Printable View
Well there you go then.Quote:
Plenty.
If you take the part in the article where he slags of Pakistanis for doing it, then take the Bishop he likes who wants good old european and christian traditions then Cohen manages to condemn something he also praises.
Cohen really seems to want to outdo Hitchens when it comes to the drunken ramblings of a neo-con ex-trotskyite.
Christian tradition has usually rejected marriage between second cousins or closer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
However, if you are reffering to the Bishop of Roschester, I'm not a fan.
Has it indeed . So Darwin didn't get married in a traditional Christian service in an anglican church to his cousin?Quote:
Christian tradition has usually rejected marriage between second cousins or closer.
And just for good measure the priest was also their cousin.
Thats a real family wedding isn't it , I wonder how the ushers managed at the door
Bride or grooms family ? Both ...OK sit in the aisle then
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Don't laugh Adrian this is serious .
You have to consider the consequences, if you marry into your own family then you only get half as many wedding gifts.
Oh geroffit, it takes an Irishman to see only the downside of everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
*ducks*
The Victorians were hardly traditionalists when it came to the Church, the historic Canon Laws were explicit on this point. That they were abandoned for the sake of Kings and Emperors is a very great shame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Ah canon laws being abandoned for the sake of Kings , so that puts the whole anglican church out of the traditional field doesn't it, which is strange when its a British writer in the article who likes talking about Britain and its heritage and values.Quote:
The Victorians were hardly traditionalists when it came to the Church, the historic Canon Laws were explicit on this point. That they were abandoned for the sake of Kings and Emperors is a very great shame.
I suppose that also rules out all the other protestants too as they broke with the historical canon .
So for traditional Christians I suppose that leaves the Copts, the African and eastern orthadox , the greek and roman catholics ,the Armenians ......wow all the churches with a long tradition(still ongoing) of keeping it in the family.
OK look on the bright side, you only have to supply drink for half as many people.:2thumbsup:Quote:
Oh geroffit, it takes an Irishman to see only the downside of everything.
*geese*
Actually, the Canons were abandoned by the Catholics, at the Third Latteran, irrc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
It really depends on how traditional you want to be. I'm with Wyclif on this one, anything after 1200 was pretty much a dead loss.
If I were the bridegroom in that marriage, I would drink a small fortune's worth of booz. Unless the bride came with potatoes. Oops, I'm starrrtin' to sound Irish meself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
*quacks*
Of the canons from the 3rd only one deals with marriage and it says bugger all about marrying cousins.Quote:
Actually, the Canons were abandoned by the Catholics, at the Third Latteran
Paddie & Dyke, now running rated F. For FAILLURE. So why, againwtfhy, was he fired?
Two options: 1 you know you are wrong 2 you really dont
Wow the inventor of "facts" is in a time warp.Quote:
Paddie & Dyke, now running rated F. For FAILLURE. So why, againwtfhy, was he fired?
So.....Quote:
What have you been smoking now? Henk Krol is in charge of his paper as always and he has been totally vindicated.
Yes you didn't get away with writing lies last time so why on earth do you think you can try the same lie again?Quote:
Didn't get away with that one hehe, much to my amusement. This was a little too much truth for altering,
wednesday, september 2
PPD also seems to block reading, and possibly other usually usefull functions. All reason gone. I am all alone.
That was evident long ago.Quote:
All reason gone.
Don't be silly , there are lots of fruitcakes in the world who invent "facts" Frag so you are certainly not alone.Quote:
I am all alone.
It's like the Batman and the Joker, I get to present facts and you can cast bollocks-dust but batman always wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
You're actually going to make me go and look it up, aren't you? Fine, off I go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I think Adrian was wrong , you havn't been smoking strange stuff , you are clearly tripping like crazy on some mad acid and have left reality entirely.Quote:
It's like the Batman and the Joker, I get to present facts and you can cast bollocks-dust but batman always wins.
When you come back to panet earth do yourself a favour and look up the meaning of the word FACT
or I could just say that it deals with money changing hands and save you the troubleQuote:
You're actually going to make me go and look it up, aren't you? Fine, off I go.
Water is wet, black isn't white, here is another one: Tariq Ramadan wasn't fired for his texts, much unlike AdrianII says. It's simple, it's not t-t-t-true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Sigh...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
You said Krol was finished because he published Ramadan's tapes. He wasn't.
And now Ramadan is finished because of a lot of things. The final straw and official reason for his termination is that he contributed to Iranian state tv.
Krol, meanwhile, is alive and kicking.
