Encouragement for Lucifershammer

Originally posted by lucifershammer
3. I never said anything about prejudice - I've been consistently talking about misogyny.

"Misogyny is hatred of or strong prejudice against women" (wikipedia).
So strong prejudice against women is misogyny, in my view. We can always "agree to disagree" (I can't stand that expression) on that.

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.

Please provide us with a list of documents which you would consider
representative of the 2nd-4th Church's thoughts on the relationship
between man and woman. Whenever someone seems to cite a
source from a seemingly authoritative text -- be it a standing Pope
or a Church Father -- you seem to dismiss it as that person's
opinion and not the Church's stance.

Let's level the playing field. What texts are a reflection of the Church's
thoughts on this issue, or issues in general. I think that this will
enable dialogue and exploration to develop in a more fruitful direction.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
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 (no ...[text shortened]... and eradicated as incompatible with God's design. Gaudium et Spes, art. 29, 2

I believe the appropriate term is 'derogatively', not 'humorously'. But my point still stands - why is it not double standards?

Regarding the specific Fathers and Doctors cited:

1a. Yes, Irenaeus is talking specifically about Adam and Eve. But since Tertullian's "diatribe" against women is based on Eve's sin, it's clear the Irenaeus's exegesis pulls the rug out from under his feet (and those of people who use similar reasoning).

1b. So what if there is an insult conveyed by "effeminate"? Not too long ago, I remember a furore over some newspaper calling Amelie Mauresmo "masculine". How many women do you think will take it as a compliment if you call them "masculine"? The use of "effeminate" here implies nothing as to the relative status of men and women.

1c. Adam's fault is not contemptible because the person who "misled" him was a woman, but because he had received the command from God himself. You're misreading the last line of the Irenaeus citation provided earlier.

2a. What's the point of reposting word-for-word (different translation) the same Tertullian quote we've been talking about all along? Would it help if I reposted the Irenaeus quote in full again?

2b. Try reading the Tertullian quote aloud.

3. Reading the Aquinas quote, I had a feeling it would be a complete misrepresentation of what Aquinas was trying to say and taken well out of context. I was right.

The quote is from the ST, Part I, Question 92, Article 1 - "Whether the woman should have been made in the first production of things?"*. Objection 1 in the article is:

"Objection 1. It would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things. For the Philosopher (LH: Aristotle) says (De Gener. ii, 3), that "the female is a misbegotten male." But nothing misbegotten or defective should have been in the first production of things. Therefore woman should not have been made at that first production."

First, note that this is based on the prevailing scientific/philosophical view of how women are conceived. In his replies to objections, Aquinas often repeats and elaborates on his objectors viewpoints - that is what he is doing in the quote you've provided.

Second, note the thrust of this objection - since women are "defective", God could not have created them. It is precisely this that Aquinas is trying to refute.

The Reply to Objection 1 goes:

"Reply to Objection 1. As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2)."

Aquinas is just elaborating on the objector's viewpoint, and repeating the prevailing scientific/philosophical view of the time. Biology not being his subject area, he doesn't dispute the standard viewpoint. However, he continues:

"On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female."

Whatever the biology of female conception says, Aquinas argues that there is nothing defective, philosophically speaking, about women - and both men and women were created by God.

4. There is no switch in the NT attitudes between Galatians and 1 Timothy. The first passage deals with the fruits of salvation and, more generally, about the dignity of the human person. The second passage is about the practical aspects of Church functioning and authority within the Church. That X has authority over Y does not mean that X has greater dignity than Y or that X is entitled to greater rewards than Y.

---
* http://www.newadvent.org/summa/109201.htm

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"Misogyny is hatred of or strong prejudice against women" (wikipedia).
So strong prejudice against women is misogyny, in my view. We can always "agree to disagree" (I can't stand that expression) on that.

Is there any particular reason you want to use 'misogyny' in particular as opposed to 'sexism' (a term I do not object to)?

Originally posted by no1marauder
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 wo ...[text shortened]... t be honest and say it shows what a disingenous, dishonest charlatan that you are.

"Blah blah blah enemy of freedom blah blah blah hater of free speech blah blah blah"

Honestly, you sound like George W. Bush in one of his State of the Union speeches.

Your "critique" of content-based restrictions on free speech boils down to your "Big Daddy" quote cited earlier. However, content-based restrictions already exist on free speech in your precious US law - not just in restrictions of free speech under intellectual property laws (which you admitted yourself were restrictions of free speech), but also in slander laws (where they are applicable) themselves! So, for all your name-calling and mud-slinging, you cannot escape the fact that there is blatant hypocrisy in play here.

My second paragraph was not intended to refute your thesis - it was intended to highlight the gross over-simplifications in your reading of history. Honestly, I don't know enough about the wars against the Cathars. But, to answer your question, you are not slandering the RCC if you have specific evidence that the Pope ordered the butchery of Cathars. If you don't, or your statement is based on a blatant distortion of historical evidence, then it is slander.

Finally, I do value human freedom very highly - but my definition of freedom is not in terms of doing whatever you feel like doing. That's not freedom - it's chaos.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Please provide us with a list of documents which you would consider
representative of the 2nd-4th Church's thoughts on the relationship
between man and woman. Whenever someone seems to cite a
source from a seemingly authoritative text -- be it a standing Pope
or a Church Father -- you seem to dismiss it as that person's
opinion and not the Chu ...[text shortened]... will
enable dialogue and exploration to develop in a more fruitful direction.

