(July 4, 2015 at 8:07 pm)doomed Wrote: Your views on transexuality?

She's a troll Doomed, but I can answer that question for you.

The Vatican originally in a subsecratum (that's a "secret teaching", one that it not publicly advertised and is only shared amongst higher clergy and the individuals it concerns) stated that transexuality is a legitimate condition and in some cases a sec change operation might be allowed. Because they couldn't procreate they could never marry or date, but they would be permitted to undertake life as the sex they identify with. There is one convent in Canada(?) I believe that has accepted a male-to-female nun on this.

Since the Same Sex Marriage movement really picked up pace? The Catholic Church is ever increasingly anti Transexual, it's an abomination and an insult to God. He designed you physically as a man, you're a man. Change it and you're a pervert. As always, on a lay level Catholics may be more supportive, perhaps in the west even a majority but the leadership is very much against it.

I don't believe they have actually described it as a moral disorder or diabolically inspired yet as they have done with same sex attractions, but at the very best and most popular interpretation at the moment is that it is a mental disorder that needs to be repressed until a cure is developed.

(July 3, 2015 at 3:53 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(July 2, 2015 at 2:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Hold up wait...

Did you not see me specify INDIAN rhinoceros? What part of "the latin name for the Indian rhinoceros is "Rhinoceros Unicornis" is untrue?

Oh for fuck sake. Are you really trying to prove unicorns exist by some lame technicality like this? Get a fucking life Huggy.

Ghosts, spirits, demons, angels with two, four, and six wings, and zombies exist but we're drawing the line at those damn cute unicorns!

(July 4, 2015 at 8:03 pm)Metis Wrote:

(July 4, 2015 at 7:53 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Wow. That's not even close to true.

Mary – Full of Grace (kecharitomene)

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.

Where does it say in the bible in reference to Mary (or anyone actually for that matter) "born without sin".

I just showed you in the post above. When a glass is "full" of water, it contains no air. Mary was full of grace; she had no sin in her.

Quote:Many saints have been filled or blessed with grace, but they were all still born with original sin according to Catholic theology.

But not protected from sin from the moment of their conception. You will not find any Church document claiming otherwise for these saints.

Quote:You've missed the core problem Randy, the one of which Anglicans particularly have with this Dogma. Mary was born without sin so as to not "taint" Jesus in some way, childbirth having the connentations of impurity and sin.

Incorrect. (And I missed nothing, btw.)

Mary was NOT conceived without sin in order to protect Jesus from inheriting Adam's sin. If that were the goal, God could have simply ensured that Jesus was conceived immaculately and left Mary's conception to the normal course of such things. But that wasn't the purpose.

Mary was conceived without sin because it was fitting that Jesus be carried in the womb of an Immaculate Mother. She was the new Ark of the Covenant which was untouched by human hands.

Quote:For Mary to be born without sin, she would have to be born under the same conditions, and her mother, and her mother....If we're all decended from Eve (which the Catholic Church actually insists is absolute infallible truth, Evolution might be a thing but Adam and Eve is too) this just doesn't work.

Nope. No infinite regression is required. God is bigger than that.

Quote:I don't doubt you can construe meanings out of scriptures that have gone through at very least four different translations by the time they reach you, but they don't have any foundation within tradition or the earliest readings of scripture.

Nope. Just Greek to English.

Quote:I turn to the Orthodox and Copts again here who also have very strong Mariological scholarship traditions, and while they too revere Mary even they agree this one just came out of nowhere.

That's their opinion, but what do you expect from churches that do not have the advantage of being led by the Holy Spirit through an infallible Patriarch?

Quote:We could actually turn this problem into what it means for the nature of Christ, how can he be fully human when his birth and nature was so inhuman, but that would be too technical, too far off topic and quite frankly the above example demonstrates the logical inconsistencies well enough by itself.

Rubbish. All you managed to do was to repeat the errors of the Protestants and Orthodox with whom you have studied. Big whoop.

Were Adam and Eve fully human? How was that possible given that their own "births" were so "inhuman"?

And Jesus' had two natures, not one. Or did you not learn that during the course of your studies?

One person. Two natures. Two wills. He had a fully human nature just as you and I have.

(July 4, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Metis Wrote:

(July 4, 2015 at 8:07 pm)doomed Wrote: Your views on transexuality?

She's a troll Doomed, but I can answer that question for you.

