[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Michael Avenatti Arrested for Felony Domestic Violence

Fox News backs CNN in lawsuit against Trump White House

Judiciary Committee processes Trump nominees over Democrats' objections

Google bias

DOJ OLC Memo Re Designating an Acting Attorney General (14 Nov 2018) (Matthew Whitaker)

Trump has reportedly 'retreated into a cocoon of bitterness and resentment' after mounting midterm losses

Red Flag Gun Laws: Yet Another Government Weapon for Compliance and Control

The Toad and his minions met Monday to answer Mueller's questions:

Merkel calls for creation of ‘European army,’ backing Macron in spat with Trump

In their attempt to help ... the homeless - support liberals - stand for almost nothing hard to stand for --- they have become what they wanted - nothing.

Self-induced DISASTER: California fires the direct result of shortsighted environmentalist policies that prohibit forest management

CNN sues President Trump and White House for banning reporter Jim Acosta

As the US Spent $1.5 Million a Day to “Fight” Afghan Heroin Production, Heroin Output Quadrupled

Black security guard killed by police while he was stopping a bar shooting

Professor sues university for being ‘punished’ after calling female transgender student ‘sir’

They Hacked Their School District When They Were 12. The Adults Are Still Trying to Catch Up.

UN Demands Ban on Trump-style “Nationalist Populism”

12 targets as House Democrats prepare to investigate

MICHELLE O: LIKE, LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE, DUDE, YOU KNOW?

Jerry Brown: Climate-Change Deniers 'Definitely Contributing' to the 'New Abnormal' of Wildfires

Fastest growing religion is ‘none’

Giving Food to the Homeless Shouldn’t Be a Crime

Michelle Obama: ‘I stopped even trying to smile’ during Trump’s inauguration

114 warrants served across Maryland since ‘red flag’ law went into effect in October ('Take the guns first, go through due process second' )

The Toad Played Central Role in Hush Payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal

What is the textbook definition of a democrat

Putin's Favorite Congressman Is A Loser

DOJ Charges Hotel with Discrimination for not Hiring Immigrant in Fraud-Infested Asylum Program

Matthew Whitaker is a crackpot

Larry King: "CNN Stopped Doing News A Long Time Ago"

THE MOST EVIL HUMAN ON EARTH!

AP NewsBreak: Michelle Obama rips Trump in new book

CNN's Jim Acosta Was Rude, but He Did Not Assault a White House Intern

Judge Nap: Whitaker Not 'Legally Qualified' to Be Acting Attorney General

Rick Scott Sues Broward County and Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections

Ocasio-Cortez: “Puzzling” That Anyone Would Ask How I’ll Pay for Agenda

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hospitalized After Fracturing Three Ribs

D.C. Bureaucrats Are Trying to Make Parents Get a License to Let Children Play Together

American Citizen Detained by Trump Admin Without Charge for More than a Year Finally Set Free

'You are not safe': Protestors sieged Fox News host Tucker Carlson's DC home in the middle of the night

New York Lawmakers Want Social Media History To Be Included In Gun Background Checks

CNN’s Jim Acosta Denied White House Entry After Trump Presser Dust-Up

Fox News Promotes RFID For Medical Purposes — Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Take The Chip

It's Time for Congress to Acknowledge the Collapse of Pot Prohibition

Not 'Too Big To Fail': Why Facebook's Long Reign May Be Coming To An End

The Deep State Will Be The Ultimate Winner of Tuesday’s Election

“Red Flag” Raids

A Badge of Shame: The GovernmentÂ’s War on AmericaÂ’s Military Veterans

Researcher Jailed After Uncovering Deadly Virus Delivered Through Human Vaccines

CIA's ‘surveillance state’ is operating against us all


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Vatican appointee says gay sex can express Christ’s ‘self-gift’
Source: Life Site News
URL Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/v ... 143221886185206838242298360572
Published: May 21, 2015
Author: Lisa Bourne
Post Date: 2015-05-21 11:37:06 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Religious History and Issues*     Subscribe to *Religious History and Issues*
Keywords: None
Views: 13377
Comments: 86

ROME, May 19, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Pope Francis has appointed radically liberal, pro-homosexual Dominican Father Timothy Radcliffe as a consultor for the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

The Holy Father made the appointment on Saturday, according to Vatican Radio.

Father Radcliffe, an Englishman, author and speaker, was Master of the Dominican order from 1992 to 2001, and is an outspoken proponent of homosexuality.

"We must accompany [gay people] as they discern what this means, letting our images be stretched open,” he said in a 2006 religious education lecture in Los Angeles. “This means watching 'Brokeback Mountain,' reading gay novels, living with our gay friends and listening with them as they listen to the Lord."

In 2005, as the Vatican deliberated the admission of men with homosexual tendencies to study for the priesthood in the wake of the Church sex abuse scandal, Father Radcliffe said that homosexuality should not bar men from the priesthood, and rather, those who oppose it should be banned.

As a contributor to the 2013 Anglican Pilling Report on human sexual ethics Father Radcliffe said of homosexuality:

How does all of this bear on the question of gay sexuality? We cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden! We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift. We can also see how it can be expressive of mutual fidelity, a covenantal relationship in which two people bind themselves to each other for ever.

Father Radcliffe often celebrated Mass for the U.K. dissident group Soho Masses Pastoral Council (now renamed the LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council).

The priest is also a supporter of the proposal of to allow communion for divorced and remarried Catholics.

He currently works as director of the Las Casas Institute of Blackfriars at Oxford University, a social justice center.

Social justice is the focus of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, established in 1967 by Pope Paul VI in response to the Vatican II proposal for establishment of a body of the universal Church that would “stimulate the Catholic Community to foster progress in needy regions and social justice on the international scene.”

The pope appoints roughly 40 members and consultors to the pontifical body, according to their background and experience, who serve for five years, giving input to the planning for the Council.

When the Council gathers for assemblies, it’s for discernment of the "signs of the times," Vatican.va states.

London, Ontario's Father Paul Nicholson suggested in his blog that observers can wonder how much Pope Francis knows about Father Radcliffe.

“The Holy Father is only a man, and is limited in how much he can know about any and every appointment,” Father Nicholson wrote. “His primary language is Spanish and perhaps he has not been sufficiently briefed. And that may be done intentionally by those around him.”

The Boston Globe’s Catholic website CRUX called the appointment “a move sure to raise eyebrows among the Church’s traditional guard,” and termed Father Radcliffe “a strong ally of Pope Francis,” before listing various controversies surrounding the Dominican over the years.

The selection of Father Radcliffe by the Holy Father drew criticism from many Catholics.

The Scottish blog Catholic Truth blog called it an “absolutely shocking papal appointment.”

“It’s very clear indeed now, that to be 'a priest in good standing' means to be opposed to all that is truly Catholic – and that includes true morals,” the post read, and called for prayers for the Holy Father.

“Interesting that these appointments are going out over the weekend so people can't comment as readily,” The Eponymous Flower blogged in a post titled, “Evil Dominican Tapped For Important Post.

“Good times for dissident Dominicans” was the headline of the Rorate Caeli post on the papal appointment, which called Father Radcliffe “Uber-liberal.”

