• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Would you become a priest?

Would you become a priest, monk, or nun?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 7.9%

  • Possibly

    Votes: 7 18.4%

  • Never in a million years

    Votes: 18 47.4%

  • Only if I was not required to be celibate

    Votes: 4 10.5%

  • Hail Satan!

    Votes: 6 15.8%
  • Total voters
    38
SCWrath said:
I was raised in an Episcopalian church where the minister is a lesbian woman.
Click to expand...

Excellent suggestion! Perhaps GaThomas should consider becoming a lesbian Episcopalian priest. Of course that path would involve surgery.
 
laska said:
Mormons believe "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage", just not in your context. The marriage sealing for eternity done in the temple needs to be done in this life or in the space between death and the resurrection where the spirit and body are re-united. It is too late after that. So see, we simply disagree on interpretations.
Click to expand...

You may have an interpretation that I cannot dispute, exclusive to that singular verse. However, when you add this one...:

Luke - 14:26:
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."


It seems pretty clear that the overall message is that you cannot be a true disciple of Jesus if you have your family as another love interest. This notion is supported elsewhere in the New Testament:


1 Corinthians - 7:32:
"But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife."

laska said:
Also Mormons, while believing the Holy Bible is inspired and scriptures, do not believe it is infallible due to translation errors and errors of man. That is why following a living prophet and modern scriptures can help clarify the Bible and what is true or not, as well as utilizing personal revelation from God. For example in the exodus account, there are some verses that state something to the effect that God put it into the heart of Pharaoh do do all these bad things to the Israelites. Joseph Smith, a living prophet, was inspired by the Holy Ghost to give an inspired translation of the Bible and those verses were shown to be scribal errors. So just off a scribal error you could get a bad impression of God.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your beliefs. However, the Bible extensively puts down the family unit. It is not just one or two lines, which could be attributed to "scribal errors", it is extensive. The family unit is only condoned in the Bible as a method of avoiding adultery and fornication. Paul encourages not getting married; but if you cannot resist, then get married and still try not to have sex; but if you cannot resist, then have sex only with your spouse.
 
I guess that's why Jesus turned the water into wine at a WEDDING! Oh and a good Jewish boy was expected to be married very young, and if I am not mistaken, he could not preach in the synagogue unless he was married, both things Christ did. In fact there would be no disciples without a family unit. Your interpretations are silly. All he is trying to say is put God first in your life, love Him more than anything. Has nothing to do with not having a family.
 
To be more clear, what those verses are saying is basically if your wife says choose me or God, or your family says choose us or your God, that God will make it up to that person 100 fold. New spouse, new family, extremely blessed. You give up a lot for your testimony you are blessed a lot. That is all those verses are saying imho!
 
Last edited:
laska said:
I guess that's why Jesus turned the water into wine at a WEDDING! Oh and a good Jewish boy was expected to be married very young, and if I am not mistaken, he could not preach in the synagogue unless he was married, both things Christ did. In fact there would be no disciples without a family unit. Your interpretations are silly. All he is trying to say is put God first in your life, love Him more than anything. Has nothing to do with not having a family.
Click to expand...

Again -- and I don't know how many times I have to say this -- other Bible verses that contradict mine merely show that the Bible contradicts itself, not my argument.

And to say over and over again that my interpretations are silly proves nothing. You are showing nothing about how they are silly. Did you even read the relevant scripture? It says that you must hate your family in order to be a disciple of Jesus. I have cited numerous different verses putting down the family unit now. They can hardly all be errors, it is a recurring theme in the Bible.
 
SCWrath said:
Again -- and I don't know how many times I have to say this -- other Bible verses that contradict mine merely show that the Bible contradicts itself, not my argument.

And to say over and over again that my interpretations are silly proves nothing. You are showing nothing about how they are silly. Did you even read the relevant scripture? It says that you must hate your family in order to be a disciple of Jesus. I have cited numerous different verses putting down the family unit now. They can hardly all be errors, it is a recurring theme in the Bible.
Click to expand...

