20 May 06
Injunctions are granted when one party can show that it would suffer "irreparable damage" unless the injunction was granted. I cannot imagine any free country stopping the showing of the DaVinci Code on the basis that the RCC would suffer "irreparable damage" if a movie was shown. This would be beyond irrational.
21 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you ever get sick of being an intellectually dishonest dickwad?
Do you ever get sick of being an intellectually dishonest dickwad? You quoted part of my statement, out of context, and then added a phrase right after it. Maybe to you that's an honest way to "quote" somebody, but most non-fanatics would never play such a game.
My daughter is 25 years old; why don't you keep your comments somewhat related to the subject rather than engaging in ignorant, personal attacks?
As with your earlier similiar charge, we could ask you to answer the query. However, you are missing a key element of the three-word insult, namely, the 'intellectual' aspect. Absent this key ingredient, none could rightly doubt your honesty: you really are an honest...
21 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerBecause women were consistently viewed as the cause of sexuality, from Eve's fall in the
Surely if the Church taught that sexuality was intrinsically evil, then that would apply equally to men and women? How do you construe that to be evidence of misogyny?
garden to inequitable penalties between man and woman for adultery.
Sexism is a form of misogyny. It may not be witchburning, but the oppression of women on the
basis of gender alone (sexism) is a form of hatred.
Nemesio
21 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are mistaken; the RCC does not bestow upon her a god-like power or authority. The only
But, unlike the biblical account, RCC elevates her to Mother of God, bestowing god-like power/authority where none exists. While I don't wish to get into a pissing contest about her, per se, IMO, it was not virginity that was/has been venerated so much as Mary herself.
Praying to Mary, Mother of God--- it seems to me--- does the exact opposite of what DC intends to have people believe, with respect to the promotion of 'godess-ness.'
thing the Church adds is the idea of her sinlessness (Immaculate Conception), which itself is rather
an old concept (although not formally ratified as a dogma until the 19th century [?]).
As far as the Church is concerned, Mary intercedes just like any other person in heaven, by praying
for someone on behalf of the living. Veneration does not entail worship.
But you make a fair point: Her virginity was magnified into her perpetual virginity. Her perpetual
virginity magnified into her sinlessness. Her sinlessness magnified in to her 'Queenshipness.'
And so on. And closely tied to her perfection is the idea that she abstained from sexual acts. And,
so, she became a model for women: a good woman is one who doesn't engage in sex. That model
was not applied to man to the degree that it was to women.
LH is right. It is sexism, not an active hatred. But sexism is rooted in a tacit undercurrent of
hatred, so I don't distinguish the two with any great significance.
Nemesio
22 May 06
Originally posted by NemesioSo I am mistaken whilst being not mistaken. Good for me: right?
You are mistaken; the RCC does not bestow upon her a god-like power or authority. The only
thing the Church adds is the idea of her sinlessness (Immaculate Conception), which itself is rather
an old concept (although not formally ratified as a dogma until the 19th century [?]).
As far as the Church is concerned, Mary intercedes just like any other pers ...[text shortened]... rcurrent of
hatred, so I don't distinguish the two with any great significance.
Nemesio
22 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemBrown's number of 5 million falls into that range.
Churlant posted:
"2. Actually, about 5 minutes of Googling tells me the number is between 200,000 and 9,000,000 - depending on the source, of course. You will understand that I disbelieve both extremes, however the exact number seems rooted in semantics. "
Brown's number of 5 million falls into that range.
[b]Yeah. As saying that the Hol iew and decide on that evidence on their own time, if their curiousity leads them there.[/b]
As Churlant admits, if there had been a page out there with a 10bn number, he would've posted that. Does that mean Dan Brown can now claim the Church burned 5 billion witches?
The idea of an estimate is to get somewhat close to the actual number, in this case, despite the inability to count all the corpses accurately.
If turning 50,000 into 5mn constitutes an "estimate" - so does turning 6mn into 60,000.
22 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauder"At the behest of the RCC" - is that a legal term, no1?
I believe David Irving was just sentenced to prison in Austria, in part, for suggesting that the number of Holocaust victims was less than 6 million. Following this logic, would LH approve of a law that provided for prison terms for those who minimized the number of victims of the various atrocities committed at the behest of the RCC (start with Crusades and Cathars, go to Inquistions, etc. etc. etc).
But yes, I would support laws that prevent gross and deliberate misrepresentations of the number of victims associated with any historical tragedy.
22 May 06
Originally posted by HalitoseLucifershammer has already objected that I am quoting out of context, and claimed that the first sentence of Tertullian's work (the sentence I quoted) clearly shows that misogyny is absent from his writings. I beg to differ. Thankfully, Tertullian's Latin is not nearly as rich in meaning as classical Arabic (or Hebrew), making it that little bit easier to get at his meaning, implicit or explicit.
I'm sure you would mind if I were to quote similarly selective passages from the Qu'ran.
22 May 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageGreat! I'll bring out the Sura's and since you seem to be an expert in the selective quotation of both Latin and Arabic you can clear up all the mystery by placing it in context.
Lucifershammer has already objected that I am quoting out of context, and claimed that the first sentence of Tertullian's work (the sentence I quoted) clearly shows that misogyny is absent from his writings. I beg to differ. Thankfully, Tertullian's Latin is not nearly as rich in meaning as classical Arabic (or Hebrew), making it that little bit easier to get at his meaning, implicit or explicit.
22 May 06
Originally posted by HalitoseTo read the next sentence you have to understand the first one, the one that talks about Eve and ignominy.
I assume the book would have sentences that follow.
I tell you what--instead of attacking my method, why don't you explain what Tertullian is really on about with the "ignominy" of the female condition?
22 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBy the same logic, to get to the Eve/ignominy part, you'd have to go past the "my dear daughters" (I'm quoting from memory; it could be "sisters" ) bit.
To read the next sentence you have to understand the first one, the one that talks about Eve and ignominy.
22 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammer"Best beloved sisters" is the form of address Tertullian uses to identify his target audience: women. He also introduces his topic: dress code for Christian women and more importantly why this code should be adopted (to expiate the ignominy of the first sin and the odium of human perdition).
By the same logic, to get to the Eve/ignominy part, you'd have to go past the "my dear daughters" (I'm quoting from memory; it could be "sisters" ) bit.
Perhaps you could point out the connection between frumpy dress and disobedience (the first sin)