Evidence for God from Science

Mastermind wrote:

Poetic_Soul wrote:You can also use scripture from the old testament. "Be fruitful and multiply." Why would God ordain marriage without sex? Wouldn't they need children to tend the household?

Some clain that Mary died a virgin.

I fail to see what this has to do with whether Mary had children or not.

Becauase some people claim that she DIED A VIRGIN.

Mary and Joseph did participate in the gift of marriage. (I say "sex" this way on purpose) The Bible tells married couples that it is good and right for them to do so. It warns against withholding for too long. And darnit, if Mary was a virgin her whole life and it meant anything the Bible would say so! But it doesn't! And why would they specify which of the apostles were Jesus' brothers if they all were according to the usage of the word? To assume something that the Bible does not say is to add to it, which is a sin. One should never assume a belief just because they want it to be true or because they were taught by men it is. I fully believe it makes sense and is biblical that Mary and Joseph had their own children. God's Word is the standard for truth, and this assumed truth is not in there, but I believe the opposed is.

And here's something else to consider, I've heard that part of the wedding ceremony included producing the blood-stained bedding that proved the wife a virgin. How would Mary and Joseph have been able to do that if they never had intercourse? I've never checked up on that custom myself though.

I'm working on a paper concerning the virginity of Mary, that is, that she remained a virgin. I'm not finished yet, but thought I'd post it in the defence of ever virgin Mary anyways, and when I do finish, I'll post the rest.

Virgin Mary

The purpose of this article is to give understanding of a Catholic's belief about Mary ever-virgin.
As well as to give proof for this belief.

The Catechism
I shall begin by showing what the Roman Catholic Church believes by quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

#499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

#501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love."

#505 …The spousal character of the human vocation in relation to God is fulfilled perfectly in Mary's virginal motherhood.

#506 Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith "unadulterated by any doubt", and of her undivided gift of herself to God's will. It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: "Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ."

510 Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin" (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is "the handmaid of the Lord" (Lk 1:38).

Common Objections
#1) A common objection to Mary remaining a virgin is that the bible says nothing about it. However the bible says:
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” John 21:25

#2) Another common objection some use to deny that Mary was ever a virgin can be found in Matthew 1:25

“And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.” Matthew 1:25

People who wish to deny that Mary remained a virgin inferred from these words that Mary had other children, or, at the very least had, to put it bluntly, sex.

“…but St. Jerome shews(shows), by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.”


May the Lord bless you and Keep you always!
Veronica
(PS, Please excuse the poor grammer in various places...I'm only 14!! )

The Catechism is the result of dusty old(and dead by now) men writing down what they though. It has no authority, unless backed up by the Bible. I can write a book about whatever I want, but I don't necessarily have authority.

"unadulterated by any doubt"

That does not refer to her virginity.

For what it's worth Veronica, I don't think your paper would be complete without addressing the specific scriptures that seem to indicate Jesus had syblings. Namely Mark 6:2-4 and Matthew 13:54-5. There are also others that describe Jesus being alerted that his family is waiting, and he then says "all of these followers are my family."

In these instances I think careful word studies of the original texts in the original language is warranted.

Good luck and when you finish post it back here!

Yeah, I haven't gotten there yet
I already have my aurgument ready, just gotta write it down.
I shall be back with the rest of it!
By the way Kmart, the Catechism is very biblical, but if we are going to discuss that, I suggest getting a new topic for it.

May the Lord Bless you and keep you!
Veronica

Veronica wrote:I already have my aurgument ready, just gotta write it down.

Does that mean that the offense you intend to include in your paper wasn't in what you posted here? Because it would be neccessary to include more of an offense than just the Catechism! I mean no offense to it by saying that, although I have major issues with it itself. If in your paper you're going to use a religious book as definitive proof of your argument, it'd be much more widely acceptable to use the Bible as your main reference, with the Catechism as a supporter of what you found in the Bible.

