Monday, May 24, 2010

Responding to Ben M on priestly celibacy, with a pinch of sarcasm

Ben M has decided to weigh in on celibacy.  I sinned extensively against the Lord recently by watching the Lost finale, and so I'm feeling a bit saucy.  Hopefully both of my readers will forgive the sarcasm of some of my comments here.


No, that's not what St. Paul meant!

He said "forbid marriage".  RC priests are forbidden to marry.
Interestingly, Paul told us that presbuteroi are supposed to be one-woman men.  Not no-woman men or many-boys men.


a. The Roman Church has NO “doctrine” forbidding anyone to marry - marriage is a sacrament open to all.

Except priests.  Do you think we're idiots or something?


b. God has always called certain individuals to the celibate life in order that they may serve him unreservedly.

What's your point?  That's a matter between the individual and God, not to be mandated by the church.


c. The Church has every right to set rules and conditions pertaining to the priesthood

If you say so.  But they violate the biblical commandment.  Apparently they have "every right" to do that, too.



And currently she has chosen to accept candidates for priestly ordination only from among those who have this gift of celibacy

And if the RCC does it, it has to be right!  B/c Christ founded it!  Matthew 16!  Blah!!!


Why do Protestants forbid celibacy to their clergy, when the very Apostles SS. Peter and Paul and their successors - St. Timothy e.g. - were prime examples of a celibate clergy??

1) You have no proof Timothy was celibate.
2) Paul CHOSE to be celibate.  RCC MANDATES its clergy be celibate.
3) Peter was married.  Fail.
4) Paul was an apostle, not a presbuteros.



Re: perpetual abstinence in marriage is unbiblical - “Else, they cannot be one flesh. 1 Cor 7: 3.”
Well, that’s certainly what, with perhaps a couple of exceptions, Protestants believe.

Yeah, that's so crazy, that Protestants might just believe what the Bible teaches.



(Beza said:) We cannot expect people today to live chastely in a sexless marriage, as if they were ‘new Josephs and Marys.’”

1) Beza is not a Protestant Pope.  I can't believe you people can't get that through your heads.
2) Sexless marriages are indeed violations of the command of 1 Corinthians 7 and the various other descriptions of marriage as "one FLESH".  Hard to be one FLESH when you're --ahem-- not, you know, one flesh.



“The traditional option of maintaining a sexless ‘spiritual marriage’ was anathema to Calvin.”

Awesome.  Good for Calvin.  Another reason to like the guy.


One comment in Beza's biography has not served Calvin well, and that was the suggestion that he and Idelette had a sexless marriage, adhering to chastity.

I can't believe it!  Calvin might have actually been a sinner?
Sorry, we can't allow that kind of trash to sully the pages of this blog.  Our team will have a meeting later to determine whether we should delete this comment and also ban all RCs from commenting.  Forever.


St. Augustine:
“So if you can manage it, you shouldn’t touch your partner, except for the sake of having children.” Sermon 278:9:3,

I can imagine nothing so bizarre to as to suggest that a church writer 3 centuries after the Bible was written might say something unbiblical or incorrect.



38 comments:

Lvka said...

I can imagine nothing so bizarre to as to suggest that a church writer [Saint Augustine] 3 centuries after the Bible was written might say something unbiblical or incorrect.


Like Sola Gratia, predestination, and other aberrations. :-)


Yet, on the other hand, you DON'T seem to think that someone writing not 3 but 15 centuries after the Bible could possibly get something wrong.. (like Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, predestination, etc.) :-)

Lvka said...

...oh, and Sola Scriptura... let's not forget that one... :D

EA said...

b. God has always called certain individuals to the celibate life in order that they may serve him unreservedly.

Sure, except for Popes that were either married or who had mistresses or who had incestuous relationships. Or a Medieval priesthood, or a pediaphilic priesthood. Or priests that engaged in normal, albeit, extra-marital relations, etc...
But, "yes", we can agree that God always calls a portion of His people to celibacy.

Matthew Bellisario said...

