Based on data from the 2006 Catholic Almanac, fewer than 1 in 500 American Catholics is in a position (priest, brother, sister) requiring ecclesiastical celibacy. Can this really be described as a "significant portion of the population"? Also, although no doubt the Catholics come up with some alleged theological justifications for clerical celibacy, it remains a discipline rather than a doctrine, which means that the reasons are first and foremost practical ones - i.e. the Church believes that celibacy is conducive as a practical matter to the pastoral duties, etc., of priests. For all we know, might this not be true? A lot of priests seem to agree, and it appears to be technically true for at least some other professional vocations. So I would suggest that however many Catholic beliefs are based on lies (which would cover doctrinal beliefs), clerical celibacy, as a non-doctrinal matter, might not fall into that category.
So did Jesus live or what?
- Thread starter Seismosaurus
- Start date
Based on data from the 2006 Catholic Almanac, fewer than 1 in 500 American Catholics is in a position (priest, brother, sister) requiring ecclesiastical celibacy. Can this really be described as a "significant portion of the population"? Also, although no doubt the Catholics come up with some alleged theological justifications for clerical celibacy, it remains a discipline rather than a doctrine, which means that the reasons are first and foremost practical ones - i.e. the Church believes that celibacy is conducive as a practical matter to the pastoral duties, etc., of priests. For all we know, might this not be true? A lot of priests seem to agree, and it appears to be technically true for at least some other professional vocations. So I would suggest that however many Catholic beliefs are based on lies (which would cover doctrinal beliefs), clerical celibacy, as a non-doctrinal matter, might not fall into that category.
davefoc
Philosopher
Hi ceo_esq,
I am not ignoring you in the other thread, I think you are basically right and am just doing a little bit more reading on the subject before I respond.
I think that one in five hundred is a pretty significant number. In absolute terms that's something like 600,000 Americans.
I think you are unnecessarily quibbling a bit as far as the doctrinal/non-doctrinal issue goes. A bunch of people have developed such strong beliefs in Christianity and the importance of the Catholic Church Doctrines that they are willing to forgo one of the most important aspects of life for most people. Catholic theology has developed as a result of a succession of lies by people who probably thought that everybody else involved couldn't be lying so that a little lying was ok if it was in support of a good cause. The whole deal about the archeological evidence for Peter is a modern example of this kind of thinking.
I suppose in return the priests get a more peaceful, more secure existence so maybe there is something of a balancing going on here. And of course a lot of them don't exactly remain celibate. But overall, how many priests would keep being celibate priests if they figured out that Christianity is based on mythology?
I am not ignoring you in the other thread, I think you are basically right and am just doing a little bit more reading on the subject before I respond.
I think that one in five hundred is a pretty significant number. In absolute terms that's something like 600,000 Americans.
I think you are unnecessarily quibbling a bit as far as the doctrinal/non-doctrinal issue goes. A bunch of people have developed such strong beliefs in Christianity and the importance of the Catholic Church Doctrines that they are willing to forgo one of the most important aspects of life for most people. Catholic theology has developed as a result of a succession of lies by people who probably thought that everybody else involved couldn't be lying so that a little lying was ok if it was in support of a good cause. The whole deal about the archeological evidence for Peter is a modern example of this kind of thinking.
I suppose in return the priests get a more peaceful, more secure existence so maybe there is something of a balancing going on here. And of course a lot of them don't exactly remain celibate. But overall, how many priests would keep being celibate priests if they figured out that Christianity is based on mythology?
Six hundred thousand would be roughly 1 in 500 Americans, but I meant fewer than 1 in 500 American Catholics. The actual figure is something like 120,000 priests, brothers and sisters. Still a significant number in absolute terms, but not a significant portion of the population as a whole.
Not very many, I grant you.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Someone who doesn't believe in there being any gods cannot hate any of them. Can your "belief" overcome something as irrefutable as that?
With Christianity being the world's biggest religion, I'd love to see your definition of 'few'.
Nope.
Because even though they claim to not believe in a god, they clearly speak and write as though they hate my God.
Can your scientific mind understand that?
Like foul-sound cites, I'm no authority.
But, fortunately, those words are cited from Christ, and we do have a definition of "few", courteousy of the dictionary:
Christian or not, and subtracting naughty people (like me), say 5% of the world's population, past and present? Sound fair?
Z
Variable Constant
'cited from Christ'...
heh heh
Well, if Hunster here could just prove that the Christ existed as such, we might take some stock in these alleged citations. But as it stands, non-Christians have to give such a citation credit on the same level as quotes from Sherlock Holmes or Viktor Lazlo or Hrothgar.
Now, a true Atheist simply cannot hate God. That being said, an atheist can certainly hate those who peddle this God, or hate the infrastructure of religion, or the mindlessness of the sheep who follow such a non-existent God.