Interpret the way you want. I am sure you have hundreds of verses you can quote and give what I consider silly interpretations and then dumbly say if it is not my interpretation than the Bible is inconsistent. I've shown you at least twice where there are no inconsistencies if interpreted differently than your own. This is why I stated in another thread it is a waste of time debating this with your type. No offense. I'll answer three things then you'll throw out ten more with rarely if ever conceding a point. I'm done.
 
Last edited:
laska said:
Dude, interpret the way you want. I am sure you have hundreds of verses you can quote and give what I consider silly interpretations and then dumbly say if it is not my interpretation than the Bible is inconsistent. I've shown you at least twice where there is no inconsistencies when interpreted my way. This is why I stated in another thread it is a waste of time debating this with your type. No offense. I'll answer three things then you'll throw out 10 more without conceding a point. I'm done.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I did concede that in the specific case of Jesus's rejection of marriage in heaven, it did not include marriages that took place before the afterlife.

The fact of the matter is, while you refuted one specific scripture quote, you entirely ignore all the other ones, because you can't provide a different interpretation of them. How could you possibly provide a different interpretation of the statement that you have to hate your family to be a disciple of Jesus? There is no other interpretation. Any other interpretation would simply be you ignoring the language of the Bible and applying your own philosophy with no basis in the scripture.

And I think it is you who is a waste of time to debate with, because you are not even debating. When you actually acknowledge a point, your response consists of you making baseless statements about your own personal philosophy. This is the great circular irony, in that you both claim that your philosophy is supported by and supports the scripture, while in actuality it does neither. Furthermore, when you cannot refute a point, you ignore it outright, as you have done on many occasions now.

Also, I have not been piling on additional points -- merely referencing more scripture sources. They all speak to the same point, which is that there is a recurring theme in that the Bible does not support the family unit.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Has anyone here ever seriously considered the priesthood or one of the holy orders (monks, nuns, etca)? For those who haven't, on a purely hypothetical level, could you imagine yourself ever doing so?

I've personally thought about it from time to time, but I don't think I could ever make the leap into purely celibate life. I simply enjoy the company of the opposite sex far, far too much. :mrgreen:

I've also always wanted a family.

Then again, I believe it was St. Augustine who once said, "grant me chastity oh lord, but not yet." The call will ultimately find you one or way or the other I suppose, regardless of what you might happen to think of it initially. :lol:
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between the Catholic priesthood and Catholic monks or nuns.

If you feel you have a calling to marriage this rules out the vow of celibacy required by the religious orders. If you are baptized in the Latin Rite then marriage also rules out ordination. But you may consider joining a personal prelature as a layman, such as Opus Dei, if you are called to marriage.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Has anyone here ever seriously considered the priesthood or one of the holy orders (monks, nuns, etca)? For those who haven't, on a purely hypothetical level, could you imagine yourself ever doing so?

I've personally thought about it from time to time, but I don't think I could ever make the leap into purely celibate life. I simply enjoy the company of the opposite sex far, far too much. :mrgreen:

I've also always wanted a family.

Then again, I believe it was St. Augustine who once said, "grant me chastity oh lord, but not yet." The call will ultimately find you one or way or the other I suppose, regardless of what you might happen to think of it initially. :lol:
Click to expand...

Perhaps the single biggest reason why I'm no longer a practicing Catholic is because of priests.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Perhaps the single biggest reason why I'm no longer a practicing Catholic is because of priests.
Click to expand...
Ironic, considering that it is priests that enable one to practice Catholicism.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Priests don't enable one to practice Catholicism, other than perhaps the one who performs the baptism.
Click to expand...

You need a priest to officiate all the sacraments, except in cases of true emergency.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Mexico...
Click to expand...

Are you off on vacation again? If so, have a safe and enjoyable trip - with all the Canadians seemingly being murdered in Mexico the past couple of years, I always worry about people I know who travel there.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Are you off on vacation again? If so, have a safe and enjoyable trip - with all the Canadians seemingly being murdered in Mexico the past couple of years, I always worry about people I know who travel there.
Click to expand...

