It's pretty much only the Catholics who insist on the ever-virgin thing.
I kind of wonder about that. I mean, Mary was supposedly married to Joseph after Jesus's birth, right? Aren't married folks kind of supposed to go forth and multiply under Catholic doctrine? How does Mary staying a virgin after His birth make Jesus any more Jesus-y?
I suspect I should corner a nice Jesuit and ask him about this sort of thing.
We should find a Jesuit and make him a Buffista.
Aren't married folks kind of supposed to go forth and multiply under Catholic doctrine?
Mary and Joseph weren't Catholic. They were Jewish.
I also doubt that the Church these days would expect married couples to go forth. First, or maybe second if someone really important is around. But not as low as forth.
Mary and Joseph weren't Catholic. They were Jewish.
True. And "Go forth and multiply" was a post-Flood thing, so I think it still works for them.
"Go forth and multiply" was a post-Flood thing, so I think it still works for them.
It's been ages since confirmation class, but IIRC, there are very specific rules in the Torah about how often married Jews are required to have sex, depending on what tribe you're from.
My family descended from the AlwaysFuckin Tribe.
looks askance at dad's 12 siblings
My understanding is that there is a lot of stuff in DVC that's pretty much only from HBatHG, which had a good number of ideas exclusive to it
We were just talking about this at work -- even if there's stuff in DVC that's *only* and provably from HBatHG, you can't copyright an idea, so I'm not sure where the teeth are in the lawsuit. Except that it's conveniently timed to coincide with the movie coming out.
I wonder if the attention to HBatHG will generate enough renewed sales to cover their legal costs.
even if there's stuff in DVC that's *only* and provably from HBatHG, you can't copyright an idea, so I'm not sure where the teeth are in the lawsuit
This suit is being brought in the UK, isn't it? I've heard that libel laws are more weighted there in favor of the plaintiff and against the folks who actually write and publish the questionable stuff (as, per example, Hitler apologist David Irving being able to sue Deborah Eisenstadt and her UK publisher for libel -- a case he lost, but which the experts I read said wouldn't even have made it to court in the US), so possibly that's also so for copywright infringement/intellectual property and other writerly legal issues?
t /so very ex cloaca