The Vatican originally in a subsecratum (that's a "secret teaching", one that it not publicly advertised and is only shared amongst higher clergy and the individuals it concerns) stated that transexuality is a legitimate condition and in some cases a sec change operation might be allowed. Because they couldn't procreate they could never marry or date, but they would be permitted to undertake life as the sex they identify with. There is one convent in Canada(?) I believe that has accepted a male-to-female nun on this.

Since the Same Sex Marriage movement really picked up pace? The Catholic Church is ever increasingly anti Transexual, it's an abomination and an insult to God. He designed you physically as a man, you're a man. Change it and you're a pervert. As always, on a lay level Catholics may be more supportive, perhaps in the west even a majority but the leadership is very much against it.

I don't believe they have actually described it as a moral disorder or diabolically inspired yet as they have done with same sex attractions, but at the very best and most popular interpretation at the moment is that it is a mental disorder that needs to be repressed until a cure is developed.

Source please?

If it is a secret document, how is it that you - a non-Catholic, atheist - have had access to it?

(July 4, 2015 at 9:26 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I just showed you in the post above. When a glass is "full" of water, it contains no air. Mary was full of grace; she had no sin in her.

But not protected from sin from the moment of their conception. You will not find any Church document claiming otherwise for these saints.

You are in a state of grace after you attend confession yes? One can be in grace yet also previously have been in sin.

Quote:Incorrect. (And I missed nothing, btw.)

Mary was NOT conceived without sin in order to protect Jesus from inheriting Adam's sin. If that were the goal, God could have simply ensured that Jesus was conceived immaculately and left Mary's conception to the normal course of such things. But that wasn't the purpose.

Mary was conceived without sin because it was fitting that Jesus be carried in the womb of an Immaculate Mother. She was the new Ark of the Covenant which was untouched by human hands.

An Ark that came out of a womb tainted by sin. St Anne wasn't Immaculately concieved was she? I'm afraid that's being touched.

Not to mention the cohabitation, considering marriage is based upon the willingness and capability to engage in coitus, which you claim she didn't.

Quote:Nope. No infinite regression is required. God is bigger than that.

But not so big as to require an immaculate conception. Why stop at Mary? Why not make it even more fancy?

Quote:Nope. Just Greek to English.

Aramaic to Greek to English these days, historically when these dogmas were being devised it was more like Aramaic > Greek > Latin > French > English.

Quote:That's their opinion, but what do you expect from churches that do not have the advantage of being led by the Holy Spirit through an infallible Patriarch?

The Anglicans don't care much for infalliability, they think it presumptuous for any mortal to claim to be infallible as well as proven wrong several times throughout history (as I actually demonstrated with my case about historical Catholic anti-semitism in another thread).

The Orthodox however do claim infallible teachings, however they claim infallibility comes into effect when the Church as a whole comes together. When the Bishops and the Church as a whole speaks with one voice one knows it is infallible, and this is how they too claim infallibility but they don't have so many awkward situations with it. While the Holy Office was declaring belief in Uranus (then the "Gregorian Star" to be a heresy there was usually at least one Orthodox Bishop with enough sense to know that was beyond his scope to comment upon.

Quote:Rubbish. All you managed to do was to repeat the errors of the Protestants and Orthodox with whom you have studied. Big whoop.

Pointing out the holes in your post more like, which you haven't patched up.

Quote:Were Adam and Eve fully human? How was that possible given that their own "births" were so "inhuman"?

Considering Adam and Eve according to your own infallible teaching were designed to be immortal, feel no pain in childbirth and had no capacity to recognise between good and evil as represented in the tree of knowledge than no, how could they have been? At best they were robots, albeit knowingly flawed ones apparently again also according to your teachings.

Quote:And Jesus' had two natures, not one. Or did you not learn that during the course of your studies. Therefore, He had a fully human nature just as you and I have.

Of course I know what Arianism is, but I am pointing out the paradox that to be human one must be able to experience the full emotional range to be human and yet if the teachings of immaculate conception are to be believed neither Mary or Jesus could have.

Let's take lust for example. It's a biological hardwired reaction that when ones eyes fall onto a member of your preferred sex one feels lust. One can turn away and resist, one can sit drooling over them. That doesn't matter, lust itself is a very human emotion...But it is also a sin.

For Mary to be sinless she couldn't ever experience lust, but if she couldn't experience lust she can't understand the human condition and thus cannot be fully human. She may have theoretical second hand knowledge of lust but no experiential capacity at all.

I'm not drawing from Orthodoxy or Anglicanism for this one, just basic rationalism.

(July 4, 2015 at 9:32 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Source please?

