|
PrinceRandom posted:SWEDISH BORG? SWEET'N SOURBORG
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
 HEY GRAIL
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Saw this while I was hunting around for wall crucifixes online. The perfect gift for the die-hard patripassian in your life! Oh god, don't show this to any conspiracy theory nuts. Replacing a halo with a triangle???
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Oh god, don't show this to any conspiracy theory nuts. Replacing a halo with a triangle??? That's a pretty common symbol of the Trinity, actually
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:HEY GRAIL This would make a rad username, actually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:That's a pretty common symbol of the Trinity, actually  I'm onto you, System Metternich.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Hi thread, I'm interested in your thoughts on this story: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/02/nun-receives-death-threats-suggesting-mary-virgin Obviously individuals sending death threats for perceived heresy is bullshit, but was her original statement heresy, in your view? I remember being told about Jesus' brothers and sisters in my early youth (Church of Scotland), and I always took it pretty much as read that Joseph and Mary had a standard marriage, until I got exposed to hardcore Anglo-Catholicism in adulthood. Is denying the perpetual virginity of Mary an absolutely deal-breaker heresy? Honestly, and I'm ready to be corrected on this, the idea that Mary's virginity is somehow key to her holiness kind of creeps me out. I realise I may be missing something about the doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
catholics and orthodox traditionally have always held that mary was a virgin throughout her life. this goes along with the tradition that joseph was already old when they met. edit: some catholics take this in weird directions, like the time Elector Maximilian of Bavaria wrote a dedication to mary in his own blood and sealed the paper in a silver tube, but it's possible to interpret this in not-weird ways HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
i do not see the connection between believing in the perpetual virginity of mary and writing a dedication in your own blood and putting it in a tube is that... is that a thing virgins did? or do?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Hi thread, I'm interested in your thoughts on this story: Yes, for Catholics, denying the perpetual virginity of Mary is a really big problem. Not deserving of death threats, no, but if instead her superior had gotten 183,000 angry letters asking her to take away her twitter account, that would have been perfectly proportionate, in my mind. Mary's virginity is important because it explains why Mary asked how she was going to become the mother of God; it's important because Mary was the new Ark of the Covenant and so only bore God within her womb, just like the Ark only held holy things; it's important because Mary is a model for religious who've given up marriage (a good thing) to single-heartedly serve God (an even better thing). Too, saying "well they had to have had a normal marriage" seems awfully close to "well Jesus had to be married, he just had to", which is something else Catholics may not believe happened 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:i do not see the connection between believing in the perpetual virginity of mary and writing a dedication in your own blood and putting it in a tube
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:Yes, for Catholics, denying the perpetual virginity of Mary is a really big problem. Not deserving of death threats, no, but if instead her superior had gotten 183,000 angry letters asking her to take away her twitter account, that would have been perfectly proportionate, in my mind. Mary's virginity is important because it explains why Mary asked how she was going to become the mother of God; it's important because Mary was the new Ark of the Covenant and so only bore God within her womb, just like the Ark only held holy things; it's important because Mary is a model for religious who've given up marriage (a good thing) to single-heartedly serve God (an even better thing). Too, saying "well they had to have had a normal marriage" seems awfully close to "well Jesus had to be married, he just had to", which is something else Catholics may not believe happened Thank you for the response. I hope you don't mind if I split apart the clauses. "Mary's virginity is important because it explains why Mary asked how she was going to become the mother of God": This comes before she was married. "It's important because Mary was the new Ark of the Covenant and so only bore God within her womb, just like the Ark only held holy things,. it's important because Mary is a model for religious who've given up marriage (a good thing) to single-heartedly serve God (an even better thing)." These seem very reasonable exegetic readings of the perpetual virginity of Mary, but I'm not sure they constitute an argument for such an understanding of Mary being essential. "Too, saying "well they had to have had a normal marriage" seems awfully close to "well Jesus had to be married, he just had to", which is something else Catholics may not believe happened." Yeah, I accept this criticism. I was sort of aware as I was writing it that talking about a "standard marriage" was a bit lovely. Bad wording on my part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Is denying the perpetual virginity of Mary an absolutely deal-breaker heresy? Certainly isn't for Protestants. It's not a question Protestants tend to spend any amount of time on to begin with, and my pastor growing up occasionally discussed it - in his opinion there's no info one way or another but he saw no reason to not think Mary and Joseph had a happy, loving marriage and had children after Jesus. Protestants have a pretty different idea of Mary's relationship with God than Catholics and Orthodox do in general, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Thank you for the response. I hope you don't mind if I split