Gay Marriage: Traditional Marriage Predates State and Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
441

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Bishop Thomas Wenski wrote:

Those who see “same sex marriage” as progress towards a more “tolerant” society will, with characteristic intolerance, label their opponents as “intolerant,” “bigoted,” “homophobic” and so on. However, to defend marriage as a monogamous union between one man and one woman is not bigotry. Nor are the efforts of those who seek to enshrine in state or federal constitutions the “traditional” understanding of marriage intolerant.

…

Marriage has been primarily about the raising of children (who seem to be hardwired to be best raised by a father and a mother who are married to each other). The state has had a legitimate interest in favoring such traditional marriages as a way of investing in the future of society. Of course, in recent years, the state has often retreated from vigorously promoting these interests. Sometimes this occurred through legislation (e.g. no-fault divorce laws); sometimes through judicial fiat (e.g. Roe v. Wade).

…

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/fl-gay-marriage-forum-20110326,0,3053827.story[/quote]

Hands up who’s for changing the definition and meaning of marriage and handing said sacred institution over to sodomites?

442

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
One of my favorite hymns of all time written I believe by an Episcopalian.
Absolutely magnificent: - YouTube
[b]1. HOLY, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to thee;
Holy, holy, holy! merciful and mighty!
God in three persons, blessed Trinity!

  1. Holy, holy, holy! all the saints adore Thee,
    Casting down their golden crowns around the glassy sea;
    Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,
    Which wert and art and everymore shall be!

  2. Holy, holy, holy! though the darkness hide Thee,
    Though the eye of sinful man Thy glory may not see,
    Only Thou art holy, there is none beside Thee,
    Perfect in power, in love, and purity!

  3. Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty!
    All Thy works shall praise Thy name, in earth, and sky, and sea.
    Holy, holy, holy! merciful and mighty!
    God in three persons, blessed Trinity![/b]
    I don’t care who wrote it. It gets from from my heart to God’s in most majestic fashion.[/quote]

God I sang that at school more times than I count. say what you will about Christianity, they made some belting hymns. Good find sir.

EDIT: What about the Zoroastrians? they’re still going and are at least as old as judaism?

443

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
At the last DIOCESAN Roman Catholic Mass I attended the entrance, offertory, eucharistic and closing “hymns” were Let it Be, The Greatest Love, Here comes the Sun and Goodbye Stranger.
[/quote]

That’s not change. That’s liturgical abuse, and you should report it to the Bishop. Go to a Tridentine Mass, or a Divine Liturgy if you want old school. That’s all I go to unless I don’t have a choice.

P.S. It’s not called Diocesan Roman Catholic Mass, it’s called Novus Ordo, or Ordinary Form and it should be sung with English Chant or approved hymns, and Let it Be is definitely not one of them (the rest I am not sure what they are). [/quote]

I am not titling it “Diocesan Roman Catholic Mass” I am describing it. It was a Roman Catholic Mass done in a Diocesan parish. What is wrong with describing something with, um, adjectives?

Well you’ve answered, but Goodby Stranger is a song from Supertramp about saying goodbye to a lover from a one night stand.

- YouTube if you want.

I also was appalled by the number of hosts I uncovered stuck under the pews and into missellettes.

Most of the music in maybe 250 masses I attended were old protestant hymns like How Great thou Art, Peace is flowing like a River, As the Rain Rushes Down…

[/quote]

No thanks, I don’t listen to trash. And, yeah. This is part of the problem with the liberal agenda through the 70’s. It’s turning around, but there is a definitely parishes that are still liberal.

I went into a parish and they were playing Amazing Grace. I pulled the music minister aside and asked him if he wished to be a Protestant. Of course, he said…“No, no…I’m a devout Catholic.” I asked them why he was playing a song that promoted Protestant doctrine written by a slave trader? Of course, “he shrugged me off.” So, I spoke to the Father. He admitted that it was too much trouble to deal with and that he dare not suggest that go to the correct Latin chant. I asked if it was too much trouble to stop an abuse to our Lord’s liturgy? He told me that was nonsense, it was ‘just music.’ I, then, asked him if it would be too much trouble if the Bishop commanded that he changed the music.

