trustmc:
The actual verse is: “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravaging wolves. You’ll recognize them by their fruit.” (Matt 7:15-16). You seem to see only the fruit you want to see. Among the supporters of Valtorta on this thread I see nothing but the pits, to include only qualified obedience to the Church, immature appeals to emotion, side-stepping of difficult arguments, changing the subject, justification for committing sin, and avoidance of theological issues with which you disagree.
Honestly Mike, don’t you think you and Diane are only seeing the fruit you want to see? I dont’ think I am following qualified obediance.
I think you think any appeals to the emotion are mature. It seems to me you think any appeal to emotion is immature. That all decisions of faith are feeling-free.
Am I correct?
trustmc:
Let me put Lux’s arguments in simple terms you can understand regarding Eve, as this was also my critique of Valtorta’s book in my first post. Eve’s original sin could not have been motivated by lust because lust did not exist prior to the original sin. Yes, sex existed for the purpose of procreation, but the motivation for sex was marital love between Adam and Eve, not lust. Lust was a result of the original sin, not the cause of it.
I am side-stepping this argument because I feel unqualified to comment on it. And I think you are too. As I what is said in the book takes more than a skim to grasp. And you haven’t read it at all. You are not in a position to comment on what the book said about this because you never read it or even saw a paragraph from the book on the subject.
The detractors of he book have done a lot of twisting about whats in the book. eve does ntohave sex with the serpent!
I don’t know if The Poem says that the Original sin ws motivated by lust or if it is intertwined by it or comes immediately after. So why argue about what the book says about it if we don’t know thats what it says?
Thats why I am sidestepping it.
trustmc:
When I originally objected to Valtorta’s depiction of Eve having sex with the serpent, it was not only because of the vulgarity of such imagery, but because the underlying lust in such an act would have been impossible. That this was “revealed” to her made me suspect the work to be of dubious origin. This is the type of subtle error against Church teaching that are ubiquitous in Valtorta’s volumes. That you and pio didn’t catch it or any other error only makes my point more clear. We cite this error frequently because it should be most obvious to even those who are poorly catechized, but apparently it is not.
Mike
I read the book Mike, and Eve doesn’t have sex with the serpent. I absolutely am sure this was in the book. I skimmed that section and I
know that wasn’t in there! i wouldn’t have noticed that!So you are therefore battling windmills with this argument.
yes and I agree the imagery is vulgar. But its not in the Poem!
It does say he caressed her. A brief touch which is all it takes to arouse lust. I don’t know at what point the caress occured. I make sure that this is outrageous to some as its not in the Bible. But the details aren’t in the Bible. Its esy to refute something you hear out of context, but not accurate. You andI would both have to rad the context to have an intelligent discussion on it.
You say the idea that a caress occured or that tere ws lust in Eve is contrary to Church’s teaching. But I think the word of Cardinal Radzinger supercedes yours, when he says there is nothing in the book against faith and morals. He either has read it or he is trusting well-educated faithful theologians of the Church, who were well aware of the discusion on Eve.
And I have heard this a million times before in my old faith tradition. “That person must have a deceptive spirit!” 
