Won't need to since she is posting articles from Bible teachers and pastors - not her own work. She doesn't post them and then challenge everyone to prove the writer wrong like you did here. Your intent was crystal clear in writing what you did and the fact that you are incapable of hearing opposing views without accusing others of not reading, being ignorant, lacking intelligence, etc., only proves it.
I wrote and posted this for two reasons:
1) It is the absolute unvarnished truth that needed to be said and heard.
Unvarnished??? Nope, you slathered on the varnish so thick there was very little "truth" showing at all. Do you think you stated anything new or undiscovered over the dozens of times this topic has come up in the past?
2) Not one of you can say that "There is no scriptural backing for the Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary." If you are honest the very most you can say is: "There is scriptural backing, we just choose to read/ interpret it differently."
There you go again. We must not be "honest" if we reject your conclusion? Here's the thing verga, IF there really was Scriptural proof of this dogma I WOULD accept it. You really don't have undeniable proof from Scripture and more than a few places in Scripture that prove the opposite. It is you who seems to be unwilling to be honest about them.
Why can't you just agree to disagree seeing as this is not a salvific tenet of the Christian faith? I certainly can. I'll bet metmom can, too.
No it's not but wresting the scriptures certainly could be.
There you go again. We must not be "honest" if we reject your conclusion?
Difficulty withy the reading again. Go back, I clear said there is scriptural proof, You (ALL) just don't accept it.
Yup, I can, too.