The Father tried to shrug me off as if I wouldn’t dare. I told him that if he didn’t immediately change the music, that I would have no other choice. I came back the next Sunday and there was some better songs and Amazing Grace wasn’t in there, but still not acceptable. So, I wrote to the Bishop and handed it to him (there was other liturgical abuses, but they are more scandalous).

I gave it sometime as a I knew the man is busy, a couple months went by and it still hadn’t stopped, and slowly went back to worse and worse music. So, I called the Bishops office and told him that since nothing was being done that I would have to send the evidence and receipts for the letters to the US Conference. He told me that there was no need and that the priest was going on vacation for a few months and that another Father would be there by today.

Two months later the man came back completely converted, solid in his formation, solid in everything from liturgy to sacramentals. No more protestant music, new music ministers, new choir (that was in the back of the sanctuary). And, now he says all his liturgies in Latin almost exclusively.

Change can be done, the reason why it happened in the first place is that the people who have always kept it conservative were no longer conservative, they were affected by the liberal agenda of change is best.

What most people do not realise is that it isn’t the Bishops and priests that have kept the tradition (I mean they are, but they usually come up with the crazy ideas), it’s the laity who keep it traditional by resisting the change. By uprising when there are heretics. And, when they fall to liberalism, it gets tough. Now, people are becoming more and more conservative and the Church is becoming more and more conservative.[/quote]

“Amazing Grace” is core to what Christianity is all about. Just because it wasn’t written by a Catholic doesn’t make it any less biblical.

444

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

They would be indecent, but let’s be honest - if anyone makes a derogatory comment about forlife and his lifestyle (or unfounded assumptions about) on this forum, you don’t come rushing to his defense.[/quote]

Horseshit. When Forlife was being called a “fag” by a poster, I stepped in and noted my contempt for it. I certainly don’t rifle through every post - some of us have full-time jobs - but in the express example of Forlife, I have, in fact, “rushed to his defense” on prior occasions.

On other occasions, I have spared no venom at denouncing posters for disgusting, outright racism (Nominal Prospect) and idiotic bigotry directed at immigrants (PRCalDude).

You’ve got over 13,700 posts on this site, and I can’t recall any one of them adding much substance at all. Aspire to be something other than a pebble in my shoe, or don’t respond to my posts. At a minimum, get your facts straight.

It’s not some idea that Capped said something “devastating” - Capped is a dullard and an uninteresting poster whou couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper sack. The point is not that what he said was "devastating’, but rather it was beyond the pale of what we should tolerate, because such comments are simply disgusting and are problematic because they invite more disgusting comments of the same nature.

So, the idea is to strangle that kind of nonsense in its crib - nip it in the bud, lest PWI become some forum where interesting debate goes away in favor of hateful jibberish back and forth between opposing ideas.

Call me old-fashioned, but PWI used to be a lot smarter and interesting - lots of different posters from different viewpoints and backgrounds had great debates, especially around election time. Comments of the kind offered by Capped are only hastening its decline, and small wonder why so many of the smart, interesting people have left.[/quote]

In TB’s defense, he did call someone out for calling me a fag.

However, Capped makes a good point that a lot of people don’t get. I’d rather be called a fag than be told constantly that I’m a degenerate bound for hell, with no integrity or commitment to my partner, and that I deserve second class citizen status because I happen to love someone of the same gender.

445

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
One of my favorite hymns of all time written I believe by an Episcopalian.
Absolutely magnificent: - YouTube
[b]1. HOLY, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to thee;
Holy, holy, holy! merciful and mighty!
God in three persons, blessed Trinity!

  1. Holy, holy, holy! all the saints adore Thee,
    Casting down their golden crowns around the glassy sea;
    Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,
    Which wert and art and everymore shall be!

