Encouragement for Lucifershammer

Originally posted by lucifershammer
"At the behest of the RCC" - is that a legal term, no1?

But yes, I would support laws that prevent gross and deliberate misrepresentations of the number of victims associated with any historical tragedy.

It's a term in the English language and the three examples I gave were all ordered by the head of the RCC and the civil authorities were threatened with excommunication and the overthrow of their governments if they did not comply (we had that discussion as regards the Inquistion; I presume you would not despite it's factual accuracy as regards the Crusades and the Cathars).

I'm not surprised you would support laws which would be a severe restriction on speech, but be vague enough to give RCC apologists plenty of "wiggle room". Every term you use is completely useless as a legal term up to and including "historical tragedy" (RCC apologists like you and Ivanhoe would claim the Inquistion wasn't really a "historical tragedy" based on your prior posts). Thankfully no such law could possibly survive Free Speech analysis in the US courts; if other countries insist on ignoring the basic rights of its people, that's their problem.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Perhaps you could point out the connection between frumpy dress and disobedience (the first sin)

Quite simply - Man, in his fallen state, has nothing to be particularly vain about himself so as not to dress modestly. Since the letter in question is addressed to women, it focuses on the female half of original sin. The same argument can be made (and Tertullian does make it, briefly) for the men as well.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Quite simply - Man, in his fallen state, has nothing to be particularly vain about himself so as not to dress modestly. Since the letter in question is addressed to women, it focuses on the female half of original sin. The same argument can be made (and Tertullian does make it, briefly) for the men as well.

What's wrong with wearing nice clothes? If the original sin was disobedience, why do one's clothes have anything to do with it at all? Surely one can obey God just as well in a pretty dress as in a dowdy one.

Could you give a reference for Tertullian's treatment of the male half of original sin?

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's a term in the English language and the three examples I gave were all ordered by the head of the RCC and the civil authorities were threatened with excommunication and the overthrow of their governments if they did not comply (we had that discussion as regards the Inquistion; I presume you would not despite it's factual accuracy as regards the Crusa ...[text shortened]... er countries insist on ignoring the basic rights of its people, that's their problem.

Talk about double standards. First you throw in non-legal terms, then you condemn me for doing the same. This isn't the first instance of hypocrisy from you - even in this thread.

Regarding the Crusades, the Church did not ask the crusaders to slaughter the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and it certainly did not ask them to sack Constantinople. With the Inquisitions (plural), the Church set up the Mediaeval and Roman Inquisitions - but it was the Spanish monarch who forced the Church to set up the Spanish Inquisition (not the other way around).

As to your last point on "Free Speech analysis in the US courts" - frankly, I don't give a hoot. If US courts cannot see the simple difference between criticism and slander, and cannot see why you don't end up restricting the one by restricting the other, that's their (and your) problem.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What's wrong with wearing nice clothes? If the original sin was disobedience, why do one's clothes have anything to do with it at all? Surely one can obey God just as well in a pretty dress as in a dowdy one.

Could you give a reference for Tertullian's treatment of the male half of original sin?

What one wears is a reflection of one's inner disposition. Now, Tertullian is not asking the women to dress in sack-cloth and ashes if they were to have an audience with the Roman Emperor.

I've already given you the reference to Tertullian's parallel comments on male dressing.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I've already given you the reference to Tertullian's parallel comments on male dressing.

"Of course, now, I, a man, as being envious72 of women, am banishing them quite from their own (domains). Are there, in our case too, some things which, in respect of the sobriety73 we are to maintain on account of the fear74 due to God, are disallowed?75 If it is true, (as it is,) that in men, for the sake of women (just as in women for the sake of men), there is implanted, by a defect of nature, the will to please; and if this sex of ours acknowledges to itself deceptive trickeries of form peculiarly its own,-(such as) to cut the beard too sharply; to pluck it out here and there; to shave round about (the mouth); to arrange the hair, and disguise its hoariness by dyes; to remove all the incipient down all over the body; to fix (each particular hair) in its place with (some) womanly pigment; to smooth all the rest of the body by the aid of some rough powder or other: then, further, to take every opportunity for consulting the minor; to gaze anxiously into it: -while yet, when (once) the knowledge of God has put an end to all wish to please by means of voluptuous attraction, all these things are rejected as frivolous, as hostile to modesty. For where God is, there modesty is; there is sobriety76 her assistant and ally. How, then, shall we practise modesty without her instrumental mean,77 that is, without sobriety?78 How, moreover, shall we bring sobriety79 to bear on the discharge of (the functions of) modesty, unless seriousness in appearance and in countenance, and in the general aspect80 of the entire man, mark our carriage?"

