Sexualisation of very young girls - US style

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

H_A Mossrose quoted a very good and accurate scripture specifically for you to read.

It is all opinion.

You seem to have taken offense to the scripture?

I do not give it enough consideration to take offence.

This is an example of seeing injury and insult where none was intended. Scripture says the cross of Jesus Christ is foolishness to those who are perishing. Mossrose directly then told you, you are perishing based on this scripture because you being an unbeliever probably view the cross of Christ as foolishness. This is a good example of another scripture which says that open rebuke is better than hidden love.

Well Mossrose is entitled to her opinions but I am not under any obligation to go along with them. However, I thank her for her kind words.

[Maranatha]

You do realize that the apostles did not write the gospels nor are the gospels simply based on the memories or notes of the apostles. We can talk about the oral tradition but for example John's gospel seems to be eons beyond what the simple men chosen to be apostles were capable of. And I would be interested to know what exactly you - I mean you - understand by them being given the mind of Christ and when you think this happened.

So first the gospels are not what they (the apostles) said and again we need to understand what you mean by what Christ wanted them to know. BTW, how do you explain the changing expectation of the 2nd coming?

What gospel are you referencing concerning the Spirit teaching us and, once again, how do you understand how the Spirit teaches us and what the truths of Christ are?

Finally, you should be a little bit more Christian when addressing one who might not have the same beliefs or 'understanding' you do. It's called 'do unto others' unless you like to be talked down to and repeatedly called ignorant - which is an entirely different issue.

Sorry but I don't believe you have the same beliefs as any christian I know. And I am old.

You can argue with someone else about you novel ideas.

[thormas]

Thank you for the example, Esther. I didn't expect you to try, and you proved me wrong. Kudos.

I don't see any evidence of H_A being offended, though. She literally thanked her lecturer; you're reading between the lines because you want to believe she was insulted by it.

I don't mean to insult you, but Christian scripture doesn't mean much to me. It can be cited to praise or insult, and it can be beautiful or hateful - all depending on how it's used by the person citing it. Nonetheless, as an atheist I don't see it as particularly truthful or meaningful, which is why I can never be insulted by it. I'm pretty sure H_A might say something similar (I've known her online for a long time).

I agree with your take on Hypatia's reaction but she can speak for herself:+}

I understand your take on the Christian scriptures and it is more than a bit amazing to me that so many of those who give chapter and verse - use their 'holy' book to justify and practice sarcasm, insults, attacks, condemnations and damnation while the actual message of love and mercy is neglected or forgotten altogether.

As a Christian I also can never be insulted by another's misuse of our holy books - since there is a difference between parroting words ...............and wisdom arrived at because of those words.

[thormas]

Sorry but I don't believe you have the same beliefs as any christian I know. And I am old.

You can argue with someone else about you novel ideas.

Well, you don't know many Christians who are not literalists or fundamentalists then. Or many Christians who have actually studied the bible and theology for years. And old give us years, it doesn't give wisdom - that's earned:+}

There are a number of "all hat and no cattle" Christians on the site: lots of quotes but (seemingly) no understanding or insight into those quotes. It's one thing to parrot a quote, it's another thing entirely to have enough understanding to engage in a serious and civil conversation. And that also means without using the word of God to condemn other Christians..............simply because they don't fit your particular reading of the scriptures.

If you're ever ready to have an actual discussion..........let us know.

[Whateverman]

Thank you for the example, Esther. I didn't expect you to try, and you proved me wrong. Kudos.

I don't see any evidence of H_A being offended, though. She literally thanked her lecturer; you're reading between the lines because you want to believe she was insulted by it.

I don't mean to insult you, but Christian scripture doesn't mean much to me. It can be cited to praise or insult, and it can be beautiful or hateful - all depending on how it's used by the person citing it. Nonetheless, as an atheist I don't see it as particularly truthful or meaningful, which is why I can never be insulted by it. I'm pretty sure H_A might say something similar (I've known her online for a long time).

I agree with your take on Hypatia's reaction but she can speak for herself:+}

I understand your take on the Christian scriptures and it is more than a bit amazing to me that so many of those who give chapter and verse - use their 'holy' book to justify and practice sarcasm, insults, attacks, condemnations and damnation while the actual message of love and mercy is neglected or forgotten altogether.

