The Assumption of Mary: Is it against Christian sensibilities?

The Assumption of Mary is one of those Catholic dogmas that makes many non-Catholic Christians squirm. I don't think most Christians have done extensive exegesis or historical study of the dogma, but it does seem to be repugnant to many at the level of sensibility--the gut reaction. Should it? Ironically, the Marian dogmas were the first dogmas I came to believe on my journey to Catholicism. They are:

1) Mary is the Theotokos. She isn't merely the mother of the human Jesus. Because Jesus is fully God and fully man in one person, Mary is the mother of that entire person. Thus, she is the mother of God.

2) Mary is perpetually virgin--before and after the birth of Christ. (I'll talk about this another time)

3) Mary was Immaculately Conceived- by God's grace Mary was saved from sin at her conception (full of grace) since she was set aside at her conception to be the Arc of the New Covenant.

4) Mary's was Assumed into Heaven.

Let's set aside the sola scriptura debate for a moment and ask ourselves some fundamental questions that might give us insight into the Assumption and why it is true and not against Christian sensibilities.

• What would give Christ the most glory regarding the treatment of His Mother?
• How are the Ascension of Christ and the Assumption of Mary qualitatively different?
• Did God assume anyone else into heaven in scripture?
• We have relics of all the apostles who died. Why not Mary?
• If the Assumption of Mary is true, does it make Christ more or less important?
• Why do I believe it isn't true and what validates that belief?
• If it was within your power to keep your mother from rotting in a grave, would you stop her from doing so?

I believe the answers to these questions and others make, at the least, the Assumption not against Christian sensibilities.

(Next: The Assumption in Church history)