“It is true that Radcliffe has ‘opposed’ ‘gay marriage,’” the post said, “but his farcical ‘opposition’ rests on grounds entirely contrary to those of the Church: Radcliffe opposes it because, in his words: ‘gay marriage’ ultimately, we believe, demeans gay people by forcing them to conform to the straight world."

“Radcliffe's acceptability has just received a major upgrade with this latest appointment,” Rorate Caeli stated. “A tremendous slap to the face of so many good Catholics who had opposed him out of fidelity to the faith.”


Poster Comment:

Also a related article on Vatican appointments/dismissals: Pro-Life Cardinal Burke dismissed Subscribe to *Religious History and Issues*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: redleghunter (#0)

These articles are click bait - in thatthey really don't apply to the Vatican and are not foreshadowing any policy shift.

Pericles  posted on  2015-05-21   12:42:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: redleghunter, Pericles (#0)

"How does all of this bear on the question of gay sexuality? We cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden! We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift."

Ok there Father, well, the same thing can be said of divorce and remarriage, unmarried sex between boyfriend and girlfriend, polygamy and polyamory.

Men are certainly capable of loving two or more women at the same time, and raising all of their children as their own. Israel did it. Solomon did it. And David, and Abraham.

And of course since sex can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non- violent, birth control between consenting boyfriend and girlfriend makes eminent sense, right Father?

So tell me, Father, is simple MASTURBATION still a mortal sin?

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-21   13:04:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

I've tried to warn you guys about this pope. He's way too eager to be a world-pleaser.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-05-21   13:13:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Pericles (#1)

These articles are click bait - in thatthey really don't apply to the Vatican

Vatican appointments don't apply to the Vatican?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-05-21   13:21:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: redleghunter (#0)

It must be Dominican Father Timothy Radcliffe who runs Amazon.com's complaint dept.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-05-21   13:49:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Pericles, TooConservative (#1)

These articles are click bait - in thatthey really don't apply to the Vatican and are not foreshadowing any policy shift.

The Pope appointed this guy to the position of Peace and Justice advisor. The article came from a very Catholic friendly site LifeSiteNews.

Linked to this is a high level Vatican Carndinal Burke dismissed late last year due to his critical comments on the Vatican approach to Pro-Life issues.

If you don't see a trend here, dig deeper. Francis is cleaning house the wrong way. Benedict stood down so Francis could have an open door to purge the "purple mafia" from the Vatican. Instead, Francis is purging traditionalists and bringing in more pro-sodomite advisors.

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-21   14:49:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: sneakypete (#4)

These articles are click bait - in thatthey really don't apply to the Vatican Vatican appointments don't apply to the Vatican?

He is not speaking for the Vatican and the appointment is not related to what he is talking about.

Pericles  posted on  2015-05-21   14:51:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

Still shaking my head on this appointment. This after Cardinal Burke dismissed for being vocal on Pro-Life matters.

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-21   14:52:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Pericles, Sneakypete, TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#7)

He is not speaking for the Vatican and the appointment is not related to what he is talking about.

I think the point is the Vatican, more accurately the Pope should be defrocking this priest instead of recognizing him with a Vatican advisory position.

Sexual Immorality Defiles the Church

1 Corinthians 5:1-13 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-21   14:56:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: redleghunter (#8)

Well, the Church burnt Joan of Arc alive...before they figured out she was a messenger of God.

Terrible decisions have been made and things done in the past, and will be so again.

Look at each of our own lives: pretty much a shipwreck if you add up all of the error and sin.

God endures, even though men are fickle.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-21   14:58:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: redleghunter (#6)

Instead, Francis is purging traditionalists and bringing in more pro-sodomite advisors.

It seems pretty obvious.

Finally a pope the most Lefty media types can love.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-05-21   15:14:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#10)

God endures, even though men are fickle.

I just wondering if the office of Pope, today, is so powerless to remove a sodomite, divorce, fornication promoting priest? It is either that or a blind eye is given here.

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-21   15:31:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: TooConservative (#11)

Finally a pope the most Lefty media types can love.

Maybe he's trying to convert the ghey Romney Republicans to Catholicism?


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

hondo68  posted on  2015-05-21   15:49:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13, redleghunter, All (#3)

I've tried to warn you guys about this pope. He's way too eager to be a world-pleaser.

Hey, follow the Pope's lead when he said "who am I to judge?" What a Vicar of Christ, no? So if it's not for the Vicar of Christ to judge I guess it's not for Christ to judge either.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-21   15:51:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: redleghunter (#12)

I just wondering if the office of Pope, today, is so powerless to remove a sodomite, divorce, fornication promoting priest? It is either that or a blind eye is given here.

Nope, he has the power.

If he uses it unwisely, it's on him.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-21   16:19:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Pericles (#7)

These articles are click bait - in thatthey really don't apply to the Vatican Vatican appointments don't apply to the Vatican?

He is not speaking for the Vatican and the appointment is not related to what he is talking about.

I'm not a Catholic and don't even play one in the movies,but I was always under the impression that anything the Pope (you know,the commie in the big hat)says is automatically Vatican policy?

He IS the CMMFIC,right?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-05-21   16:33:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: redleghunter (#8)

This after Cardinal Burke dismissed for being vocal on Pro-Life matters.

Different issues. Homosexual are not all anti-life/pro-abortion. Some are,some aren't,and some don't give a damn either way. Just like everybody else.

The irony and hypocrisy of a anti-sex organization purposely appointing a sexual freak to such a high position is stunning,though.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-05-21   16:36:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: SOSO (#14) (Edited)

What a Vicar of Christ, no?

According to tradition, yes.

In reality, maybe yes, maybe no.

The Borgias were Popes too. Were they Vicars of Christ?

The Church doesn't survive its own evils unscathed. It, too, has failed, just as all men do, because it is made of men.

There's a tradition that says that the Church cannot sin. That tradition is obviously wrong. It can. It has. Maybe it is now, maybe it isn't. I guess if the Church really had POWER over us, I'd care more. But as it is, the real truth is that I have something IT wants from me: my money and my time. So, if it doesn't give me what I want, it doesn't get what it wants from me. Just like the Republican Party. My loyalty to ANY human being or organization is NEVER absolute. It's ALWAYS contingent: you please me and I'll please you. You do what you're supposed to do and I'll do my part. But if you don't do what I think you're supposed to do, then I'm not really going to go out of my way to do anything for you either. That's the way it is.

The Protestants have played the game the Pope and the liberal Catholics seem to be playing now. They made priestesses and bless gay marriages and support abortion and all that. And they emptied out. The liberals for the most part stopped coming - waste of time and money. The conservatives went and found evangelical Churches. Many Catholics buy their own propaganda that "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church". The error they make is in thinking that the government organization and political structure they call "The Church" is what Jesus meant by "Ecclesia". It isn't. The Catholic Church can dry up and blow away like any other human government. God is present among the faithful there, in supernatural power, for it's that assembly of the faithful that is the Ekklesia. If they leave the physical and political structures that are called "The Catholic Church", then the Gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Ekklesia - God is still with the Ekklesia. All that has happened is that a bunch of men in a political organization have overplayed their hand, lost their contributors, and destroyed their organization, which they CALL "The Church", but which is not REALLY "THE" Church, and which never, ever was. Catholics do not currently believe this. One need only see the empty and dead churches all over Europe to see that Satan - or just plain human indifference, can indeed prevail against the political governmental structure that CALLS ITSELF "THE" "Catholic Church". God's still there, in the Ekklesia, but the Ekklesia - those called out - is wherever two or more people loyal to God assemble to call upon Jesus and pray to the Father. THAT is THE CHURCH, and the gates of Hell will never prevail against THAT. The Roman Catholic Church can fail and fall into a ruin just as the Mainline Protestant Churches are, for the same reasons. If the inner political controllers walk away from the constituency, the constituency will stop giving money and stop attending, and the Catholic Church, like any other human organization, will cease to exist and disappear from the face of the earth. The Ekklesia will always be there. Whether the Catholic Church houses it or not depends on whether the people who are the Ekklesia choose to make church within the buildings of the Catholic "Church", and whether or not they choose to tolerate Catholic "priests" as their spiritual shepherds. If the priests become odious by molesting children, running away with money, and then preaching absurdities, the Ekklesia will leave and reassemble somewhere else, and the "Churches" will turn into museums. To traditional Catholics, what I have said is "apostasy". It is not. It's the Truth. The belief that the Catholic Church - the political structure that calls itself that, is the thing that is holy and cannot err - even when it visible DOES err, sometimes quite monstrously - well, THAT is idolatry. And it's an error. But there's no point in tearing open these wounds. The better answer is for Catholics and all other Christians to huddle together in Ekklesia, follow the (few, direct, clear) precepts of Christ, and rely on God directly and on each other. Any particular Pope may or may not be the Vicar of Christ - that depends on Christ. Men were never given the power to decide such things. Just following Christ and sticking with each other is hard enough. When the shepherds start acting like perverts and sticking up for perverts, it's time to stop calling those men shepherds.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-21   16:37:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: redleghunter (#9)

I think the point is the Vatican, more accurately the Pope should be defrocking this priest instead of recognizing him with a Vatican advisory position.

That sure would have been MY first guess. They want to condemn to hell for eternity teenage boys and girls for doing what teenage boys and girls are driven to do by their natures,yet they appoint a homosexual to a high office in their cult? How the hell does that make any sense?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-05-21   16:38:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: hondo68 (#13)

Maybe he's trying to convert the ghey Romney Republicans to Catholicism?

It's been some time since you mentioned Romney:) Thought you could add this to your collection:

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-21   17:17:26 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#18)

You do what you're supposed to do and I'll do my part. But if you don't do what I think you're supposed to do, then I'm not really going to go out of my way to do anything for you either. That's the way it is.

Don't take this the wrong way....But the above sounds very Protestant:)

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-21   17:20:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#18)

The Ekklesia will always be there. Whether the Catholic Church houses it or not depends on whether the people who are the Ekklesia choose to make church within the buildings of the Catholic "Church", and whether or not they choose to tolerate Catholic "priests" as their spiritual shepherds. If the priests become odious by molesting children, running away with money, and then preaching absurdities, the Ekklesia will leave and reassemble somewhere else, and the "Churches" will turn into museums.

Excellent commentary. I agree.

This is exactly what is happening with PCUSA.

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-21   17:35:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: redleghunter (#20)

Ummm I think this is more his style...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-21   18:30:42 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: redleghunter (#0)

http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2015/05/timothy-radcliffes-heresy-and- vulgarity.html

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-21   18:46:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: redleghunter (#0)

pro-homosexual Dominican Father Timothy Radcliffe

A 6 pack says he's one himself...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-21   18:47:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: redleghunter (#0)

The Catholic's prohibition of married Priests has filled the Priesthood with gays. Right, wrong or indifferent, it's just a fact.

The early church did not prohibit married Priests. The Orthodox still allows (and encourages) married Priests today.

No one can deny their human sexuality. But in the past gays had to hide their human sexuality. Some gays (like Rock Hudson) tried to live in fake marriages. Many others chose to do so in the Priesthood, where past generations never thought to look.

When I went to Catholic University in the 1980's, I remember a Priest in one of my classes arguing that "God calls people to be gay".

I am not Catholic, but I have a deep respect for Catholics. But they need to revert to the original Church and allow married Priests.

cranko  posted on  2015-05-21   19:41:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: cranko (#26)

There are, what is it? from memory, 21 Rites of the Catholic Church. 20 of them have married priests. One, the largest, the Western or Latin Rite "Roman" Catholic Church hasn't permitted it since the 1000s. All of the Eastern Rites do permit it.

The reforms required in organized Christianity are deep and profound.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-21   20:24:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13 (#18)

According to tradition, yes.

In reality, maybe yes, maybe no.

The Borgias were Popes too. Were they Vicars of Christ?

Pope = Vicar of Christ

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-21   21:04:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Vicomte13 (#27)

Catholic Church hasn't permitted it since the 1000s

Right, the Catholic church prevented Priests from marrying during or just after the Great Schism when the eastern and western churches split. (500 years before the Protestant Reformation)

The Orthodox derogatorily call the changes in the western / Catholic Church "innovations".

The original Church allowed and encouraged married Priests and the Orthodox Church still allows and encourages it today. But the Catholics had an "innovation" that prevented it. This opened the door for both gays and more importantly Pedophiles to creep into the Priesthood.

cranko  posted on  2015-05-21   21:40:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: redleghunter (#0)

Are you going to follow the Word of God as interpreted?

buckeroo  posted on  2015-05-21   21:42:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Vicomte13 (#27) (Edited)

All of the Eastern Rites do permit it.

"Eastern Rights" churches are Oriental Orthodox churches who were kicked out of Christianity during the 4th century.

At some point, they decided to recognize the Pope so they were let back in on condition of being allowed to continue their 1,500+ year old traditions.

The overwhelming majority of Catholics are NOT "eastern rights" and their Priests cannot marry.

cranko  posted on  2015-05-21   21:50:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: redleghunter (#0)

The Catholic faithful will support any blasphemy the RCC promulgates.

Don  posted on  2015-05-21   22:32:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: cranko, redleghunter (#26)

The Catholic's prohibition of married Priests has filled the Priesthood with gays.

There is much hypocrisy here as the RCC is well aware and tolerant of married priests in S. America and Africa. Just some more BS from the RCC. Each day it's harder and harder for me to call myself a RCC. I am not leaving the church, it is leaving me.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-21   22:38:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Don (#32)

The Catholic faithful will support any blasphemy the RCC promulgates.

donnie,donnie donnie .... don't you see how many Word(s) of God there really are?

buckeroo  posted on  2015-05-21   22:44:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: buckeroo (#34)

Bucky, Bucky, Bucky, how many words are in the Holy Scriptures?

Don  posted on  2015-05-21   23:00:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Don (#35)

buckeroo  posted on  2015-05-21   23:13:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#22)

Off topic but I didn't want to start another thread on this.

Matthew 19:28

"28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Twelve? That would include Judas, no?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   0:10:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: ALL (#36)

Why am I not surprised?

And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined* in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. Psalm 12:6

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-05-22   0:12:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: SOSO (#37)

No. Judas was replaced by another.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   0:40:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: GarySpFC (#38)

I don't think we are to take Bucky seriously. I don't, anyway.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   0:48:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: SOSO, ALL (#37)

Acts 1:12 (NIV)

Matthias Chosen to Replace Judas [12] Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the city. [13] When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. [14] They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. [15] In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) [16] and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— [17] he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” [18] (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. [19] Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) [20] “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, “‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.' [21] Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, [22] beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” [23] So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. [24] Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen [25] to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.”

