What is the deal with Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Catholics.

[Ben Kenobi]

And this is why neither the children nor the parents cannot decide alone for themselves to undergo this hormone treatment.

There's no medical rationale for the 'treatment'. If, as you say, medical 'treatment' should be banned if there's no medical rationale for them, why not ban this?

really is a case of sexual identity disorder and that a gender reassignment is the best treatment to it.

Surgery that, on the balance is likely to increase the disorder rather than decreasing it? The science doesn't support the use of these 'treatments'. Quite the opposite. Most children grow out of this stage - if they are helped to become more comfortable with their actual sex rather than challenging things.

Without such a prescription it surely would be illegal in germany to give the kid hormones

So why then do you support banning psychological treatment for unwanted pathologies?

Well, do you have a similar system in America, where a psychiatrist/posychologist has to give a prescription to a Jesuscamp as a treatment for homosexuality (and can be held accountable to it)

There are licensed psychologists who do counseling along these lines. I don't see the reasoning behind banning it, given the general psychological conditions of people who are in these states.

[Kidlicious]

Ah O.K.,
well, I would say it is a huge difference between:
-something that is administered with full consent of the child
(after all it isn´t the parents who putting pressure on their child to take the hormones, but rather the childs themselves who detect their transsexuality and then, with consent of thzemselves, their parents, as well as psychologists (in germany (in contrast to the USA) an intensive psychological examination is a prerequisite before you can undergo sexual reassignment treatment)

-and something into which parents pressure their children, usually without them really wanting to "get rid" of their homosexuality
(and I am certain that there are no doctors/psychologists who would be able to prescribe a religious indoctrination camp as a "cure" to homosexuality)

Since no harm is done to the child. It looks like you want to take away parents' rights because you don't like what they believe, and want to force them to raise their own children the way you say.

[Proteus_MST]

That's not what Acts says, and Paul managed to convince the other Apostles that he had seen the Risen Christ.

Acts ... you mean, a work that only appeared during the second half of the second century and whose historical reliability already has been in doubt for a couple of centuries?

https://books.google.de/books?id=CUXim2wXtwsC&pg=PT261&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Couple of points here. Paul did nothing of the sort with circumcision. He did not abolish circumcision. Nor did he bar Christians from circumcising their children. What he did bar was the requirement of circumcision.

Secondly, where does Jesus state that circumcision is a requirement for the members of his Church? I see no evidence for this position. Jesus did say, he came to fulfill the law in that the Mosaic law is not the be all and end all, but a stepping stone. The important part as Paul goes on to state is spiritual circumcision.

Jesus (according to the bible) never said that he intended to found an own church, Jesus was a purely jewish preacher who almost exclusively preached to Jews. Therefore there is no doubt that anyone who wanted to follow Jesus would have to be a jew ansd adhere to jewish religous laws ... including circumcision. The "Judaism light" which Paul introduced AFAIK led to the split between christianity and Judaism/Jewish Christianity ... and rightfully so (i.e. rightfully from the side of the jewish christians)

By whom? If you say that the attributions were made centuries later, then you should be able to state who made those attributions.



By whom? There's no indication whatsoever that Mark was written in Rome. None whatsoever. John likely wrote his gospel off the coast of Turkey. All the rest were written and the three synoptics in Jerusalem.

You do know they were written in Greek, not Latin, right?

Regarding the authorship:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_New_Testament

Regarding the gospel of Mark being written in Rome ... maybe you should ask Irenaeus about it ... he was among those who claimed it to be written in Rome ... also there are supposed to be lots of latinized words in the greek original which indicate a latin speaking environment

And yes, one would have assumed to have latin versions as well ... on the other hand greek was widely spoken in the roman empire and learned by all well educated people.
And I guess having the monopoly on reading "THE WORD" in contrast to rather uneducated people in the empire wasn´t a bad thing as well ... after all, the catholic church later was rather opposed to translating the bible into german (and english) ... which is why the first translations from latin into german and english were done by apostates

What omissions? The Gospels never claim to be a complete account of the life of Jesus.