As a Christian I also can never be insulted by another's misuse of our holy books - since there is a difference between parroting words ...............and wisdom arrived at because of those words.

As an aside, I'd like to clarify something I wrote. When I typed the red text, I meant I don't find scripture necessarily more truthful/meaningful than any other written material. I didn't mean to imply the bible contains neither.

[Mountain Man]

No answers to my questions?

You have shown nothing. You simply give a quote and ramble on about hell, heresy and the devil. All quote and no insight.

It's curious how you dismiss the Word of God itself as a mere "quote". No wonder your theology is so screwed up.

Scripture Verse: 2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

© Copyright Original Source

[thormas]

It's curious how you dismiss the Word of God itself as a mere "quote". No wonder your theology is so screwed up.

Scripture Verse: 2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

© Copyright Original Source

The only thing I dismiss is your inability (and your ramblings) to do anything but quote and show no understanding of those quotes. And of course the chasm between what you quote and how you treat people (once again on display). Christianity at work or simply your minimalist version of it?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It's curious how you dismiss the Word of God itself as a mere "quote". No wonder your theology is so screwed up.

Scripture Verse: 2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

© Copyright Original Source

How is that deutero-Pauline text the Word of God? And who decided which of these various texts were scripture while other texts were not? Why were some texts included in early codices later removed?

Do you know anything about how the canon of the NT was compiled?

[Maranatha]

Well, you don't know many Christians who are not literalists or fundamentalists then. Or many Christians who have actually studied the bible and theology for years. And old give us years, it doesn't give wisdom - that's earned:+}

There are a number of "all hat and no cattle" Christians on the site: lots of quotes but (seemingly) no understanding or insight into those quotes. It's one thing to parrot a quote, it's another thing entirely to have enough understanding to engage in a serious and civil conversation. And that also means without using the word of God to condemn other Christians..............simply because they don't fit your particular reading of the scriptures.

If you're ever ready to have an actual discussion..........let us know.

Who is us?
This is the political forum.

I know lots of different christians, just not ones who don't believe the new testament is not what the Apostles said.

If you desire to discuss your beliefs, I'm sure there are forums and people to do it because I have no desire whatsoever.

Since you are all hat and all cattle, you should be able to correct all the little people from the error of their ways.

Nice slam at the people of this board, btw.

[Esther]

Good the possibility of a civil conversation.

What is the unbalance, what are the interesting aspects, what is your understanding and how would you balance my unbalanced understanding?

Simply because I have an understanding that you seem to partially but not fully agree with it, it does not follow that there is a parallel kind of Christianity. Not even sure what that means.

As long as one loves, there is no hell for that one is already 'with' God.

However, you will have to explain what - for you - is the full gospel.

Would you like to start a thread Thormas and I (and I hope better debaters too) will try to address these and other observations and questions about your unorthodox Christianity there?

[thormas]

Who is us?
This is the political forum.

I know lots of different christians, just not ones who don't believe the new testament is not what the Apostles said.

If you desire to discuss your beliefs, I'm sure there are forums and people to do it because I have no desire whatsoever.

Since you are all hat and all cattle, you should be able to correct all the little people from the error of their ways.

Nice slam at the people of this board, btw.

Who is us? Anyone who desires a serious discussion free of the insults and the non-Christian remarks from people who should know better. There are probably more than you realize who are open to having a respectful conversation. After all the site is made up of a variety of people with different beliefs.


Do you know a lot of different Christians, especially given your comments in general and specifically about the apostles. There is no apostle who actually wrote any of the gospels (despite the names of 2 of the 4) and that is not taught in Catholic Christianity. I went to Catholic schools for 18 years including undergrad and graduate degrees - taught by Catholic priests and visiting Protestant theologians. Again, if you want to discuss the scriptures, oral tradition and the apostles, I'm fine with that and I'd enjoy it. Catholics, the largest Christian expression, are not literalists or fundamentalists. I was taught by Jesuits, Benedictines and Seculars and they were the ones who introduced me to biblical study. One can read the Scriptures and be a Christian without taking every word literally.
Again open to discussion, balls in your court.