Not a word about ignominy, sin or death here, just "the will to please". The difference in Tertullian's attitude towards men and women couldn't be clearer.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Not a word about ignominy, sin or death here, just "the will to please". The difference in Tertullian's attitude towards men and women couldn't be clearer.

Read his opening paragraph again - the "will to please" is the ignominy (along with the pain of childbirth - but the corresponding pain for males is the toil of manual labour).

That he doesn't go into greater elaboration is not surprising - it's a letter to women, after all.

EDIT: In any case, I'm not arguing that Tertullian didn't think that Eve was morally the weaker of the two Parents - he seems to do so. But Tertullian's view is not the only one in the Church Fathers. For instance, there is this nice gem from Irenaeus:

Why also did it not prefer to make its attack upon the man instead of the woman? And if thou sayest that it attacked her as being the weaker of the two, [I reply that], on the contrary, she was the stronger, since she appears to have been the helper of the man in the transgression of the commandment. For she did by herself alone resist the serpent, and it was after holding out for a while and making opposition that she ate of the tree, being circumvented by craft; whereas Adam, making no fight whatever, nor refusal, partook of the fruit handed to him by the woman, which is an indication of the utmost imbecility and effeminacy of mind. And the woman indeed, having been vanquished in the contest by a demon, is deserving of pardon; but Adam shall deserve none, for he was worsted by a woman,--he who, in his own person, had received the command from God.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm

Originally posted by lucifershammer
EDIT: In any case, I'm not arguing that Tertullian didn't think that Eve was morally the weaker of the two Parents - he seems to do so.

It's hard work getting you to admit the obvious.

I'm sure they weren't all bastards.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's hard work getting you to admit the obvious.

You were trying to get me to admit that the early Church was misogynistic - a charge I reject completely, vague comments about variants of misogyny notwithstanding.

I'm sure they weren't all bastards.

Most of them would've known who their fathers were.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You were trying to get me to admit that the early Church was misogynistic - a charge I reject completely, vague comments about variants of misogyny notwithstanding.

The inferior status of women is implicit in the language of such as Tertullian, as I have pointed out. As for what misogyny means,

" There are many different forms of misogyny. In its most overt expression, a misogynist will openly hate all women simply because they are female. Some sexual predators may fall into this category.

Other forms of misogyny may be more subtle. Some misogynists may simply be prejudiced against all women, or may hate women who don't fall into one or more acceptable categories. Entire cultures may be said to be misogynist if they treat women in ways that can be seen as harmful. Examples include forcing women to tend to all domestic responsibilities, demanding silence from a woman, or beating a woman regularly. Subscribers to one model, the mother/whore dichotomy, hold that women can only be "mothers" or "whores". Another variant is the Virgin/whore dichotomy--in which women who do not adhere to a saintly standard of moral purity are considered "whores". " (www.answers.com).

I'm looking forward to your explanation of how giving women the status of the weaker, inferior sex does not constitute prejudice.b

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The inferior status of women is implicit in the language of such as Tertullian, as I have pointed out. As for what misogyny means,

" There are many different forms of misogyny. In its most overt expression, a misogynist will openly hate all women simply because they are female. Some sexual predators may fall into this category.

Other forms ...[text shortened]... ow giving women the status of the weaker, inferior sex does not constitute prejudice.b

1. And writers like Irenaeus (who, unlike Tertullian and Origen, was a bishop and wasn't a heretic or a schismatic in later life) accorded to women a superior moral status. It works both ways.