If it is a secret document, how is it that you - a non-Catholic, atheist - have had access to it?

Because it was leaked and reported upon by the Catholic News Service back in 2003, the same way Crimen Sollicitationis (the one that said rape victims of the clergy had to shut up and not tell anyone or they'd go to hell) was by a disgruntled bishop. I do not have access to the transexual subsecratum, but Crimen Sollicitationis is freely available online

http://www.religioustolerance.org/transsexu15.htm

Quote:2000-2003: Official, although initially secret, ruling by the Vatican:

After extensive study, the Vatican issued a "sub secretum" (secret) document in the year 2000 to papal representatives in each country. Unfortunately, it became obvious that many bishops did not learn the contents of the document, so copies were sent to the presidents of bishops' conferences as well. Finally, in 2003 it was discussed in the Catholic News Service. 4

As for Crimen... http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comm...23656.html . This gets the basic points across, there is a full wikipedia article on it as well as the document itself being available on the vatican website which you may wish to check but this is what most non-Catholics have against it. "You tell the authorities you got raped, you're automatically excommunicated and going to hell".

(July 4, 2015 at 9:45 pm)Metis Wrote:

(July 4, 2015 at 9:26 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I just showed you in the post above. When a glass is "full" of water, it contains no air. Mary was full of grace; she had no sin in her.

But not protected from sin from the moment of their conception. You will not find any Church document claiming otherwise for these saints.

You are in a state of grace after you attend confession yes? One can be in grace yet also previously have been in sin.

Of course. After baptism, the stain of original sin has been washed away. After confession, one is returned to a state of grace. However, Mary was protected from original sin in the first place, and she never committed a single sin during the course of her earthly life.

Quote:

Quote:Incorrect. (And I missed nothing, btw.)

Mary was NOT conceived without sin in order to protect Jesus from inheriting Adam's sin. If that were the goal, God could have simply ensured that Jesus was conceived immaculately and left Mary's conception to the normal course of such things. But that wasn't the purpose.

Mary was conceived without sin because it was fitting that Jesus be carried in the womb of an Immaculate Mother. She was the new Ark of the Covenant which was untouched by human hands.

An Ark that came out of a womb tainted by sin. St Anne wasn't Immaculately concieved was she? I'm afraid that's being touched.

Mary was born from St. Anne in the normal way, but she did not inherit the sin of Adam from her parents. This is was the Immaculate Conception is all about.

Quote:Not to mention the cohabitation, considering marriage is based upon the willingness and capability to engage in coitus, which you claim she didn't.

Why did Mary Get Married?

The Protoevangelium of James was written around A.D. 120, when some of those who had known the apostles were still alive. It records that Mary was dedicated before her birth to serve the Lord in the temple, as Samuel had been dedicated by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). This required perpetual virginity of Mary so that she could completely devote herself to the service of the Lord.

According to the Protoevangelium of James, concerns about ceremonial cleanliness required that Mary have a male protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Joseph was "chosen by lot to take into [his] keeping the Virgin of the Lord." His duty to guard Mary was taken so seriously that when Mary conceived, Joseph had to answer to the temple authorities. So Mary’s betrothal to Joseph was not in conflict with her vow of virginity.

Quote:

Quote:Nope. No infinite regression is required. God is bigger than that.

But not so big as to require an immaculate conception. Why stop at Mary? Why not make it even more fancy?

Because making it fancy was not necessary. You've run out of ideas, haven't you?

Quote:

Quote:Nope. Just Greek to English.

Aramaic to Greek to English these days, historically when these dogmas were being devised it was more like Aramaic > Greek > Latin > French > English.

Is it your contention that more than the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic? How...unique. No one else thinks so.

Quote:

Quote:That's their opinion, but what do you expect from churches that do not have the advantage of being led by the Holy Spirit through an infallible Patriarch?

The Anglicans don't care much for infalliability, they think it presumptuous for any mortal to claim to be infallible as well as proven wrong several times throughout history (as I actually demonstrated with my case about historical Catholic anti-semitism in another thread).

The Catholic doctrine of infallibility has never been proven to be wrong through any example despite the efforts of the best theologians and scholars of all stripes. The feat has surely not been accomplished by you, either.

Quote:

Quote:Were Adam and Eve fully human? How was that possible given that their own "births" were so "inhuman"?

Considering Adam and Eve according to your own infallible teaching were designed to be immortal, feel no pain in childbirth and had no capacity to recognise between good and evil as represented in the tree of knowledge than no, how could they have been? At best they were robots, albeit knowingly flawed ones apparently again also according to your teachings.