apart the clauses. Yes, the angel's message came before Mary was married, but Gabriel didn't say "in ten minutes", so it's quite reasonable she could have assumed "nine months after the wedding", right? Sarah laughs at the idea she'll have a child in a year because she knows she's past menopause and she didn't have any children before that either, but Mary's young, and we have no reason to think she suspected infertility on her part or Joseph's. (There's other supporting evidence to suggest that Mary had no children besides Jesus, but those verses don't say anything specifically about sexual abstinence within marriage.) And yes, the various important exegetic readings don't prove anything; they're more "things that depend on this" than "why this is true". Catholics think that we teach Mary's perpetual virginity because that's actually what was the case - that it's important that, when we know a fact about a historical figure, doctrines that involve that person correspond to that fact. It'd be wrong to say "well Popes don't marry so I think Peter probably didn't either", because Peter was married, and so it's also wrong (especially for someone who might seem like a reliable source) to say "well usually marriages involve sex, so I think Mary's did too". Cythereal posted:Certainly isn't for Protestants. It's not a question Protestants tend to spend any amount of time on to begin with, and my pastor growing up occasionally discussed it - in his opinion there's no info one way or another but he saw no reason to not think Mary and Joseph had a happy, loving marriage and had children after Jesus. I don't see any reason not to think that Mary and Joseph had a happy, loving marriage either, and as far as I know (...it probably exists, don't enlighten me) there's nobody saying that they were unhappily married or that they didn't love each other. (There is plenty of reason to think they didn't have children after Jesus, but I think we've had this argument in one of the previous iterations of this thread.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
I think from the broad Protestant perspective, it doesn't really matter whether Mary remained a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus Christ. The important part is that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit within the virgin Mary, and beyond that Protestantism doesn't think about Mary much. Unfortunately that leaves us with very few important female figures in Protestantism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I think from the broad Protestant perspective, it doesn't really matter whether Mary remained a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus Christ. The important part is that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit within the virgin Mary, and beyond that Protestantism doesn't think about Mary much. You've got your jezebels and your hoor of Babylon and uh Eve
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:You've got your jezebels and your hoor of Babylon and uh Eve You still have all the cool old testament ladies like Rut and Noemi (sp?) I think the virginity thing comes from Roman culture. Before Christianity, Romans also had a bunch of stories about how it's better to be dead than have your virginity taken away as a woman. So I guess it's no wonder they picked up on that aspect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
Well there's also Ruth and Esther in the OT. And there's Priscilla in the NT, but you don't really hear too much about what she's like other than she's always with her husband. Also my reading of Matthew 1:24-25 implies that Mary and Joseph consummated (especially since it says "until"): "When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus." Edit: ^^^oh yeah I forgot Naomi! I think we have different spellings. genola fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
genola posted:Well there's also Ruth and Esther in the OT. And there's Priscilla in the NT, but you don't really hear too much about what she's like other than she's always with her husband. Yeah, whenever Protestant churches talk about important women in the Bible, in my experience, Ruth is the go-to example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
genola posted:Also my reading of Matthew 1:24-25 implies that Mary and Joseph consummated (especially since it says "until"): Thats very clear that they had sex. It seems unconscionable to me to push the notion of "perpetual virginity" with its obvious misogynistic and unhealthy implications.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
genola posted:Also my reading of Matthew 1:24-25 implies that Mary and Joseph consummated (especially since it says "until"): Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. Do any thread classicists have a view on what the Greek implies?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0081 posted:Thats very clear that they had sex. It seems unconscionable to me to push the notion of "perpetual virginity" with its obvious misogynistic and unhealthy implications. 2 Samuel 6:23 says that Michal had no children until the day of her death, but it's very clear that the writer didn't mean "but she had children afterwards", because we know that dead people don't have kids. Matthew 1:24-25 is only "very clear" that they had sex if it's important to you that they did, I think; all it says is that Joseph definitely did not cause Jesus to be conceived and did not do anything with Mary that could have caused Jesus to be conceived. Besides, is it still pushing a notion if it's simply stating the truth? Catholics insist on Mary's perpetual virginity because she was perpetually a virgin. Catholics insist on Jesus's bodily resurrection from the dead because he rose with a physical body that could fold burial cloths, eat fish, and be touched. Catholics insist that the miracle of the loaves and fishes was not merely sharing, because food really was multiplied in a supernatural way. Part of the problem that people have with Catholic Tradition (big T, "revealed truths that are not explicitly stated in Sacred Scripture") about this, I think, is that modern society tends to distrust self-denial if it's for religious reasons. "I'm not eating meat because it's environmentally unsustainable" is okay; "I'm not eating meat for religious reasons" is not. "I'm only drinking water tomorrow to purge toxins" is okay; "I'm fasting from everything but water tomorrow" is not. It's true with hair - "Whoa, that guy didn't cut his hair for a whole year? neat!" vs "WTF, Sikh men don't cut their hair? gross!" - and it's especially true with sexuality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
