1. PRIOR to HIS earthly birth.
2. IF said period is encapsulated and lain aside in some multiverse construction on reality—whenever such Timelessness of God decreed it.
3. Y’all seem stubbornly determined to build an eternal major MARIAN EDIFICE on that temporary fact.
4. I say temporary because I do not think we time-bound finite creatures can have a definitive, omniscient, all inclusive view of such a thing given that our only frame of reference is within said linear time constraints.
5. We seem incapable of construing reality OTHER THAN as linear time with a ‘once a mother, always a mother’ mentality.
6. What if MOTHERHOOD like MARRIAGE is just not any part of our eternal reality or abode?
7. What an embarrassingly huge edifice of blasphemous idolatry to then have to toss in the garbage.
1. PRIOR to HIS earthly birth.
TO the extent that it is appropriate to talk about 'before and after' in the Trinity, The Son wasn't Jesus until he was conceived.
2. IF said period is encapsulated and lain aside in some multiverse construction on reality—whenever such Timelessness of God decreed it.
See the remark about Before and After above.
3. Y’all seem stubbornly determined to build an eternal major MARIAN EDIFICE on that temporary fact.
Well, we're consistent at least. We think that in the Incarnation the Son 'took up manhood into God'. We do not view it as a temporary fact but 'now' as an eternal reality.
This is kind of important. The old joke about God giving us time to keep everything from happening at once has a serious side. From within time there was a time when the Incarnation had not happened. But such language is really tricky when talking about the eternal God.
For an amusiing, though difficult, approach to the whole deal about God's eternity, I recommend Feser's "The Last Superstition." He writes like the love child of Thomas Aquinas and Ann Coulter, and he gives a decent introduction to Catholic thought -- NOT dogma, thought.
But in the meantime, I think the confusion of 'carnal' and 'material' or 'physical' leads to an inadvertent gnosticism. The physical may be cursed, but under the curse it still has its archaic good. And as redeemed ... well who can imagine?
4. I say temporary because I do not think we time-bound finite creatures can have a definitive, omniscient, all inclusive view of such a thing given that our only frame of reference is within said linear time constraints.
Well don't make us claim more than we claim. Omniscience is not what we claim, not all-inclusiveness. But you say temporary, we don't. I don't see evidence FOR temporary. I do see reason for eternal.
As I wrote last night, the rejection of the "Reformation" was in some senses similar to the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Thought can do, has done, more than you know because your tradition rejects the thinking that did it and the books that tell about it.
5. We seem incapable of construing reality OTHER THAN as linear time with a ‘once a mother, always a mother’ mentality.
Yup. Guilty. Proudly guilty. Being a father changed who I am.
6. What if MOTHERHOOD like MARRIAGE is just not any part of our eternal reality or abode?
The closest I can come to this is my daughter's laughter when I told her that in one sense I am her father, and in another I am her brother.
Parenthood is not, or at least ought not, to be a purely carnal phenomenon. It is, in a way more remote than marriage, and consequently more of a ministry. Nancy and I have to stay around until one of us croaks. My kid gets to leave home when she's able, and whether she's here or away, as long as I can, I serve her as a guest and therefore in a certain way as (brace yourself) another Christ.
I'm wondering if you think the apostles are not apostles in heaven.
7. What an embarrassingly huge edifice of blasphemous idolatry to then have to toss in the garbage.
This amounts to saying, if we're wrong, we're wrong. If we're right then the shoe is on the other blasphemous foot. In the meantime, incoherent as we are, I think we are MORE coherent than those who disagree with us.