IOW, you have not clue. Your education was wasted.

Quote:

Quote:And Jesus' had two natures, not one. Or did you not learn that during the course of your studies. Therefore, He had a fully human nature just as you and I have.

Of course I know what Arianism is, but I am pointing out the paradox that to be human one must be able to experience the full emotional range to be human and yet if the teachings of immaculate conception are to be believed neither Mary or Jesus could have.

Let's take lust for example. It's a biological hardwired reaction that when ones eyes fall onto a member of your preferred sex one feels lust. One can turn away and resist, one can sit drooling over them. That doesn't matter, lust itself is a very human emotion...But it is also a sin.

For Mary to be sinless she couldn't ever experience lust, but if she couldn't experience lust she can't understand the human condition and thus cannot be fully human. She may have theoretical second hand knowledge of lust but no experiential capacity at all.

I'm not drawing from Orthodoxy or Anglicanism for this one, just basic rationalism.

So, in order to be fully human, one has to have experienced sin or at least temptation because we ordinary humans do? Wouldn't that be about the same as saying that in order to be fully recognized as a piece of fine crystal, a water goblet has to have a flaw in it?

WE are the ones who do not know what it means to be fully human because we are captivated by concupiscence and sin.

Further, as you surely know from your illustrious studies, Jesus was tempted. He just said no. The same was true for Mary.

(July 4, 2015 at 9:53 pm)Metis Wrote:

(July 4, 2015 at 9:32 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Source please?

If it is a secret document, how is it that you - a non-Catholic, atheist - have had access to it?

Because it was leaked and reported upon by the Catholic News Service back in 2003, the same way Crimen Sollicitationis (the one that said rape victims of the clergy had to shut up and not tell anyone or they'd go to hell) was by a disgruntled bishop. I do not have access to the transexual subsecratum, but Crimen Sollicitationis is freely available online

http://www.religioustolerance.org/transsexu15.htm

Quote:2000-2003: Official, although initially secret, ruling by the Vatican:

After extensive study, the Vatican issued a "sub secretum" (secret) document in the year 2000 to papal representatives in each country. Unfortunately, it became obvious that many bishops did not learn the contents of the document, so copies were sent to the presidents of bishops' conferences as well. Finally, in 2003 it was discussed in the Catholic News Service. 4

As for Crimen... http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comm...23656.html . This gets the basic points across, there is a full wikipedia article on it as well as the document itself being available on the vatican website which you may wish to check but this is what most non-Catholics have against it. "You tell the authorities you got raped, you're automatically excommunicated and going to hell".

Are you really reduced now to quoting alleged secret documents found on the Interweb? Sheesh. I can find documents on the web, too. This one is taken from the blog of a transgender Catholic:

Quote:Instance #3: The “Secret Teaching” Conspiracy

In January of 2003, John Norton of the Catholic News Service released an article titled “Vatican says ‘sex-change’ operation does not change person’s gender.” It has since been taken down, but is archived elsewhere for posterity. The article claims that a “sub secretum” (top secret) document was shipped from the Vatican to Papal representatives in each country. The document was supposed to inform local bishops on how to deal with transsexuals on a case-by-case basis. It instructed bishops not to recognize transsexuals’ gender identity and to keep them from the Sacraments of marriage, ordination, and religious life. Sex reassignment surgery does not change a person’s gender.

Norton’s article has circled around the web since publication, being cited in just about every anti-trans polemic out there. Never mind that no one seems to have a copy of the original document. Never mind that the trail ends at John Norton, a journalist.

Personally I doubt the existence of the document. The whole thing smells too much of conspiracy theory. One wonders at Norton’s motivation for exposing the “secret.”

Even if the document is real, it does not represent Church teaching. The Catholic Church does not have “secret teachings.” A “secret teaching” is an obvious oxymoron for an institution in which “teaching” means “official guidance for the People of God.” You can’t instruct people or hold them accountable to something if they don’t know the teaching.

Also, even if a secret teaching were possible, it would be extremely irresponsible – maybe even immoral – for the Church to have a clear stance on transgenderism and yet not offer it as guidance to its transgender followers.

Also, it goes without saying that even if this document exists, Norton was obviously not authorized to release it to the public. The Church doesn’t use journalists to put forth its teachings.