Fragony (post #2): Krol is finished, Ramadan is victorious.
Adrian II (post #13): Ramadan is finished, Krol is victorious.
Now stop spreading lies or I shall have to taunt you. :knight:
Yes as I said that got him fired, but thing is, what happened until that, didn't get him fired. So are you really sure you really have a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Wow you wrote something that could actually be correct Frag.Quote:
It's simple, it's not t-t-t-true.
In as much as most of what you write on your favourite subjects is simply not true
Was his mother a hamster and did his father smell of elderberries?Quote:
Now stop spreading lies or I shall have to taunt you.
I have farted in his general direction! :smug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Seek eachother comfort all you want it doesn't make it any less true, and it just happens to be exactly as I say it is
Forgive me, but wasn't Frag's actual point that the translation this chap provided from French into Dutch was not doctored (as claimed), and that it was an example of a socialist also being profoundly sexist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Sorry to stick my oar in, but this is what I understood Frag to have originally claimed, and this is getting tiring to read.
So, can someone else clarify the competency of this translation?
Well we agree about the translations, I would be pretty surprised if AdrianII isn't fluent in french. Thing is is that these texts aren't the reason he was fired. Now first of all, he was hired to build bridges between the west and the muslim world, lefties feel we need to do consessions apparently. These texts weren't a problem for the leftieloonies they went all the way for seomeone who says women should have their eyes peeled at the concrete at all times, they even accused the publisher of the texts, the head of the Gay-courant out of all people, of having an islamophobe agenda and publishing wrong translations, an accusation that will have lobbyists tear you apart byebye advertising revenues, byebye newspaper, byebye everything really. AdrianII doesn't seem to know how these things work. But there is more. He is also the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, bringing you terrorism since 1930, and he openly admires him when not talking to leftieloonies, praying for all the muslim-soldiers in the world and the victory of Islam, but if he did they would probably mentally block it nononononoNO it isn't true it isn't possible we agreed otherwise. Well and the texts speak for themselves. They knew all about him when they hired him, if they didn't they don't check who they give a lot of money. And in his confidence who thought he could work for the Iranians state tv in the meantime, and I don't blame him it's a pity for the lefties it came out, they had to drop him, but they would never had otherwise, might be dropped yourself in leftielalaland.
Wow you wrote something that could actually be correct Frag.
In as much as most of what you write on your favourite subjects is simply not true
It's always true, otherwise it would be too easy to shoot me down, I don't have the luxory of political correctness, and you never shoot me down. Or anyone really including AdrianII. It's like pouring water on a duck it will stay on top regardless.
In the meantime http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
for gods sake England press your legs together we live below sealevel here, that is hard enough as it is we can't have your desire on top of that.
What a short memory you have:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
It's always true, otherwise it would be too easy to shoot me down
Tribes you have never beaten me in a discussion and that is going to remain so as long as I am right and you are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The same goes for turds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Anyway, interesting link you gave there. I wonder if the 1001 Muslim inventions in that book are as fictive as the 1001 tales.
The gentleman mentions the period of the 7th to the 17th century as the time when the 'first manned flight' took place. This is a bad omen. Define 'manned flight', please.
Kites have been used as man lifters since Antiquity. Manned balloons were introduced by the Montgolfier brothers in 1783. George Cayley's manned glider dates from 1853. In 1903 Orville and Wilbur Wright came up with their flying bicycle - the first powered flight.
Where's Allah is all this?
And where's the 7th to 17th century in all this? Sure, Leonardo drew flying machines and maybe - just maybe- built one, though there is no evidence that he ever flew one. And in the thirteenth century a Chinese mandarin launched himself on a chair that had 48 rockets strapped to it. He flew alright - in very, very small pieces.
Muslims can be as smart as anyone else and Muslim societies produced some interesting inventions before religious orthodoxy and political autocracy killed the spirit of intellectual exploration and experiment in that culture. Similarly the Chinese never benefited from some of their fascinating early discoveries and inventions because Mandarin culture killed human initiative.
It was only in Europe, and by the end of the period mentioned, that the scientific worldview developed in spite of and in opposition to religious prejudice, allowing for systematic experimentation and theory-building. Property law did the rest. Henceforth a man could claim his own inventions and reap the benefits of them, eventually resulting in Europe's industrial take-off and military supremacy. The Chinese invented the rudder, gun powder and cartography alright. The British brought it back to China on superior ships with superior crews, using superior astronomical knowledge, and armed with superior guns.
So they say but that is bull, religious orthodoxy in the muslim world is a rather modern thing. It's a backward reformation in a way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II