Posted on 08/07/2019 3:20:08 PM PDT by ebb tide
Because sex is EEEEEEEEEVIL.
...that and if Catholicism is ever wrong about any one thing, it opens the door to them being wrong about lots of things, and if it’s wrong about lots of things, it could be wrong about salvation, and that means that the money they spent on their scapulars was wasted.
Among other things.
I think he’s trying to get the thread pulled.
i have reported his abuse multiple times. i got my hand publicly slapped for telling someone to get over themselves. i guess we will see if the rules apply to all or just us dumb prots
Really now.........
Mom Md was right.
Mary was innocent in both body and spirit which is why she was chosen by God.
We've seen that before.
He may get his wish. if someone is aching for a time out
Time will tell.
She was chosen because she was a virgin not because she was born sinless. She said “....my Savior” not “the Savior” which if English means anything she needed to be saved herself.
That comes out again and again.
That whole nonsense about Mary being innocent in body and spirit.
So if she had sex, she was not innocent, which means she had sinned, ergo, sex between a married husband and wife is sin.
It’s an honor to have you as as sister in Christ.
You as well.
When the argument goes against them they often resort to profanity and the personal attack.
Concur with that.
Who posted the deleted posts??
Such Christ-like character on display.
And if all you have is hints then perpetual Marian virginity has no place being a doctrine. Moreover, there are not scriptures that hint pretty strongly that Mary never consummated a marriage, and it would be highly atypical that the Holy Spirit would not state this. For as said, the Holy Spirit characteristically notes exceptions to the norm, even among lesser figures. From extreme age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), speed (Asahel), sterility (Hannah), a celibate marriage (David and Abishag), prolonged celibacy (Anna), birth by a virgin (Mary), ascetic diet (John the Baptist), uncharacteristic singleness (Paul and Barnabas), and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, the surpassing grace and labor and suffering of Paul, the lack of genealogy of Melchizedek, etc., to Christ being sinless, which is mentioned at least thrice.
Note that marriage is described as two sexually becoming one (if fact, not intending to have children is grounds for annulment in RC law), and in regards to only known possible non-consummated marriage, the Holy Spirit was careful to state that in David did not "know" Abishag who ministered to him. (1 Kings 1:4)
And in contrast, we have the explicit statement that Joseph "knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (Matthew 1:25)(Mt. 1:25)
Here, true to form, in order for Catholics to argue for an exceedingly rare occurrence, they must resort to arguing for another exceedingly rare occurrence, that the Greek word for "til" (heōs) does not mean a terminus is inferred.
Oh, is that why Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary?
But wait, he broke his vows, and got married. And had children. So, that doesn't make sense. Or do Lutherans believe his children were also by virgin birth?
Or, most likely, your conclusion is just another non sequitur.
Luther corrected a lot of the errors in the catholic church. He did not get them all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.