First of all the Catholic Church has not forbidden marriage to all priests, that is a pure fabrication of the truth. Get your facts straight before you start hurling accusations. You also need to learn the difference between doctrine and praxis before you can talk intelligently about these things. It appears that none of these realities are even on the radar screen for the pretended "Reformers."

Gojira said...

your right Matthew, not on all priests, just those of the western Roman religion are imposed with celibacy. Hence you have no argument since the priesthood of that particular part of the Roman religion are forbidden to marry...which of course it the topic of the post

Matthew Bellisario said...

It is also not a Church doctrine, but a matter of praxis in the Roman Rite, in which there are also exceptions to the rule. The praxis also does not in any way violate Sacred Scripture.

zipper778 said...

Matthew says: "It is also not a Church doctrine, but a matter of praxis in the Roman Rite, in which there are also exceptions to the rule. The praxis also does not in any way violate Sacred Scripture."

The praxis does violate Sacred Scripture. Paul in 1 Timothy makes the point here:

They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim 4:3-5)

That passage not only covers a mandatory priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite but it also covers abstaining from red meat on fridays during Lent.

Also, overseers of the church (elders, bishops, etc) are supposed to be married according to Scripture:

Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) (1 Tim 3:1-5)

You see, God expects people to be able to run their families so that they can know how to run His church. Roman Catholic bishops have no idea what it's like to have a family. They were a part of one when they were young, but they don't know what the responsibilities are like to run a family.

Also Peter himself was married (Mark 1:30). There's no reason to impose a celibacy on people. They have God's blessing to marry and also to help run the church if the Holy Spirit moves them to at the same time.

Gojira said...

Yes Matthew...I agree...it isn't a doctrine. It is a vow the the priest must take upon ordination. As such he is forbidden to marry.

The Code of Canon Law states: "Can. 277 §1 Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, and are therefore bound to celibacy. Celibacy is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour."

And again, in relation to the argument given in the opening post, priests are not allowed to get married (as applied to the Latin Rite...different rites have different rules). To do so they would have to give up their priesthood.

Hence, no fabrication was made since in fact the Roman Rite, which was the Rite in question, forbids marriage of it's priests. Can a priest get married? Sure, but he would have to leave the priesthood. The Scriptures, however, teach differently than the Roman church on this matter.

Matthew Bellisario said...

"That passage not only covers a mandatory priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite but it also covers abstaining from red meat on fridays during Lent."

No it does not.

Matthew 19: 11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.

1 Cor 1 Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

The Church does not force one to be celibate. If one is called to it then so be it, if not then so be it. Again, it is also not a universal Catholic praxis.

bkaycee said...

Hence, no fabrication was made since in fact the Roman Rite, which was the Rite in question, forbids marriage of it's priests. Can a priest get married? Sure, but he would have to leave the priesthood. The Scriptures, however, teach differently than the Roman church on this matter.

But it is always fun watching the liguistic hoops RC epologists must jump through to nullify scripture for the sake of their tradition.

Maybe we can get someone to bite on the "In Aramaic, the word means something else", excuse.

Matthew Bellisario said...

"But it is always fun watching the liguistic hoops RC epologists must jump through to nullify scripture for the sake of their tradition."

We don't jump through anything. The priest makes a voluntary vow of celibacy just like those who did in Sacred Scripture. Its not my fault if you don't like it. Go argue with Saint Paul.

Gojira said...

"But it is always fun watching the liguistic hoops RC epologists must jump through to nullify scripture for the sake of their tradition."

Hi bkaycee
Yep that is very true. LOLOLOLOLOL Their whole concept of marriage and annulment is a slam to the face of God. There are some other fun tidbits as well, such as this:

"Canon 1084 §1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage."

While this is talking about impotence, notice how it relates sex to marriage. By this one law they have argued against Mary and Joseph actually being married since...well, you know what they call their version of Mary. LOLOLOLOLOL When an organization places itself in the position the Roman religion does, well, crazy things are bound to happen...even to the point of having to backtrack and say "well that is what we meant there, but it doesn't apply here" LOLOLOL Those crazy guys! LOLOLOLOLOL

Gojira said...

Hi Matthew,

"We don't jump through anything."

apologists certainly do.