Finally, even if the document is real, it supposedly says among other things “… that the [gender reassignment surgery or GRS] procedure could be morally acceptable in certain extreme cases if a medical probability exists that it will ‘cure’ the patient’s internal turmoil.” This seems to open up SRS as an option to pretty much the same people permitted by the medical community to undergo the procedure.


https://catholictrans.wordpress.com/2013...genderism/

(July 4, 2015 at 8:33 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Ghosts, spirits, demons, angels with two, four, and six wings, and zombies exist but we're drawing the line at those damn cute unicorns!

It's not so much drawing the line at unicorns. It's more that you often hear people trying to justify demons, spirits and the rest. Not so much with unicorns. Not so much with Harry Potter, or the Orcs of Middle Earth. It's bad enough we have to indulge arguments with this 'popular' brand of bullshit, it's that much worse when some troll brings up another mystical pile of shite that by all accounts even the nutjobs agree is mythical.

It's funny really, I actually feel bad responding to you. Not because I feel I'm personally attacking you in any way, I don't think I have at any point, but the fact that you evidently hold these beliefs with such stalwart conviction and yet you can't really effectivley deny what I am saying. I do not believe in what you say Randy, but I take no joy in dismantling beliefs that evidently bring you comfort. Gaging from your reactions it might be best if you back out now, because this isn't going to go anywhere more comfortable.

Still, I could just respond with a tirade of latin buzzwords (ad hominem, ad bla bla bla) but for the sake of completion and the benefit of other readers I will again address each point more fully.

Quote:Of course. After baptism, the stain of original sin has been washed away. After confession, one is returned to a state of grace. However, Mary was protected from original sin in the first place, and she never committed a single sin during the course of her earthly life.

So you admit Mary could never have felt lust, could never have felt irritation, could never have felt despair, could never have felt avarice. I don't claim these are always nice feelings, but they are very human emotions. What you're describing is a Stepford Wife, not a human.

Quote:Mary was born from St. Anne in the normal way, but she did not inherit the sin of Adam from her parents. This is was the Immaculate Conception is all about.

So if a human can be conceived in the conventional manner without original sin why bother with the immaculate conception at all? You say yourself it wasn't just to make things more fancy, what actual practical purpose did it serve then?

More to the point, if God can just snap his fingers and decide person x will not be born with sin, why bother with this elaborate plan in the first place? It also adds further weight to the claims elsewhere on this forum that the God as described in Catholicism is not Good.

Quote:Why did Mary Get Married?

The Protoevangelium of James was written around A.D. 120, when some of those who had known the apostles were still alive. It records that Mary was dedicated before her birth to serve the Lord in the temple, as Samuel had been dedicated by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). This required perpetual virginity of Mary so that she could completely devote herself to the service of the Lord.

According to the Protoevangelium of James, concerns about ceremonial cleanliness required that Mary have a male protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Joseph was "chosen by lot to take into [his] keeping the Virgin of the Lord." His duty to guard Mary was taken so seriously that when Mary conceived, Joseph had to answer to the temple authorities. So Mary’s betrothal to Joseph was not in conflict with her vow of virginity.

I'm glad you brought this up, because it ties very nicely into the question I asked you previously, which you didn't answer claiming you needed some time, that Catholicism encourages telling lies.

If any other woman did this, this would be a case of the sins of omission, fraud, lack of true intention and cohabitation. The Catholic Church claims itself a marriage cannot take place if one party in the marriage is not willing to engage in procreation, indeed if one does not have sex with ones spouse one can obtain an annulment effortlessly because without the consummation without birth control, there can be no marriage. To pretend there is a marriage when there is not (As remarried divorcees do) is the sin of scandal.

Whatever happened to Newmans' Apologia, that it was better for everyone to die in the utmost agony than for a single untruth to be told? I don't deny what Joseph did was good if what you say is correct, but it certainly is not acceptable in any way according to Roman Catholic moral theology and canon law.

To this day, drawing from Old Testament ideas the Catholic Church insists a "rightly ordered" sexual act must occur for a marriage to exist. This is a cornerstone argument in official arguments against transexuality, gay marriage and hermaphrodites entering the religious life or marriage.

Quote:Because making it fancy was not necessary. You've run out of ideas, haven't you?

I've already demonstrated it was a needless frivolity.

Quote:Is it your contention that more than the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic? How...unique. No one else thinks so.

Guess again, this is the official position of the Assyrian Church of the East https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament. Flattered as I am by having the idea of this attributed to me you'll find it's been circulating since about 200 AD, that we know of anyway.