From Matthew 2:





Luke 2:



The answer's quite simple. Joseph and Mary left Galilee for Egypt, returned to Nazareth after Herod died and then took Christ to Jerusalem from Nazareth into the temple for Purification, and then back to Nazareth again.



Uh, the shepherds are not the Magi.

Exactly ...
it is strange that Luke omisses the Magi but mentions the appearance of some shepherds ...
if one would omiss the whole birth and youth of Jesus, like Mark does, then O.K.,
but giving an account of the birth and totally omitting such an extraordinary event like the appearance of the Magi is absolutely strange

And with regards to Jesus circumcision and flight ... in Luke Jesus was circumcised within 8 days of his birth as was customary for jews during this time.
In Matthews, Joseph, Mary and Jesus however went to egypt immediately after Jesus birth.

Also, Lukes story mentions the census for Caesar Augustus as reason for Joseph and Mary to go to Nazareth ... it also mentions that Quirinius was Legatus in Syria. It doesn´t mention with one word any murder of children by Herod ... no surprise, after all Herod was dead when Quirinius became Legatus in Syria.
Matthews on the other hand mentions the murder of children by Herod ... and subsequently the flight of Joseph, Mary and Jesus to egypt ... but no Census.

Well, this sounds to me like stories about 2 different people in Luke and Matthews ... 2 people who also were born at different times

[Proteus_MST]

Since no harm is done to the child. It looks like you want to take away parents' rights because you don't like what they believe, and want to force them to raise their own children the way you say.

Sure ... nothing against a little bit fun in Jesus camps

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/victims-gay-cure-camps-reveal-what-really-happens170114-0

[Kidlicious]

Sure ... nothing against a little bit fun in Jesus camps

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/v...appens170114-0

You have a site there dedicated to the homosexual agenda, and some specific accusations against some Christians. I'm not saying those accusations are false. Applying electrical shock to children's genitalia is against the law, and whoever did such a thing should go to prison for a very long time. If they did, of course.

But you asserted that any parent who sends their children to a 'camp' to make them heterosexual should have their children taken away from them. That's a different thing from taking children away from child abusers. That's assuming that if such abuse did in fact occur that the parents knew about it.

[Kidlicious]

And this is why neither the children nor the parents cannot decide alone for themselves to undergo this hormone treatment.
It is require that they first undergo a lengthy treatment by a psychologist (or even psychiatrist) which then prescribes the hormone treatment if he has determined that it really is a case of sexual identity disorder and that a gender reassignment is the best treatment to it.
This also means that it is the psychologist/psychiatrist can be held responsible if he severely misdiagnosed the child
Without such a prescription it surely would be illegal in germany to give the kid hormones



Well, do you have a similar system in America, where a psychiatrist/posychologist has to give a prescription to a Jesuscamp as a treatment for homosexuality (and can be held accountable to it)

I doubt so

I don't think you understand that it's a classified disorder simply because a majority of psychiatrists believe it is. Most of the disorders are just bull**** **** that someone made up that psychiatrists/psychologists came to believe in. Misdiagnosis is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the patient really has a mental illness that can be cured by the treatment.

[Kidlicious]

"Jesus (according to the bible) never said that he intended to found an own church, Jesus was a purely jewish preacher who almost exclusively preached to Jews. Therefore there is no doubt that anyone who wanted to follow Jesus would have to be a jew ansd adhere to jewish religous laws ... including circumcision. The "Judaism light" which Paul introduced AFAIK led to the split between christianity and Judaism/Jewish Christianity ... and rightfully so (i.e. rightfully from the side of the jewish christians)"
-Proteus MST

Read in acts of Peter's vision regarding requiring gentiles to follow the law of the Pharisees. Jesus taught adherence to God's Law, not the law of the Pharisees. So when you speak of Jewish Christians are you speaking of those who believed in the Law as taught by Jesus or those who believed in the law of the Pharisees.