Here's the thing though, if you want to take Mary's supposed "perpetual virginity" and turn it into a theological and doctrinal big deal, you have to have full and obvious support from the Bible. Without that, you may as well tack the Catechism on to the back of the Bible because you'd give them equal authority! I know that Roman Catholics believe what the Pope says, (or agrees to,) must be true and of God, and that because of this the Catechism is viewed as another source of pure, undefiled Word of God, but for those who don't believe the Pope is in such a position, you must get your truth from the Bible itself, and from the Bible alone. So if the Bible doesn't by itself support her perpetual virginity, then this theory is not to be taken and made something of. If the Bible would allow for it, and she was indeed a virgin all her life, fine! That idea by itself shouldn't be so dreadfully alarming. But to take the theory and turn it into such a big deal while it's not obviously supported by the Bible is dreadfully alarming! Such a thing ought not to be done, and I believe it'd be a sin.

Poetic_Soul wrote:

Mastermind wrote:

Poetic_Soul wrote:You can also use scripture from the old testament. "Be fruitful and multiply." Why would God ordain marriage without sex? Wouldn't they need children to tend the household?

Some clain that Mary died a virgin.

I fail to see what this has to do with whether Mary had children or not.

Becauase some people claim that she DIED A VIRGIN.

And how does your quote prove she didn't? Jesus also said it's better to remain celibate but if one's will isn't strong enough, marry. In ancient times people didn't necessarily mary out of love, they also married out of need. Mary could have easily married because she needed a husband to take care of her (and this way neither of them would be looked down upon by a society that expected its memebers to marry) while both of them agreeing to remain chaste. Or her agreeing to remain chaste.

Mastermind wrote:Or her agreeing to remain chaste.

They would both have had to decide to remain chaste because it is cruel and ungodly to purposefully deprive your spouse. Paul later stated that your bodies belong not to you but to your spouses, and that you are to give yourself to them for their sake even if you don't feel the need to yourself. Mastermind, you (potentially) peg Mary for the devil himself!

kateliz wrote:

Veronica wrote:I already have my aurgument ready, just gotta write it down.

Does that mean that the offense you intend to include in your paper wasn't in what you posted here? Because it would be neccessary to include more of an offense than just the Catechism! I mean no offense to it by saying that, although I have major issues with it itself. If in your paper you're going to use a religious book as definitive proof of your argument, it'd be much more widely acceptable to use the Bible as your main reference, with the Catechism as a supporter of what you found in the Bible.

I used the Cathechism to show what the Catholic church beleives
Not to back up my, or rather the catholic churchs, beleif.
However, my evidence will be from the bible, as it is in answering the 'common objections' and as it will be for all other common objections in my artice.

Btw, it would be of a real help for me if you all could all tell me some objections you have about Mary remaining a virgin her whole life.
This is the first article (if you could call it that) I've ever written that wasn't for school assignments, and I'd lke to do it to the best of my ability.


May the Lord Bless you and Keep you!
Veronica

kateliz wrote:

Mastermind wrote:Or her agreeing to remain chaste.

They would both have had to decide to remain chaste because it is cruel and ungodly to purposefully deprive your spouse. Paul later stated that your bodies belong not to you but to your spouses, and that you are to give yourself to them for their sake even if you don't feel the need to yourself.

Sorry, I meant to say they both did.

Mastermind, you (potentially) peg Mary for the devil himself!

Veronica, my point there was that you need an offense! Yes, you do need to present the objections to the point you're making and then refute them, but you also need to go out there and claim your position! Tell the readers why they should believe you, as well as why they shouldn't not believe you. Did I make sense there? Do not only block attacks, but go out there and attack even when you're unprovoked! Jab them when they're not ready! (How unlady like!) Hit them when they're down! And after they're defenseless and by all accounts defeated, slam 'em with the best you got! Now of course I'm instructing you on how to attack myself, me being in opposition to your position!

Oh! I see! You only did the "give understanding of a Catholic's belief" part in your post, not the "as well as give proof" part! Well, either way it didn't sound like you had plans for an offense in your last post. Good luck! I'd love to see the final draft! (Is it mean that part of the reason is so I can possibly counter-attack? )

Poor Mastermind doesn't know what he's saying half the time!

kateliz wrote:Poor Mastermind doesn't know what he's saying half the time!

At least I don't go hunting Catholics.

Ouch! That was just mean!

Nobody understands me! Boo hoo, hoo!

Passion's better in your heart than your foot, MM! Or your head for that matter, if you actually have one and aren't a mindless beast prowling around "hunting" for sarcasm victims!

Got 'cha there!