Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course not. Mighty Mouse is a cartoon; Batman is a real person.
Yeah, but Mighty Mouse would have the advantage of cartoon physics while the real Batman remained subject to natural law. As we all know, cartoon characters may be blown up, dropped from great heights, crushed under immense weights or propelled at high speed into solid mass, but before long they will snap back, reinflate, reassemble and recover.
I provided your precise quote which said none of the above, if you had written then what you have written now, then there would have been no problem.
On the subject.... For thousands of years before there was a dominant Judeo-Christian ethic in the world, it was a masculine dominated planet, so I do not see how you affix the blame on an institution which reflected the prevailing world around it rather than creating it. It isn't as though the world of the first few centuries CE was teetering on the brink of a feminist revolution until the church came along and crushed it.
I believe that you simply have things reversed, it was not the church which enabled the masculine dominated world, it was the masculine dominated world which enabled the gods to be portrayed as masculine.
Finally, as I have been trying to drive across, it is silly to take any of this seriously. Arguing about any aspect of a make believe entity's nature is an exercise of the imagination. Could Mighty Mouse beat up Batman?....that sort of thing.
No idea what your first line means. lol
Of course it matters to those of us who have been harmed by the concept of a male gawd. That alone devalues us. And we can discuss that without your permission or approval and you're not allowed to define the parameters of our discussion. Go fly a kite.
Of course it matters to those of us who have been harmed by the concept of a male gawd. That alone devalues us. And we can discuss that without your permission or approval and you're not allowed to define the parameters of our discussion. Go fly a kite.
The first line was the product of a mistake identification, it was to one of your supporters that I was responding. You took up the cudgel and I fused my opponents into one. My apologies for that.
On the other hand your above post is a repeat of the rude hostility of your last one to me. If you object to what I have written, you must explain the specific objections if you wish me to know what they are. In that I have made no attempt to restrict yours or anyone else's "parameters of discussion", it baffles me as to why you would write such a thing. I get the feeling you are lashing out at enemies from the past rather than making an effort to understand what was actually written.
So...what exactly have I written that you think is not true? I wrote that the Church was a reflection of the prevailing masculine dominated society rather than the agent of its creation. If you think this is incorrect, then are you arguing that the church was the creator of the dynamic?
I was from its infancy, and remain, a supporter of the feminist movement. That does not extend to rewriting the past to fit into a modern feminist agenda. I speak of the way things were, you seem to be taking it as my arguing that things were that way because they were supposed to be that way. And since I have advanced no such argument, you are adrift in your own imagination on this.
The first line was the product of a mistake identification, it was to one of your supporters that I was responding. You took up the cudgel and I fused my opponents into one. My apologies for that.
On the other hand your above post is a repeat of the rude hostility of your last one to me. If you object to what I have written, you must explain the specific objections if you wish me to know what they are. In that I have made no attempt to restrict yours or anyone else's "parameters of discussion", it baffles me as to why you would write such a thing. I get the feeling you are lashing out at enemies from the past rather than making an effort to understand what was actually written.
So...what exactly have I written that you think is not true? I wrote that the Church was a reflection of the prevailing masculine dominated society rather than the agent of its creation. If you think this is incorrect, then are you arguing that the church was the creator of the dynamic?
I was from its infancy, and remain, a supporter of the feminist movement. That does not extend to rewriting the past to fit into a modern feminist agenda. I speak of the way things were, you seem to be taking it as my arguing that things were that way because they were supposed to be that way. And since I have advanced no such argument, you are adrift in your own imagination on this.
I see nothing rude or hostile about her comment. She telling you that she has the right to post in this forum without the need for your permission or direction.
I see nothing rude or hostile about her comment. She telling you that she has the right to post in this forum without the need for your permission or direction.
In no manner have I tried to restrict such a right, so the comment is actually nonsense. As is yours. If I am not correct here, please point out in quotes, anything I said or did that made you conclude that I was making such an attempt.
And when you can't, I bet that you aren't moved to apologize.
In no manner have I tried to restrict such a right, so the comment is actually nonsense. As is yours. If I am not correct here, please point out in quotes, anything I said or did that made you conclude that I was making such an attempt.
And when you can't, I bet that you aren't moved to apologize.
What I'm responding to is your allegation that she was rude. I don't see it.
What I'm responding to is your allegation that she was rude. I don't see it.
PegE wrote:
Quote:
Let me guess. You're a male? And I'll bet you're white too. The most comfortable and favored demographic. How are things in the ivory tower these days? Under siege from uppity women and minorities much? lol
You find nothing hostile in that? Okay, Pollyanna.
On a lighter note, God was quoted as saying 'He enjoys the smell of burning flesh', so there's proof of one sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
