The Bible and the benefits system.

March 2024 Forums General discussion The Bible and the benefits system.

Viewing 13 posts - 31 through 43 (of 43 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #244906
    Thomas_More
    Participant

    Whether it was genuine or not is irrelevant.
    The point is that celibacy, and assumed virginity, was idolised, as long as it went hand in hand with monastic vows.
    And the real reason for this was that, with only monks being enthroned as bishops, the power was retained by the monastic clergy.
    This is still the case (protestants excepted). The most a married priest can become is an archpriest.
    In the Roman Church celibacy for all clergy began to be enforced in the 11th century, but still, secular (non-monastic) priests would mostly remain barred from the higher clergy.

    The idea that celibacy was superior to married life had begun in the Hellenist world and was inherited by the Church (and is stressed by St. Paul, who says marriage is a condescension to those too weak to remain virgins – and hence unworthy of higher things).

    #244907
    Thomas_More
    Participant

    In Switzerland today one sees friars followed by their women and children, at a distance, and whom they cannot acknowledge – or so I was told by a German theology student.

    #244917
    Almamater
    Participant

    The priest that created Celibacy had a bunch of women before it was implemented, he was a sugar daddy. It is an economical decision, it is cheaper to provide financial support to one priest than to his whole family, can you imagine going to court and a woman claiming child support, spousal support, properties and alimony from a priest ? Who is going to pay if the court honor the claim ? It would be more expensive than a divorce among the Hollywood celebrities

    There is not any citation in the Bible indicating that the followers of Jesus cannot be married, or cannot have a woman, according to the Bible the apostles were married. The Roman christians had pagan celebrations involving women, sex and wines, they have found evidences in the catacombs. Paul distorted the original principles of the primitive christians, it should be called Paulism, he was the real founder of the Catholic Church which is the negation of the Roman primitive christians, and the economic base of catholicism was Feudalism

    Paul had syphilis and nobody knows if he inherited it that from his family and or he was infected by women, and he used opium and hashish due to the fact that syphilis produces a lot of pain, and mental illusions and halucinations in the same way that the soviets provided mercury to Lenin because he had syphilis, He was caught up to the third heaven because he had mental illusions, or hallucinations, anything above the earth is heaven, a pilot flying above the cloud is in heaven, I have been in heaven many times because I have travelled a lot to different places

    Paul was not an apostle of Jesus, in order to be an apostle you have to be a visual witness of his resurrection, and the first witnesses were women, and he did not have any encounter with Jesus in Damascus, it is just a lie and he was part of the Herodian family, and the opposition of Herod wanted to kill him

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by Almamater.
    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by Almamater.
    #244925
    Thomas_More
    Participant

    ” Paul distorted the original principles of the primitive christians, it should be called Paulism, he was the real founder of the Catholic Church which is the negation of the Roman primitive christians, and the economic base of catholicism was Feudalism.”

    *****

    Too simplistic. I agree that Paul was the founder of what would become the Athanasian Church, but that triumphant Church was created in the East, where all the doctrinal matters were fought over and hammered out, and it was a slave-owning society, not a feudal one.
    Rome was just one bishopric, called papacy because of its size, not because of any special precedence. All the Churches formed the Catholic Church, but it wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church, which didn’t exist until 1054, when the Bishop of Rome (Pope) broke away from the others.

    By that time feudalism was the system in western Europe, and the Roman Church, in isolation for a long time from the Asian Churches, was accommodated to it. (Saxon England and the Celtic churches were not subject to Rome – the latter separate since the 7th century, and the English having lapsed from communion with Rome and holding communion with the East).
    1066 and William Bastard brought both feudalism to England and also the papal mandate to re-establish submission to Rome.

    *****

    ” There is not any citation in the Bible indicating that the followers of Jesus cannot be married, or cannot have a woman, according to the Bible the apostles were married. ”

    True, but Paul states that those who cannot live unmarried had better marry rather than live in sin, but that it is better not to be married at all.

    I have no wish to defend Paul nor to say he wasn’t probably a lecher. I’m just saying that his words were used to legitimise the power, later on, of monastic clergy over secular.

    Yes, he would have been a liar, and a hater of love, life and beauty. Joachim Kahl calls him a “neurotic philistine.” But Paul won. And so did his follower Athanasius of Alexandria, the leader of the Pauline sect which became Orthodox Christianity, and all later trinitarian Christianity.

    *****

    #244927
    Almamater
    Participant

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/keracher/1929/how-gods-made.htm

    This book shows that all religion had a materialistic origin and most religion came or were related to a specific economic system
    ——————————————-
    Yes, he would have been a liar, and a hater of love, life and beauty. Joachim Kahl calls him a “neurotic philistine.” But Paul won. And so did his follower Athanasius of Alexandria, the leader of the Pauline sect which became Orthodox Christianity, and all later trinitarian Christianity.

    =====================================================================

    In reality Peter was the winner, even more, they had said that Peter went to Rome and that is not true, his last writing was written in Asia Minor, and he did not speak Latin or Greek, and Paul had more writing than him and several were written by somebody else

    =====================================================================

    Too simplistic. I agree that Paul was the founder of what would become the Athanasian Church, but that triumphant Church was created in the East, where all the doctrinal matters were fought over and hammered out, and it was a slave-owning society, not a feudal one.
    Rome was just one bishopric, called papacy because of its size, not because of any special precedence. All the Churches formed the Catholic Church, but it wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church, which didn’t exist until 1054, when the Bishop of Rome (Pope) broke away from the others.
    ———————————-
    I am not going to write a speech about those events, it is just a summary, in any way, I do not believe that individuals make history, the economic reality of that time made history, and that religion was becoming the ideological vehicle of the rulers of that time, and it became the opposite of the original christian, even more, Engels described them similar to a working class movement

    #244928
    Thomas_More
    Participant

    ” This book shows that all religion had a materialistic origin and most religion came or were related to a specific economic system.”

    ****

    Not denying that.

    ****

    ” do not believe that individuals make history, the economic reality of that time made history, and that religion was becoming the ideological vehicle of the rulers of that time, and it became the opposite of the original christian, even more, Engels described them similar to a working class movement.”

    ****

    Not denying that either. But the superstructure not only reflects the base, it also influences changes in it, because ideas, which come from material reality, are also part of that reality and influence its progress.

    #245016
    Almamater
    Participant

    https://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2040355,00.html

    This ex catholic priest comes from a Cuban family, he left the Catholic Church and joint the Episcopal Church and he got married. Before he only had happy new year and now he has good nights. He said that Celibacy should be optional.

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by Almamater.
    #245018
    Thomas_More
    Participant

    It is for Greek priests, but only if they accept they’ll never be bishops.
    Married priests in the Greek Church have to marry before ordination.
    You realise the difference in prestige because a monastic, unmarried priest can become a bishop, archbishop, and archimandrite (an abbot of several monasteries with jurisdiction over a large area). But married priests stay just priests and have no administrative power.

    #245021
    Thomas_More
    Participant

    In Athens I lodged with a married couple. A young monk visited. He just walked in. The couple rose and stood with heads bowed. Although it was their home, they remained standing until the monk bade them sit. He wasn’t even a priest.

    #245022
    Thomas_More
    Participant

    Even if the Roman Church were to allow priests to marry, it would only be secular priests at parish level. Not monastic priests. I guess it would work out the same as the Greek Church – which is how the Roman Church was anyway until the 11th century.

    #245038
    Almamater
    Participant

    Thomas_More
    Participant
    Even if the Roman Church were to allow priests to marry, it would only be secular priests at parish level. Not monastic priests. I guess it would work out the same as the Greek Church – which is how the Roman Church was anyway until the 11th century.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    Similar to a Deacon

    #245039
    Thomas_More
    Participant

    In the Greek Church, even a monastic deacon is more influential than a married priest.

    I stayed in several monasteries and one deacon visited them all and was in fact feared by the monks. They awaited him by looking nervously out the windows, saying “The deacon’s coming!” like schoolboys afraid of the headmaster. He was very tall and stern.

    #245043
    Thomas_More
    Participant

    When I was a teenager, I went through teenage stages of interest. One of these was a wish to become a monk.

    I wanted to escape the modern world and I thought if I could be a monk, I could avoid what every one else did: get a job, etc. Plus, I loved history and thought being a monk would help me into a medieval world.

    What type of monk I wanted to be depended on my teenage phases. I had a Buddhist period, and studied Tibetan Buddhism. I learned a lot about that. I also had a Catholic period, and learned a lot about that.
    And during these periods, I practised the religions. I went to the Catholic church and told the priest about my wish to be a monk. In my Buddhist phase, I went to meet a lama who is a relative of the Dalai Lama and spoke to him.
    Finally I had my last teenage phase, which was the Eastern Church. This phase went further than the others and lasted three years, beginning in my last year at school.

    I left home at nineteen and began to prepare to become a Greek monk. I was baptised and sent to Greece to stay at several monasteries. A translator met me there and I had some very bizarre experiences.

    I learned a lot, from the inside, about Byzantine theology. I stayed in the mountains near Corinth.

    When I was twenty I repudiated the Church and returned home to my parents. My teenage years were over. But I learned much which has helped me understand monasticism, theology and history.

Viewing 13 posts - 31 through 43 (of 43 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.