The Lord chose Matthias to take Juda's place. Acts 1 Shared from PocketBible for Windows Store (http://www.laridian.com)

And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined* in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. Psalm 12:6

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-05-22   1:59:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: cranko (#31)

Eastern Rites are not perforce Oriental Orthodox. They also include Uniates. About 90% of Catholics are Latin Rite, 10% tops, Eastern Rite.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   7:16:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: CZ82 (#25)

pro-homosexual Dominican Father Timothy Radcliffe A 6 pack says he's one himself...

Not taking that bet:)

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-22   8:49:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Don (#32)

The Catholic faithful will support any blasphemy the RCC promulgates.

Not all of them. Sure there are always apologists in every organization, even churches. But the source of this article is a pro-traditionalist Catholic site.

They poke the Vatican in the nose a lot.

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-22   8:55:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Don (#39)

No. Judas was replaced by another.

Are you claiming that Judas was not one of the twelve when Christ made that statement?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   15:01:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: GarySpFC, Don, All (#41)

This was AFTER the event recorded in Matthew 19. Judas was in the twelve at the time Jesus said that to the twelve that were there.

"Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

He said you not they or those but you. Was or was not Judas part of the twelve at the time Jesus spoke those words?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   15:09:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: SOSO (#46) (Edited)

Did Judas not betray Chris?. Was Judas replaced as one of the Apostles? What is the meaning of replaced?

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   15:20:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: SOSO (#46)

Are you claiming that Judas who betrayed Christ was a true follower of Christ?

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   15:24:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Don (#47)

Why don't you answer my questions? I have asked you twice if Judas was one of the twelve referred to in Matthew 19 and all you do is duck the question.

I also asked you if God allows divorce when a spouse commits murder and you have ducked this question as well.

You can give it but sure can't take it. But this is typical of those that hide behind quoting scripture rather than have an open discussion of it.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   15:43:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: SOSO (#49) (Edited)

I have answered your questions, but you can't recognize the answers or refuse to acknowledge them. Let me try it again. Do you acknowledge Judas as a true follower of Christ? I don't.

Oh, about the spouse murdering a person and divorce? That is a "what if" question. The Bible doesn't give us the answer. Am I going to voice an opinion when the Scriptures are silent? No. The Matthew verse does talk about adultery as allowed grounds for divorce but addresses no other situation.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   17:16:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: SOSO (#46)

I'll tell you what I think Jesus meant by "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

I think that there are two possible understandings.

One is that, as of that moment, Jesus intended for all twelve of them to sit on thrones. Judas was an apostle at that point, and Jesus intended a throne for him. Judas' later apostasy cost him that throne.

This change of future course doesn't perturb me, for two reasons. First, Jesus - especially in Mark - admits that there are things that he does not know about the future, things that only the Father knows. This is why that word "God" in English, when applied to Jesus, is so treacherous. In ENGLISH, "God" means omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal. But in GREEK and HEBREW, "theos" and "elohiym" mean "Mighty Ones" and "Divine Powers".

Thus, to be "theos" in Greek is to be divine - which Jesus certainly was because he was the Son of God, and just as the prince is every bit as royal as the king but isn't king, so too Jesus is every bit as divine as the Father, and yet is not the Father. Jesus is divine - and a Power - theos - but JESUS has a God, and HIS God is the Father. Both are divine, the Father is greater, at least at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. So, the divine Jesus is truly divine - truly god - but he is NOT omniscient, for he himself says that there are things that only the Father knows. Nor is he omnipotent, for all of his power comes from the Father. He says that too. In Greek and Hebrew this works splendidly, for "Theos" is divine. But in English, it only works if we stop defining "God" as perforce meaning omniscient. Jesus is certainly divine, he is indeed God, but he is NOT omniscient, at least not when he walks the earth. He says so.

The problem here is not with Scripture, it's that our English word "God" runs PAST the God of Scripture and insists upon ascribing all of the attributes of God Most High, of the Father and Son and Spirit all together, to the Son in his human state, because he's divine and we use the word "God" for that. Yes, Jesus is divine. Yes, Jesus is God. No, Jesus was neither omnipotent nor omniscient when he was walking the earth teaching his apostles. He was fully divine - fully God - but God doesn't MEAN omnipotent and omniscient. During that time, the FATHER was all that, but Jesus - fully divine - fully God - was NOT omnipotent, or omniscient, or omnipresent. Perhaps he emptied himself to enter the human state, but that's speculative. The key is that when Jesus said those words to Judas too, he meant them, but he could not necessarily fully foresee the future, for only the Father, Jesus' God, could do that,

So, that's one possible answer.

A nuance of it is that Jesus was speaking the way YHWH did in the Old Testament. YHWH consistently promised great things to the Hebrews, BUT it was always predicated on the Hebrews following his commandments and code. God did not repeat that fact every time he said he'd do something great, but it was always understood, and God's behavior always made it clear that, whatever he promised, you could lose out on that promise if you were rebellious.

So, perhaps Jesus did not know at that point that Judas would betray him and it was Judas' betrayal that acted like every other rebellion in Scripture: to lose the promised blessing. We may not like the way God presents his promises, without the legalistic asterisk, but He's God and he doesn't have to respect our legalistic norms.

That's one branch of possibility.

The other is that Jesus knew all along that Jesus would betray him, and that Judas was a liar from the beginning. If that's the case, then even as Judas stood there Jesus had already eliminated him from "you who have followed me", because Judas hadn't really followed Jesus, only pretended to. That there will be twelve thrones in the end is established, and that those who follow him will sit on them is clear enough. The disciple who replaced Judas may well have been there too, after all.

As I see it, those are two (and a half) explanations of the text that all satisfy me insofar as they don't change the text (though the first does insist on the proper definition of "God" which is not the traditional English definition when applied to Jesus during his human mission), and all make sense and fit in with everything else.

I know that they won't satisfy some others for various reasons. Some will dig in on the erroneous English understanding of the word "God". That error is why the Trinity, as understood by so many, is an incomprehensible muddle. As revealed, in the Greek, it is comprehensible. With the later traditional "embellishments", it isn't.

I know that some will try to play lawyer with the present tense in English and the pronoun "you",

I see the arguments, but I don't think they're particular good in this case.

Any of the two branches of explanation works. Which one is actually true? I have no way of knowing that.

There, there was a reasonable discussion of Scripture and of a problem with it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   17:28:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: SOSO (#49) (Edited)

Divorce shouldn't be such a fraught subject. After all, the Bible permits polygamy.

You can't DIVORCE your wives, but you CAN marry more than one.

The problem comes when you take a no-divorce Hebrew Christian commandment and overlay it on a Western cultural imperative of strict monogamy, which was a Roman imperative, but not a Scriptural imperative.

God did not prohibit polygamy. The Europeans did. God prohibited divorce. The European insistence on monogamy - a Latin cultural norm - coupled with the Hebrew Christian no divorce rule - made marriage a corset that is tighter than what God actually made.

Is polygamy GOOD? It's never presented as GOOD in Scripture. But God never forbids it either, and some of the greatest figures whom God favored were polygamists without God speaking a word against it.