In this case, it being "the truth" is sketchy. The Bible does say that Joseph held off "until she had given birth," implying he didn't afterward. Why would they state it that way? It was no more ink to say Joseph left her alone forever, but the writers didn't phrase it that way. If Mary remaining perpetually a virgin were a real and important thing, the Gospel writers sure could have mentioned it. There's also the issue of Jesus' brothers and sisters, mentioned a couple of times, and obviously James, specifically called the brother of Jesus. Getting around that requires some assumptions not in evidence, that Joseph was older and had children from a previous marriage. Perpetual virginity adds complications and assumptions that require a fair amount of hand-waving, and has no bearing on the actual act of salvation. Ockham's Razor suggests it's not a good addition to the theory. I'm OK with trads venerating Mary the way they do, but to us Protestants it seems rather unnecessary. "We do what we do because that's what we do" is a good enough reason, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
it's okay for a woman to not want to have sex with her husband. in that sense mary's perpetual virginity stands in contrast with the idea that a husband controls his wife's sexuality and is entitled to sex by virtue of being her husband see i flipped the script, it's not the teaching it's how you choose to apply it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. No Greek, but here is Aquinas quoting a bunch of Fathers in the Catena Aurea http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/CAMatthew.htm#1 posted:Pseudo-Chrys.: “Took unto him” not took home to him; for he had not sent her away; he had put her away in thought only, and now took her again in thought. Choice burn: "just as the insane think all men equally mad with themselves" Senju Kannon posted:it's okay for a woman to not want to have sex with her husband. in that sense mary's perpetual virginity stands in contrast with the idea that a husband controls his wife's sexuality and is entitled to sex by virtue of being her husband I think this is super important, and was revolutionary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
it's also basically why nunneries, rather than being the locus of women's oppression, actually offered women a route to sexual and personal independence really marriage has been worse for women than ordination or virginity, at least historically speaking
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
I listened to Dale Martin's open classes on the New Testament and he offered that take as well. That in the roman world it was seen as revolutionary to control your sexuality and family living. That's why he claimed so many well off women and second sons of roman families converted. Edit: These courses are a good listen https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL279CFA55C51E75E0
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:it's okay for a woman to not want to have sex with her husband. in that sense mary's perpetual virginity stands in contrast with the idea that a husband controls his wife's sexuality and is entitled to sex by virtue of being her husband But in Judaism, marital sex is basically considered a service from the man to his wife. Some Website posted:Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and it is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce. The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations. In addition, a husband's consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halakhic obligation to procreate. At a quick look I found sources for this going back to the 12th century, so it's not unreasonable to assume that this was already the case in Jesus' time. I guess it would be different for Roman women though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. The Greek word in question is ἕως and it in no way implies that the event later came to pass: it's used both in situations when it did later happen and when it didn't, so it can just as easily be rendered as "before." Source: a grueling semester of graduate-level Greek composition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:
... I don't like the implication here
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Is "it's none of our business" an appropriate theological conclusion like, that's His mom we're talking about here
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
pidan posted:But in Judaism, marital sex is basically considered a service from the man to his wife. that wasn't a historical statement it was opposition to the idea that venerating a woman who didn't have sex in marriage is sexist
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:In this case, it being "the truth" is sketchy. The Bible does say that Joseph held off "until she had given birth," implying he didn't afterward. Why would they state it that way? It was no more ink to say Joseph left her alone forever, but the writers didn't phrase it that way. If Mary remaining perpetually a virgin were a real and important thing, the Gospel writers sure could have mentioned it. "Ockham's Razor suggests it's not a good addition to the theory" implies that it's added; that the writers of the Gospel were thinking "okay, what's a good backstory for Our Lord? oh I know, how about a stable?" and all the early Christians that Worthleast quoted Aquinas quoting were adding to that. The Bible never explicitly says, "Jesus wasn't married," but I believe it to be both important doctrinally and factually true that Jesus did not have a wedding, did not have sex (marital or otherwise), and does not have a spouse other than the Church. The