  2. Holy, holy, holy! though the darkness hide Thee,
    Though the eye of sinful man Thy glory may not see,
    Only Thou art holy, there is none beside Thee,
    Perfect in power, in love, and purity!

  3. Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty!
    All Thy works shall praise Thy name, in earth, and sky, and sea.
    Holy, holy, holy! merciful and mighty!
    God in three persons, blessed Trinity![/b]
    I don’t care who wrote it. It gets from from my heart to God’s in most majestic fashion.[/quote]

God I sang that at school more times than I count. say what you will about Christianity, they made some belting hymns. Good find sir.

EDIT: What about the Zoroastrians? they’re still going and are at least as old as judaism?
[/quote]

They have a prime god but had local villiage gods and goddesses and demons. It was a way of saying that all of the gods were part of the same single force.

As for Christianity, I think I mentioned before that the majority of Jews in Jerusalem at the time of Christ joined the Christian “sect” of Judaism.

Traditional Christianity is closer to biblical Judaism that modern talmudic Judaism is to biblical Judaism. There MAY be some real Jews in parts of Africa who never had a post temple worship revolution. The temple was central to Judaism and it is gone, but the Christians had eliminated its need as Christ replaced the temple.

446

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

They would be indecent, but let’s be honest - if anyone makes a derogatory comment about forlife and his lifestyle (or unfounded assumptions about) on this forum, you don’t come rushing to his defense.[/quote]

Horseshit. When Forlife was being called a “fag” by a poster, I stepped in and noted my contempt for it. I certainly don’t rifle through every post - some of us have full-time jobs - but in the express example of Forlife, I have, in fact, “rushed to his defense” on prior occasions.

On other occasions, I have spared no venom at denouncing posters for disgusting, outright racism (Nominal Prospect) and idiotic bigotry directed at immigrants (PRCalDude).

You’ve got over 13,700 posts on this site, and I can’t recall any one of them adding much substance at all. Aspire to be something other than a pebble in my shoe, or don’t respond to my posts. At a minimum, get your facts straight.

It’s not some idea that Capped said something “devastating” - Capped is a dullard and an uninteresting poster whou couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper sack. The point is not that what he said was "devastating’, but rather it was beyond the pale of what we should tolerate, because such comments are simply disgusting and are problematic because they invite more disgusting comments of the same nature.

So, the idea is to strangle that kind of nonsense in its crib - nip it in the bud, lest PWI become some forum where interesting debate goes away in favor of hateful jibberish back and forth between opposing ideas.

Call me old-fashioned, but PWI used to be a lot smarter and interesting - lots of different posters from different viewpoints and backgrounds had great debates, especially around election time. Comments of the kind offered by Capped are only hastening its decline, and small wonder why so many of the smart, interesting people have left.[/quote]

In TB’s defense, he did call someone out for calling me a fag.

However, Capped makes a good point that a lot of people don’t get. I’d rather be called a fag than be told constantly that I’m a degenerate bound for hell, with no integrity or commitment to my partner, and that I deserve second class citizen status because I happen to love someone of the same gender.
[/quote]

Thank you. Hence is why I may react with something emotionally driven in response to what seems acceptable. For some strange reason, its ok to reply to “Forlife is a fag” with “Fuck you”, but not to reply as such to “Everbody, deep down, knows being gay is wrong.”

Oh, and to my “logic” that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot or homophobe… can we do a quick head count of the people on the forum who have opposed gay mariage and not shortly after revealed a pesonal bias against gays? TB? Boston Barrister, maybe?

So, two, that I can recall.

Maybe I’m just a betting man?

447

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

They would be indecent, but let’s be honest - if anyone makes a derogatory comment about forlife and his lifestyle (or unfounded assumptions about) on this forum, you don’t come rushing to his defense.[/quote]

Horseshit. When Forlife was being called a “fag” by a poster, I stepped in and noted my contempt for it. I certainly don’t rifle through every post - some of us have full-time jobs - but in the express example of Forlife, I have, in fact, “rushed to his defense” on prior occasions.