" The priest makes a voluntary vow of celibacy just like those who did in Sacred Scripture. Its not my fault if you don't like it. Go argue with Saint Paul."

From reading your posts, I have yet to see where you have made this anything beyond assertion. Can you point out just where the scriptures you quoted give ***FULL*** support to the position you are affirming? If you can't I would be forced to say you are taking them out of context and forcing your ideas upon them.

Matthew Bellisario said...

"From reading your posts, I have yet to see where you have made this anything beyond assertion. Can you point out just where the scriptures you quoted give ***FULL*** support to the position you are affirming? If you can't I would be forced to say you are taking them out of context and forcing your ideas upon them."

The Scriptures tell us that one can voluntarily make a vow celibacy, and that it is good to do for those that can. This is what the priest does in the Latin Rite Church, baring a few exceptions. It is not reading into the texts, but the text of Sacred Scripture gives clear examples for this type of vow.

Gojira said...

Hi Matthew,

You write:
"The Scriptures tell us that one can voluntarily make a vow celibacy, and that it is good to do for those that can. This is what the priest does in the Latin Rite Church, baring a few exceptions. It is not reading into the texts, but the text of Sacred Scripture gives clear examples for this type of vow."

Correct, the scriptures talk about a voluntary vow. What it does not do is make the vow binding on all who would serve in that compasity. In that you have erred. Just as you have read your theology into the text. Where does it teach the Roman Rites view of Priestly celibacy? The answer is nowhere as has been pointed out to you by someone else giving scripture. Peter led a wife for example. Doesn't sound like he had taken a vow. It is funny that you would have quoted Matthew 19. Notice that it says"... And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake..." To leave a wife you have to have one. But you used this verse as part of your argument. Since you have done so, notice that it talks about children. Is Jesus speaking literally about abandoning a wife or a child? Or is He simply using a Jewish way of speaking? Where in this verse is there any application to a celibate priesthood. If they had a wife or children, they certainly weren't being celibate. The problem is that you are taking a verse and applying it to the priesthood, which leaves you begging the question. How do you know Jesus is talking about a celibate priesthood here? Is He only referencing them (the celibate priests)? You also mentioned 1Cor. 7. Yet how does that apply strictly to a celibate priesthood when Paul was addressing the church? That is simply you forcing your ideas onto the text.Yes Paul said that it would be good if others were like him, but because of immorality. But he says to take a wife. He is giving practical instruction. There in nothing implicit of a celibate priesthood there.

Matthew Bellisario said...

"What it does not do is make the vow binding on all who would serve in that compasity. In that you have erred."

No I have not erred. Once one had made a lifetime vow, that is exactly what it is, and there are examples in Scripture of people making that type of vow.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting."

This gives a perfect example of a vow of celibacy that is made for the rest of one's life. I am not reading into Scripture, you are refuse to see clear examples of voluntary vows of celibacy.

Gojira said...

Hi Matthew,

You write:
"This gives a perfect example of a vow of celibacy that is made for the rest of one's life. I am not reading into Scripture, you are refuse to see clear examples of voluntary vows of celibacy."

Matthew, I have no quarrel with the idea that vows can be taken. If I must remind you, the topic is on celibacy of the priesthood, and whether the scriptures impose a vow onto that. Tis a big subject though because for you to succeed you would have to fist show the Roman Rite of priesthood from the scriptures since you have been using the scriptures to make your argument. And again, the subject is the celibacy of the Roman priesthood, and how the Church forbids marriage in that account. It isn't if there are vows one could take. A person could take any vow, but that doesn't mean the vow is binding on all. Stay focused on the actual argument and try not to divert from it if you are able, please.
Ok lets once more see what this says:
Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting."

1) nothing about a priesthood is said. That is you forcing that idea upon it.

2)"You who have followed me..." Where is the reference to the priesthood. Perhaps you need to establish the context in which this was spoken, as that might help you out. You who have followed is speaking to a wide range. If you are taking this verse to use in support of a celibate priesthood, you need to establish that it is specifically referencing the priesthood of the Roman Rite since they are the ones for the most part who forbid marriage.

