 |
What's the difference between I don't understand what
elevates a bishop to the title
of archbishop....Is it
something the bishop does?? or
what....
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
It's not necessarily what the bishop does, but the area he governs over. A bishop is responsible for all the souls in his diocese (or area he governs) and if that area is large enough, it's called an archdiocese. The title of archbishop simply refers to a bishop who resides over an archdiocese, thus having more people to watch over. It has no relation to the bishop's achievements, etc., but rather the are and population of the diocese he's in charge of. Hope that helped :] |
|
|
|
|
|
What mental illness do you What mental illness do you
think Walter Bishop from
Fringe has? Lol.
They say he is insane, does
that mean he has a psychotic
disorder?
I know he is very eccentric
but there has to be a specific
diagnosis for him to be locked
away in an institution for so
many years.
My theory was some form of
schizophrenia or schizotypal,
maybe hebephrenia because he's
so childish and silly.
Sometimes inappropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
He just has Alzheimer's and he's a genius. Genuis' are reputable for being odd because they understand the world in a different way...and he can't remember everything he's done so everything he says and does seems crazy but it really isn't. One of my neighbor's had it (but he wasn't a genuis) and he started making really dirty jokes as it got worse. It does make people act childish when it gets really bad. |
|
|
|
|
|
What's the difference between I'm studying for a Social
Studies test. We learned both
the term abbot and bishop. I
am not sure what the
difference is or if they're
the same. Any answer helps!
Thanks =]
|
|
|
|
|
|
As was said a Bishop is in charge of a See (or a diocese). Diocese was a unit of organization in the Roman Empire, sort of like a County. When the early church grew up, each church selected someone to run that individual church, then they found they needed a level of organization above that, so the individual churches could work together. Since everybody already knew what the boundaries of each diocese was, they decided to use those boundaries, and the Bishops were put in charge of all the churches in a Diocese. (Above the Bishops are Archbishops, and above the Archbishops is the Pope. ) An Abbot runs a monastery. A Monastery is a community of Monks (though sometimes a group of Nuns will live in a Monastery, though the more proper word for that would be an Abbey). The Monks live together and take vows of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience. Monasteries normally include a farm of some kind so the Monks can raise their own food, but the Monks spend most of their time in prayer, doing religious studies (in the middle ages monasteries were pretty much the only libraries) or teaching (they often had schools attached) or caring for the sick (in the Middle Ages Monisteries did most of the "social services" work, in terms of caring for the sick, doing hospice care, or providing long term care to people who were mentally or physically challenged.) This may sound wierd, but most Monks weren't (and aren't) under the controll of the local Bishop. Monks follow their own rules, and the Church allows them to be largely self governing. Depending on which set of rules they follow (be it the ones written by St. Benedict, or St. Franics or St. Dominic) they are either the Benedictines, the Franciscians, or the Dominicans. Each group of Monks had a specialty. Dominicans tended to do teaching and preaching, (they were big in the foundation of the first Univesities). Francisicans tended to go in for Hospital and community service work. In the Middle Ages some Monasteries could be very very large, as people would die and leave some, or all, of their lands to the Monistary, so the income could be used to help the poor, and the Monks would pray for their souls. A few generations of this, and the lands began to pile up. Monasteries became major landholders, and they rarely, if ever, sold their land. I think something like 1/3 of England was owned by the Church in one form or another by the time of Henry VIII. That is one of the reasons Henry VIII had them shut down in England, he seized their land and distributed it to his supporters so as to gain more political support. |
|
|
|
|
|
What did Des Bishop Irish Hey trying to quote Des Bishop
in a speech and remeber in his
latest DVD he says somenthing
like we'll keep doing it until
we get it right or something?
Does anyone know the exact
quote please please please!
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
b y fu ck fu ck jsd;fajklsdjf;asdl fu ck ur mom |
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a verse in the bible I was in a religious
conversation with someone who
told me that the tithes should
go to the Bishop/Elder or
Pastor. I never heard of such
a thing, they said that the
verse was in John/James.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The biblical tithe was an old covenant requirement. The old covenant was a "contract" between the two parties, God and Israel. Christians were never a party to that covenant, and that covenant ended upon the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, seeing as Jesus is identified as the God of the old covenant/testament. Covenants end upon the death of either party to a covenant, as explained by the apostle Paul in Romans chapter 7, where he uses a marriage covenant to explain this. A tithe was the tenth of the increase of produce and livestock. No one was ever commanded to tithe on their wages. Only land owners who had livestock and crops tithed. Old covenant points of law were not to come forward into the new covenant. To do so was described as being a subversion of the Christian’s soul as brought out in Acts 15. A Christian’s giving to a ministry or church was never to be compulsory. Only through free will offerings were ministers supported. Paul, in I Corinthians 9, makes his case that those who preached the gospel were to live of the gospel. Paul did not use tithing as a means of justifying support. Rather, Paul used the example of not muzzling the ox that treads out the grain as justification. Why then would a ministry teach compulsory tithing of wages? Jesus warned his followers that there would come religious leaders who would declare rightly He was the Christ, then proceed to deceive people. These deceivers are also described as being deceived themselves, as well as being wolves in sheep’s clothing who do not spare the flock. Tithing serves this perfectly. Most people do not understand what a tithe really is, and most people do not understand the covenants and the difference between the old and the new. The deceivers take advantage of people’s ignorance regarding the law and a Christian’s relationship with God. The one that teaches tithing paints a picture of a God that demands they tithe. To neglect to tithe is seen as being disobedient to God; robbing God. To tithe is seen as being pleasing to God, and that God will bless those who do so. Tithing is therefore put forth as being a matter of faith when in actuality tithing has nothing to do with faith. Paul states in his writings that the law is not of faith. You don’t see these ministers who propound tithing living by faith that God will support them through the free_will offerings of their flocks. It is not uncommon for ministers and lay people alike to offer up justifications when they alter Scripture and the application of Scripture. But there is never a justification for taking the very inspired word of God and altering it so suit one’s "needs" or the "changing times." The old covenant was designed with Israel in mind and their economy. To try and force-fit tithing into another culture and another time is unwarranted. You cannot put the new wine (new covenant) into the old wineskin (old covenant). So what happens when one tithes, but they are not blessed financially? What is concluded if they experience further financial difficulties? It is their fault. They are lacking in faith. It is a no win situation for the poor person who was convinced by their ministry they have to tithe in order to be blessed by God. So ingrained is tithing now in the Christian psyche that there are few who are willing to truly step out in faith and abandon old covenant points of law that bring people back under the bondage of that law. (Galatians 5:1) A Christian lives by the law of faith, also known as the law of liberty. It is a law where one is freed from the obligations of the old covenant letter of the law. |
|
|
|
|
