex. Might have been a good move in hindsight.
Still happens. We have Climate Change deniers alive and well despite overwhelming evidence from the Science, largely because folk dont like where it leads. Human nature is forever the same on this one.
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Is this one of those things that matters to people who know some fine details that are irrelevant to the most of us? Like transubstantiation versus consubstantiation? Frankly, I hope that if Mary had sex that she enjoyed it, at any point in her life she so chose. It appeals that she had other children. They could have been before and after Jesus for all that that matters.
Agreed.
A more interesting question is 'Why do some people need Mary to have been a virgin?'
We'll never know. Just as I'm the only one who knows how long I was a virgin. It should be nobody's business but her own - as it should be for everyone else.
I went to Tesco yesterday and bought, among other things, a tin of chicken in white sauce. What is on my grocery list is nobody's business but mine. Granted, it isn't as private a matter as anything to do with sex but it's still my personal business. That doesn't mean it's a secret or that sexual matters are kept secret from one's intimates.
Now, I've just told you that I went to Tesco yesterday and bought a tin of chicken in white sauce. You are free to believe me or you can find some reason not to believe me - perhaps I have given you the impression of being untrustworthy, or whatever other reason. Yet, even if you decide not to accept what I've said, it doesn't mean that the people who do believe me must have some deep-seated reason why they need to believe that I bought a tin of chicken in white sauce.
The idea that people who believe something is true only do so because they need to believe that it is true just doesn't make sense to me. Among the things passed down through Christian Tradition is the knowledge of the virginity of the Mother of God. St Joseph knew her. The Myrrh-bearing Women knew her. The Apostles knew her. These people were counted among her intimates. It doesn't seem strange to me at all that at least some of them might know things about her that have come down to us.
I believe that the Mother of God was and remained a virgin, not because I have any sort of need to believe it but because it seems to be true, and it makes sense. I have never seen any compelling reason to doubt it.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
Reading all this, it strikes me that those who have hangups about sex read any reference to 'purity' and so on as related to sex, and are really just projecting their own attitudes onto a doctrine which says everything about consecration and nothing about sex.
Catholics, who have a very positive set of teachings about the value and holiness of sex (but which recognise that it's not actually obligatory for everyone and that celibacy also has a value and a holiness), should not fall into that trap; those looking at it from outside Catholicism and unaware of the context are probably more vulnerable to it.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
...
I dont seen any reason to assume from the Greek that the 'brothers' mentioned were anything other than biological brothers and the references to them later in the New Testament dont suggest anything else either. Occam's Razor folks.
...
This debate has been going on a long time and I do not believe you are able to make a definitive statement here, however satisfying that may be to you and those who support this position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When you start gassing about "why would they believe this given that it's not true" and start coming up with bullshit about sex being icky, then you're Bulverizing. Maybe you haven't done that on this thread (yet). But it's done and it's being done right here right now. Perhaps you haven't noticed it? Go back and read the thread again.
Is it not permitted to critique the motives and thought processes of people we disagree with?
Why do white racists think as they do? Can I not ask about the role fear, low self-esteem and a sense of victimhood play in their thinking?
Why do creationists think as they do? Can I not ask about their misconceived ideas of authority and suggest a lack of faith?
Why has the church, since long before my Baptist tradition separated, venerated Mary for her exceptional womanhood?
Why did the RC church, in precisely the era when prejudices about gender roles became increasingly rigid, speak definitively about Mary and sexuality?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
It has - yes and i dont think we will resolve it here. The Wiki link is interesting , but i think supports an 'obvious' reading.
Looking at this, the Church arrived at this convoluted reasoning around the 3rd Century when the perpetual Virgin doctrine was getting some traction. Suggests to me a bit of a Retcon.
As an aside, The Eastern Orthodox view that the Brother's were from Josephs first wife (of whom no-one has ever heard) seems a bit like strawclutching to me. Anyone know of ANY evidence for this.
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This argument is always bass-ackwards. "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin. Yet the Catholic Church says she was. Why did they do that?"
When Protestants discuss this, the first sentence is never brought into question.
How about if we say "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin (see Luke 8:19-21)"?
That's actually the part you missed out. The REASON for saying "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin" is because the Bible appears to say that Jesus had brothers. And in fact implies very strongly that they're biological brothers because Jesus then explicitly distinguishes them from his spiritual brothers.
The assertion that she wasn't virgin doesn't randomly materialise out of thin air.
As Zach said, Occam's Razor applies. It's actually the alternative proposition, that she was indeed ever-virgin, that requires some extremely fancy footwork to get around the likely plain meaning of the Biblical text.
[ 15. August 2012, 09:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I simply take Mary's perpetual virginity as true because the Church has generally believed it to be true. I can't understand why it is so reviled in some circles.
Because it implies that one can only be completely holy if one never has sex.
Mary is the one single holiest human (excepting those who were also God ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) to have ever lived. She is, therefore, the standard to which we should all aspire - the template for a perfectly holy life. Everything that is taught about her life is therefore being held forth as what we should do to be holy - including, according to this dogma, being a perpetual virgin. Even if you're married.