I hear something similar all the time when people hear that I'm Wiccan. "How can you worship the Devil?" they'll ask, and when I explain that we can't worship/love something that doesn't even exist, they insist that we can and do. *shrug*
...
Now, if we go on some Christian sects' beliefs, the 'few' is easily defined: 144,000. That ain't much, is it? Of course, every generation believes that theirs is the last of this number, and every generation expects 'The End' shortly after their passage - and every generation has been wrong so far. Or maybe 'few' is in relation to the TOTAL population of Humanity from its first origins to its final extinction - and if Christianity were to die out in the next 500-1000 years, but mankind continues on to a reasonable degree... sure, that would certainly be very few, wouldn't it?
Of course, I find it interesting that Jesus made claim that he would return when everyone leasts expects it. Doesn't that basically mean that no one on Earth can expect his return when he returns? So pushing the faith only delays his return? Interesting.
heh heh
Well, if Hunster here could just prove that the Christ existed as such, we might take some stock in these alleged citations. But as it stands, non-Christians have to give such a citation credit on the same level as quotes from Sherlock Holmes or Viktor Lazlo or Hrothgar.
Now, a true Atheist simply cannot hate God. That being said, an atheist can certainly hate those who peddle this God, or hate the infrastructure of religion, or the mindlessness of the sheep who follow such a non-existent God.
I hear something similar all the time when people hear that I'm Wiccan. "How can you worship the Devil?" they'll ask, and when I explain that we can't worship/love something that doesn't even exist, they insist that we can and do. *shrug*
...
Now, if we go on some Christian sects' beliefs, the 'few' is easily defined: 144,000. That ain't much, is it? Of course, every generation believes that theirs is the last of this number, and every generation expects 'The End' shortly after their passage - and every generation has been wrong so far. Or maybe 'few' is in relation to the TOTAL population of Humanity from its first origins to its final extinction - and if Christianity were to die out in the next 500-1000 years, but mankind continues on to a reasonable degree... sure, that would certainly be very few, wouldn't it?
Of course, I find it interesting that Jesus made claim that he would return when everyone leasts expects it. Doesn't that basically mean that no one on Earth can expect his return when he returns? So pushing the faith only delays his return? Interesting.
Ever consider the possibility that He meant that we will all see him return when our own physical lives end?
Or is your hateful rejection so profound that even thoughtful consideration of his words is beyond your ability?
You are so hateful and resentful of pushy Christians that you have become like them in reverse?
You are truly a work of art.
Oh foul-sound. how original. I have never seen someone make that joke with my moniker. You are the first. How clever. Really.
Even if Christ existed, the landscape for christians in that time vs. now is very different. So his definition of Christians being the few is only accurate 2000 years ago, and not today.
You don't hold water with the "few" comment.
Really, truly, or are you pulling my leg (again)?
I don't believe all Christians will be saved ("chosen"), nor do I believe that all non-Christians will be condemned.
The number of Christians has nothing to do with it.
Maybe. I don't know. I'm not the accountant.
But, considering the entire human population, past and present, and the number of us who truly live humble, respectful, hopeful, selfless, and faithful lives (and I certainly don't include my sinful self), I think the word "few" is very appropriate.
kuroyume0161
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2001
- Messages
- 1,628
But the question arises: What use is there in 'spreading the good news' if so 'few' are to be saved?
Why dont' we just admit it and say that all 'good' people (those that live a descent life and do nothing harmful to others) are saved and those that do really nasty things are not? In essence, this is the Word of the Lord. There is no compulsion to 'accept Jesus' or 'be baptised' except by particular sects. There is but one command - to be excellent to each other and party on... dude.
The compulsion to 'accept Jesus' is a particularly Catholic notion of salvation. It fosters the notion that one must accept certain precepts before salvation is granted (holy trinity, resurrection, virgin birth, and so on). These are just later ideas implemented as the 'Creed' established by an institutionalized church.
If you are really to embody the spirit of the new religious precepts, then you must reject these and accept that each person achieves salvation by living a life that provides more positive influence than negative. And this mirrors the more basic and humanistic precept that communal support and generalized coherence foster the longetivity of societies and the expansion of their capabilities.
Why dont' we just admit it and say that all 'good' people (those that live a descent life and do nothing harmful to others) are saved and those that do really nasty things are not? In essence, this is the Word of the Lord. There is no compulsion to 'accept Jesus' or 'be baptised' except by particular sects. There is but one command - to be excellent to each other and party on... dude.
The compulsion to 'accept Jesus' is a particularly Catholic notion of salvation. It fosters the notion that one must accept certain precepts before salvation is granted (holy trinity, resurrection, virgin birth, and so on). These are just later ideas implemented as the 'Creed' established by an institutionalized church.