Nemesio

Honestly, I have no idea what a comprehensive bibliography of Church Fathers' writings on the relationship between man and woman would look like. Both the CCEL and New Advent websites have extensive collections of Patristic writings, but I have no clue which ones deal specifically with the subject you want. My own feeling is that it wasn't a particularly key topic of contention - there were other issues in Theology and Christology that needed more immediate attention.

Since the Church did not have a centralised agency like the CDF and had not held any Councils in the period in question, it's harder (but not impossible) to identify what the Church's stance towards a particular issue is. What's the Pope's stance? Is a particular teaching identified as being part of the Apostolic Tradition? What are the common and widely-held views in the teachings of Fathers who were bishops (Irenaeus and Augustine were; Origen and Tertullian weren't)? Does it occur in their [speculative] theological reflections or in their sermons/epistles?

Whenever someone seems to cite a source from a seemingly authoritative text -- be it a standing Pope or a Church Father -- you seem to dismiss it as that person's opinion and not the Church's stance.

Which "standing Pope"? None of the authors cited in this thread so far were Popes.

Besides, I think your comment above is almost a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't reflect the discussion that has been happening in this thread so far. BdN's charge was that the early Church was misogynistic - my response has been to show that, while there is evident sexism in many (but not all) of the Patristic writings, it's certainly not misogyny. The question of whether something is a person's opinion or official Church stance has not come up yet.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The question of whether something is a person's opinion or official Church stance has not come up yet.

My comment was more of a general one. It would be unfair to point
to a Church Father's writings that support your claim while stating that
another Father's writings are merely opinion.

For example, if you were to recognize the writings of St Athanasius as
a reflection of the Church's real stance but deny that St Augustine's
were not when neither had any official recognition from Church officials
is rather unfair. So, I am asking for the corpus of writings which either
authoritatively reflect the 4th-century Church's stances or, at the very
least, can be used as a reliable basis for them.

Until we know what the 4th-century Church considers 'official' we have
nothing substantial to read critically.

Can you provide a (partial) list?

Nemesio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
"Blah blah blah enemy of freedom blah blah blah hater of free speech blah blah blah"

Honestly, you sound like George W. Bush in one of his State of the Union speeches.

Your "critique" of content-based restrictions on free speech boils down to your "Big Daddy" quote cited earlier. However, content-based restrictions already exist on free s ...[text shortened]... s not in terms of doing whatever you feel like doing. That's not freedom - it's chaos.

There's no "hypocrisy" at all. I never admitted that intellectual property laws were restrictions on free speech rights as they have been understood for centuries and I gave you the basic reason why they are not. I won't waste my time with "fire in the crowded theater" arguments, but it is not "hypocrisy" to say that SOME, extremely limited restrictions on speech are allowable, while broad, vague ones like you support are not. Again your profound ignorance of fundamental rights theory, particulary free speech theory, leads you to such laughable conclusions.

What exactly is your idea of freedom?

Originally posted by no1marauder
There's no "hypocrisy" at all. I never admitted that intellectual property laws were restrictions on free speech rights as they have been understood for centuries and I gave you the basic reason why they are not. I won't waste my time with "fire in the crowded theater" arguments, but it is not "hypocrisy" to say that SOME, extremely limited restrictions ...[text shortened]... leads you to such laughable conclusions.

What exactly is your idea of freedom?

Oh yes, I remember you saying something about "free speech rights as they have been understood for centuries" before - but I don't remember a non-abusive response to the question of whether that permitted malicious slander. You keep talking about some fire in a crowded theater - why don't you actually explain to us, in clear and simple terms, why that can be legitimately restricted?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You keep talking about some fire in a crowded theater - why don't you actually explain to us, in clear and simple terms, why that can be legitimately restricted?

It's not speech. Freedom of speech does not refer to vocal emissions. It refers to the sharing of ideas.

One condition necessary for you to have a legitimate gripe is that you think the government is preventing the shouter from sharing his idea that the theater is afire.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
It's not speech. Freedom of speech does not refer to vocal emissions. It refers to the sharing of ideas.

One condition necessary for you to have a legitimate gripe is that you think the government is preventing the shouter from sharing his idea that the theater is afire.

Presumably, the guy shouting in the theatre is trying to share his idea (whether he believes it or not) that the theatre is on fire.

Besides, if the government penalises the guy for sharing the above-mentioned idea, and it is known that the government would penalise him, then surely you would not dispute that the government is at least trying to prevent him from sharing that idea.

Originally posted by Nemesio
My comment was more of a general one. It would be unfair to point
to a Church Father's writings that support your claim while stating that
another Father's writings are merely opinion.

For example, if you were to recognize the writings of St Athanasius as
a reflection of the Church's real stance but deny that St Augustine's
were not when neither had ...[text shortened]...
nothing substantial to read critically.

Can you provide a (partial) list?

Nemesio

I really have no clue how to provide such a list except to provide a complete set of Patristic writings.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Presumably, the guy shouting in the theatre is trying to share his idea (whether he believes it or not) that the theatre is on fire.

Besides, if the government penalises the guy for sharing the above-mentioned idea, and it is known that the government would penalise him, then surely you would not dispute that the government is at least trying to prevent him from sharing that idea.

I dispute that he is trying to share an idea.

People who wish to share ideas don't attempt to find an audience among people in the middle of watching a movie.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I dispute that he is trying to share an idea.

People who wish to share ideas don't attempt to find an audience among people in the middle of watching a movie.

Why would it be impossible for a person who wishes to share his idea attempt to find an audience in the middle of watching a movie?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why would it be impossible for a person who wishes to share his idea attempt to find an audience in the middle of watching a movie?

Because people become so engaged when learning about the truths that the Catholic Church has kept covered up that their full attention is commanded by the historical revelations on the screen.