2. The Wikipedia article (that's where answers.com gets all its articles from) makes no differentiation between the pathological condition (misogyny) and the ideological one (sexism/sexual chauvinism). See the Talk: page (a lot of it is rubbish info about personal experiences - but the above-mentioned ambiguity/equivocation is clearly highlighted by a few contributors).

3. I never said anything about prejudice - I've been consistently talking about misogyny.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm sure they weren't all bastards.

I just realised - saying that Adam was morally superior to Eve makes one a "bastard", but saying it the other way around does not.

Double standards?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I just realised - saying that Adam was morally superior to Eve makes one a "bastard", but saying it the other way around does not.

Double standards?

Bingo. Well spotted.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Talk about double standards. First you throw in non-legal terms, then you condemn me for doing the same. This isn't the first instance of hypocrisy from you - even in this thread.

Regarding the Crusades, the Church did not ask the crusaders to slaughter the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and it certainly did not ask them to sack Constantinople. With the ...[text shortened]... on't end up restricting the one by restricting the other, that's their (and your) problem.

You really are a jerk. YOU were the one providing the standard for your proposed restriction of speech. Why don't you try to answer my critique of it? Because you can't and you know it. So it's off to LH wonderland with ridiculous accusations of "double standards" (where?) and "hypocrisy" (where?). Stop being a moron for a change; the law you proposed would be vague just like you want it so speech you approve of would be OK and speech you don't approve of would be a crime. That's what it's all about to people like you who hate free speech IF it is used to criticize the groups you worship.

Your second paragraph does not refute my thesis at all. You also conveniently ignored the Cathars who were ordered butchered by the Pope. Or if I say that am I "slandering" the RCC?

The US courts and people who respect freedom, know that content based restrictions on speech are dangerous to human liberty. You know it, too but since you value other things (like obedience) higher than freedom it's no big deal to you. That you won't just be honest and say it shows what a disingenous, dishonest charlatan that you are.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I just realised - saying that Adam was morally superior to Eve makes one a "bastard", but saying it the other way around does not.

Double standards?

I hope you realise I used "bastards" humorously as in "all men are bastards". I couldn't care less whether the Church fathers knew who their fathers were or not.

Irenaeus talks specifically about Adam and Eve. He doesn't generalise about men and women. He says that Eve was "stronger"--in will, I presume--and that Adam was an effeminate imbecile (note the weight of insult conveyed by "effeminate"😉 because he took the fruit from Eve without question. (His fault is all the more contemptible because he was misled by a woman!)

Tertullian, on the other hand, paints all women with the same brush. Here is a famous quote from him:

'De Cultu Feminarum,' section I.I, part 2 (trans. C.W. Marx): "Do you not know that you are Eve? The judgment of God upon this sex lives on in this age; therefore, necessarily the guilt should live on also. You are the gateway of the devil; you are the one who unseals the curse of that tree, and you are the first one to turn your back on the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the devil was not capable of corrupting; you easily destroyed the image of God, Adam. Because of what you deserve, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die.” Sounds pretty pathological to me.

How do you account for this apparent switch in New Testament attitudes: from

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28 (RSV)

to

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (RSV)

and

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 1 Timothy 2,13-14 (RSV)?

How would you qualify the following statement?

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.... "Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica.

Of course, misogyny is hardly the exclusive preserve of the Catholic church. Here is a list of writers identified as misogynists by one critic: Plato, Aristotle, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, Heinrich Kramer, James Sprenger, Rene Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, G. W. F. Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Otto Weininger, Oswald Spengler and J. R. Lucas. (My favourite misogynist of all time must be John Knox, author of "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women". Superb.)

The Church Fathers lived in a world that favoured men over women. It's hardly surprising that these culturally entrenched attitudes, which remain stubbornly persistent, should have found their way into (some) Christian writings. Thankfully, things have changed, as this quote from Pope Paul VI makes clear:

Any kind of social or cultural discrimination in basic personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, colour, social conditions, language or religion, must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design. Gaudium et Spes, art. 29, 2