If you are really to embody the spirit of the new religious precepts, then you must reject these and accept that each person achieves salvation by living a life that provides more positive influence than negative. And this mirrors the more basic and humanistic precept that communal support and generalized coherence foster the longetivity of societies and the expansion of their capabilities.
Well, I 'hate' Sauron, and in any debate on the Lord of the Rings that involves Sauron, I will express that 'hate' for him and what he stands for.
It does not mean I believe Sauron is real.
Z
Variable Constant
Ah... where did you get that I was 'hateful' in any way? I simply dislike idiots. Or are you simply saying Christians are idiots?
But I've considered His words for many years. And considering the various and sundry interpretations of what happens when our lives end, it is pretty clear in context that He was referring plainly to our mortal existence - that His return would be during our physical lives, but only when we least expect it. After all, upon our deaths, we all would (in theory) be staunch believers, and would eternally expect his return.
Not in the least - kindly show me where you have pulled this prejudiced opinion from? In point of fact, I do resent pushy people of all walks of life. It's just that fundamentalist extremists are likely to make this world a living hell if they're not stopped short.
I suspect that it is your own hate, your own resentment, of other people who are clearly more intelligent and reasonable than you, reaching a conclusion that challenges your comforting faith, that causes you to sense hate and resentment in others. It's a common psychosis, actually. No one likes to realize how ignorant or unreasonable they actually are; and the comforts of faith only last so long as we remain ignorant; for truth denies faith, and without faith, we are nothing, right?
Don't project your own shortcomings on others, Huntster.
Well... thank you. I agree.
Z
Variable Constant
Just to stir the pot a bit - let me remind the board that I am in fact partially Christian, as well. I think there was a living Jesus who possessed supernatural powers and recognized his descendency from the divine; who taught peace and love; and who probably was the best Wiccan the ancient world had ever known. So I don't 'hatefully reject' Christ. That being said, I also don't think there's a shred of valid evidence that Jesus as recorded in the Bible ever actually existed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I can say that with some comfort and belief:
All good people, those that live a decent life and do nothing harmful to others, are saved, and those that do really nasty things are not.
Now, having said that, I'll say that I don't think it's that simple because we are very complicated creatures, and that many need more help and guidance than others, but in essence, I believe that statement to be true.
Actually other Christian faiths are much bigger on that, actually accusing the Catholics of straying from Christ in it's traditions and doctrines.
I do not reject them, because I have come to believe them. And I believe that salvation is granted by one's faith more than simply "being good", because the sacrifice of Christ was to enable the forgiveness of sin (which we all commit, regardless of our good intentions), and if I truly believe in Him and his sacrifice, appreciate it, dwell on it in thankful prayer, how can it possibly be in vain?
Repeatedly, Christ said to the beneficiaries of his miracles:
These things haven't been proven, they never will, and faith is required. Faith, in both New Testament and Old, is the central theme of God's relationship with man.
No. I'm saying that you believe that Christians are idiots.
That is an interpretation that the diciples believed, but it was obviously wrong, wasn't it?
That is clearly another interpretation that is in error.
Fundamental extremists?
Well, there are clearly some fundamental extremists within Islam who are causing some serious trouble, and they are being appropriately dealt with. Is that who you are referring to?
Not at all. It's the words they use to describe their perceived superior intelligence and reason that I like to address.
You couldn't be more wrong.
One of the most basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian faith is that we are nothing..........well below ignorant and unreasonable.
Sorrow looks back, worry looks around, ignorance doesn't look at all, doubt looks around and denies what it sees.
Faith looks up.
I agree.
Z
Variable Constant
Nope. Just certain ones.
Yeah, those nutty Christians have pretty much been wrong from the start.
Evidence?
As well as those fundamental extremists in the U.S. who seem to think that the earth has to end in a big holy war, and that the good and faithful Christians will come out on top. Worse, those fundamental extremists who are in power and using an ill-defined 'war' to rob Americans of their rights and freedoms... for example. Or those fundamental extremists who declare that this world is not their home, and therefore we can f__k the environment any way we see fit.
Pretty much ANY fundamental extremist.
Oh... ok. I'm sorry - I jumped to a conclusion. Please, go ahead and address their words... I thought we were discussing what you've already said.
Evidence?
heh... Yep. God's chosen people, made in His own image, whom He loved so much He would sacrifice His holy lamb for us.
And if that's not a reason to throw the whole Judeo-Christian mess in the trash with the latest fliers for Quik-Loan, I don't know what is.
And reason actually thinks about what it sees.
But that would make a nice Hallmark moment, Hunt. Hallmark loves those empty, meaningless platitudes. And I'm sure you're full of them.