It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You aren't "the apostle Paul". You're being silly here, too, right? So, a person baptized as an infant and at age, say, 4, starts singing about the condemnation of homosexuals while his parents and their peers cheer...he can go out and evangelize, too....right? Besides, en.wikipedia.org...-3
The apostle Paul never went to seminary. All one needs is the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
and en.wikipedia.org...
The establishment of modern seminaries resulted from Roman Catholic reforms of the Counter-Reformation after the Council of Trent.[4] The Tridentine seminaries placed great emphasis on personal discipline as well as the teaching of philosophy as a preparation for theology.[5]
That was, erm, uh, *counting on fingies* .... wait....1525 or so years after Paul was an adult doing his evangelizing/political thing and sending letters to the various 'congregations' he 'organized' to make sure they didn't derail his thread (). Paul was all about politics, he wanted to spread through-out the empire, and be the CEO...
The Council of Trent (Latin: Concilium Tridentinum) was an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church. It is considered to be one of the Church's most important[1] councils. It convened in Trent (then capital of the Prince-Bishopric of Trent of the Holy Roman Empire, in Italy) between December 13, 1545, and December 4, 1563 in twenty-five sessions for three periods. Council fathers met for the first through eighth sessions in Trent (1545–7), and for the ninth through eleventh sessions in Bologna (1547) during the pontificate of Pope Paul III.[2] Under Pope Julius III, the council met in Trent (1551–52) for the twelfth through sixteenth sessions. Under Pope Pius IV, the seventeenth through twenty-fifth sessions took place in Trent (1559–63)
Hmmm...
An apparent contradiction in the details of the account of Paul's revelatory vision given in Acts has been the subject of much debate.[14] Specifically, the experience of Paul's travelling companions as told in Acts 9:7 and 22:9 has raised questions about the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, and generated debate about the best translations of the relevant passages. The two passages each describe the experience of Paul's travelling companions during the revelation, with Acts 9:7 (the author's description of the event) stating that Paul's travelling companions heard the voice that spoke to him; and Acts 22:9 (the author's quotation of Paul's own words) traditionally stating they did not.
I know. I got it. But that does bring up the issue of life experience.
And I was making a funny, im totally cool being single. I was trying to be silly.
Single with no kids?
Its easier to spend more time with Christ and sharing the gospel without a significant other or children to raise.
Originally posted by pheonix358
People tend to overlook the missing years, those years of his life that we no nothing about, nothing at all. HE could have had a family with lots of children. We simply don't know.
People often forget to play the simpler cards. We were made in Gods image. Therefore we look the same as God and we function the same as God and therefore God has a sex drive.
Remember always it is MAN that says celibacy is a path to sanctity. It is also a path that many fall off and our children pay the price and have for generation after generation going back thousands of years.
To my knowledge neither God nor his Son nor any other Prophet ever asked anyone to be celibate.
P
Originally posted by biggmoneyme
i'm sure he felt temptation. that's part of being a man. but like all great sages he knew chastity was essential. semen must be retained.
Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by AllIsOne
No he did not have sex. If you knew anything about ancient judaism you wouldn't have bothered to post this nonsense.
Originally posted by AllIsOne
Originally posted by biggmoneyme
i'm sure he felt temptation. that's part of being a man. but like all great sages he knew chastity was essential. semen must be retained.
Please enlighten me. Why is chastity essential?
Originally posted by AllIsOne
Are you a creationist? If so there is nothing I can do to educate you, if not, you must have a different understanding of evolution than any scientist.
Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by Biliverdin
Understanding the individual components, biological and chemical that go into our construction do not, and currently cannot, explain the whole.
Are you a creationist? If so there is nothing I can do to educate you, if not, you must have a different understanding of evolution than any scientist.
Originally posted by Biliverdin
Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by sacgamer25
Also, the pathological denial of our genetical ancestry brings nothing but mental confusion. We ARE animals that have a sex drive. There is nothing intrinsically bad about that.
We also need water to function. We need to intake fluids every day. That thirst won't be satisfied with a really big gulp. So is thirst a really bad thing that should be overcome? Why are basic biological needs a bad thing in your world, or is it only sex?
We won't die if we don't have sex...which I think answers your question. The species would not reproduce, but a drive is quite different to a need. We need water to live, we don't need to have sex to live.