The divorce restriction is so severe to our eyes because we have ADDED a purely cultural restriction of monogamy to the divine word.

To understand God's direct rule, you must remove the cultural tradition of monogamy. It is not Biblical.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   17:30:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Vicomte13 (#51)

At the Last Supper, Christ knew Judas would betray Him.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   17:32:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Vicomte13 (#52)

The Holy Bible permitted polygamy in the Old Testament, not the New.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   17:34:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Don (#53)

Of course. But did Christ know that when he spoke of the twelve thrones?

And were only the Twelve at the Last Supper or were there other disciples present as well? (I don't believe that this question is answered by the text)

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   17:35:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: Don (#54)

In neither testament does God authorize polygamy. It is a cultural fact upon which he never comments.

In the New Testament, God forbids DIVORCE. Jesus never says anything about polygamy.

Paul, in his letter to Timothy, insists that bishops should not be polygamous - that they should be men of only one wife.

He does not say, however, that Christians have to be. And even if he did, he's Paul. He didn't like women speaking. That's his view. He's not God. Women spoke and taught under God's inspiration in both Testaments.

Polygamy is not outlawed by God in the New Testament. God remains silent on it. It is tolerated by God.

DIVORCE is what is not tolerated.

Oh, and spouses have a duty to provide sex to the other spouse. That is required by God. It's a marital right.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   17:38:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Vicomte13 (#55)

The Scriptures don't give the answers, you are correct. I don't dare give answers to Biblical questions under this circumstance. The Holy Bible does tell us the consequence of adding to or taking away from the Scriptures.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   17:45:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Vicomte13 (#56)

I simply take it that people can do as they wish unless God comments on the matter. As you said, the Bible does comment on one wife regarding the Bishops. In the New Testament era, the standard seems to have been one wife. The Mormons seem to take their polygamy custom from the Old Testament.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   17:54:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: Don (#57)

Well, the Scroll "Revalation" warns of dire consequences of tampering with that particular Scroll.

And Moses sternly warns against adding to or subtracting from the Law given by God.

But beyond that, Scripture doesn't otherwise define what exactly is and isn't "Scripture". Peter says that something Paul wrote is Scripture, though difficult to understand, but that doesn't bring into play a general clause in God's law about tampering with Scripture, because there isn't any specific clause like that (which is why the differences between the Oriental Orthodox, various Eastern Orthodox, the Catholic, and the Protestant canons does not, by itself, provide a barrier to cooperation).

If you add or subtract from Revelation, you're buying the curses. If a Hebrew added or subtracted to God's statutes in Torah, he was inviting the various curses of Deuteronomy down on his head. Those are specific things: the Law and the final revelation, around which God put an electric ring-fence. But there isn't a generic definition of "scripture" in Scripture, nor a specific punishment for, say, choosing one manuscript over another for the rest of the books.

This is not to say that therefore one should be willy-nilly marking up Scripture. But it does mean that Catholics, Protesatnts, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox can all sit at the table and speak to one another as faithful followers of Christ, without having to condemn each other of the worst sort of blasphemy simply because they don't agree on the exact boundaries of Scripture.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   18:15:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Don (#58)

One wife was a very strong cultural standard of the Italians, specifically, and the Germanic tribes. Other parts of the Mediterranean, and parts of Gaul, practiced polygamy until the Romans conquered them. And the Romans conquered the whole Mediterranean basin and much of inland Europe too, so the only places in Europe left with polygamists was Scandinavia and the wild steppes of the East.

Jews weren't monogamous; nor were Arabs. Monogamy was mostly the practice in Israel in Roman times (before the revolt) for economic reasons: as we see in places that practice polygamy today, having multiple wives takes money, and only those of means manage it.

Also, the Greek norm was polygamous (with some exceptions), and the Greeks had been ruling the East for two centuries before the Romans came.

Still, there are polygamous Jews to this day, from Yemen. The rabbinical tradition is that in places where the social norm is monogamy (Europe - thanks to the Romans and the Germans), Jews are to be monogamous; where the culture permits polygamy, Jews may be polygamous. There's no Old Testament rule against it (although a very close and careful read of the Old Testament will reveal that every single time that polygamous relationships are presented, from the very first, troubles are recorded. God made sure to inspire the writers to always footnote every case of polygamy in Scripture with a tale of the trouble or suffering or bad attitudes that come with it.

That is actually the best indication of all that God did not INTEND for mankind to be polygamous: that EVERY SINGLE CASE of it in Scripture is accompanied by a tale of trouble. The first polygamy is by Lamech, grandson of Cain. He takes two wives, and proceeds to threaten them with violence. Abraham's polygamy wreaks the permanent havoc of stress between descendants of Ishmael and of Isaac. Isaac is monogamous, but his wilder son, Esau, is polygamous, to the distress of his family. Jacob is famously polygamous, and the struggles between his wives, and between their children, results in a great deal of suffering for many. Joseph is nearly murdered by the children of Leah. Joseph himself is monogamous.

Indeed, there is a pattern of two children of polygamy themselves going on to be monogamous - dear old dad's example was not for them. There's a third case of it too, if one uses the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon, for the Ethiopian Orthodox have the Book of Enoch (praised by Jude in his Epistle, and cited without naming it by Peter in his when he speaks of the fallen angels). In that book, we learn that the wife of Noah was Namaah, who was, of course, the daughter of Lamech (Cain's Grandson, see above) and one of his wives. So the daughter of polygamy is herself monogamous, as is Noah.

In fact, with Enoch considered, if one takes the first three express cases of polygamy in the Bible: Lamech, Abraham and Jacob, one finds that their children all choose monogamy, and that at least in the case of Naamah and Noah, and Joseph, become far greater and more important people than their parents.

Joseph is presented as monogamous - he married the daughter of an Egyptian priest of the god On, an arranged marriage.

Moses is monogamous. He marries the daughter of a Midianite priest, Jethro. (It is interesting to note that two of the greatest of the patriarchs didn't just marry foreign women, but specifically married the daughters of priests of foreign religions. The ban on marrying CANAANITE women should never be interpreted as a ban on marrying people of other ethnicities, or even religions. The problem with CANAANITES is that their religious was particularly, outrageously foul. They sacrificed children, and their religious rites were ritual orgies: porn for the gods to excite the gods so they would shed their semen as rain. Really. That's really Canaanite belief. The Egyptians were into purity rites, and though God humbled them, he didn't annihilate them, and he demanded that the Hebrews specifically not oppress Egyptians once they were in their land.

It was CANAANITES who were specifically marked to be driven out, not the whole wide world and everybody else in it who wasn't a Hebrew. In fact, God didn't give the world to the Hebrews, only a tiny piece of it with very specifically defined borders which was theirs. That which was beyond those borders was NOT theirs, and was never given to them. God had a purpose. We can sort of see what it was, but let's not speculate here.

Moving on, David's polygamy is preceded by adultery, and it all produces a first rate catastrophe, civil war, death of sons, hardship. Then after David's death, the sons of different mothers by David continue to kill each other. Solomon executes his brother.

Solomon's polygamy ends up reintroducing the religion of Ba'al and all sorts of idolatry, and imposes such burdens as to cause the realm to divide after his death.

