Posts by complacenta
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"..only enhanced her mana"?
will someone here plz unpack for me that very odd description? -
(and plz, plz never forget, o chomping-down chilluns, that the relativization of the absolute cannot really be elsewise than the absolutization of the relative - lv frm yr fiendishish frnd, Nanny McPhee)
-
i did not quite expect to be the one this time who shouts 'oi, off topic' but here are words methinks to get us back on some kind of (t)rack
That doesn't have the same ring to it at all. So perhaps it's best to stick with absolutes after all. Which brings us to Roman Catholicism, with its absolute authority and absolute Catechism. At this point, the religious politicians will customarily chime in: Roman Catholics have opposed abortion even for child victims of rape and have run institutions where the vilest abuses have been perpetrated on children. So how can catholic teaching remotely be taken seriously?I don't have a ready answer to that, save to say that all humanity is fallible, even Mr Tiller and his murderers. But that is no reason to bin absolutes of faith, simply because people fail to live by them. Otherwise we're binning the absolute that is God - and because humanity is capable both of killing babies that would have survived outside the womb and of killing a doctor who, in apparent good faith, performed such procedures, it seems that such aspirational absolutes may not be a bad thing. Indeed, such moral absolutes might be vital if we are not to descend into an OK Corral between the pro-life and pro-choice movements.
which is why complacenta is of the opinion that 'tis the existence (!) of Roe vs. Wade itself that has made the thing, frames the thing, as non-negotiable, homogeneously disposed and therefore only capable of violently seizing upon those resisting the feel of genuinely self-righteous forceps (MY metaphorical action there)
-
the Slainthing sleeps tonight
-
cannot say otherwise, you make me feel like a beaten and cowed toddler already, who was only beginning to learn how to turn her 'why' into this superior 'how'
-
yeah, good one, CHEERS, bro! (doubtlessly a toast made in bad faith)
Islander, please explain to me forthwith this akashic archaeology of your understanding!unless you would flee to the accounting of Jesus proposed by Rev.Layne with no further homework performed on yr part at all?
why, who woulda thunkit of a "socially creative primate"?
-
and how will the archaeologists of the future go about managing to distinguish between those who were ritually, properly sacrificed, and those who merely got in the way of our greater misadventure - oh i am sorry this is totally out of bounds, right?
-
"whether rituals or whatever"
so what would he have done differently if he WAS a priest?
i'm sorry but your 'archeaological record' is too majestically rendered for me
how in earth do you yourself in relation to this record determine whether said remains are those of ritually-disposed babes or those of accidents 'of nature'?
surely we should try to make this a little bit clearer?
-
i did not at any point describe said foetus as little child
i simply asked if the logic with which the great social pressure bears
down on a very conscious selection of those to escape disaster
ie CHILDREN, is not weirdly inconsistent somhow with that 'logic' which subordinates the life of the 'lil' scrap of potentiality inside to the mother with a whole bunch of lived miles on the clock already?(forget the 'overshadowing woman, i was just tring to make an image of precedence)
-
my question, regarding the role of Dr Tiller as priest,
remains, O Islander..