buckeyemike Posted November 4, 2006 Author Share Posted November 4, 2006 What the Buckeyes have been doing to their opponents so far this year can hardly be considered Christian-like! 824452[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 watch the abc niteline thing on online underage trysts...one of the first ones they did caught a rabbi Tell me, how many 'representative figures' of each religion get caught molesting little boys and girls? I don't know if I ever heard of a Rabii(sp) or Reverand getting caught doing these kind of things. 824225[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 FYI, priestly celibacy was not a requirement until the 12th century, and the real reason is not biblical at all, but financial - it was an affort by the Church to protect its assets and acquire land by preventing the children of priests to inherit property. Celibacy is not a biblical requirement, nor was it required by God - rather by His greedy servants at the head of the Church. 824445[/snapback] At least you're not cynical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 Christ is the only way to heaven according to Scripture, but there's nothing I can find in the Bible about having to be of a particular denomination. I couldn't agree more. In fact, that's one of my favorite topics, cause most other Christians totally disagree with me when I state my views The Bible does say that only through Christ can one enter the Kingdom of God. And I personally believe that. But to me, that is not the same thing as saying one must be Chrisitian. The Bible says lots of interesting things....here are a few tidbits that support my particular thinking: 1) It says that God WILLS that all be saved. Not that he's really hoping....but it's His WILL. To what extent do you think God would go in order to carry out His will? I'm only speculating, but I'd say pretty damn far. Based on that, I'd say it's fair to think that God would at LEAST give each of us all the evidence we would need in order to make a choice between serving Him or serving the red guy. 2) Jesus says to a non-follower, "What you have done for the least of my bretheren, thus have you done unto me." I've always felt that many non-Christians lead more of a Christian life than Christians do! Thus I feel someone who is a non-Christian could, in fact, lead a life where they are serving Christ and don't even really know it. Lastly, I once knew a really cool priest back in Philly. He was a big fan of Freud and I was an undergrad in psych, so we had some cool talks. He would tell me about how he'd often be called to an accident scene where it was clear that the victim was in the last minute or two of life. While he or she could not speak, this priest would always be sure to pray over them because he believed it was never too late to accept Christ. We even took it a step further. The Bible says that to God, a minute can be an eternity and an eternity can be like a minute. Who's to say that even a single minute on your deathbed could not in fact be an eternity for them to accept Christ? How do we even know it has to be while we're physically alive?? The only time the Bible addresses this is when the one guy is already in hell and he wants to tell his brother to get his sh-- together or else he'll be in hell to. Jesus says no to this request. But there is something missing on the part of the guy who is already damned.....he makes no effort to repent! I'm very ecumenically minded, and this is why. I don't profess to be "right" about any of it....it's just what makes sense to me and it's what I personally believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffal0 Bill5 Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 I encourage you to use www.biblegateway.com. Great resource! 824362[/snapback] also www.crosswalk.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 It says that it's better to be single and celibate, but if you just have to have the pooty, then you should get married before you knock boots. I believe the Catholic stance that priests remain celibate comes from this part of scripture, but I'm not positive.EDIT: So far from "commanding" marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9). It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added). Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34). from Catholic.com 824339[/snapback] The Catholic church used to have married priests up until the middle ages. They stopped the practice after experiencing too many property claim disputes from deceased priests. Source is from a former priest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Any time I see someone rant against gays openly and fervently they are covering up their own gay feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Any time I see someone rant against gays openly and fervently they are covering up their own gay feelings. 824682[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seq004 Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 As a person why do you need to be so high and mighty? Is that part of being a so called Christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Any time I see someone rant against gays openly and fervently they are covering up their own gay feelings. 824682[/snapback] I love gays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 At least you're not cynical 824545[/snapback] AJ, it's not that I'm cynical. (OK, I am. I can't help it - I was taught by Jesuits! ) But my comment was based on historical facts - namely, what happened when - and why. The idea of Catholic celibacy is especially foolish when you realize the reason behind it. The first Pope - Peter (chosen by Jesus Himself), was marrried, as were most of the Apostles. Before the middle ages it was allowable - even common - for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses. But with concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance, Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons, since lowly daughters couldn't inherit anyway). In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests, and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. This had nothing to do with morality - multiple women for males had long been the norm since before biblical times - but it was about MONEY! The whole celibacy nonsense was also the result of middle age gnostic influences that falsely taught that the body was dirty and not spiritual, and to be more spiritual you had to avoid natural sexuality. Talk about getting people really screwed up! Celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church History/Chronology or Celibacy But enough of this cynicism - I gotta get ready for Church! (Praying for a Bills win today!!! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 FYI, priestly celibacy was not a requirement until the 12th century, and the real reason is not biblical at all, but financial - it was an affort by the Church to protect its assets and acquire land by preventing the children of priests to inherit property. Celibacy is not a biblical requirement, nor was it required by God - rather by His greedy servants at the head of the Church. 824445[/snapback] Almost right. The rules for celibacy came in the Lateran reforms. While monks did not marry, priests did marry and tended to pass down the duties to sons - the problem was many had no training or vocation and were illiterate, and often the kings and counts were investing bishops and priests. Most of the married priesthood was actually not wealthy or professional, they were usually able to recite a minimum number of prayers. The monasteries had the most wealth - land. The parishes of the married priests were usually meager and for the peasants. Greed doesn't really wash because in the 12th century the New Economy of coinage had not really reached the churches this edict effected. It had much more to do with who had the right to invest bishops and priests: the German kings or the pope. In the Catholic Church, I believe only the Roman Rite requires celibacy, all the other rites have a married priesthood and are in full communion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Almost right. The rules for celibacy came in the Lateran reforms. While monks did not marry, priests did marry and tended to pass down the duties to sons - the problem was many had no training or vocation and were illiterate, and often the kings and counts were investing bishops and priests. 824851[/snapback] That, too, is almost correct - the Lateran reforms of the 12th century finalized a growing sentiment among the Church hierarchy to ban priestly marriages. As the priests would often receive gifts from the kings and counts that invested them - some quite generous and often including land - many priests considered those gifts personal property, rather than gifts to the Church, and felt entitled to leave them to their heirs. Hence, the Church began a movement to sieze those gifts and land - beginning with Pelagius and Gregory in the 6th century, and culminating in the aforementioned Lateran reforms. A Brief History of Celibacy in the Catholic Church In the Catholic Church, I believe only the Roman Rite requires celibacy, all the other rites have a married priesthood and are in full communion. 824851[/snapback] Also correct - I do occasionally attend Mass at the Polish National Catholic Church out in Lancaster, NY, and the bishop there is married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Senator: I'm not debating whether what you say is right or wrong....I'm not in a position to be an authority on the matter. I do recognize that the Catholic church has always been run by mortal men and, at times, has been corrupt because of this. I also know that everyone and their mother has their own interpretations and "facts" regarding the Church's history. If they want to have celibacy for priests, then I think it's great. Hell, if nothing else, it's helped me to realize that I'm not someone God wants entering the priesthood! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 History/Chronology or Celibacy 824829[/snapback] Some pretty sloppy work on this site. There was no Pope Boniface IX in 1045. Recall Dante put Boniface VIII in hell and he was a contemporary in the 1300's. Also the Nicene Creed makes no mention of priestly celibacy. Perhaps the site is attempting to reference approbations or canons of Council of Nicea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts