Started by Pacman7331, Sep 12, 2010, 10:26 PM
Isn't the idea that the savior of mankind had to come from the conception of a child in the absence of sexual intercourse with a man - insulting to our gender?
Using Wikipedia to launch a serious critique of Catholic dogma?
Quote from: Captain Courageous on Sep 12, 2010, 11:52 PMUsing Wikipedia to launch a serious critique of Catholic dogma? BAM
Immaculate Conception: for Jesus to be a deity (God manifest in a human body), Catholic dogmatics had to get around the problem of original sin, something all of us are born with, according to Catholic teaching. The appropriate authorities resolved the problem by making Mary sinless from conception (ie. she wasn't born under the shadow of original sin), and the Holy Spirit obviously doesn't suffer from that defect.
Virgin Birth: for Jesus to be the Son of God (God manifest in a human body), he had to have God (through the Holy Spirit) as his 'biological' father, not any human male. The problem isn't sexual intercourse; it is of parentage.
Feminists are avowed enemies of the Catholic Church. Fr. John Corapi frequently makes references to this. In addition to infiltration by NAMBLA and self-appointed, amateur theologians carping at them, one of their hidden problems is agitation from feminist nunny-buns, including a few that recently ordained themselves to the priesthood.
Here is my question or point: Isn't the idea that the savior of mankind had to come from the conception of a child in the absence of sexual intercourse with a man - insulting to our gender? Is there institutionalized misandry on this point? The assumption is that if a woman is able to give birth without having a man around... This will produce salvation for mankind? I mean whew... if thats not a perfect line from the arsenal gender warfare against men I dunno what is.
MK. I mean... it just seems arbitrary. A million questions can come out of this... good ones. [...]I see that... it's still difficult to accept.
There are definite parts of this story that a feminist could mount on like a wild bull and really piss people off. I'm surprised they haven't done it yet...
Oh, they already done it; at least some radfems (maybe even Mary Daly?) refer to "God the Rapist" as -- according to the story -- Mary was simply told that she's with child by God, her consent wasn't solicited beforehand.
Was your question originally meant to be rhetorical?Precisely what haven't we answered? "Difficult to accept" does not support an assertion of misandry, institutionalized misandry, or "gender warfare against men". Will there be any give-and-take here?
Is this just the impetuousness of youth, or do you really intend to slog this one out?