The fruits of polygamy are ALWAYS presented as bitter in Scripture. It is never once shown working out alright. And what is more, it is never displayed without comment. Wherever we find polygamy, we find a story of sorrow or strife.

I take this to mean that God TOLERATES polygamy, for reasons having to do with the necessity of human support, and for the amelioration of the condition of females of low caste, and slaves, but that it doesn't work well, and he makes sure that the dysfunction is always recorded in Scripture.

We don't have polygamy in the West because the Romans and Germanic tribes didn't have it, the Romans conquered everybody but the Germans, and then the Roman Church conquered everybody's souls - and IT taught the cultural norms of Greco-Romans, which was monogamy. Pagans were polygamous - it was something that distinguished them.

And because monogamy works better, particularly for women, having that as the norm of Europe ended up giving Europe tremendous relative social stability over its polygamous neighbors.

The problem with the Mormons is that they claim additional revelation, in the Book of Mormon, their other scriptures, and the ongoing link to God of the Mormon Prophet. This claim of oracular authority makes the Mormons unbound. Protestants, Catholics and the Orthodox of whatever stripe are all bound by ancient or very old traditions and norms which are so interwoven with both the Scriptures and the culture that grew out of Christendom (for to be clear, the Church is older than all of the European states, and it was around the structure and ministers of the Church that Western states were civilized and gained their law codes and earliest courts).

Mormonism culturally comes out of 19th Century America, and treats particularly American values as themselves sacred, and has this claim of a living oracle - which is something that no other Christian organization claims.

It isn't possible to evaluate the claim based on Scripture in the same way that it wasn't possible for the First Century Jews to be able to evaluate everything Jesus said based on their Scriptures - the Old Testament is silent about the afterlife and going to Heaven and all of that - THAT was all originally revealed by Jesus.

We should note that official Mormonism has bent back to polygamy, because their oracular leadership says this is the will of God.

Is the Mormon Prophet REALLY an oracle of God? If you believe he is, then you're a Mormon. The rest of us are obviously not persuaded.

Which reminds me of a Catholic joke:

The Pope assembles the Curia in Rome for an emergency meeting and addresses the Cardinals. "My brothers, I have good news! Jesus has returned! I spoke with him this morning…

At this declaration, the council broke out in pandaemonium, with cardinals and bishops from around the globe praising the Lord in 200 languages, raising their hands to the sky shouting "Wonderful! Wonderful!" Two even fainted.

The Pope raised his hands and, with considerable effort managed to silence the assembly…"the bad news is that Christ called me from Salt Lake City."

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   18:57:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: Vicomte13 (#59)

The terms Holy Bible and Scripture are interchangeable terms. Of course, in these days when many will disagree on the infallibility of the Holy Bible or parts of the Holy Bible that they disagree with, it is becoming harder to find common ground in theology between even people who belong to the same denomination.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   18:57:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Don (#61)

The term "holy bible" never appears within the Bible.

"Ta Biblia" in Greek is "the books" - "Bible" is a collection of "books", originally scrolls. The collection does not contain within itself a list of books to be clustered with it.

Most of the internal references are all back to the Torah, which is not really five "books" but one single very long scroll.

"Scripture" means "writing".

It's tradition that decided what writings were to be revered. Alas, different traditions came to different conclusions as to what's in and what's out.

The smallest canon is that of the Samaritans, who agree only on the Torah and Joshua, and reject everything else. Of course, there are maybe 150 Samaritans left in the world, so they can probably be disregarded.

Jews don't accept the New Testament, and quibbled historically over what is and is not to be included in their canon.

Christians quibble over some of the Old Testament books, and some of the New Testament books as well, depending on the denominations.

But all of that assumes knowledge of the issue. MOST Christians don't know much of this stuff and focus on the practical moral stuff and some basic traditional ritual, which may be the best approach. God said he's interested in men's deeds, not their bickering.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   19:07:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: Don (#50)

............but you can't recognize the answers or refuse to acknowledge them.

That's total BS and you know. Please answer my questions. Was Judas one of the twelve to which Christ was referring in Matthew 19? Easy enough, pal, yes or no.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   20:39:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: Vicomte13 (#51)

I think that there are two possible understandings.

So the words of Christ, God's Words, are ambiguous and require interpretation by man? Well, at long last you admit it.

"One is that, as of that moment, Jesus intended for all twelve of them to sit on thrones. Judas was an apostle at that point, and Jesus intended a throne for him. Judas' later apostasy cost him that throne."

So Jesus, the Son of God, didn't know His fate and didn't know that Judas was going to betray Him? Really? Then what was He telling (hinting about) to the Apostles about His death and resurrection from almost the beginning?

"The other is that Jesus knew all along that Jesus would betray him, and that Judas was a liar from the beginning. If that's the case, then even as Judas stood there Jesus had already eliminated him from "you who have followed me", because Judas hadn't really followed Jesus, only pretended to. That there will be twelve thrones in the end is established, and that those who follow him will sit on them is clear enough. The disciple who replaced Judas may well have been there too, after all."

This is a more plausible answer but it still abundantly makes the point clear that the meaning of Scripture, in this case the specific words of Christ (if the recording of the event is accurate) are open to interpretation, albeit reasoned interpretation but interpretation none-the-less.

You are an honest man. Not like some here on LF.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   20:50:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Vicomte13 (#52)

Divorce shouldn't be such a fraught subject.

It's not to me but the hypocrisy of the Church around it and other so-called no- nos is.

Matthew 19 seems to clearly state that you are wrong about this.

"1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

It also seems pretty clear tha God did not ordain or create the action of divorce. This seems to be a man made thing. 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Christ clearly says you can divorce you wife for at least fornication (adultery).

And what does the following mean For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Can a man be one flesh with more than one wife. Are all the man's wives one flesh together with him? I doubt it.

Some use 1 Corinthians 7:15-17:

"Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches."

to conclude that, in addition to adultery, divorce God permits divorce when Wan unbelieving spouse deserts a believer.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   21:10:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: Don (#50)

Oh, about the spouse murdering a person and divorce? That is a "what if" question. The Bible doesn't give us the answer.

So you don't know if God would permit divorce if a Christian man's wife had an abortion that he did not wish to happen and did not consent?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   21:17:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: Don (#40)

I have a potty mouth

buckeroo  posted on  2015-05-22   21:23:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: SOSO (#65)

I agree that Jesus permits divorce for sexual immorality.

I don't see any particular reason why a man can't cleave to more than one flesh and become one with both. The text shows men doing that.

Of course it always shows that it doesn't work out well also. There are problems with all of the polygamous marriages in Scripture.

Thank goodness that the Western European cultural norm was monogamy, and that this was overlaid upon Hebrew and Greek Scripture as an absolute requirement because the Gentiles were dominant in the Church, and they were Westerners with monogamy.

Because obviously all of those problems that the Bible records among polygamous couples: the bickering, the jealousy, the sibling rivalry - those things, at least, never happen in our monogamous world.

Note: I'm not carrying a brief for polygamy. I think that Bible clearly shows that it's not the best way, and is not God's full intent. But God was always explicit about everything forbidden. And he never forbade polygamy. Therefore, polygamy is not a sin. That's the bottom line.

God's law is what he said it is. Men can't add to it because they think something else should be in it. Polygamy is one example.