3) Notice that it says that to those who leave their children. Having children doesn't equate to a celibate lifestyle. Regardless it say to those who leave children. Following your logic it would then be perfectly fine to abandon a child.

4) Notice what it says about leaving ones parents. Following your logic there is a contradiction created since we are told by the apostle Paul that to abandon ones parents is worse than what an unbeliever would do.

Take some time and learn about how 1st century Jewish teachers spoke and taught. That may help you on future endevors. Also try to stick with what the actual argument is and what it isn't. The argument has to do with the Roman Rite forbiding someone to get married. So far you haven't touched that argument. What you have done is try to force your idea on passages that have nothing to do with the Roman priesthood and how they must deny marriage to the priests.

Like I said though, this is a huge subject with many assumptions, one being the very idea of the priesthood as conceived under the Roman Rite. The Roman Rite can't be the end all nor the best since other Rites do permit their priests to marry, or stated the other way around, there are other Rites that don't forbid their priests to get married. In short, the Roman Rite doesn't trump all, nor should it even be considered the best expression of it's clergy since there are other so called valid Rites. Perhaps you guys should take their lead?

Ben M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zipper778 said...

I said: "That passage [1 Tim 4:3-5] not only covers a mandatory priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite but it also covers abstaining from red meat on fridays during Lent."

Matthew said: "No it does not."

This made me lol. So much for just reading something for what it says. Let me show you a little bit more from the passage I gave:

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim 4:1-5)

I take it then Matthew that you just ignore what the Bible says when it comes to priestly celibacy, correct? Because there is no reason whatsoever to impose a rule on the priests when the Bible gives a very clear position as to whether church leaders can be married or not. It's voluntary.

Well, I guess you have no choice but to argue with me over this. I mean, you could agree with me but then you would have to disagree with your church. This is why I try to show RC's what the Bible says. Because maybe, just maybe, the Holy Spirit will show them that they can trust the Bible. You have the right to read it for what it says. There's no need to read anything into it.

God Bless you Matthew

Ben M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ben M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zipper778 said...

Ben M, I never said that I was a Calvinist nore do I see Calvinist leaders writings as you would see papal encyclicals. People made mistakes, including Protestants and the RCC.

Nice change of topic btw Ben M. You and Matthew still haven't addressed the Bible passage. Until then, your reply didn't have anything to do with the topic.

scotju said...

Ben M, your description of Calvin's desire to know and control is a classic description of narcisstic personality disorder aka control freak. Interestingly enough, one description of NPD that I read said,"Often become cult leaders". Why am I not surprised?

Matthew D. Schultz said...

scotju, unless you're prepared to make a case from the criteria listed in the DSM, you have no case. As it stands, you are just slandering Calvin to dismiss his theology without engaging it.

Interestingly enough, one description of NPD that I read said,"Often become cult leaders". Why am I not surprised?

Is that how Reformed Protestantism is officially described by your denomination? As a cult with Calvin as its leader?

scotju said...

Matt, I'm a former cult member (Worldwide Church of God),so I'm pretty familiar with what cultic behavior is and isn't. I'm also a man who has several friends and loved ones who suffer from mental illnesses, so I know what goes down in that area too.

"you have no case." No, I've got a pretty good case. The description of the way Cal & Co. struck their noses into everybody's personal business is classic control freak behavior, which usually springs from the narcisstic disover or obsessive-compulsive disorder. nobody in his right mind would be overly concerned about what type of hose someone was wearing, what name someone else's child should have, and have a spy system that would snoop on families to insure things were being done according to Cal. As for you claiming I'm slandering poor ol' Jean, I can only wonder what kind of theology can support or drive this kind of behavior.

As for how the Catholic Church offically describe Calvinism, the Concil of Trent said those who espoused the ideas of the "reformation" were anathema. That would make them, wheather they were formally labeled or not, schmatics or heretics. I hope this clarifies things for you.

Ben M said...

Ben: The Roman Church has NO “doctrine” forbidding anyone to marry - marriage is a sacrament open to all.

James: Except priests. Do you think we're idiots or something?

Could be! LOL! Notice I said no “doctrine,” which is quite true. Celibacy is not a doctrine but only a disciple. As such it can be modified or changed.