Bible does not have Joseph rebuking Jesus after finding him in the Temple, "How could you do this to your mother? You're her only child and she loves you!" but I believe it to be both important doctrinally and factually true that Mary had no other children. The Bible also never says, "Jesus is God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father"; if it did, Jehovah's Witnesses wouldn't insist that they had proof from the Bible that Jesus was really the Archangel Michael! (As for "but what about brothers"; half-brothers and step-brothers are generally called "brothers", in modern American English, unless there's some particular need to clarify. Abraham called Lot his brother even though Lot was his nephew. Many cultures consider some cousins 'brothers', at least unless there's a particular need to clarify whose parents are whose. Jesus's brothers speak to him in a way that'd be extremely rude for younger brothers, and any children Mary had besides Jesus would necessarily be younger. Jesus tells Mary that John is now her son, as if there were not already sons to take care of her. James is never called the son of Mary.) It's entirely possible that the author of the Gospel of Matthew didn't know whether or not Mary remained perpetually a virgin, or didn't consider it important. Tuxedo Catfish posted:Is "it's none of our business" an appropriate theological conclusion Catholics historically have tried to find every possible implication of every possible revealed statement; we don't really do "none of our business" except for "who, if anyone, is in Hell" and "who is in Heaven that we don't know about". 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:Catholics historically have tried to find every possible implication of every possible revealed statement; we don't really do "none of our business" except for "who, if anyone, is in Hell" and "who is in Heaven that we don't know about". This is also true of Catholic families, who will ceaselessly badger you about your personal life because once you get six or so people living under one small roof, the idea of "boundaries" starts to disappear. In other news, the Church of England has apologized for its seminarians' use of liturgical Polari, so we will no longer be seeing Evensong services that refer to God as "the Duchess." Bel_Canto fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
The idea of women gaining independence through celibacy and virginity by Mary's example even comes up in The Life of the Virgin, attributed to St. Maximus the Confessor. This is the same book that says Mary was a primary source for the Gospels, was a constant companion and contributor to her Son's ministry, and had a leadership role in the early Church.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Here's one I don't understand; if God created man, then decided man should have someone to love, so God created women out of a rib, does that make men and women unequal? If women were only created to satisfy man? It kinda goes with this virginity and sex talk. I personally believe God created all things equal. I am no less than the trees and the stars. And by that same logic I am as insignificant as a grain of sand, since we're equal. I could see where someone could use that rib thing to justify inequality. Other major religions seem to treat women like poo poo (don't probate me please) though I am hardly educated on religions, so maybe I'm wrong? Enlighten me?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
I LIKE COOKIE posted:Here's one I don't understand; if God created man, then decided man should have someone to love, so God created women out of a rib, does that make men and women unequal? If women were only created to satisfy man? Yes, many denominations use that and other bits of the Bible to cast women as inferior or subservient to men. But like everything in Christianity there is a ton of variation. You might ask HEY GAIL about how sex was perceived during the early modern. As far as I remember, the guys she studies considered there to be only one sex: male. Women were just imperfect males. But sex also wasn't an immutable concept, she linked me a wiki article about some person who started life as a woman, had kids, then became a man. Ain't no thing. e: oh, and another fun anecdote, since women were imperfect men there had to be a male counterpart to women going through puberty and having their first period, when a boy had a nose bleed they interpreted that as him starting puberty
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
I LIKE COOKIE posted:Here's one I don't understand; if God created man, then decided man should have someone to love, so God created women out of a rib, does that make men and women unequal? If women were only created to satisfy man? If humans were as insignificant to God as sand, Jesus wouldn't probably have died for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
I LIKE COOKIE posted:Here's one I don't understand; if God created man, then decided man should have someone to love, so God created women out of a rib, does that make men and women unequal? If women were only created to satisfy man? In the first Genesis account, God creates man and woman at the same time. In the second, it's precisely because there's nothing equal to Adam that God creates Eve. The second account also doesn't have gender until there are two people; only then does the Hebrew start using gendered pronouns. The notion of all things being created equal doesn't jive well with traditional Christianity either: we generally affirm that human beings are God's foremost creation, because we're the only part of creation specifically created in God's image.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:I listened to Dale Martin's open classes on the New Testament and he offered that take as well. That in the roman world it was seen as revolutionary to control your sexuality and family living. That's why he claimed so many well off women and second sons of roman families converted. This is an excellent resource and if people care to I'd love to get pointed in the direction of more material like this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 21:42
|
|