On other occasions, I have spared no venom at denouncing posters for disgusting, outright racism (Nominal Prospect) and idiotic bigotry directed at immigrants (PRCalDude).

You’ve got over 13,700 posts on this site, and I can’t recall any one of them adding much substance at all. Aspire to be something other than a pebble in my shoe, or don’t respond to my posts. At a minimum, get your facts straight.

It’s not some idea that Capped said something “devastating” - Capped is a dullard and an uninteresting poster whou couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper sack. The point is not that what he said was "devastating’, but rather it was beyond the pale of what we should tolerate, because such comments are simply disgusting and are problematic because they invite more disgusting comments of the same nature.

So, the idea is to strangle that kind of nonsense in its crib - nip it in the bud, lest PWI become some forum where interesting debate goes away in favor of hateful jibberish back and forth between opposing ideas.

Call me old-fashioned, but PWI used to be a lot smarter and interesting - lots of different posters from different viewpoints and backgrounds had great debates, especially around election time. Comments of the kind offered by Capped are only hastening its decline, and small wonder why so many of the smart, interesting people have left.[/quote]

In TB’s defense, he did call someone out for calling me a fag.

However, Capped makes a good point that a lot of people don’t get. I’d rather be called a fag than be told constantly that I’m a degenerate bound for hell, with no integrity or commitment to my partner, and that I deserve second class citizen status because I happen to love someone of the same gender.
[/quote]

Thank you. Hence is why I may react with something emotionally driven in response to what seems acceptable. For some strange reason, its ok to reply to “Forlife is a fag” with “Fuck you”, but not to reply as such to “Everbody, deep down, knows being gay is wrong.”

Oh, and to my “logic” that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot or homophobe… can we do a quick head count of the people on the forum who have opposed gay mariage and not shortly after revealed a pesonal bias against gays? TB? Boston Barrister, maybe?

[/quote]

If someone thought homosexuality was a sin that put someone’s soul at risk, but they acted like it was normal, they would be biased against gay people.

448

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:<<< Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion and hasn’t undergone any profound changes. >>>[/quote]Actually it has. It’s now Christianity.
@mertdawg: I find you interesting and engaging just like my dear friend Christopher. I’ll never ignore you so don’t take my lack of timely response to mean that I am, but life does call. I will answer and listen as soon as I can.

Twila writes produces and sings all her own hymns. I’ll ya what. I cannot hear this song without winding up with my hands raised to heaven and just adoring my precious Jesus. Seriously:

And how exactly did Judaism transform to Christianity?

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Obviously they were right for 2000 years.
[/quote]

Practiced =/= right.[/quote]

Experience = knowledge.[/quote]

If that’s the case then Hinduism must be the true religion seeing as they’ve existed and have been “getting it right” for more than 2,000 years whilst gaining the experience and knowledge to successfully have you reincarnated as livestock.

[/quote]

Except they haven’t been consistent, they have morphed into a complete different religion then what they were. Catholics, same truths since the beginning, same G-d, same salvation.[/quote]

Alright then, Judaism. Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion and hasn’t undergone any profound changes. Does that mean the only truths are that of Judaism?
[/quote]

Except extensive parts of Judaism are blatantly ripped off from nearby cultures.[/quote]

And later Abrahamic religions blatantly ripped off Judaism.

I think some of you are missing the point of this completely. The length of time an entity has been operating has no relevancy as to whether or not it’s a legitimate authority on a subject or subjects.

449

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
And later Abrahamic religions blatantly ripped off Judaism.

I think some of you are missing the point of this completely. The length of time an entity has been operating has no relevancy as to whether or not it’s a legitimate authority on a subject or subjects.[/quote]

That was exactly my point.

450

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

And, it does. It’s the only Church who hasn’t been in heresy and has never changed it’s traditions. Epso facto, authority on faith and morals.