[C0ckney]

stupid psychiatrists/psychologists, what do they know about mental health?

[Kidlicious]

What do they "know" or what do they "think?"

There's a difference.

[Ben Kenobi]

Acts ... you mean, a work that only appeared during the second half of the second century and whose historical reliability already has been in doubt for a couple of centuries?

Not among the early church. There is some question about some of the letters, and revelations. All the canonical lists include Acts as an apostolic work.

Jesus (according to the bible) never said that he intended to found an own church

Nonsense.

Matthew 16:18

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Regarding the gospel of Mark being written in Rome ... maybe you should ask Irenaeus about it ... he was among those who claimed it to be written in Rome

What about the Gospel authorship. You stated that 'it was attributed by others'. Who were these 'others'? and when did they do so.

FWIW, Fuller argues for Antioch, which makes more sense than Rome. The Gospel was written in Greek, not in Latin. If the Gospel originated in Rome, it would likely have been written in Latin. It was not - ergo we can reasonably conclude that all else being equal it would have come out of the Greek world.

also there are supposed to be lots of latinized words in the greek original which indicate a latin speaking environment

Latin words for Latin concepts. Which could be anywhere in the Roman world familiar with these Latin concepts.

And I guess having the monopoly on reading "THE WORD" in contrast to rather uneducated people in the empire wasn´t a bad thing as well

Hrm? Rather a strange charge, given that the Greek books were translated by the Church into Latin in the first place.

... after all, the catholic church later was rather opposed to translating the bible into german (and english) ... which is why the first translations from latin into german and english were done by apostates

This is not so. You need to look up the Augsburger Bible. Plus there are bibles that date to around the time of Charlemagne in German.

As for English, there's the Wessex Gospels that date to around the time of King Alfred. There are many, many examples of English bible translations from medieval times.

it is strange that Luke omisses the Magi but mentions the appearance of some shepherds

Why? Different accounts, different witnesses.

if one would omiss the whole birth and youth of Jesus, like Mark does, then O.K.,
but giving an account of the birth and totally omitting such an extraordinary event like the appearance of the Magi is absolutely strange

So you're suggesting that the two accounts both state that he was born in a manger in Bethlehem, and you're hung up over the fact that one account mentions shepherds and one account mentions the magi? As if there could not be both shepherds and Magi?

Also, Lukes story mentions the census for Caesar Augustus as reason for Joseph and Mary to go to Nazareth ... it also mentions that Quirinius was Legatus in Syria. It doesn´t mention with one word any murder of children by Herod

Once again, multiple reasons, same events. Joseph's reason for leaving Galilee to head to Bethlehem is explained by the census, as he was of the tribe of David.

no surprise, after all Herod was dead when Quirinius became Legatus in Syria.

Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου.

WHEN Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm

Josephus doesn't say that Cyrenius was appointed procurator in 6 AD, quite the opposite, that the census and his term in office ended in 6 AD.

[Berzerker]

it is strange that Luke omisses the Magi but mentions the appearance of some shepherds ...
if one would omiss the whole birth and youth of Jesus, like Mark does, then O.K.,
but giving an account of the birth and totally omitting such an extraordinary event like the appearance of the Magi is absolutely strange

does that mean you think the magi were an addition to the actual story?

[Ben Kenobi]

does that mean you think the magi were an addition to the actual story?

Obviously, because everyone knows that Magi don't actually exist. They are a myth.

[C0ckney]

What do they "know" or what do they "think?"

There's a difference.

oooh, how profound.

[Berzerker]

Obviously, because everyone knows that Magi don't actually exist. They are a myth.

the magi existed, but are you saying their involvement in the story is fictional?

[Kidlicious]

oooh, how profound.

As long as you now know the difference.