There are some very nice and very knowledgeable people here and I'm having delightful conversations with them. I would be delighted if others, like you, joined in but it does get boring when people, Christians, slam other Christians and just anybody who does not believe the way they do. That is not 'do unto others.'


I'm already connected to a other people, including here. Hey, are you prejudice against little people? Are you a Randy Newman fan? You know his song was tongue in cheek. And some of those people, like me are taller than average. BTE, 'all hat and no cattle' is mine. Dibs. Get your own pithy saying and add to the conversation :+} Ruh-roh....was your reference to 'little people' another slam of other children of God again? Careful.

Finally, I didn't slam everybody on the board and you know it (hey, is false representation against one's neighbor still wrong in your Christianity?) - simply the few, actually the very few (maybe 4 or 5?) who have forgotten themselves, condemned others and, then, simply given a few quotes without any attempt to explain other than to give more quotes.

Well there you go. What would you like to discuss first?

[Mountain Man]

How is that deutero-Pauline text the Word of God? And who decided which of these various texts were scripture while other texts were not? Why were some texts included in early codices later removed?

Do you know anything about how the canon of the NT was compiled?

I do know, and the fact that you're even asking these questions tells me that you do not. The short version is that it wasn't an arbitrary process. Books accepted into the canon were done so based on known authorship and the fact that they had long been accepted by the church as authoritative. While some books fell in and out of the canon through the years, there was a core of undisputed texts that served as the unshakable foundation.

Even today, many groups (such as the Mormons) seek to add to what has been canonized. This, of course, is their right, but the fact remains that the canon has been fixed, not by some 4th-century Church Council, but by the witness of history itself. As Metzger writes: "the canon cannot be remade - for the simple reason that history cannot be remade."

The books that made it into the canon did so by means of "survival of the fittest" - it was not a random drawing with all participants beginning on equal footing. The church did not create the canon, "but came to recognize, accept, affirm and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church. If this fact is obscured, one comes into serious conflict, not with dogma but with history." We may freely learn from the non-canonical literature, and it may be that some of that literature contains authentic strands of teaching by Jesus.

Nevertheless, we have our canon. We are each free to take it or leave it.

https://tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.php

[thormas]

Would you like to start a thread Thormas and I (and I hope better debaters too) will try to address these and other observations and questions about your unorthodox Christianity there?

Almost Esther, you almost did it but fail, failed at 'doing unto others' - you just had to get in a little jab about unorthodox Christianity - assuming of course that whatever the site means by the term 'unorthodox' is not real Christianity. There are a number of conversations going on Esther on the Trinity, this one, and some others. Feel free. I'm content for now but who knows what will intrigue the group next.

[thormas]

I do know, and the fact that you're even asking these questions tells me that you do not. The short version is that it wasn't an arbitrary process. Books accepted into the canon were done so based on known authorship and the fact that they had long been accepted by the church as authoritative. While some books fell in and out of the canon through the years, there was a core of undisputed texts that served as the unshakable foundation.

Even today, many groups (such as the Mormons) seek to add to what has been canonized. This, of course, is their right, but the fact remains that the canon has been fixed, not by some 4th-century Church Council, but by the witness of history itself. As Metzger writes: "the canon cannot be remade - for the simple reason that history cannot be remade."

The books that made it into the canon did so by means of "survival of the fittest" - it was not a random drawing with all participants beginning on equal footing. The church did not create the canon, "but came to recognize, accept, affirm and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church. If this fact is obscured, one comes into serious conflict, not with dogma but with history." We may freely learn from the non-canonical literature, and it may be that some of that literature contains authentic strands of teaching by Jesus.

Nevertheless, we have our canon. We are each free to take it or leave it.

https://tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.php

Then is it safe to assume that your Timothy is not considered an authentic Pauline letter? And, of course, today we know that much of the authorship was wrong. Some of Paul's letters now attributed to pseudo-Paul; the attribution of Peter ad James to those two apostles; and, of course, the gospel authorship. But, then again, the canon is set.

I suspect Hypatia either knows or given her past comments on a range of subjects has no problem researching and comprehending that research.

[Mountain Man]

Almost Esther, you almost did it but fail, failed at 'doing unto others' - you just had to get in a little jab about unorthodox Christianity...

How was that a jab on Esther's part when you've chosen to describe yourself as an "Unorthodox Christian" in your profile?