Should we not remember Mary for her faith?
She was meant to be remembered as the one who gave birth to our Incarnated Lord and Savior, to be the bearer of God, Christ, our Lord and God. It is an awesome task that she was given. Being faithful is not all of it.
When you above refer to "unholy things" I can only assume you mean the proposition that Joseph "USED" her as a sex object and baby-making factory
Yes you do assume a lot. If she had other children, most of them were "unholy," and even if James and Jude were saints, are they on the par of our Lord? Your sense of "holiness" beffudels me.
I am glad you do not think I ever do anything like that intentionally, and I apologize for any time that I do unintentionally twist what you say.
[Kosta in 1890:] "Mary was destined to be the Mother of our Lord and nothing else, for anything else that she would be remembered for would diminish not only her special place in God's Plan but our Lord as well."
FK: "Should we not remember Mary for her faith?"
She was meant to be remembered as the one who gave birth to our Incarnated Lord and Savior, to be the bearer of God, Christ, our Lord and God. It is an awesome task that she was given. Being faithful is not all of it.
I took your statement to mean that Mary should be remembered only for her PERFORMANCE of a task, that of bearing Jesus. I was trying to point out that Mary should also be remembered for her faith, which was an outstanding example to all of us. Simply "being" a mother does not indicate faith to me.
If she had other children, most of them were "unholy," and even if James and Jude were saints, are they on the par of our Lord? Your sense of "holiness" befuddles me.
In an attempt to be fair, I'm going to say that I think when you say "unholy" you mean simply "not actively holy", as opposed to "actively evil", which is a common use of the term. (At least I'm trying. :)
Nevertheless, I'm afraid you've completely lost me. :) Which of Mary's other hypothetical children would not have been unholy? James and Jude? You must know what kind of swamp this would open. :) I can debate the argument that Mary was ever-virgin. I can argue that she had a raft of kids in accordance with God's plan. But I don't understand the argument that it was NOT theoretically possible for her to have had three kids who grew up to be holy men, and others that didn't. Virtually every mother in the Bible would have been in that same boat. One (or more) of their children turned out to be selected by God to be holy in life, and other children were not. There are a zillion examples going WAY back. :)
Of course James and Jude were nothing compared to their big brother. Concerning regular "men", my sense of holiness is just as we see in the Biblical examples. All men designated "holy" were nonetheless sinners and in need of a savior. Such were James and Jude. What am I saying that befuddles you?