Ben: God has always called certain individuals to the celibate life in order that they may serve him unreservedly.

James: What's your point? That's a matter between the individual and God, not to be mandated by the church.

Ben: Says who, you?

Ben: The Church has every right to set rules and conditions pertaining to the priesthood

James: If you say so. But they violate the biblical commandment. Apparently they have "every right" to do that, too.

Ben: So where do you find lay people in the either the Old or the New Testament deciding for themselves which doctrines and practices they will follow?

James: And if the RCC does it, it has to be right! B/c Christ founded it! Matthew 16! Blah!!!

Ben. What Church did Christ found prey tell?

James:
1) You have no proof Timothy was celibate.
2) Paul CHOSE to be celibate. RCC MANDATES its clergy be celibate.
3) Peter was married. Fail.
4) Paul was an apostle, not a presbuteros.

Ben:

1) From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“St. Timothy has been regarded by some as the "angel of the church of Ephesus", Apoc., ii, 1-17.... Timothy, who was unmarried, continued Bishop of Ephesus until, when he was over eighty years of age, he was mortally beaten by the pagans.”

Epistles to Timothy and Titus


2) Did Paul chose celibacy of his free-will, or was he first given the gift of celibacy? Was it not God’s will rather than Paul’s choice? Or better, was it not both i.e., grace and free-will?

3) Peter was married. So?

From Wikipedia - Clerical Celibacy:

“I Corinthians 9:5 is sometimes cited by those opposed to celibacy, as the verse is often rendered as referring to the Apostles carrying "wives" with them. However, the Greek word for "wife" is the same word for "woman". The Early Church Fathers including Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine state the Greek word is ambiguous and the women in I Corinthians 9:5 were women ministering to the Apostles as women ministered to Christ (cf. Luke 8:1–3), and were not wives.[46] They even went as far as to assert they left their "offices of marriage" to follow Christ and to preach.[47]”

Ben M said...

Continued.

4) Paul most certainly was a bishop, as were all the apostles. Google it!

“Paul was a bishop”
“Paul was the bishop”
“Apostles were bishops”

And Cyprian tells us:

“But deacons ought to remember that the Lord chose apostles, that is, bishops and overseers; while apostles appointed for themselves deacons after the ascent of the Lord into heaven, as ministers of their episcopacy and of the Church. But if we may dare anything against God who makes bishops, deacons may also dare against us by whom they are made; and therefore it behooves the deacon of whom you write to repent of his audacity, and to acknowledge the honour of the priest, and to satisfy the bishop set over him with full humility.

"For these things are the beginnings of heretics, and the origins and endeavours of evil-minded schismatics;— to please themselves, and with swelling haughtiness to despise him who is set over them. Thus they depart from the Church— thus a profane altar is set up outside— thus they rebel against the peace of Christ, and the appointment and the unity of God.”

Epistle 64:3.

“But by the confession of all parties, St Paul was a bishop in the highest sense in which that word is ever used…”

Encyclopaedia Britannica, (1823), vol. 8, p. 256.

Ben: Re: perpetual abstinence in marriage is unbiblical - “Else, they cannot be one flesh. 1 Cor 7: 3.”
Well, that’s certainly what, with perhaps a couple of exceptions, Protestants believe.

James: Yeah, that's so crazy, that Protestants might just believe what the Bible teaches.

Ben:

a. James,what, in your opinion, is the purpose of married couples abstaining at all?

b. St. Paul teaches to abstain from sexual relations with one’s spouse for a time. But for how long a time he does not say. And so for how long a time should they abstain?

Ben: “The traditional option of maintaining a sexless ‘spiritual marriage’ was anathema to Calvin.”

James: Awesome. Good for Calvin. Another reason to like the guy.

Ben: And a few reasons not to! LOL!!!

Ben M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ben M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zipper778 said...

Ben M, it is obvious now that you have no answer than to the Bible passage that I gave. Let me address some of your points to me:

a. Paul and Timothy were bishops, yet both were celibate.

I agree, but it was voluntary. Peter didn't demand them to be celibate or else stop leading the church.

b. Priests are exempt from the necessity of marriage since, according to your own interpretation, only bishops must be married.

