Spirituality
18 Sep 05
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstompI believe He was using this figuratively, because it would contrdict the rest of the bible.
Here God's word :
Matt 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from
thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should
perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
that about sums it up too.
btw Paul aint God
BTW. Jesus was not God either.......😉
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by Bosse de Nageits so hard to keep track of what each of these guys believe.
So rightly dividing the Word means interpreting it correctly, paying due attention to punctuation.
this one isn't even a Christian that one is a Jew for Jesus, the other one shines shoes to show the light of the world.
jeez
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by checkbaiterSounds like "right division" is tricky stuff--figurative here, literal there...you got to learn how to track the words down, wrestle with their meanings...why do those words keep changing colour I wonder.
I believe He was using this figuratively, because it would contrdict the rest of the bible.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstompDo you disobey Christ's teaching FS?
No,,, in other words you aint worth talking to
Matt 5:46-47
46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 "And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
(NKJ)
19 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by checkbaiterread on
Do you disobey Christ's teaching FS?
Matt 5:46-47
46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 "And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
(NKJ)
all the way thru Matt 25
and stay offa da Paul stuff ,,until you understand , you dont need Paul.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAs long as it does not contradict itself elsewhere. Hence there is only one true way to rightly divide, and yes it does require study and lots of work.
So rightly dividing the Word means interpreting it correctly, paying due attention to punctuation.
Also we have to be willing to "unlearn" previously learned beliefs and let God's Word speak for itself.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by checkbaiterthe first thing you have to unlearn is Paulian doctrine
As long as it does not contradict itself elsewhere. Hence there is only one true way to rightly divide, and yes it does require study and lots of work.
Also we have to be willing to "unlearn" previously learned beliefs and let God's Word speak for itself.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo. Those other 60% still have to be somewhere. They could all align along particular axes.
Given that about 40% of minor abuse cases occur either with close family members or complete strangers (both cases where, one would assume, profession does not play a significant role), isn't this likely to make any such characteristic set of attributes "weak"; i.e. close to [b]0?[/b]
The question at hand is whether certain occupations, relative to other occupations, attract more molesters.
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFirst, thank you for untangling my perceptive error, I understand it now.
No. Those other 60% still have to be somewhere. They could all align along particular axes.
The question at hand is whether certain occupations, relative to other occupations, attract more molesters.
Second, I think it is fairly obvious that if you were a child molester, you would gravitate towards situations that gave you more opportunities to pursue your intent. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that molesters that are priests chose to be priests in order to molest, as it is also possible that they became molesters after being immersed in the priesthood. I would like to explore the possibilty that the priesthood may affect individuals enough to encourage molestation.
20 Sep 05
As far as priests are concerned....
The Garden of Love
1I went to the Garden of Love,
2And saw what I never had seen:
3A Chapel was built in the midst,
4Where I used to play on the green.
5And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
6And `Thou shalt not' writ over the door;
7So I turn'd to the Garden of Love,
8That so many sweet flowers bore,
9And I saw it was filled with graves,
10And tomb-stones where flowers should be:
11And Priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
12And binding with briars my joys and desires.
William Blake (1757-1827)
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by StarrmanFirst of all, it is important to remember that only 0.3% of priests are actually child molesters (pedophiles). The majority of cases relate to molesters of adolescents (ephebophilia) - which has a different pathology.
First, thank you for untangling my perceptive error, I understand it now.
Second, I think it is fairly obvious that if you were a child molester, you would gravitate towards situations that gave you more opportunities to pursue your intent. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that molesters that are priests chose to be priests in order to molest, as ...[text shortened]... plore the possibilty that the priesthood may affect individuals enough to encourage molestation.
20 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerOkay, I wasn't aware we were clasifying molestation. What is the percentage of ephebophiles?
First of all, it is important to remember that only 0.3% of priests are actually child molesters (pedophiles). The majority of cases relate to molesters of adolescents (ephebophilia) - which has a different pathology.
And how does the pathology differ?
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by StarrmanOkay, I wasn't aware we were clasifying molestation. What is the percentage of ephebophiles?
Okay, I wasn't aware we were clasifying molestation. What is the percentage of ephebophiles?
And how does the pathology differ?
Under 2%.
And how does the pathology differ?
In pedophily, the age of the victim is the most important factor. In ephebophily, it's the sex of the victim. In a way, ephebophily reflects the sexual orientation of the offender†, although that alone is not sufficient.
---
† http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=1673&issueID=367
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerBut neither of these pathologies refute the possibility that the priesthood as an institution (not a religious entity for the moment) may progenerate molestation?
[b]Okay, I wasn't aware we were clasifying molestation. What is the percentage of ephebophiles?
Under 2%.
And how does the pathology differ?
In pedophily, the age of the victim is the most important factor. In ephebophily, it's the sex of the victim. In a way, ephebophily reflects the sexual orientation of the offender†, althoug ...[text shortened]... nt.
---
† http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=1673&issueID=367[/b]