We'll all die from some cause, and what better way than at a swim up pool bar... :mrgreen:
 
Guy Incognito said:
You need a priest to officiate all the sacraments, except in cases of true emergency.
Click to expand...

You don't need to receive all the sacraments, other than baptism, to be a practicing Catholic, although I would agree that your practice of the faith would be limited.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You don't need to receive all the sacraments, other than baptism, to be a practicing Catholic, although I would agree that your practice of the faith would be limited.
Click to expand...

Ok, that's fair. Incidentally, baptism is valid so long as it is in the name of the trinity, whether administered by a priest or not. If there are not exigent circumstances, however, a baptism or any other sacrament will be illicit.

But your logic is flawed. A baptized Catholic who lives within a reasonable proximity of a Catholic priest is required to obtain the sacraments through licit channels, anything less is mortal sin. Attempting to "practice Catholicism without priests" is not merely limited, it is impossible (unless you are stranded on a deserted island or something).
 
Guy Incognito said:
Ok, that's fair. Incidentally, baptism is valid so long as it is in the name of the trinity, whether administered by a priest or not. If there are not exigent circumstances, however, a baptism or any other sacrament will be illicit.

But your logic is flawed. A baptized Catholic who lives within a reasonable proximity of a Catholic priest is required to obtain the sacraments through licit channels, anything less is mortal sin. Attempting to "practice Catholicism without priests" is not merely limited, it is impossible (unless you are stranded on a deserted island or something).
Click to expand...

Fair enough - I'm just being technical in making the point - you can, in effect, be a practicing Catholic even if you have not, as yet, received all the sacraments.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
We'll all die from some cause, and what better way than at a swim up pool bar... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

"Cruel you are," said Yoda! :lamo: :drink: Hope you have a great time!
 
SCWrath said:
On the contrary, I did concede that in the specific case of Jesus's rejection of marriage in heaven, it did not include marriages that took place before the afterlife.

The fact of the matter is, while you refuted one specific scripture quote, you entirely ignore all the other ones, because you can't provide a different interpretation of them. How could you possibly provide a different interpretation of the statement that you have to hate your family to be a disciple of Jesus? There is no other interpretation. Any other interpretation would simply be you ignoring the language of the Bible and applying your own philosophy with no basis in the scripture.

And I think it is you who is a waste of time to debate with, because you are not even debating. When you actually acknowledge a point, your response consists of you making baseless statements about your own personal philosophy. This is the great circular irony, in that you both claim that your philosophy is supported by and supports the scripture, while in actuality it does neither. Furthermore, when you cannot refute a point, you ignore it outright, as you have done on many occasions now.

Also, I have not been piling on additional points -- merely referencing more scripture sources. They all speak to the same point, which is that there is a recurring theme in that the Bible does not support the family unit.
Click to expand...

oK, I'm almost done :2razz: 1 Cor. 11:11-- "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."

In the LDS view this quote from the Bible is stating that a man and a woman need each other to reach eternal life. Without the eternal marriage covenant in the Lord there is no eternal life, no eternal family.

The first commandment given to mankind was to multiply and replenish the earth.

In the blessings given to Abraham under the covenant he made with God, he is blessed that his seed will be like the sands of the earth.




You seem to want to say the Bible is just anti-family by quoting what you think are anti-family statements without mentioning all the positive statements on the family in the Bible. When these are pointed out to you, you then say the Bible is inconsistent, but then you go back to saying the Bible is anti-family. You should clearly state that in your opinion there are mixed signals regarding the family in the Bible and you feel the Bible is inconsistent. Only if you interpret the pro family verses as really anti-family, then would it be consistent to label it just as anti-family. I have implied I think the Bible is pro family by stating a few of the many places in it that are positive towards the family and stating I disagree with your interpretations on the verses you think are anti-family. You jumped on me when I first entered this debate saying my views were not Biblical but why didn't you quote 1 Cor. 11:11-- "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." Or the first commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth"? So you like to make me answer all the questions. Why didn't you quote those verses. Are you being inconsistent when you say my views are not Biblical?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom