Co-Redeemer?

[Uphill Battle]

Most protestants do. Monasticism, though, is flourishing.

Love,
Christina

oh please.

the vast majority of EO and RC are married too. Or get married.

No, Protestants don't hold to monasticism like you do, but playing like it's widespread in EO or RC is a falsehood.

Basically, if what Paul said means what you say it says, none of us should marry.

 

[Asinner]

oh please.

the vast majority of EO and RC are married too. Or get married.

No, Protestants don't hold to monasticism like you do, but playing like it's widespread in EO or RC is a falsehood.

Basically, if what Paul said means what you say it says, none of us should marry.

Monasticism is not for everyone. I didn't mean to make it sound as though everyone in EO is celibate. My point to Tulc, was that there is another alternative besides getting married and procreating.

 

[sunlover1]

Well what about the part about being fruitful and multiplying? How about the part where we arn't supposed to defraud one another because we don't control our own bodies, they also belong to our spouses? There are a few more.
tulc(just got the first cup of the day!)

Isn't there something about not
being so cheerful in the a.m.


(In the Bible I meant)

sunlover (Who's staying off coffee and a bit irratable
because of it grrrr)

 

[Gwenyfur]

I dunno but it does say the man makes the coffee...

right at hte top of several pages HEBREWS


hehe

 

[sunlover1]

I dunno but it does say the man makes the coffee...

right at hte top of several pages HEBREWS


hehe

 

[Uphill Battle]

Monasticism is not for everyone. I didn't mean to make it sound as though everyone in EO is celibate. My point to Tulc, was that there is another alternative besides getting married and procreating.

of course there is. But stating that the one is better than the other is simply wrong. Stating that Paul is calling all of us to virginity is wrong.

 

[tulc]

Stating that Paul is calling all of us to virginity is wrong.

Yeah....that ship has pretty much sailed.
tulc(after I met Mrs.tulc it was only a matter of time and a wedding day)

 

[Uphill Battle]

Yeah....that ship has pretty much sailed.
tulc(after I met Mrs.tulc it was only a matter of time and a wedding day)

Good Gravy, I hope SO.

 

[PassthePeace1]

God calls different people to different vocations. Most of us are called to the vocation of Marriage, others to the religious life (priest, brothers, nuns).

My great-aunt, was Methodist...and she felt called to a single life, she wanted to focus solely on service to God...and felt like married life would be a distraction. She was a army nurse during WWII, at her church she served in the highest positions a women was allowed at that time, played church organ, and taught sunday school. Her service to the community was a full time commitment....because she lived at home with her parents, and they supported her....she spent her days in service to varies activities in the community, including aiding handicapped war vets.

I know of other Protestants that have been called to the single life, for service to God. I think the reason that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have a higher rate, is the fact that it is promoted, and held in high esteem. Where as in some Protestant circles, the life of celibacy to serve God....might be considered to extreme. I know my aunt to alot of flack for it....but she never looked back, jest keep her eyes on Jesus, and worked for His kingdom.

But that being said, the Church holds marriage in high esteem, it is a sacrament and refers the the home as the Domestic Church, because of it's role in shaping and molding the future generation, and future saints.

Peace be with you...Pam

 

[Asinner]

of course there is. But stating that the one is better than the other is simply wrong. Stating that Paul is calling all of us to virginity is wrong.

I never said that God is calling all of us to virginity. As far as it being "better" . . . So then he that giveth [her] in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth [her] not in marriage doeth better.

Love,
Christina

 

[Uphill Battle]

God calls different people to different vocations. Most of us are called to the vocation of Marriage, others to the religious life (priest, brothers, nuns).

My great-aunt, was Methodist...and she felt called to a single life, she wanted to focus solely on service to God...and felt like married life would be a distraction. She was a army nurse during WWII, at her church she served in the highest positions a women was allowed at that time, played church organ, and taught sunday school. Her service to the community was a full time commitment....because she lived at home with her parents, and they supported her....she spent her days in service to varies activities in the community, including aiding handicapped war vets.

I know of other Protestants that have been called to the single life, for service to God. I think the reason that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have a higher rate, is the fact that it is promoted, and held in high esteem. Where as in some Protestant circles, the life of celibacy to serve God....might be considered to extreme. I know my aunt to alot of flack for it....but she never looked back, jest keep her eyes on Jesus, and worked for His kingdom.

But that being said, the Church holds marriage in high esteem, it is a sacrament and refers the the home as the Domestic Church, because of it's role in shaping and molding the future generation, and future saints.

Peace be with you...Pam

Good for your Aunt.

I know a number of Protestants that did the same.

Tell me though, was it the life long service to God by not being married, or the Virginity/Celebacy (with comes naturally with being unmarried) that is to be lauded?