No, I think you misunderstand what the Bible is saying here. There was no office of "priest" in the NT church. There was the "High Priest" who is Jesus Christ, and the other is the "royal priesthood" who are the followers of Jesus Christ. There wasn't a clerical priest like we see in the RCC because there was no sacrifice left to administer to God for His people. Jesus was the final once for all sacrifice.

c. What if we change abstaining from meat to Thursdays? LOL!

Then I would tell you that the Bible prohibits the enforcement of such things (see 1 Tim 4:3-5). You still haven't figured out a way to get around that passage yet have you? And yet you implied that I'm nutty?

I don’t know if I’d call burning people for singing songs one doesn’t approve of a “mistake.” But then again, that’s just me.

Here you are absolutely correct. Which is exactly why I don't follow men, but Jesus Christ Himself. Here are some other examples of the RCC that I wouldn't follow which were more than mistakes:

The heretic's fork

Cat's paws

The rack

The headcrusher

Burning at the stake

These torture devises and more were developed by the RC clergy to make a heretic confess that he was wrong, even if say he wanted to be able to read the Bible in his own language. I don't want to follow that system.

Now I ask, what kind of talk is this from the "Great Preacher" and so-called “reformer”?

You are the only one bringing up Calvin here. I don't understand why. I could probably quote from the majority of your popes things that you would disagree with. Yet you would be more obliged to have to submit to them then we would to Calvin. I really don't care about the man's problems. He too was a sinner and got things wrong and needed God's grace.

scotju said...

Hey Ben M, what is this thing that Calvin and Luther had for filth, especially feces? Matt Schultz said ol' Jean had his scholarly side, but it sounds to me it's just a load of you know what.

But on a more serious note, I remember back when I was in the Worldwide Church of God, that similar langauge was used from the pulpit to denounce those who dared question the holy will of Herbert Armstrong. His favorite word was vomit. He would say things like false ministers were vomiting garbage on the congergation. However, like Lu&Cal, he did on occassion, use the langauge of excrement. I remember reading a letter he sent out around the time of his first wife's death accusing the church being full of filth, like his wife's impacted bowels. So I has to wonder what was really on these guy's minds in their 'reforming work.

Ben M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ben M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Viisaus said...

The over-estimation of the value of virginity was one of the earliest errors to seriously infect the Christian church.

It was so SEEMINGLY pure and noble idea that it spread quickly around. Devil has won some of his greatest victories under the guise of an angel of light, and the over-exaltation of celibacy finally led to the rise of separate priestly caste.

Hypocrisies of monkery and the institutional degradation of non-celibate Christian laity were its full fruit.

Ben M said...

Mr. Playboy II declares:

The over-estimation of the value of virginity was one of the earliest errors to seriously infect the Christian church. … [The] Devil has won some of his greatest victories under the guise of an angel of light,

And speaking of the Devil… ;)

“Hefner blamed Christianity, which had denounced carnal urges and idealized celibacy, as the culprit.”

Mr Playboy: Hugh Hefner and the American Dream, 2009, Steven Watts, p. 255.

LOL! You guys…!!!

Viisaus said...

Predictable ad hominem response from Ben M.

The Manichaeans idealized celibacy too, you know. Buddhists still do, and with Hindus, they believe that containing one's sperm gives you occult powers (seriously).

In fact, early Christians were probably indirectly influenced by the Gnostic abhorrence of matter when they began to think that carnal copulation (even within lawful marriage) fundamentally defiles a man, making him incapable of being truly spiritual.


In any case, in this fallen world ANY virtue can be overdone and exaggerated to the point it becomes unhealthy and impious. The virtue of celibacy/virginity included.

Ben M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Viisaus said...

"Now this is truly amazing. The "Whore of Babylon" is accused of emphasizing chastity and sexual purity to the point where they become "unhealthy and impious"!!"


Ever heard about the concept of "irony"? The Bible employs it continually by contrasting the shallow opinions of men and the profound truth of God.

The apocalyptic "harlot" may well make an outward show of purity and infallibility, but God reveals to us what lies within, beneath the the decorated surface.