Doug Spaulding~
Oops! Sorry on that one, Doug. But you are wrong!!

No matter what you dragged out of the archival dungeon of old, Catholic priests married until around the time Martin Luther gave a spanking to the rule makers and told them to have a seat while he nailed on the Wittenburg door.

The Roman Catholic church's Byzantine Church in Anaheim with married Roman Catholic priests is no awkward event. It's right next to the grounds of St. Boniface near downtown Anaheim. I point this one out because I attended St. Boniface for a number of years and was there I learned of the "married" history of the Roman Catholic church.

There is a compiled list available as to why the Pope finally cracked down on married priests. One of them, interestingly enough, was that members of the clergy family were getting too involved with church politics and irking the higher ups thru the years.

___________________________
http://catchaway.blogspot.com/

Pity be to he who has not known the love of a good woman, be he priest or homosexual. There is nothing as liberating and humiliating as the releationships between men and women. I for one am of the belief that the following is a truism to be embraced in life:

One is One;
Two are One;
Two are All;
One is none.

P.S.: This may apply to any Two of either gender. The sum is always greater than the parts alone.

Is there true love after puberty?

Not in my experience.

dandelion, how sad! You should have left Braling's question as a rhetorical one.

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
I attended St. Boniface for a number of years and was there I learned of the "married" history of the Roman Catholic church.

Is this what the Roman Catholics told you? I have to question anyone who writes their own history.

On Yeshua vs Jesus:

The name "Jesus" is found nowhere in the Scriptures — it is a translation of the Greek name "Iesous". "Iesous" came over into the Latin "Jesu" and finally into English as "Jesus." So in the most technical sense, saying "Jesus" is saying a twice-removed translation of the name we find in the New Testament scriptures.

SO?

Our language (English), as even the most cursory examination will reveal, has more sources and has passed through more spelling and pronunciation changes than probably any other in human history! These are the reasons I love and am fascinated by the English language. In one page of English one can find the history of the world!

Doug Spaulding~

If I follow your general reasoning that you've been posting lately, then this is likely what you believe. Please correct me if I swerve.

° There were no American Indians. It is a fabrication of ancient Germany. Read Conrad Ophanhuermeister's, "The Big Indian Lie".

° Beer does NOT contain alcohol. The evidence does not support what is stated on the labeling. Information on the label, in fact, was long ago determined by the Fermented Yeast Council of 1723 to be false. Article 4NA written by the Fermented Yeast Minister contains deplorable errors. Furthermore, beer stating it contains no alcohol, actually do not have have any beer at all.
I have a video link to support this!

° There was no moon landing. And it was not filmed on a backlot of Hollywood. There is actually NO moon. The object that we see in the sky is actually an optical illusion because of atmospheric conditions and unknown forces. Accounts of men on the moon are fabricated by the space-elite. Read, Mr. Polter Geist's "Phantom Moon. Or Bishop Spong's 'Hardly Moon'

Never listen to anything NASA sends out as fact.
NASA is an organization connected with the oil cartel. Check out the information on various websites. I'll send if you email your address.

I have more stuff...

________________________________

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
Doug Spaulding~

If I follow your general reasoning that you've been posting lately, then this is likely what you believe. Please correct me if I swerve.

° There were no American Indians.

Right - they were just "Americans". They have nothing to do with India.

Don't know about the beer thing.

Was unaware Spong had written a treatment on the moon. I'm sure it's very accurate.

quote:

I'll send if you email your address.

I have more stuff...

Now you know good and well that you already have my email address.

I thought it might be fun to post an occasional Q&A from the good bishop for everyone to enjoy (or not).

Let's begin, shall we?


Q: I've been much concerned over what seems to me great damage done by those religious leaders who believe that they KNOW the mind and will of God — usually based upon a literalistic and uncritical bibliolatry. I wonder whether you would agree with, disagree with, amend, or consign to oblivion the following line of thought.