You could be a lifelong virgin and do nothing of note.

 

[Asinner]

You could be a lifelong virgin and do nothing of note.

If it is done for the reasons Paul mentions, a devotion to God, then it is not even possible to do "nothing of note".

Love,
Christina

 

[Uphill Battle]

If it is done for the reasons Paul mentions, a devotion to God, then it is not even possible to do "nothing of note".

Love,
Christina

yeah.... but again, you didn't answer the question.

 

[Asinner]

yeah.... but again, you didn't answer the question.

It wasn't a question I responded to, but a statement.

Love,
Christina

 

[Uphill Battle]

It wasn't a question I responded to, but a statement.

Love,
Christina

I know. you took a part of the post, and ignored the rest.

the question was:

Tell me though, was it the life long service to God by not being married, or the Virginity/Celebacy (with comes naturally with being unmarried) that is to be lauded?

 

[Asinner]

I know. you took a part of the post, and ignored the rest.

the question was:

Tell me though, was it the life long service to God by not being married, or the Virginity/Celebacy (with comes naturally with being unmarried) that is to be lauded?

Both are wonderful.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Both are wonderful.

sure.

but you are avoiding the issue behind it.

you claim that being a virgin is better than not.

The value of virginity is in the unmarried. One who does not MARRY for the kingdom should be a virgin! This does not mean that the virgin is better than the non virgin in any way.

They are just going to have less holding them back (because they are unmarried) than one who is married.

you make so much more about the virginity, but not about the fact that they are unfettered for the kingdom.

Tell me, could a non-virgin who repented, and never married, not say the same as any virgin who did the same?

You place the focus on whether or not they've ever had sex...

that is NOT the focus of the passage.

 

[Asinner]

you claim that being a virgin is better than not.

Here you go again.

So then he that giveth [her] in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth [her] not in marriage doeth better

The value of virginity is in the unmarried. One who does not MARRY for the kingdom should be a virgin! This does not mean that the virgin is better than the non virgin in any way.

So then he that giveth [her] in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth [her] not in marriage doeth better

[/quote]They are just going to have less holding them back (because they are unmarried) than one who is married.[/quote]

Just . . .

They can devote their entire selves to Christ. Their entire selves does include their flesh too. We are not just spiritual beings. We are both! We are spiritual and physical. You are delving into gnosticism.

you make so much more about the virginity, but not about the fact that they are unfettered for the kingdom.

Again, gnostic. We cannot ignore that we are flesh, too.

Tell me, could a non-virgin who repented, and never married, not say the same as any virgin who did the same?

Physically, NO.

You place the focus on whether or not they've ever had sex...

that is NOT the focus of the passage.

No. What I am doing is focusing on both. It is like that in Christology too. You cannot dismiss that Christ was 100% God and 100% Man.

Love,
Christina

 

[PassthePeace1]

Good for your Aunt.

I know a number of Protestants that did the same.

Tell me though, was it the life long service to God by not being married, or the Virginity/Celebacy (with comes naturally with being unmarried) that is to be lauded?

You could be a lifelong virgin and do nothing of note.

From a Catholic POV, the virginity is viewed as a sacrifice, and the life long service to God is the central focus, of devotion.

Many of the great saints, where once great sinners, so offering up ones virginity was not really an option...lol..they would turn however to living a chaste life. However, I think ones chastity or virginity....is more of a result of a life already in complete devotion to God. It's not the driving factor, on what makes one pure. IOWs, chastity and virginity are a natural result of a pure heart devoted to God.

Peace be with you...Pam

 

[Uphill Battle]

Here you go again.

So then he that giveth [her] in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth [her] not in marriage doeth better



So then he that giveth [her] in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth [her] not in marriage doeth better

highlighted what is important. You claim it's the virginity that matters the most. I believe that is wrong-headed. Virginity is the natural by-product of being unmarried. (however, many Christians are not virgins when they become so. Saying the life devoted to Christ after having sinned in that manner, and then repented, is less, is just vile.)

Just . . .

They can devote their entire selves to Christ. Their entire selves does include their flesh too. We are not just spiritual beings. We are both! We are spiritual and physical. You are delving into gnosticism.

This is not gnosticism. This is the reality of what the scripture is saying. It isn't "Hey, you do better if your a virgin!" at all. Read it again.

Again, gnostic. We cannot ignore that we are flesh, too.

which I am not doing.

Physically, NO.

Disagree. You place all the stock in virginity, and none in the heart. some did the same with circumcision.

No. What I am doing is focusing on both. It is like that in Christology too. You cannot dismiss that Christ was 100% God and 100% Man.

Love,
Christina

that's a great big fat red herring!