Is it any wonder that such a teaching is reviled?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The medieval and totally unproven nonsense about Mary Magdalene has, over the centuries, caused all sorts of problems, including the false dichotomy which sees women as either "pure" or "fallen".
To me, Mary is a far more complex character than we will ever understand. Whilst I have no problems with accepting Traditional beliefs on Mary I can understand why people of the modern age find the traditional language of the litany Percy B mentioned a bit hard to take. However, I think going to what seems to be the exact opposite point of view and attempting to "ascertain" the supposed physical facts about Mary from no or contentious "evidence" (given the way Middle Easterners have tended to refer to members of their extended family, which is a topic in itself) is not much help.
To me, if you take the Traditional Christian beliefs as "myths" in the Joseph Campbell sense, which does not concentrate on ascertaining "facts", which we are basically unable to ascertain, but trying to understand what the story means, we might have a chance of glimpsing the point of the Immaculate Conception, which I contend is a truth on many levels. [/QUOTE]
Sir Pellinore, I'm interested in why you consider the Immaculate Conception, the belief that Mary from the moment of her conception within her mother Anne was free from original sin, as "a truth on many levels."
Do you think this whole question of her being free from original sin is part of the "consecrated" idea--Mary as something special from the very beginning of her existence in her mother's womb, set aside, fully sanctified and blessed from that moment....
I like the idea of seeing these beliefs as myths in the Campbell sense, not as "facts" to be proven or not, but as ideas with deep meaning that can perhaps teach us something......hmm.
Cara
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Strange to be debating this on the date of that other (1950) accretion. I think the reformed catholic view of the three non-biblical Marian dogmas is that they are quaint, not necessary to be believed by all Christians, and need to be scrutinised as to whether they are helpful to the faith of the individual believer or the Church as a whole.
In so far as there is evidence that the "perpetual virginity" undermines a healthy view of humanity and of a human being, fully alive and open to the will of God dedicating herself to the service of God, I have misgivings about the dogma.
Just as I have misgivings about the "immaculate conception" and the "assumption", in that also seem to mark out the place of the BVM in the economy of salvation as being less (or too much more than) human. If she is to make sense in being an example to which Christians can aspire and to point us to Jesus, I'm afraid that all three dogmas (and more particularly their outworking in popular catholic devotion) undermine that approach. A truly human flesh and blood Mary, redeemed sinner, fully married and sexually active, with other children, who died in the hope of salvation through her Son makes much more sense as a person to be admired (nay, venerated) than the sanitised version that the dogmas point us to.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
...
I dont seen any reason to assume from the Greek that the 'brothers' mentioned were anything other than biological brothers and the references to them later in the New Testament dont suggest anything else either. Occam's Razor folks.
...
Your shaving cuts away too much of the evidence. Your conclusion may be the simplest explanation of the biblical text, but the biblical text is not the only evidence: you have entirely neglected the evidence of the history of the tradition that has itself preserved the biblical text.
The simplest explanation for the fact that the ancient tradition has persisted alongside apparently contradictory passages in scripture is that the Church really believed it because it is really true.
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I am a protestant non-believer in Mary's perpetual virginity, but if we are going to play the game of discerning motives it seems to me one could ask what does it say about our view of sex that we find it so necessary to believe that Mary was not a virgin.
It seems quite non-biblical to find sex such a necessary part of human life that we can't consider the existence of a healthy person who did not have sex.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
It seems a classic case of arriving at a doctrine and not being able to abandon it when presented by contradictory evidence.
Do you think you have NEW evidence? Evidence that post-dates the adoption of the doctrine? Let's have it, then.
[ 15. August 2012, 09:42: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
quote:
It seems quite non-biblical to find sex such a necessary part of human life that we can't consider the existence of a healthy person who did not have sex.
Me thinks you are finding something there that we are not arguing.
This is an entirely different discussion to the benefits or not of a celibate life. Its about a specific belief which is of the status of Dogma which has no real evidence to support it apart from 'the Church of the day said so', and reason to believe the opposite.
Now i take the point that the Tradition may have been already around but is there any evidence for THAT being widely held before the 3rd Century, Sir P's Wiki post seems to suggest that the other view was taught (although who knows how widely) in the 2nd Century.
A genuine question, as my knowledge of the Church Fathers etc is quite limited, and i would welcolme the views of someone more expert!
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
And it tells us in eg Matthew and Luke about the angels telling both Mary and Joseph about her having the baby, and that sounds to me about her virginism at that time, letting Joseph know that he and she could have sex afterwards, and could get married quickly to make sure she didn't get into trouble having the baby before marriage.
It must have been more uncomfortable to have the baby, not having had sex which makes the area to get the baby out a bit more "wide-ish". So having quite a lot of other babies (we never have heard the names of her baby girls ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ) Joseph must have felt even better, and the boys had lots to go around with Mary.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
