Posted on 12/18/2013 9:09:15 AM PST by Dr. Thorne
While I do agree in the larger context of the priesthood, in this instance the priest was molesting girls.
The exact point I was reponding to was that the priesthood did not need to be celibate and all male.
The bible clearly lays out that the priesthood is to be all male and that all Bishops are to be married.
All unmarried people are commanded to be celibate. So celibacy is never a problem. It’s just the way it is.
OK. Sociopathically juvenile sarcasm.
That better?
Where in the Bible is the priesthood not all male?
1 TIM 3:2 “A Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife.....”
If he doesn’t have a wife, he’s not a husband.
I am a widower. While I was married for 18 years I am no longer. I am not a husband and am therefore not qualified for the office of an elder or bishop. I clearly understand the reasons for this. An unmarried man looks at women differently than a married man does. And half of our congregants are women.
It is! (-:
Just because your wife died does not mean you are still not her husband.
Check out this healing weekend.
http://www.beginningexperience.org/php5/index.html
They can aspire to it, but as mere human beings they are doomed to failure.
Nowhere.. The bible requires an all male priesthood.
Please read the post to which I first responded (#12). He was stating that the bible did not require an all male priesthood. I was merely correcting him.
They profess to represent the church and bring sinners to the father; which puts them on a higher moral plane. Moral plane does insinuate they are better it says more is expected of them they are expected to represent the values of the church in their private as well as public lives! It’s pretty obvious when a leader of the church violates the constricts it is more damaging to the church!!!
They are frail human beings, just like all human beings. End of story.
As it always is in the presence of obstinacy!!!
Still not celibacy == but pedophilia.
What an interesting twisting and changing of what was originally written. There is no “but one wife” in the original Greek version of that verse. Look here at the translation as the words are in order in the Greek.
1 Timothy 3:2 “It behooves therefore the overseer above reproach to be of one wife the husband sober self controlled respectable hospitable able to teach.”
Hmmm, no “but” in there. I wonder then where you got that “but” from? Surely it wouldn’t be to bolster ones own beliefs could it? Could one not take from that verse that it is incumbent upon the “overseer” to have one wife?
The difference is, when they fail they don't say it's because there is something wrong with the standard.
They admit when they fail that it is because they are sinners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.