Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 09-13-2013, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David B

But thanks to all for your responses. I had to go and eat some crow on the Cranmer blog, but that is preferable continuing to believe something genuine when it ain't.

Always. Well done.

We've all had this experience, you know: repeat something outside our area of specialisation in good faith, and get challenged (hopefully kindly, often viciously) by someone who actually knows for sure.

Roger Pearse · 09-13-2013, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

A good rule to follow in this business: if you can't track down the source for a quote, treat it as bogus. A lot of nonsense is spread across the internet, so before one gets het up about anything they find out there, it's best to rule out the crap factor. People make things up. People get things mixed up. People pass on stuff they haven't vetted. So, source it or forget it. There are enough well-sourced things to worry about without wasting your time walking up someone's garden path.

Well said. This should appear at the top of this forum in golden letters.

I would add that, in these days of the internet, there is enough in the way of primary sources online in English that there is no excuse for anyone with a bit of learning *failing* to reference their quotes.

Try stopping them, tho. :-(

Robert Tulip · 09-13-2013, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You can find enough misogyny in early church history. There's no need to make stuff up.

eg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tertullian

'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.”

Minimalist · 09-13-2013, 03:44 PM

Should have stuck with 1 Tim. 2

Quote:

7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not

a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

This is bad enough.

steve_bnk · 09-13-2013, 04:08 PM

Augustine was not a pleasant guy.

I believe he gets credit for a lot of the conservative bent of the RCC. A little self flagellation once in a while was good for the soul.

A man of his times.

spin · 09-14-2013, 12:34 AM

That's significant, ie that Augustine was a man of his time. We cannot judge the people of the past by our present standards. We should judge those of our own times for slavish adherence to ideas long past their use-by date. People of the past had to live in their cultural context: we don't. So give Augustine a rest. I would think he was trying to do the right thing, no matter how wrong it might appear to be today. Those who think it is the right thing to rehearse those old ideas you can do something about.

Juma · 09-14-2013, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

We cannot judge the people of the past by our present standards..

Yes we can. And we should. Exactly as we should not judge ourself by "present standards" but by best standards.

spin · 09-14-2013, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juma

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

We cannot judge the people of the past by our present standards..

Yes we can.

It certainly would have little meaning to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juma

And we should. Exactly as we should not judge ourself by "present standards" but by best standards.

How do you discern the best standards? You can only judge by the standards you are aware of today, as the people of the past did in their day and those of the future will do in their day.

watersbeak · 09-14-2013, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juma

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

We cannot judge the people of the past by our present standards..

Yes we can. And we should. Exactly as we should not judge ourself by "present standards" but by best standards.

Agree.

Consider Genghis Khan. Maybe by the standards of grassland warrior, he was a decent enough chap, wrestling, riding, roping, chucking spears, slinging arrows, and, KILLING those on the "ignore list".

His method of laying waste to entire cities is legendary. Well, according to spin, those were the standards back then.

Why not compare him to a couple of his contemporaries, not from the grasslands, not murderers, but translators: John of Seville, and Rudolf of Bruges. Those two met the same standards of conduct, as noted by Juma, which we would insist upon, today. I disagree with spin.

Sam

David B · 09-14-2013, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

That's significant, ie that Augustine was a man of his time. We cannot judge the people of the past by our present standards. We should judge those of our own times for slavish adherence to ideas long past their use-by date. People of the past had to live in their cultural context: we don't. So give Augustine a rest. I would think he was trying to do the right thing, no matter how wrong it might appear to be today. Those who think it is the right thing to rehearse those old ideas you can do something about.

Well Yabbut that is all very well until you get catholics yattering on about how their church is concerned with eternal values and moral absolutes. As some do, quite often.

It is important, I think, to point out to members of an org who claim it is concerned with absolute values that only a few generations ago it was cutting the balls off boys simply so they could enjoy their choirs more, and other things of that ilk, to give the lie to the 'eternal absolute values' claim.

David

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-13-2013, 04:08 PM	#15
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	Augustine was not a pleasant guy. I believe he gets credit for a lot of the conservative bent of the RCC. A little self flagellation once in a while was good for the soul. A man of his times.

09-14-2013, 12:34 AM	#16
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	That's significant, ie that Augustine was a man of his time. We cannot judge the people of the past by our present standards. We should judge those of our own times for slavish adherence to ideas long past their use-by date. People of the past had to live in their cultural context: we don't. So give Augustine a rest. I would think he was trying to do the right thing, no matter how wrong it might appear to be today. Those who think it is the right thing to rehearse those old ideas you can do something about.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.