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.
As you wish. I have no real interest whatsoever in the concept of virginity or its status but the idea that someone having sex would somehow be unchaste is something I cannot get my mind around.
It is not unchaste in its proper place. I'm a Protestant. I don't believe was Mary was a virgin throughout her whole life, and I also don't think sex is by nature dirty or sinful etc., but I do believe having sex outside of marriage is unchaste.
The what? Giving birth to a baby vaginally would not make Mary not a virgin. Only having sex makes a virgin no longer a virgin.
The Catholic belief is that not only was Christ's conception miraculous, but His birth was as well. The Blessed Virgin Mary remained wholly "in tact" after Christ's birth. The analogy of light passing through glass is commonly used.
The Catholic belief is that not only was Christ's conception miraculous, but His birth was as well. The Blessed Virgin Mary remained wholly "in tact" after Christ's birth. The analogy of light passing through glass is commonly used.
What kind of twisted motivation and magical mindset about sex and childbirth could possibly be the source of such irrational devotion to fantasy and denial of reality.
What kind of twisted motivation and magical mindset about sex and childbirth could possibly be the source of such irrational devotion to fantasy and denial of reality.
Yes, that is taking it too far. To say Mary remained a virgin (never had sex) is one thing. We can disagree about that but it is certainly possible. But to say Mary's body showed no physical signs of having gone through childbirth is to deny that she was in fact human. Any obstetrician can tell by examining a woman whether or not she has given birth. But not Mary? What on earth would be the point of that?? Even Jesus's hands showed nail marks.
The Catholic belief is that not only was Christ's conception miraculous, but His birth was as well. The Blessed Virgin Mary remained wholly "in tact" after Christ's birth. The analogy of light passing through glass is commonly used.
Well, there's another thing the Catholic church got wrong. That is utterly ridiculous. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows it is utter nonsense.
Yes, that is taking it too far. To say Mary remained a virgin (never had sex) is one thing. We can disagree about that but it is certainly possible. But to say Mary's body showed no physical signs of having gone through childbirth is to deny that she was in fact human.
It doesn't deny that she was human any more than saying that she conceived as a virgin denies her humanity.
All it says is that Christ's birth was miraculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
Any obstetrician can tell by examining a woman whether or not she has given birth. But not Mary?
That's correct. The birth of Christ was a miraculous event, just as His conception was a miraculous event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
What on earth would be the point of that??
Since the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin through her Immaculate Conception, she did not experience labor pains.
I think it is just beyond bizarre to claim that Mary, though human, was so holy that she had no labor pains and her body showed no signs of having given birth, while Jesus, who was God himself, suffered pain while hanging on the cross, and his hands afterwards had scars. Isn't that backwards? Isn't Jesus more holy than Mary?
I think it is just beyond bizarre to claim that Mary, though human, was so holy that she had no labor pains and her body showed no signs of having given birth, while Jesus, who was God himself, suffered pain while hanging on the cross, and his hands afterwards had scars. Isn't that backwards? Isn't Jesus more holy than Mary?
It's not because Mary was "so holy"; it's because she was miraculously preserved from original sin at her conception - what we call her Immaculate Conception - that she did not suffer labor pains. She suffered other pains just like any other human; but labor pains specifically are a part of the curse of original sin.
If Mary had been nailed to a cross, she would have had nail marks in her hands as well. The two things are not related.
Jesus, being the Uncreated God, is greater than Mary, who is herself a created being.
If Mary had been nailed to a cross, she would have had nail marks in her hands as well. The two things are not related.
While Mary hasn't nailmarks on hands/feet,
scripture does show us:
"and you yourself a sword will pierce so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” (Luke 2:35)
It's not because Mary was "so holy"; it's because she was miraculously preserved from original sin at her conception - what we call her Immaculate Conception - that she did not suffer labor pains. She suffered other pains just like any other human; but labor pains specifically are a part of the curse of original sin.
If Mary had been nailed to a cross, she would have had nail marks in her hands as well. The two things are not related.
Jesus, being the Uncreated God, is greater than Mary, who is herself a created being.
So...what about her mom? Why wasn't she sinless? How could Mary be sinless if she wasn't?
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.
What on earth would be the point of that?? Even Jesus's hands showed nail marks.
