Unclassified > The War Room

Priests and celibacy

(1/8) > >>

CindyLouWho:
Have been pondering the whole priests and celibacy thing that has been in the news this past week.  I don't think God intended for any of us to be celibate or he would not have given us the parts we have that function as they do.  Nor am I aware of any place in the bible where this is asked of anyone for any reason.  So that means mortal people - man - decided on this.....hence, in the big picture, it means nothing.

NightmarePatrol:
well, since the bible as we know it has the hand of man (and largely the catholic church) in it, I question the translation from the original script. That being said I believe it was an act to set a moral standard for others to follow in some strange way. Many of the things that were do not touch in the bible were just common sense at the time, don't eat pork or bottom feeders for example. Sex is a great way for disease to be transmitted, STD's and otherwise. Maybe they were trying to get a handle on that. I really don't know.

I have a lot of questions that will get answered in time.

CindyLouWho:
Well, I've only read the Old King James version and even from one printer to the next there are variances.  I don't know that I see the Bible as the word of God, per se.....as you say NP, it was written by man.....I think it is a good "guide" to follow but I don't think it is the guide.  That being said, there still isn't anywhere in the bible that I have read where it asks for any man or woman to be celibate in order to serve Him better.  Like I said, we have very useful parts.  Maybe if He intended for someone to be celibate, he would have him start out (born) without those parts and without testosterone and stuff, right?  I don't know.  I guess I'm being kinda silly about it but you get my drift.  It is an age old docterine though.  I think it will be hard even in these days of breaking the mold, to change this.

lifefeedsonlife:
Celibacy isn't supported biblically. It was largely a pagan custom for priests and priestesses and was adopted by the Roman Church early on as a carry-over from a lot of the other 'pagan' practices that were 'ordained' by the Church. (i.e. Easter, Christmas, Saints Days, etc. Celibacy was also fairly easily justified as there are texts in the bible speaking of the Church becoming the 'brides' of Christ.) I think if someone follows a Canon (i.e. the Bible, the Koran, the Torah) - they should follow the Canon and not add to or take away from it. The whole giving the keys of the Kingdom to Peter (ostensibly the first Pope in the Roman church's eyes) has been taken as license to 'bind or unbind' whatever the Pope wants.

I was raised a Lutheran. First cousins to the Catholics despite Martin Luther's nailing stuff to a Church door. Always seemed kinda fishy to me . . . and as I got older, I looked elsewhere for answers. At one point I thought I stumbled upon the Capital T TRUTH - but even that particular doctrine had its flaws . . .

The Bible states that there will come a time of restoration of Capital T TRUTH. I don't think that's happened as yet - despite everyone running to and fro and proclaiming one thing or another.

NightmarePatrol:
At one point in time the chuch was so powerful that royalty didn't even get in their way. The church has lost much of that power but still has a great deal of influence. I was raised non-denominational and don't have any real ties to any one faction of Christianity.  We do know that the Bible as we know it has seen a great deal of editing and revision. To what end we may never know. I think the core of the original message is there, but a much of is it has been changed to fit the times and circumstance. (much like the Roman government abandoning Paganism and moving to Christianity because of public pressure)

Anyhow, that was an interesting morsel about the carry over from the Pagans. I did not know that.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page