Celibacy

Rival said:

Inspired by the thread about Jesus not being married and Essenes and whatnot, I wondered why some faiths teach celibacy as a good thing. Paul of Christianity wishes everyone were virgins as he was apparently, certain forms of Buddhism teach that abstaining from sexual relations is good, as well as does Jainism. I can't think of a decent reason to deny oneself this forever. Sure, one can abstain for certain amounts of time, as with food, certain activities, etc., but one would hardly abstain from food, for example, forever. I wonder what makes some people choose celibacy and why certain creeds teach it.

@Amanaki @metis

Click to expand...

That's not what Paul said. Paul was a widower, clearly. He said he could wish that all Christians were not distracted by marriage, to witness more easily, and then said that due to human nature, marriage is not only permissible but a joyous example of Christ's relationship to His church.

Rival said:

Inspired by the thread about Jesus not being married and Essenes and whatnot, I wondered why some faiths teach celibacy as a good thing. Paul of Christianity wishes everyone were virgins as he was apparently, certain forms of Buddhism teach that abstaining from sexual relations is good, as well as does Jainism. I can't think of a decent reason to deny oneself this forever. Sure, one can abstain for certain amounts of time, as with food, certain activities, etc., but one would hardly abstain from food, for example, forever. I wonder what makes some people choose celibacy and why certain creeds teach it.

@Amanaki @metis

Click to expand...

It's from one of Paul's letters, whereas he says that dedicating one's self to God and Jesus was the ideal, and neither of them were married.

BilliardsBall said:

Paul was a widower,

Click to expand...

There's no indication of that one way or the other. Either way, he considered celibacy to be the ideal but that it's not for everyone.

Deeje said:

STD are transmitted.....ummm....sexually. By its very name, sexual activity is required to spread it. (sexual activity is not just copulation)
Two individuals who have never had ANY sexual contact with anyone else cannot give each other an STD.

Click to expand...

You said caused and sex does not cause those diseases. If it did then anyone who had sex, even sex in committed, monogamous relationships, would be at risk. You really don't think things through do you.

Deeje said:

The ideal in marriage, (biblically speaking) is to choose a mate who is a virgin. It is having multiple partners that increases your risk, going against God's design and moral laws.

Click to expand...

Having multiple partners increases risk, but does not CAUSE those diseases.

Deeje said:

The only way to spread STD's is by the exchange of body fluids, including blood. Contaminated blood transfusions were one of the major causes of the HIV epidemic of the 80's. But again, the donor had to have acquired the virus in the first place, more often than not via promiscuous sexual contact.

Click to expand...

Contaminated blood did not cause those diseases. Contaminated blood spread those diseases, as did intravenous drug use through the sharing of needles, but it did not cause the disease. If it had, then anyone could have gotten the disease just by getting a transfusion.

Of course, a committed partner in a monogamous relationship could still get an STD, no matter how wonderful they were, if their partner slipped up, even once. And even if they were committed and monogamous together, they still have a risk of STD, since some of those diseases can be acquired by other means and then spread sexually.

Rival said:

I'm talking about the lifelong state of never being married nor having sex.

I believe a better way one can control their desires is by moderation, not outright denial. Just as a person on a diet may fast at times, but not eating at all will cause one to starve to death. I could see more benefit in abstaining for a time but not forever.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on this point. I probably never would have appreciated voluntary celibacy as much as I do without having first been married.

As I understand it, Paul was more concerned with marriage as a religious distraction -- serving two masters -- than he was about health.

Few males in times of yore, celibate or not, were chaste. Sex was usually readily available. The Romans even considered it necessary for health. During the middle ages the libidinousness of celibate priests and monks was a standing joke.

stvdv said:

You must be God IMO


Not the God I know


I agree

Click to expand...

I am so glad your god does not judge. So does that mean you can do anything you want with no consiquences? Can you imagine how bad it would be if all society lived with no consiquences?

lostwanderingsoul said:

I am so glad your god does not judge

Click to expand...

#MeToo

lostwanderingsoul said:

So does that mean you can do anything you want with no consiquences?

Click to expand...

Oh no, imagine that. Might create chaos

lostwanderingsoul said:

Can you imagine how bad it would be if all society lived with no consiquences?

Click to expand...