The other example is masturbation. The Catholic Church has always said that it is a grave disorder, a mortal sin. This is false. God specifically addressed gay sodomy, and he specifically addressed heterosexual fornication. He specifically addressed adultery. God is always SPECIFIC about things for which a man or woman will be damned. He is not vague.

In the Old Testament, he specifically addressed male masturbation in the Torah. Twice he spoke of it - "If a man has a discharge of semen" - and twice he said the same thing: He is unclean until evening, and whatever the semen touches must be washed with water to make it clean.

That's it. And that's ALL. It is a ritual uncleanness, under the law of Torah, and nothing more than that. NOTHING MORE than that.

The Catholic Church, amped on its tradition, has always asserted that this uncleanness is a MORTAL SIN. And the Catholic Church has always been wrong about that, for 1600 years. It is not.

Jesus never mentioned it. It is not in the list of "porneis" - sexual immorality - because God spelled out what sexual immorality IS: adultery, fornication, sodomy. Male masturbation is a ritual uncleanness - if you got to give a New Testament meaning to an Old Testament rule, then don't take communion on a day you jerked off in the morning. But God thought so very little about it that he never mentioned it again, ever. And that's not God's way. God harangues and kvetches and repeats himself over and over and over about everything that's important. And male masturbation gets two brief mentions in the Torah and never again. Female masturbation is never mentioned at all.

So, why did the Church elevate this petty uncleanness, for men, to a mortal sin? Probably in the quest to find something to accuse everybody of being guilty of, something that is part of the natural flow of human life which, by labeling it a grievous sin, can then get inside of the head of the young and twist them.

It's evil to add to Scripture, and the Christian Churches have been evil and doing the work of the Devil for 1600 years by adding to Scripture and claiming that masturbation is a mortal sin. It is not. It's not even a sin at all, other than ritualistically in ancient Israel, to Hebrews. Which we're not.

This is not a little error. It's an important error. It's important because it has messed with the heads of every generation, and it's a classic example of an utterly evil moral principle added to Scripture and imposed by the Christian Churches - all of them - on the faithful.

It is the best single example as to WHY one cannot trust tradition completely, WHY claims of infallibility are absurd. Masturbation as a grave mortal sin has been a doctrine from the time that the Churches were united, and it has never, in fact, been a grave mortal sin at all. The Churches added to God's law, and in doing so taught a Satanic doctrine that has fucked up people's minds for 1600 years.

This doctrine is not in the Bible, and it is evil. Men made it up, and they were evil for having done so.

Polygamy, well, that's in the Bible and it's never presented as good. But it's not prohibited by God either, ever. Men decided that their cultural norm was the law of God, and asserted it, But it's not the law of God on the matter. It is BEST to be monogamous, but, for example, Muslim polygamy is not a reason for damnation. God has always tolerated polygamy, and he never said he stopped.

God is always clear. If he's not clear, and somebody is asserting a clear doctrine, that somebody is making it up to suit himself and adding to Scripture. And THAT is evil, and whoever does that is also evil, no matter how good he THINKS he is.

Just speaking the facts.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-23   8:49:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Vicomte13 (#68)

I don't see any particular reason why a man can't cleave to more than one flesh and become one with both.

Do the two women then become one with each other as well(which is more than just cleaving)? If not then the man is not one with either, at least as his whole self - which would be a total contradiction to the concept of sacramental marriage.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-23   13:03:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: SOSO (#69)

The problem with that interpretation is that marriage was instituted with Adam and Eve, and then Abraham the blessed went on to polygamy, as did Jacob, who was Israel, and also David and Solomon.

And God never said a word about it. Not one.

All of the sins - God delineated them, and then harped on them. In both testaments.

But he never said a word about polygamy, only divorce.

Which means that one has to start piling up logic to reach a conclusion that isn't in the text. I can't do that, because in the text God warned about not ADDING to what he said.

Prohibiting polygamy is adding to what God said.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-23   15:37:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: Vicomte13 (#70)

And God never said a word about it. Not one.

God never said a word about beating your wife or kids or your mother-in-law either. Is it adding to God's words to believe and teach that God prohibits these actions.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-23   16:41:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Vicomte13 (#70) (Edited)

The problem with that interpretation is that marriage was instituted with Adam and Eve, and then Abraham the blessed went on to polygamy, as did Jacob, who was Israel, and also David and Solomon.

And God never said a word about it. Not one.

All of the sins - God delineated them, and then harped on them. In both testaments.

But he never said a word about polygamy, only divorce.

Which means that one has to start piling up logic to reach a conclusion that isn't in the text. I can't do that, because in the text God warned about not ADDING to what he said.

Prohibiting polygamy is adding to what God said.

I believe the best explanation for God's acceptance of polygamy in the Old and New Testament times is here: http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

In shorter words, if you are not interested in reading all of that: "Multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or female infertility.[7] The practice of levirate marriage obligated a man whose brother has left a widow without heir to marry her"

Polygamy would not fit into modern society considering women these days are just as fine without a partner and could easily support themselves financially. :)

ebonytwix  posted on  2015-05-23   21:16:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Vicomte13 (#70)

Oh and.. check your Mail. (:

ebonytwix  posted on  2015-05-24   1:10:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: SOSO (#71)

Yes. God DID say a word about beating your wife, kids and mother-in-law: DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.

It restricts all things.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-24   9:00:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: ebonytwix (#72)

I don't think it's a question of "societal fit". There's plenty of God's law that doesn't "fit" our society and that would require major realignment of power, property and relationships were it to be respected.

When it comes to polygamy, or anything else, I think there are really only two important questions:

(1) Will I go to hell if I do it? AND (2) If not, will my passage on earth be improved or diminished if I do it?

The answer to the first question is no. No, you will not go to hell if you practice polygamy. Abraham, Israel, David, Solomon - these men were beloved of God, not hated. Jesus spoke of Abraham in Paradise, separated from Gehenna by the dark chasm, in his parable of the rich man and Lazarus. (And as to the notion that everybody before Jesus went to Hell, that's false: Abraham was in Paradise already, per Jesus' parable, and Peter, John and James saw Jesus speaking with Moses and Elijah transfigured on the mountaintop in the transfiguration. So, although Christian logic dictates that before Jesus and his Salvation everybody went to hell, Jesus' own words before his crucifixion say that that's not true. The Christian logic seems to make sense, but it's wrong on the facts.) Polygamy was never prohibited by God in any law, it was practiced before God by men beloved of God, at least one of whom (Abraham) was already in Paradise before Jesus' death and resurrection. (So was Lazarus.)

We are not to add to God's law. Western culture has had a very fierce opposition to polygamy since Greco- Roman and Germanic times. This is an aspect of Western CULTURE, and NOT revealed religion. Americans, Westerners in general…also Arabs with their Muslim religion…all add to the religion revealed by their God in their holy books, by adding cultural features they thing are important, and blending those features into the religion. It's easier to see with the Arabs, who have added all sorts of stuff about multiple wives and specific treatment of slaves and women to THEIR religion, based on tradition, even though none of that is actually written in the Qu'ran.

Likewise with the West. Christianity came to be in the Roman Empire, a vast, Italian operation. Italians were fiercely monogamous (in terms of formal marriage) for as long as there is recorded history, centuries before Christ. And while the Romans tolerated it in their Empire among subject peoples who already had it, they never tolerated it among Roman citizens anywhere.

