Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The perverted indoctrination that sex is "dirty" is at the heart of this misguided adulation of virginity.
Yes. Obviously. And, to be fair, outside of the bounds of marriage, it is immoral. But since she and Joseph were married, they did what married couples did. And they had babies.
How is it dishonorable to suggest that she was a normal human wife?
It would be dishonorable to her. Chastity is a higher calling than marriage - Paul is clear on this - so to deny that a virgin is in fact a virgin is a dishonor.
It would be dishonorable to her. Chastity is a higher calling than marriage - Paul is clear on this - so to deny that a virgin is in fact a virgin is a dishonor.
She was a virgin at the time she had Jesus. There is zero evidence that she was called to chastity, but there is certainly evidence that she acted as a wife would act, and had relations with her husband, producing his brothers and sisters that were mentioned later on.
You don't think she understood the gestation period of a woman? She wasn't married yet. She knew that she wasn't pregnant, and wouldn't be until at least after the wedding. So yes, it was a surprise to her to be told that she was going to have a baby.
The angel didn't tell her when she would conceive. The obvious assumption is that she would conceive after having sexual relations with her husband. Her questioning "how can this be" only makes sense if she was not expecting to have sexual relations ever, or else why ask? We all know how babies are made...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
If it's "universal", you wouldn't have to make the case. I'd believe it. And so would others.
"Others" do believe it, as in literally every Christian body formed before the 1500s...
I'm under no obligation to make the case to you. I'm sharing these things with you for your benefit. Take it or leave it.
The perverted indoctrination that sex is "dirty" is at the heart of this misguided adulation of virginity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Yes. Obviously. And, to be fair, outside of the bounds of marriage, it is immoral. But since she and Joseph were married, they did what married couples did. And they had babies.
The adulation of virginity is neither misguided nor does it come from a view that sex is "dirty".
We know from Scripture that celibacy is a higher calling than marriage. There's no way BF can deny that.
It would be dishonorable to her. Chastity is a higher calling than marriage - Paul is clear on this - so to deny that a virgin is in fact a virgin is a dishonor.
It is not. Paul had a bunch of weird ideas about sex and the role of women in the church. Paul wasn't God. The only thing about the virgin birth (if you think that is what the Greek meant) is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Anything more than that is adding to what the Bible says about it.
It is not. Paul had a bunch of weird ideas about sex and the role of women in the church. Paul wasn't God. The only thing about the virgin birth (if you think that is what the Greek meant) is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Anything more than that is adding to what the Bible says about it.
It would be dishonorable to her. Chastity is a higher calling than marriage - Paul is clear on this - so to deny that a virgin is in fact a virgin is a dishonor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
It is not. Paul had a bunch of weird ideas about sex and the role of women in the church. Paul wasn't God.
No, Paul isn't God - but I put a whole lot more stock in his opinion than I do in yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
The only thing about the virgin birth (if you think that is what the Greek meant) is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Anything more than that is adding to what the Bible says about it.
So first you're going to tell me that Paul's letters can't be completely trusted because of his "weird ideas", and then you're going to imply that "adding to what the Bible says" is somehow wrong.
Does inconsistency and self-contradiction not bother you? Because it would bother me.
No, Paul isn't God - but I put a whole lot more stock in his opinion than I do in yours.
So first you're going to tell me that Paul's letters can't be completely trusted because of his "weird ideas", and then you're going to imply that "adding to what the Bible says" is somehow wrong.
Does inconsistency and self-contradiction not bother you? Because it would bother me.
I seriously doubt the bold. You have an inordinate and unwarranted trust in your church such that if they told you your cat was actually a dog you would believe them.
Most of the ideas of Jesus mother was a virgin after Jesus was born come from the gospel of Mary a non canonized book from the 5th century which they say had no Jewish undertones, where they say that Mary's mother was also a virgin, which based on the fact to Jesus a more Godly presence, so some people may believe better, as the lost saviour Adam and Eve were created sinless but sinned, and Isaac was born of a decedent of Adam, and did not qualify for purity ........ I believed that Mary was a surrogate for God and had no seed in Jesus, and Jesus is an incarnation of the living God
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
