Underage sex? Disgraceful.

JK2006 wrote:
Underage sex? Disgraceful.

You may not think so JK - but as a parent, I do.

Although I could think of better/more apt descriptions.

You have to draw the line somewhere.

except in Skins

I'm terribly sorry Philip; my comment on the irony of the man at the top of an organisation specialising in underage sex criticising the PM of Italy clearly went way above your head.

JK2006 wrote:
my comment on the irony of the man clearly went way above your head.

Yes, the irony was lost on me, sorry; but it is a highly sensitive subject.

Well it certainly ain't illegal in the Vatican City. They have the lowest age of consent anywhere in Europe you know - and the highest crime rate too.
www.atheistmedia.com/2010/12/qi-vatican-...s-lowest-age-of.html

It just goes to show how medieval the place really is.

The Catholic Church preaching about Morality. Is this s joke??
Which religion has more blood on its hands than any other?
Ps. Don't mention the crusades, the Catholic support for Hitlers Nazi Party or the unimaginable wealth of the Vatican.

Franz Von Papen wrote:
The Catholic Church preaching about Morality. Is this s joke??
Which religion has more blood on its hands than any other?
Ps. Don't mention the crusades, the Catholic support for Hitlers Nazi Party or the unimaginable wealth of the Vatican.

... or the unbelieveable (ongoing) prejudice against Catholics in this country ?

I've just returned from a small Church in the Peak District.
Like many (pre-C15) it was originally Catholic (and was largely built by one of my ancestors).

I've no real gripes about the so-called "reformation" - all so very long ago - but thought it rather ironic that this particular Church (now CofE of course) does a nice little trade in postcards featuring my ancestors (staunchly Catholic) - many of who were imprisoned and even killed because they refused to go CofE !

In The Know wrote:
Franz Von Papen wrote:
The Catholic Church preaching about Morality. Is this s joke??
Which religion has more blood on its hands than any other?
Ps. Don't mention the crusades, the Catholic support for Hitlers Nazi Party or the unimaginable wealth of the Vatican.

... or the unbelieveable (ongoing) prejudice against Catholics in this country ?

I've just returned from a small Church in the Peak District.
Like many (pre-C15) it was originally Catholic (and was largely built by one of my ancestors).

I've no real gripes about the so-called "reformation" - all so very long ago - but thought it rather ironic that this particular Church (now CofE of course) does a nice little trade in postcards featuring my ancestors (staunchly Catholic) - many of who were imprisoned and even killed because they refused to go CofE !
No prejudice here. I just mentioned Catholicism as it was relevant to the thread. Next time a CofE thread comes up I will be happy to quote the 'bloody' facts also. I am impartial and therefore not prejudicial. I believe that God will judge religions that claim to be following him but their actions state otherwise. Of these, Catholicism is foremost, being the most bloodstained.

You don't know guilt till you've experenced Catholic guilt. Believe me.

Great article in the Sunday Times by John Harlow on Ricky Gervais signing off on NBC with "Thank God for making me an atheist" (quite funny, I thought; really offensive thinks mid America).

Angel wrote:
You have to draw the line somewhere.

How about when the young person in question is clearly a sexual being and can clearly consent to something that is, despite what the Pope wants to believe, in today's society nothing - i.e. two people having fun with each other's bodies?

Women and religious conservatives will always try to draw the line as high as they can. Ask any 43 year old woman how high she would make the age of consent if she had a magic wand, and she'd say 43. Well, if she was honest she would. 18 is about as high as you can seriously demand, given that 18 year olds are full adults and can vote or die in war. Although it hasn't stopped feminists and conservatives in the Netherlands pushing their luck and trying to increase the age of consent to 21 recently.

Anway, 17 is not yet underage for sex itself anywhere in Europe, despite the best efforts of feminists and religious neolithic throwbacks. The age of consent in Italy is 14, which is entirely reasonable given the fact that casual sex and female virginity are no longer of any moral or legal importance, and given that teenagers are far more sexually aware (and physcially mature) than previously. Paying for sex is illegal in Italy whatever age. Paying for sex with somebody under 18 simply carries a greater penalty.

And how old was the virgin Mary when she was impregnated by 'God'? I've read 13. What the Pope and his followers really object to is unmarried sex.

Franz Von Papen wrote:
I am impartial and therefore not prejudicial. I believe that God will judge religions that claim to be following him but their actions state otherwise. Of these, Catholicism is foremost, being the most bloodstained.

Perhaps God will defer to the Bible, which quotes Jesus as saying "Thou art Peter (St Peter) and upon your rock I will build my Church" ?

It's the credibility that all the others crave !

In The Know wrote:
Franz Von Papen wrote:
I am impartial and therefore not prejudicial. I believe that God will judge religions that claim to be following him but their actions state otherwise. Of these, Catholicism is foremost, being the most bloodstained.

Perhaps God will defer to the Bible, which quotes Jesus as saying "Thou art Peter (St Peter) and upon your rock I will build my Church" ?

It's the credibility that all the others crave !