Judaism at the fringes DID have plural marriage, still, and had the Jews Christianized, based on Torah and Gospels there would have been plural marriage in the East. The few Jews Christianized, and those that did were, for the most part, Jews of the diaspora, who had already settled all over the Roman Empire. Those Christianized Jews were in a Greco-Roman culture that was monogamous by law. The Jewish culture, and the Torah tradition from which it came, were never monogamous by law (and still aren't: Jews are required by rabbinical law to be monogamous where the dominant culture is monogamous, and permitted to be polygamous where the dominant culture is polygamous).

Christianity was more readily adopted by Jews of the diaspora and Roman gentiles - Italian, Greek, Celtic and German - than by traditional Middle Eastern Jews. The Church as it grew and solidified into the Catholic Church (at the time both Roman and Greek and Orthodox) included the strong cultural traditional of monogamy. This is a case where a pagan cultural norm "improved" the revealed religion of Scripture, which is nowhere monogamous.

That is why partisans of monogamy have to work so hard to try to tease it out of the text: it is not there. Western pagan culture made Christianity monogamous, because it was monogamous through Roman and German culture. Christianity reflects the dominant culture of its people.

So, what one comes back to is the unalterable fact that the Bible itself does NOT command monogamy. Polygamists do not go to hell. They are not breaking a commandment of God. No matter how much smoke and wind traditional Christians throw out because they hate the idea of polygamy, the truth is that they hate it more than God does. Western culture condemns polygamy, and so therefore Christianity does.

And yet, can discern within it that monogamy is preferable for those involved, and that God favors it. This is visible in the Bible: every instance of polygamy in it is accompanied by a tale of woe. What is it about polygamy that offends us so? It is the feeling that the woman is reduced to an unequal partner, a vessel for pleasure and babies of a man. The reverse, polyandry, is adultery under the Law of God. For a woman to be happiest, she wants to bond with a man and have his children, and they raise them together. This model works best, and seems to be what God intended from the beginning. It's the better answer in terms of human happiness, if one cares about the sentiments of women anyway.

God cares about everything. So yes, monogamy is the better answer for the worldly happiness of women (most men too, probably - sleeping around is not polygamy; having multiple wives with all of those responsibilities is polygamy, and one feature of polygamous societies is that there are a lot of men who have no prospect of ever marrying, which is an immense frustration to them.)

Certainly polygamy in the Bible is always presented with a dark side. But as far as the law of God as expressed in the Bible, chaste devotion to Christ and perpetual virginity is holiest, followed by monogamous marriage, with polygamy as a God-tolerated third rung - one that comes with the warning of strife attached, because God made sure that every instance of it is presented with strife.

For my part, I think that maintaining the ban on polygamy is fine, as a cultural and protective matter. However, one must not say that God condemns it, because that is not true. Our culture condemns it, so we legislate against it. It's in the same rank as eating dogs and cats. It's not a SIN, but our culture says it's gross, and we make the laws for ourselves.

Distinguishing between the commandments of God, which we all must respect, and our cultural imperatives, which are NOT commandments of God but which are features of what we ourselves, as a tribe, like and dislike, is important. The Muslims very visibly take all of their cultural detritus and throw it all upon God, even though their God never said any of that in the Qu'ran. We did the same in the past. In a global society, where we do deal with polygamists routinely, we have to stop ascribing to God what he did not say.

God did not condemn polygamy. WE do. Which MEANS, when we are representing our God to the world, we cannot add our cultural norms to God's law. When we do that, we're literally no better than Muslims.

And that is unacceptable.

Could an Arab with four wives come over to Christ? Yes. And would he have to divorce three of his wives? No, in fact if he obeyed Christ he COULD NOT divorce any of them, but would have the same marital obligations he has now. That's the truth. If the Churches have added Western culture to the laws of God, if faced with the case of the polygamist who comes to Christ, they must respect Christ and leave his polygamous marriages intact, for Christ condemns divorce and those marriages cannot be dissolved.

By contrast, when the Mormons set about building a doctrine of polygamy, in the name of Christ, they did wrong. The highest sexual order according to the Christian bible is celibate devotion to God, followed by marriage to a woman, in the Adam and Eve model. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and the fundamental equality of Christian souls, would dictate that no, Christian doctrine should not support polygamy. The Mormon leaders, filled with demons, insisted upon it at one time. That was evil.

They have since renounced it, of course.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-24   9:35:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: Vicomte13 (#75)

I see. You have rendered me speechless. You have far more knowledge than me on the subject. But it's not "ideal", I suppose. Does these mean I as a woman can have multiple husbands without it being offensive to God? Ha ha.. the only people in example were males.

Oh yeah and please check your mail box on here.

ebonytwix  posted on  2015-05-24   12:57:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Vicomte13 (#74)

It restricts all things.

Nice try but no cigar.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-24   12:58:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: ebonytwix, Vicomet13 (#76)

Does these mean I as a woman can have multiple husbands without it being offensive to God?

Touche:)

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-24   13:00:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: ebonytwix (#76)

No. Under God's law it is clear: if you as a woman are married to a man and you have sex with another man, you and the other man are both adulterers.

In ancient Israel, God prescribed the death penalty for that.

Since Jesus, it's simply a matter of failing final judgment and being cast into the Lake of Fire for the second death for you.

God is not modern in his outlook.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-24   16:02:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: SOSO (#77)

Yes, cigar. It's not a try, it's the law and it binds all things.

Nobody wants to be beaten, and therefore, nobody can beat anybody else.

It's the general rule that covers everything that isn't otherwise covered.

It's a fairly good argument against the practice of polygamy.

But, to be clear, if you beat your children, will you go to hell for that at final judgment? No. It's still evil though.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-24   16:04:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: Vicomte13 (#80)

Nobody wants to be beaten,

Not true. Ever hear of a masochist? But it was a ncie try.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-24   16:15:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: SOSO (#81)

If there is masochism involved, then it's not a problem. But that is not the fact pattern you presented. You presented the man beating his wife and children, not sexual partners participating in masochism.

A man beating his wife and children is not engaging in sexual activity, he's engaging in brutality. And that is a sin because of the Golden Rule

A beating that is requested is deviant behavior, but is not unwanted, and is therefore not sinful as such under the Golden Rule.

But wife and child beating is.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-24   16:19:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Vicomte13 (#79)

Biologically this makes sense as a woman has a higher rate of contracting STDs and women prescribe a higher emotional attachment and reward to sex.

I guess this is why so many men have the desire of being with a lot of women and taking proud in their sexuality, right?

It's "unfair" in a mundane sense, but at least I don't desire multiple men. Pity on the women who do though. Ha.

ebonytwix  posted on  2015-05-24   16:20:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: ebonytwix (#83)

Well, it's pretty much irrelevant anyway, except for going to heaven after the final judgment, because people follow the law or not at their pleasure here on earth. Nobody enforces anything…other than men and women in divorce court.

The strategy for polygamous men is not to marry at all. Why buy the cow?

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-24   17:28:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: Vicomte13 (#84)

Yeah, I hear you..

Oh yeah check your P.Ms again. :)

ebonytwix  posted on  2015-05-24   17:33:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: ebonytwix (#85)

Did. Responded. Thanks!

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-24   17:34:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com