Most of the NT was written in Greek, most biblical scholars agree with that I don't deny. However, the Q source which almost everyone, even most Catholic theologians agree upon, was not written in Greek. This is actually another interesting point, a Pontifical Commission previously declared belief in Q a heresy (along with the Priority of Mark) but about a decade ago the US synod agreed that the Q source theory was correct (along with the Priority of Mark).

I'm afraid Catholic Theologians are not the only theologians Randy. They don't even agree with each other nevermind the Catholic leadership unless they're under the direct command of the Vatican which very few non-priests are these days.

Quote:The Catholic doctrine of infallibility has never been proven to be wrong through any example despite the efforts of the best theologians and scholars of all stripes. The feat has surely not been accomplished by you, either.

Randy....I-I would hope you're joking when you say this but sadly I think you are serious. On this forum alone I have demonstrated with the Jews, Usury, Astronomy and Slavery that the Catholic Church has frequently been wrong with its "infallible" rulings.

There are men like Hans Kung (a Catholic Priest, still in good standing because from 1978 to date nobody has been able to prove him wrong) and James White (A protestant theologian) who have dedicated several years of their lives proving what complete and total bullshit the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is Kung's "Infallible". http://www.amazon.com/Infallible-An-inqu...0385184832 I would urge you to read it if you desire a full scholarly discourse from arguably one of the greatest theologians of the modern age, so much so he alongside Joseph Ratiznger was one of the theological experts at Vatican II.

If the Vatican has had thirty seven years and still can't prove one old man wrong, I think that just shows its been made to look foolish. It has done a mighty good cover up though I cannot deny, I think this book is actually still banned in Italy, Portugal and Ireland.

Quote:IOW, you have not clue. Your education was wasted.

I suppose that's true, I could have studied something with some actual worth to society like medicine but instead because I happened to come from a low income family my only route into education was to take a free scholarship in bullshit and fairy tales instead. Still, we can't have everything now.

I cannot say it hass been a total waste however, it comes in considerable use whenever I get hellfire preachers like my boyfreinds family giving me trouble.

Quote:So, in order to be fully human, one has to have experienced sin or at least temptation because we ordinary humans do? Wouldn't that be about the same as saying that in order to be fully recognized as a piece of fine crystal, a water goblet has to have a flaw in it?

The difference is a water goblet does not have to be made of crystal to be a water goblet. To be fully human we must have all that entails, emotions, biological impulses, desire for companionship etc; because having these is part of what makes us a fully functioning Human. To lack one of them would be considered a mental disorder. If what you are saying is true Mary lacked a huge swathe of emotions, experiences and indeed needs (sexual desire for instance) which make us human.

Quote:WE are the ones who do not know what it means to be fully human because we are captivated by concupiscence and sin.

No Randy, I understand what being human is. I cannot say I am the best placed to describe it, there a philosophers who have spent their entire lives examining the human condition whereas I am still young. It is these teachings created by men who lived in an age of repression (sexually as well, but not what I'm thinking about) and misconception.

About one hundred and twenty years ago many doctors thought that the Female Orgasm was an actual mental disorder called Hysteria. Today we know this is a natural aspect of what it is to be female and enjoy physical stimulation.

In short, I'm saying you've got it wrong. Were this a Psychological theory we'd have tossed it out the window years ago, but because we tarted it up with gold leaf and called it "religious" (which really can mean just about anything) people feel compelled to cling to it.

Quote:Further, as you surely know from your illustrious studies, Jesus was tempted. He just said no. The same was true for Mary.

Unless you want to claim Mary was also a God you're avoiding the problem you yourself have raised.

[quote pid='982140' dateline='1436097717']
Are you really reduced now to quoting alleged secret documents found on the Interweb? Sheesh. I can find documents on the web, too. This one is taken from the blog of a transgender Catholic
[/quote]

Uh huh, so you doubt a Catholic Paper can actually tell what was created by the Catholic Church. It was real enough that a leading Catholic tabloid reported on it until it was told to shut up.

Even if we ignore the transgender subsecratum, you don't deny that Crimen was and remained an offical teaching of the Catholic Church until 2001 when Benedict pulled the plug on it. Or rather he said he did, but considering how subsecratum work who the hell actually knows?

This is ridiculous...."One must question Nortons motivation for exposing the secret". Uuuuh...Because it's pretty damned important to a lot of people who are very, very uncomfortable about the Catholic Church keeping secrets once we all heard about Crimen  and ten year old boys thinking their going to hell if they tell mommy they got the priests cock up their ass?