It is also a mis-quoted and misunderstood scripture.
ROCK-MASS
This translates the Greek word pe′tra (feminine gender), which designates a mass of rock (Mt 7:24, 25; 27:51, 60; Lu 6:48; 8:6, 13; Re 6:15, 16) and therefore differs from pe′tros (masculine gender and employed as a proper name, Peter), meaning “piece of rock.” This distinction makes it clear that, when saying to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation,” Jesus was not using synonymous terms. (Mt 16:18) Even in the Aramaic (Syriac) version the distinction is apparent from a difference in the gender of the particle preceding the word ki’pha’, used for both “Peter” and “rock.” The masculine verbal pronoun (hu) precedes “Peter,” but “rock” is preceded by the feminine demonstrative adjective (hade’).
That the apostles did not understand Jesus’ statement to signify that Peter was the rock-mass is evident from the fact that they later disputed about who seemed to be the greatest among them. (Mr 9:33-35; Lu 22:24-26) There would have been no basis for such disputing had Peter been given the primacy as the rock-mass on which the congregation was to be built. The Scriptures clearly show that as foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. (Eph 2:19-22; Re 21:2, 9-14) Peter himself identified the rock-mass (pe′tra) on which the congregation is built as being Christ Jesus. (1Pe 2:4-8) Similarly, the apostle Paul wrote: “For they [the Israelites] used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.” (1Co 10:4) On at least two occasions and in two different locations the Israelites received a miraculous provision of water from a rock-mass. (Ex 17:5-7; Nu 20:1-11) Therefore, the rock-mass as a source of water, in effect, followed them. The rock-mass itself was evidently a pictorial, or symbolic, type of Christ Jesus, who said to the Jews: “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.”—Joh 7:37.
It is also of interest that Augustine (354-430 C.E.), usually referred to as “Saint Augustine,” at one time believed that Peter was the rock-mass but later changed his view. Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Mt 16:18, ftn, p. 296) quotes Augustine as saying: “The rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra), even as Christ is not so called after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ. For the reason why the Lord says, ‘On this rock I will build my church,’ is that Peter had said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, which thou hast confessed, says he, I will build my church. For Christ was the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which also Peter himself was built; for other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”—Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976.

In The Know wrote:
Franz Von Papen wrote:
I am impartial and therefore not prejudicial. I believe that God will judge religions that claim to be following him but their actions state otherwise. Of these, Catholicism is foremost, being the most bloodstained.

Perhaps God will defer to the Bible, which quotes Jesus as saying "Thou art Peter (St Peter) and upon your rock I will build my Church" ?

It's the credibility that all the others crave !

Which translation are you quoting here ITK? All those I have checked use the phrase 'this rock' and not 'your rock' which would completely change the context. Far be it from me to suggest anyone would alter scripture but it seems you have!!!!

Revelation 22:18-19 :-
New International Version (©1984)
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Philip wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
my comment on the irony of the man clearly went way above your head.

Yes, the irony was lost on me, sorry; but it is a highly sensitive subject.

The sexual exploitation of children is wrong. We all know it's wrong. And there's always someone like this to remind us of it.
Yet when children in a far off land are, instead of being exploited, being slaughtered they're always the last to open their yaps to voice concern and the first to start yelling about "help" for the "heroes" who kill children just like their own, albeit for Queen, Country and the Carlyle Group. Yes. there is sexual exploitation of children. Yes, it must be stopped. But let's first ask one question.
Who do you suppose is buying all those "Future Porn Star" tee shirts?

Thank you for your contribution, Philip. I look forward to future postings when I'm sure you will show us that you are not only a caring father but also someone with a broad spectrum of concerns about the wellbeing of mankind

Truth wrote:
Which translation are you quoting here ITK? All those I have checked use the phrase 'this rock' and not 'your rock' which would completely change the context. Far be it from me to suggest anyone would alter scripture but it seems you have!!!!

Revelation 22:18-19 :-
New International Version (©1984)
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

I'm quite sure that God knows what I mean !

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says (in Aramaic - his own language !!!)

"And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. "

In the following verse 19, Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom.

"And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed, even in heaven.”

Franz Von Papen wrote:
The Scriptures clearly show that as foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone.

Having got time to go into all this nonsense -

The Bible makes it quite clear that from the time of his "appointment" Peter was accepted as the "leader" by ALL the Apostles - eg -

In Acts 1:15-26, a meeting is held to replace Judas, led by Peter.

In those days, Peter, rising up in the midst of the brothers (etc).....

In Acts 2:14, at Pentecost, it is Peter preaching the sermon, after all of the apostles were empowered by the Holy Spirit.

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and he spoke to them: “Men of Judea, and all those who are staying in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and incline your ears to my words."

Later on, in Acts 3:6-8, the first post-Pentecost miracle is performed by Peter.

When Ananias and Sapphira lied about the money they were giving to the Church, in Acts 5:1-10, it was Peter who inflicted their punishment.

When God decided that all foods were now okay to eat, God revealed it to Peter in a dream, Acts 10:9-16. The doing away with Kosher food dietary laws was a VERY big deal in Jewish culture. The fact that it was revealed to Peter indicates leadership.

I think its fairly clear who was the Leader (and was accepted as such)





PS - Who the hell is P Schaff ????