As Immanuel Kant showed quite well, I think, we humans cannot claim knowledge of anything that transcends the realm of our ordinary spatio-temporal condition. I think this is so, and it helps to explain why, in matters of theology having to do with gods or God, there are so many different and conflicting views prevailing in various human traditions — traditions of humans who are obviously quite rational beings. On the other hand, I find it interesting that, when it comes to basic moral rules, the major world religions come up with rules or principles that are astonishingly similar. They are not identical, but there is much overlap and agreement, I believe, on the most important things. But our basic moral principles are learned through ordinary human experience — becoming aware of the consequences of this or that sort of behavior. Even St. Thomas Aquinas believed that revelation was not required for humans to learn what he called the "natural virtues." To conclude, as I have, that one cannot claim to KNOW the nature, mind and will of God, does not, however, mean that one may not EXPERIENCE a reality that calls forth one's reverence and commitment. I have come to the point of regarding much of what is in the Bible as myth, as legend, as tribalistic propaganda — and, indeed, some passages that if taken as God-inspired, would imply a God that is not worthy of our devotion. There is in the Bible, however, a great deal that inspires an awareness of that which is, indeed, worthy of our ultimate commitment and devotion. I think in this connection of the basic message of the great prophets, and of what Paul Tillich called "the picture of Jesus Christ." A renunciation of absolute and dogmatic claims of knowledge and an appeal to our ordinary experiences of what makes life sublime might, I think, lead to greater tolerance — and openness to the spiritual riches of other traditions.


A: You have hit the biggest issue in the contemporary theological debate squarely on the head. I could not agree with you more.

The word God is a human construct. The attributes we connect with the word God are human attributes. All of our creeds and doctrines of God are human creations. It could not be otherwise. We are human beings. We can only think with human minds. Vocabulary is a human creation.

If God is real, as I believe God is, I can experience God but I can never define God. I can never escape the limits of my human mind. Try to imagine an insect, limited, as insects are, to the consciousness of an insect, trying to describe what it means to be a bird! Try to imagine a horse, limited as a horse is by the consciousness of a horse, trying to describe what it means to be human. Try to imagine a human being, limited as human beings are to the consciousness of a human being, trying to describe what it means to be God, then you will begin to understand this issue perfectly. Unfortunately, great numbers of religious people, including religious leaders, are not able to do this.

Human beings can discuss our God experience, but that does not equip us to discuss who God is. When Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems, Jews and Christians meet together, they cannot debate the nature of God, since none of them is privy to God's true nature. All they can do is to debate the validity of their varied human experiences and the conclusions to which they have arrived based on that experience. They can wonder whether their experiences of God are real or are delusional but that is as far as the human mind can go. If we realized just that, then interfaith disagreements would not be about who God is, but about how each believes he or she has experienced God. That would make for a radically different conversation. It would be more humble and less arrogant, more a search for truth than the claim of already possessing it. I yearn for that level of honesty. I rejoice that you see it so clearly.

- John Shelby Spong

Doug Spaulding~ (per Spong's comments above)

This is crazy! Has this Bishop Spong never heard of the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spririt reveals the deep character of God. Of course we as humans can understand so much. But we can experience all that a human can understand about God. Which is all we need to understand. For that is the purpose of this life: To understand in this life and to be able to continue that relationship, now fully open and revealing, in the next.

But without the Holy Spirit together as that binding Love of the Father and the Son, Christ,
we cannot intuitively and spiritually be shown the persona of God. which is love. But with the Holy Spirit, all that a human can be shown...is shown. Of course, it may take your entire life here to know it more and more...

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
Has this Bishop Spong never heard of the Holy Spirit?

I think he's probably heard of her.

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
Accounts of men on the moon are fabricated by the space-elite. Read, Mr. Polter Geist's "Phantom Moon. Or Bishop Spong's 'Hardly Moon'

... and let us not forget David Niven's "The Moon's a Balloon".

...and then there's Steinbeck's The Moon is Down.