Yet obviously many do control this impulse. Should we cater to our impusles? Are we no better then animals with no control over our impulses?
Catholic Discussion
- Thread starter sanctus
- Start date
Yet obviously many do control this impulse. Should we cater to our impusles? Are we no better then animals with no control over our impulses?
m_levesque
Yet obviously many do control this impulse.
If there is a self awareness ,there is no need to control anything .You only control someting that you dont understand.
Yet obviously many do control this impulse.
If there is a self awareness ,there is no need to control anything .You only control someting that you dont understand.
China
Interesting story - makes the philosophy even more deep...... but thanks for exercising my lazy brain again.
I believe some men have lower sexual drives than others....but I don't know if this is fact or another medical fantasy. Sometimes childhood illness does impair a man's sexual drives while he still prefers to be engaged in a relationship with a woman - with love attached....
About males who take a vow of celibacy, stubbornly I cling to the concept as adverse to natural life.
Interesting story - makes the philosophy even more deep...... but thanks for exercising my lazy brain again.
I believe some men have lower sexual drives than others....but I don't know if this is fact or another medical fantasy. Sometimes childhood illness does impair a man's sexual drives while he still prefers to be engaged in a relationship with a woman - with love attached....
About males who take a vow of celibacy, stubbornly I cling to the concept as adverse to natural life.
Maybe? I am sort of surprised we haven't heard from Sanctus on this theme. I understand he is celibate, so I think hos opinion would be valuable..Sanctus???Come out, come out wherever you are???
I think he's probably doing some healing right now. His Mom's funeral was yesterday.
And yet, it is a long standing tradition, not just in the Church, but amongst many religious people of various faiths. The Essenses abstained from sex and so do Buddhist monks. I wonder if it, at times, becomes a struggle for them?
I had a friend (you know who you are!) express concern when I said I would be enrolling my kids in Catholic school upon our move to Edmonton. He figured that because they'd be in Catholic school, they wouldn't be taught evolution. I almost laughed, because I've never heard anybody within my church refute evolution theory. I was taught evolution in Catholic school.
I could never do it..
I do wonder why it is called for in the catholic chursh...I'm sure soemone can tell me why. Preists in the old testiment were married, so were a number of the Diciples...is there somewhere in the Bible that calls for it or is it another earthly Pope law??
I do wonder why it is called for in the catholic chursh...I'm sure soemone can tell me why. Preists in the old testiment were married, so were a number of the Diciples...is there somewhere in the Bible that calls for it or is it another earthly Pope law??
Thank God for the nuns in grade school! I remember why! At first the Church allowed married men into the priesthood, but after the first 800-1000 years decided it was too problematic and that men could devote themselves more easily to the work of the Church if they did not have families to contend with. The example was St. Paul, actually, who by all accounts lived a celibate life and advocated same.
What isn't widely known, but is also true, are that several of the Rites of the Church do have a married priesthood. They just have to be married before they are ordained.
Maybe if I reply to enough in this thread my sig will make an appearance. lol.
See, the way I've always had it explained to me by my anthropologist friends, is that there is no 'proof' that we are a result of evolution. There is a lot of compelling evidence, but, no concrete proof. Thus, it's still only called a theory. I do agree with you, that only the thickest of people would say it doesn't happen however. I know, it's a nitpicky difference, but, I've been chastised by even my atheist anthroplogist friends for referring to evolution as a fact.
I see no conflict whatso ever..nor do a number of scientist... God created heaven and earth..that is agreed then plants and animals..agreed again then Man..again agreed.
The only time there is discourse is between creation being inteligent design or just happening... Personally I think "just happening" can sound just as rediculous as an invible man in the sky making it...
Personally God is not invisible, I see him every day...you just need to look...
The only time there is discourse is between creation being inteligent design or just happening... Personally I think "just happening" can sound just as rediculous as an invible man in the sky making it...
Personally God is not invisible, I see him every day...you just need to look...
I have heard that from Sanctus before..was a new one to me.
What do you think given the day and age? is this a good policy? I feel my Anglican minister gives the proper attention and devotion to his congregation while married...I've never though of love as dividing. I don't love my wife less after I had two children to love. Rather loved thm all more and was more devoted then when I was single. I don't just mean more devoted to my personally family, but to life, work, everything...
Sanctus has two daughters - he writes of them on his homepage
What bothers me - because celibacy must be the ultimate test for mankind I guess - even then I am not certain if this is so....
What bothers me I repeat - is that celibacy seems to mock the act of procreation - which also is a gift for us - in making it tawdry and forbidden - for what reason?
Are celibates any higher or more pure than those who joyfully create young children to nurture for a lifetime of love?
