When does Renaissance sculpture become "pornography"? Discuss!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I've seen the Cake or Death bit, it was funny, too bad you're deadnaming "Suzy". Now the whole bit about wearing makeup and a dress is less dramatic.

I did use the former pronoun but Suzy Eddie is apparently happy with people using either name.

As for the dresses, high-heels, and make-up, "and ye harm none" seems apposite.

[Mountain Man]

Then provide some attested historical evidence. Who was persecuting the members of a small clandestine cult in Corinth in the 50s CE? The possibility of salacious and/or hostile gossip and rumour among neighbours hardly constitutes persecution.

If you can actually produce some attested historical evidence for your statement [or admit your error] I will then address the rest of your post.

The attested historical evidence is 1 Corinthians 7:26 where Paul wrote, "I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is."

[Diogenes]

The attested historical evidence is 1 Corinthians 7:26 where Paul wrote, "I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is."

Are you saying that Hypatia is intentionally ignoring the historical context of Paul's writing????

[Mountain Man]

Are you saying that Hypatia is intentionally ignoring the historical context of Paul's writing????

Surely she would never do that.

[Diogenes]

Surely she would never do that.

Given her vociferousness in regard to the political climate of 1st cent. anno Domini Judæa, I would never expect her to willfully discard historical context. I am truly aghast.

[rogue06]

Excellent! All good!
Now, my question.... again....
On the side, at what age would you teach children about sex?

That really should depend upon the child, wouldn't you agree?

[rogue06]

Given her vociferousness in regard to the political climate of 1st cent. anno Domini Judæa, I would never expect her to willfully discard historical context. I am truly aghast shocked.

FIFY, although shocked and appalled are also good.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The attested historical evidence is 1 Corinthians 7:26 where Paul wrote, "I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is."

A comment in a letter is not attested historical evidence as to the factual basis of the comment with regard to what it refers. It is only historical evidence insofar as the words were [presumably] written by the author.

I ask again, where is the extraneous attested historical evidence that the members of a small clandestine cult in Corinth were being persecuted, and by whom?

[rogue06]

A comment in a letter is not attested historical evidence as to the factual basis of the comment with regard to what it refers. It is only historical evidence insofar as the words were [presumably] written by the author.

I ask again, where is the extraneous attested historical evidence that the members of a small clandestine cult in Corinth were being persecuted, and by whom?

So a "comment in a letter" about the context of another comment in the same letter is not attested historical evidence as to the context of the comment.

Are you sure that's the position you want to take?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Given her vociferousness in regard to the political climate of 1st cent. anno Domini Judæa, I would never expect her to willfully discard historical context. I am truly aghast.

You also seem to struggle with recognising the difference between an opinion expressed in a letter and attested fact.

Comments in a letter are not automatically to be considered as verifiable and unquestioned fact with respect to what those comments refer.

I am surprised that MM did not recognise the eschatological aspect of the present/imminent crisis/ necessity to which Paul refers.

We are again back to his fervent belief that the Parousia was imminent and so mundane matters such as marriage were of little import.

[Diogenes]

I am surprised that MM did not recognise the eschatological aspect of the present/imminent crisis/ necessity to which Paul refers.

We are again back to his fervent belief that the Parousia was imminent and so mundane matters such as marriage were of little import.

I am aware of the eschatological context and that would fall under "historical context".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So a "comment in a letter" about the context of another comment in the same letter is not attested historical evidence as to the context of the comment.

With regard to MM's claim that in I Corinthians chapter seven verse twenty-six Paul was referring to persecution, not unless that comment can be cross-referenced with extraneous and attested evidence that a small clandestine cult in Corinth was being persecuted and by whom.

A comment may be made about anything in a letter. It does not follow that the comment is a reliable fact.

For example, you might write to your friends that you are of the opinion that President Biden goes out at night stealing hubcaps. However, without any evidence to prove that he does indeed go out at night and steal hubcaps your comment has no factual basis.

I would thought a tenth grader would recognise such an obvious point but perhaps I expect too much of yourself and others.

[Mountain Man]

A comment in a letter is not attested historical evidence as to the factual basis of the comment with regard to what it refers. It is only historical evidence insofar as the words were [presumably] written by the author.

I ask again, where is the extraneous attested historical evidence that the members of a small clandestine cult in Corinth were being persecuted, and by whom?

Ah, yes. "Show me the evidence. Oh, wait, not that evidence!" Such a classic routine.

Of course the burden is entirely yours to demonstrate that the historical attestations recorded by the Apostles is not sufficient to prove the point in question.

[Mountain Man]

A comment may be made about anything in a letter. It does not follow that the comment is a reliable fact.

So you think Paul was writing fiction to his audience who would have looked at each other in confusion trying to figure out what present distress he was referring to?

This keeps getting better and better!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I am aware of the eschatological context and that would fall under "historical context".

It is good to read that at least someone has grasped as to what Paul was alluding.


Mountain Man does not appear to be as au fait with his texts as you are, given that he considers Paul's comments on the present/imminent crisis/ necessity to be referring to persecution.