Is the celibacy rule, for lack of a better term, pointless, in today's world?

[nobspeople]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pope-accepts ... 33983.html

Even though his actions were, ambiguous (his words) it's still an issue it seems - at least enough for resignation.

Is this celibacy antiquated and pointless today (or even originally)? Seems it's just another means of control - preventing humans from being humans as designed (for those who think they're designed) - and an attempt to 'force' focus on the church when it should be voluntary. Granted, no one is forced into the priesthood it seems - it's part of 'the game'. Even so, is this (and maybe some of priest's other) 'don't do's' things that need abolished? Or at least reviewed for relevance?

Aren't voluntary sacrifices better and more productive than forced sacrifices?
Or is there evidence to show forced sacrifices more beneficial than voluntary ones?

[JehovahsWitness]

What is a 'real human'?

Someone you described below.

preventing humans from being humans as designed...

A real human is one being prevented from being a human as designed?

Isn't "a human as designed" what you said? When I said "real human" that is what Inwas refering to a {to quote you} "human as designed"{end quote}

What is a 'real human'?

... humans as designed...

JW

Then why change up the terminology?

... because I feel like it. I can use any terminology I choose, whenever I choose, as often as I choose as long as it doesnt violate forum guidelines.

What's the agenda in doing so?

There's no "agenda" except to express myself as I choose.


Feel free, if you find my posts necessarily "confounding", to ignore them.



JW

[nobspeople]

What is a 'real human'?

Someone you described below.

preventing humans from being humans as designed...

A real human is one being prevented from being a human as designed?

Isn't "a human as designed" what you said? When I said "real human" that is what Inwas refering to a {to quote you} "human as designed"{end quote}

What is a 'real human'?

... humans as designed...

JW

Then why change up the terminology?

... because I feel like it. I can use any terminology I choose, whenever I choose, as often as I choose as long as it doesnt violate forum guidelines.

What's the agenda in doing so?

There's no "agenda" except to express myself as I choose.


Feel free, if you find my posts necessarily "confounding", to ignore them.



JW

Well of course you can use whatever term you like, but I've found when one introduces another term into the discussion it tends to be for a couple reasons:
1) they don't understand the initial question
2) they want to direct the conversation away from the original question for various reasons
3) they want to feel superior to others and or
4) they have nothing better to do.

Being that you wish to insert another term 'because you want to' I can only surmise you have nothing to add to the converstaion.

Thanks and have a great godless week!

[Difflugia]

Then why change up the terminology?

... because I feel like it. I can use any terminology I choose, whenever I choose, as often as I choose as long as it doesnt violate forum guidelines.

[nobspeople]

Then why change up the terminology?

... because I feel like it. I can use any terminology I choose, whenever I choose, as often as I choose as long as it doesnt violate forum guidelines.

Seems, from what I've read thus far, the only response to the question is celibacy is "ridiculous". Has anyone else put forth any legitimate input that you've seen? I might have missed it, to be fair.

[Difflugia]

Seems, from what I've read thus far, the only response to the question is celibacy is "ridiculous". Has anyone else put forth any legitimate input that you've seen? I might have missed it, to be fair.

My personal opinion is that it was always ridiculous. It's based on a few statements in the Pauline Epistles and potentially rooted in a more ascetic Pauline tradition (I've mentioned The Acts of Paul and Thecla before). Since it's hard to argue that 1 Corinthians 7:1 is anything other than ascetic and given the Roman Catholic idea of what a priest should be, the doctrine of celibate priests makes just as much theological sense now as it ever did. On the other hand, it only makes as much sense as it ever did.

[Tcg]

Seems, from what I've read thus far, the only response to the question is celibacy is "ridiculous". Has anyone else put forth any legitimate input that you've seen? I might have missed it, to be fair.

My personal opinion is that it was always ridiculous. It's based on a few statements in the Pauline Epistles and potentially rooted in a more ascetic Pauline tradition (I've mentioned The Acts of Paul and Thecla before). Since it's hard to argue that 1 Corinthians 7:1 is anything other than ascetic and given the Roman Catholic idea of what a priest should be, the doctrine of celibate priests makes just as much theological sense now as it ever did. On the other hand, it only makes as much sense as it ever did.

I'm not sure how valid this is, but some have stated that given that Paul, or someone using his name, claimed to have once been a Pharisee and given that Pharisees had to be married, his claims of celibacy are shall we say somewhat suspect?

As far as current requirements of celibacy amongst certain Christian branches (Catholicism) are they anything other than a cost saving device? Just think if they had to support the cost of husbands for all the nuns. Speaking of which, has anyone seen the housing for nuns verses the housing for priests? Yes, I know, a different subject but somewhat related.


Tcg

[Difflugia]

I'm not sure how valid this is, but some have stated that given that Paul, or someone using his name, claimed to have once been a Pharisee and given that Pharisees had to be married, his claims of celibacy are shall we say somewhat suspect?

This is another one of those places where one ambiguous line from the genuine Paulines took on a life of its own in Acts. The only statement actually by Paul concerning Pharisaism is Philippians 3:3-6 where he describes his heritage of Judaism (emphasis mine):

For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh; though I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If any other man thinks that he has confidence in the flesh, I yet more: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the assembly; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless.

While he could be saying that he was a Pharisee in the sense of belonging to a specific religious group, I don't think that's what Paul is saying here. The idea behind Pharisaism was that the Torah should be applied as much as possible to one's daily life and that's what he's saying that he did before becoming a Christian. We also don't know exactly what Pharisaic practice was. Interestingly enough, most of our information about what a "Pharisee" was comes from the Bible itself.

As far as current requirements of celibacy amongst certain Christian branches (Catholicism) are they anything other than a cost saving device? Just think if they had to support the cost of husbands for all the nuns. Speaking of which, has anyone seen the housing for nuns verses the housing for priests? Yes, I know, a different subject but somewhat related.

I haven't. Do tell!

[nobspeople]

Seems, from what I've read thus far, the only response to the question is celibacy is "ridiculous". Has anyone else put forth any legitimate input that you've seen? I might have missed it, to be fair.

My personal opinion is that it was always ridiculous. It's based on a few statements in the Pauline Epistles and potentially rooted in a more ascetic Pauline tradition (I've mentioned The Acts of Paul and Thecla before). Since it's hard to argue that 1 Corinthians 7:1 is anything other than ascetic and given the Roman Catholic idea of what a priest should be, the doctrine of celibate priests makes just as much theological sense now as it ever did. On the other hand, it only makes as much sense as it ever did.

I'm not sure how valid this is, but some have stated that given that Paul, or someone using his name, claimed to have once been a Pharisee and given that Pharisees had to be married, his claims of celibacy are shall we say somewhat suspect?

As far as current requirements of celibacy amongst certain Christian branches (Catholicism) are they anything other than a cost saving device? Just think if they had to support the cost of husbands for all the nuns. Speaking of which, has anyone seen the housing for nuns verses the housing for priests? Yes, I know, a different subject but somewhat related.


Tcg

I suspect the catholic church would have little problems, in reality, supporting these people. Sell the Pope's hat - that'd be good for several months I suspect