Is devotion to a higher power or god selective or are we all capable of living holy lives within and without marriage or acts of love with another.
I think there is no comparison to a struggling celibate - alone and perhaps angry - when compared with a loving father whose life is spent in raising his children.
Wow I can hear the roar now from on high.... but I was given an opinion..... I guess I just used it.
What bothers me - because celibacy must be the ultimate test for mankind I guess - even then I am not certain if this is so....
What bothers me I repeat - is that celibacy seems to mock the act of procreation - which also is a gift for us - in making it tawdry and forbidden - for what reason?
Are celibates any higher or more pure than those who joyfully create young children to nurture for a lifetime of love?
Is devotion to a higher power or god selective or are we all capable of living holy lives within and without marriage or acts of love with another.
I think there is no comparison to a struggling celibate - alone and perhaps angry - when compared with a loving father whose life is spent in raising his children.
Wow I can hear the roar now from on high.... but I was given an opinion..... I guess I just used it.
Apparently he is in one of those Rites Mary mentioned. I think I read the Byzantine Rite, which means nothing to me!
But what does intereste me is, from what I gather, he is celibate now, so something must've happened to the wife/mother?
My point in this is not to discuss somebody's personal life, but merely to wonder how much harder it must be to go from a state of marriage to total celibacy.
I am getting flabbergasted here.
So, The Bible, we don't take to be the truth.
We believe in Jesus dieing on the cross, and the Rapture and Tribulation and all that, but we cherry-pick that we can't take Genisis as the truth?
I was though that the Bible cannot be cherry-picked, you accept all of it or none of it.
I wasn't told by any priest to not accept creationism, but many priests have told me that Cherry-picking the Bible is wrong..
So?
Edit: Or are what you saying is: Genisis is not to be taken literally but as a metaphor?
So, The Bible, we don't take to be the truth.
We believe in Jesus dieing on the cross, and the Rapture and Tribulation and all that, but we cherry-pick that we can't take Genisis as the truth?
I was though that the Bible cannot be cherry-picked, you accept all of it or none of it.
I wasn't told by any priest to not accept creationism, but many priests have told me that Cherry-picking the Bible is wrong..
So?
Edit: Or are what you saying is: Genisis is not to be taken literally but as a metaphor?
First off, the rapture/tribulation is NOT in the Scriptures. It is a pentecostal invention that first saw light approx. 100 years ago in the USA.
Secondly, exegesis of Biblical passages must always be done in context of the time, the author and the intention of the writing. The account of creation in Genesis, which by the way matches evolution, was not to provide an actual, literal explanation of the creation of life, but in fact to make the key point that the Universe as we know it was created, authoured, by God. No one is expected to take the two Creations stories presented in Genesis as literal truth.
so you are saying we have to take the words of the Bible and apply it to the times.
Thats getting a little dangerous.. you can't 'change' your beliefs with the times. But I guess I agree you can apply your beliefs logically to the times.
That the universe was created by god, but the life on earth came from an evolutionary process.
Ok, I am starting to get this.
And, this troubles me. Tribulation/Rapture doesn't happen? I was almost confident it did. I read the entire Jerry B. Jenkins/Tim Lahaye book series "Left Behind" and read the Bible, and some of the stuff if inferred for books and movies, but I thought the rapture, 7 years judgment, 1000 years rein on earth, and final battle, was true...
Thats getting a little dangerous.. you can't 'change' your beliefs with the times. But I guess I agree you can apply your beliefs logically to the times.
That the universe was created by god, but the life on earth came from an evolutionary process.
Ok, I am starting to get this.
And, this troubles me. Tribulation/Rapture doesn't happen? I was almost confident it did. I read the entire Jerry B. Jenkins/Tim Lahaye book series "Left Behind" and read the Bible, and some of the stuff if inferred for books and movies, but I thought the rapture, 7 years judgment, 1000 years rein on earth, and final battle, was true...
The way I've heard it best explained, is that, the book of genesis was written to explain to the people of THAT time how the universe came to be. There was no understanding yet of evolution, no understanding yet of fossil records and the sheer vastness of the universe. To try to give more detail than the simple story provided, would have simply gone over everyone's heads. human intellect has evolved to allow us to understand it in its non-literal sense. It doesn't make it wrong, or mean that we're cherry picking persay.
And rightly so, because THE Theoryof Evolution is theory, not law. As I said. "The theory of evolution has enough evidence to point out the way things on Earth have evolved". It has gaps in the evidence. Evolution is, however, a fact. It does occur. And evolution being a fact is a good chunk of evidence that the Theory of Evolution is true. That and the fact that no-one has come up with a substantial amount of evidence contradictory to the Theory of Evolution.