451

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

And, it does. It’s the only Church who hasn’t been in heresy and has never changed it’s traditions. Epso facto, authority on faith and morals.[/quote]

Yeah well, the church defined what was heresy and ipso facto it was and is indeed unable to be heretic.

452

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
Alright then, Judaism. Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion and hasn’t undergone any profound changes. Does that mean the only truths are that of Judaism?
[/quote]

Where do you think Catholics get their truths from? Catholics come directly from Judaism. Jesus and the twelve Apostles were Jews themselves, their first converts were Jews. Catholicism can be described as Hellenistic Judaism. The Catholic (this includes Orthodox for the moment being) faith is the fullness of the Jewish faith as it is the Jewish faith planted across the whole world.

However, to say that Judaism (now) and Catholicism is the same religion would be a little misleading as the split between exclusionary Jews and Hellenistic Jews around 200 BC would eventually lead them to different paths (Rabbinical Judaism & Catholicism).

Here is an article from an Orthodox man I have corresponded with, and I’m sure our Orthodox friends will appreciate the reference to Queen Elizabeth Bible (I find that I do like the QEB better than most translations as it is faithful to the Septuagint and tradition).

453

[quote]forlife wrote:
“Amazing Grace” is core to what Christianity is all about. Just because it wasn’t written by a Catholic doesn’t make it any less biblical.[/quote]

Actually, it’s not. Two things, men are not wretches. And Grace does not appear when we do something. Grace is the free gift of G-d given to us on His free will when he wants and not when we do something.

Michael explains it better.

454

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

And, it does. It’s the only Church who hasn’t been in heresy and has never changed it’s traditions. Epso facto, authority on faith and morals.[/quote]I’m gonna go ahead and let this slide for now.

455

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

And, it does. It’s the only Church who hasn’t been in heresy and has never changed it’s traditions. Epso facto, authority on faith and morals.[/quote]

You mean ipso facto.

And the Catholic Church is subject to a lot of revision and has changed substantially.

456

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
Alright then, Judaism. Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion and hasn’t undergone any profound changes. Does that mean the only truths are that of Judaism?
[/quote]

Where do you think Catholics get their truths from? Catholics come directly from Judaism. Jesus and the twelve Apostles were Jews themselves, their first converts were Jews. Catholicism can be described as Hellenistic Judaism. The Catholic (this includes Orthodox for the moment being) faith is the fullness of the Jewish faith as it is the Jewish faith planted across the whole world.

However, to say that Judaism (now) and Catholicism is the same religion would be a little misleading as the split between exclusionary Jews and Hellenistic Jews around 200 BC would eventually lead them to different paths (Rabbinical Judaism & Catholicism).

Here is an article from an Orthodox man I have corresponded with, and I’m sure our Orthodox friends will appreciate the reference to Queen Elizabeth Bible (I find that I do like the QEB better than most translations as it is faithful to the Septuagint and tradition).[/quote]

First you’d have to substantiate the claim that the Catholic church has truths and that a man named Jesus existed as claimed in the bible rather than simply being a man from Nazareth named Yeshua.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
And later Abrahamic religions blatantly ripped off Judaism.

I think some of you are missing the point of this completely. The length of time an entity has been operating has no relevancy as to whether or not it’s a legitimate authority on a subject or subjects.[/quote]

That was exactly my point.[/quote]

In retrospect I suppose I could have constructed my statements differently, stringing people along with various religions is more entertaining though.

457

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
“Amazing Grace” is core to what Christianity is all about. Just because it wasn’t written by a Catholic doesn’t make it any less biblical.[/quote]

Actually, it’s not. Two things, men are not wretches. And Grace does not appear when we do something. Grace is the free gift of G-d given to us on His free will when he wants and not when we do something.

Michael explains it better.[/quote]

  1. It’s funny (and heartening) to hear a Catholic claim that men aren’t wretches, given your historical beliefs about original sin and fallen man. Having seen much of the original Catholic art in Italy and France, it’s blatantly obvious that the original Catholic church saw men as fallen, disgusting, depraved creatures.

  2. That said, men are clearly wretches in the biblical sense that nobody can be saved from eternal damnation on their own merits, and that hope and redemption is only possible through the grace of Christ. Which is exactly what “Amazing Grace” is all about.

  3. The song doesn’t claim that Grace magically appears when we do something. It conveys that Grace is freely offered to all who choose to submit to the will of God and accept the gift.

458

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

And, it does. It’s the only Church who hasn’t been in heresy and has never changed it’s traditions. Epso facto, authority on faith and morals.[/quote]I’m gonna go ahead and let this slide for now.
[/quote]

It’s a silly statement, because every church defines heresy as “that which conflicts with our particular authority, doctrines, and beliefs.” Obviously, the Catholic church is never going to admit to being heretical, and the same is true for every other religion.

459

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
“Amazing Grace” is core to what Christianity is all about. Just because it wasn’t written by a Catholic doesn’t make it any less biblical.[/quote]

Actually, it’s not. Two things, men are not wretches. And Grace does not appear when we do something. Grace is the free gift of G-d given to us on His free will when he wants and not when we do something.

Michael explains it better.[/quote]

  1. It’s funny (and heartening) to hear a Catholic claim that men aren’t wretches, given your historical beliefs about original sin and fallen man. Having seen much of the original Catholic art in Italy and France, it’s blatantly obvious that the original Catholic church saw men as fallen, disgusting, depraved creatures.

[/quote]

There is a commonly held theory, perhaps even majority, among historians, including many who are Roman Catholic that the theology of the Immaculate Conception (of Mary by her parents, as opposed to just a “miraculous” conception which is clearly biblical and traditional), became the theology of the Pope because he had preached that all sex was a “necessary evil” for human procreation because of the fallen nature, and that Original Sin was passed down from generation to generation by the act of sex. She was still the genetic daughter of her parents but not via intercourse according the the interpretation of the Theology as it has been presented to me.

I believe that this is one of only 2 statements made “infallably” by the Pope?

Since Orthodox don’t believe that Original Sin is passed down generationally in humans, but rather by the belief that the very molecules of nature are fallen, the “need” for the theology of the Immaculate Conception does not make sense to us-Mary’s nature would have been no more or less “fallen” had she been conceived by sexual intercourse.

Discuss…

460

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
“Amazing Grace” is core to what Christianity is all about. Just because it wasn’t written by a Catholic doesn’t make it any less biblical.[/quote]

Actually, it’s not. Two things, men are not wretches. And Grace does not appear when we do something. Grace is the free gift of G-d given to us on His free will when he wants and not when we do something.

Michael explains it better.[/quote]

  1. It’s funny (and heartening) to hear a Catholic claim that men aren’t wretches, given your historical beliefs about original sin and fallen man. Having seen much of the original Catholic art in Italy and France, it’s blatantly obvious that the original Catholic church saw men as fallen, disgusting, depraved creatures.

[/quote]

There is a commonly held theory, perhaps even majority, among historians, including many who are Roman Catholic that the theology of the Immaculate Conception (of Mary by her parents, as opposed to just a “miraculous” conception which is clearly biblical and traditional), became the theology of the Pope because he had preached that all sex was a “necessary evil” for human procreation because of the fallen nature, and that Original Sin was passed down from generation to generation by the act of sex. She was still the genetic daughter of her parents but not via intercourse according the the interpretation of the Theology as it has been presented to me.

I believe that this is one of only 2 statements made “infallably” by the Pope?

Since Orthodox don’t believe that Original Sin is passed down generationally in humans, but rather by the belief that the very molecules of nature are fallen, the “need” for the theology of the Immaculate Conception does not make sense to us-Mary’s nature would have been no more or less “fallen” had she been conceived by sexual intercourse.

Discuss… [/quote]

I’ll let my Catholic friends comment, but my understanding is similar to yours. The Fall occurred when Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden, and were no longer able to dwell in the presence of God.