Yes, some might misbehave quite bad

When I say "God does not judge" it means just "God does not judge" (God does not get emotional involved, like we humans do). There is no such God seeing black and white, good and bad, as we dualistic humans do.

I don't have a mental picture of God who is judging like we humans judge each other.

I see it more like with Gravity.

You jump from the Eifeltower and die.

There is no God judging you for jumping.

There is no God 'thinking' wtf is he thinking now, jumping from the Eifeltower. I don't like that, so he should die (and my will be done)

You jump, and Gravity "will take you down", and you die, unless you are like an Angel (or have one) who can fly, then of course you won't die. We had a Dutchman, Jan van Schaffelaer, who jumped - not from Eifeltower though. And, as the story goes, he did go down, so Gravity worked, he miraculously survived the jump though (happened even to someone on RF I read), but Jan was killed anyway (wartime story)

stvdv said:

#MeToo


Oh no, imagine that. Might create chaos


Yes, some might misbehave quite bad

When I say "God does not judge" it means just "God does not judge" (God does not get emotional involved, like we humans do). There is no such God seeing black and white, good and bad, as we dualistic humans do.

I don't have a mental picture of God who is judging like we humans judge each other.

I see it more like with Gravity.

You jump from the Eifeltower and die.

There is no God judging you for jumping.

There is no God 'thinking' wtf is he thinking now, jumping from the Eifeltower. I don't like that, so he should die (and my will be done)

You jump, and Gravity "will take you down", and you die, unless you are like an Angel (or have one) who can fly, then of course you won't die. We had a Dutchman, Jan van Schaffelaer, who jumped - not from Eifeltower though. And, as the story goes, he did go down, so Gravity worked, he miraculously survived the jump though (happened even to someone on RF I read), but Jan was killed anyway (wartime story)

Click to expand...

Well when I say God judges I mean God has rules for humans to follow and He judges us by whether we follow those rules or not. No emotion. Just obey or not. Good or evil.

Rival said:

Paul of Christianity wishes everyone were virgins as he was apparently, certain forms of Buddhism teach that abstaining from sexual relations is good, as well as does Jainism.

Click to expand...

It would mean the end of the human race.

stvdv said:

How does the first one gets STD (I mean the very first, like the "Adam of all STD"; no disrepect for Adam of course, just genuine curious, as I am celibate and also don't want one).

Click to expand...

Since it is "sexually" transmitted, it stands to reason that breaking God's moral laws by having multiple sexual partners, will be the biological cause. When you break God's laws, there are consequences. He has warned us about them.
When the apostle Paul mentioned sexual sins, he said....

Romans 1:26-27...
"That is why God gave them over to disgraceful sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error."

When you go against nature, or you break God's moral laws by indulging in sexual activity outside of scriptural marriage, there are consequences. Sin is what creates all illness. Sexual sin creates sexual illness.....isn't that what we see?

Can this not happen to even a celibate?

Click to expand...

You cannot get STD's if you are celibate. You can get all manner of other illnesses however.

Dan From Smithville said:

You said caused and sex does not cause those diseases. If it did then anyone who had sex, even sex in committed, monogamous relationships, would be at risk. You really don't think things through do you.

Click to expand...

If it is spread by engaging in sexual activity that is against God's law, then logically the biology for its cause is set up in that engagement also. Perhaps you need to think about that for a moment.

Dan From Smithville said:

Having multiple partners increases risk, but does not CAUSE those diseases.

Click to expand...

The cause is ancient....sexual sin is as old as humanity. Syphilis has been around forever.

History of venereal diseases from antiquity to the renaissance. - PubMed - NCBI

AIDS is a relative newcomer and there are quite diverse reasons offered for its origins. (Some very sinister)

Dan From Smithville said:

Contaminated blood did not cause those diseases. Contaminated blood spread those diseases, as did intravenous drug use through the sharing of needles, but it did not cause the disease. If it had, then anyone could have gotten the disease just by getting a transfusion.

Click to expand...

Yes, through sharing body fluids under circumstances, all of which contravene God's laws. These diseases had a biological cause and overstepping God's boundaries when it comes to unlawful sexual activity can definitely be the cause as well as the method of transmission.

Dan From Smithville said:

Of course, a committed partner in a monogamous relationship could still get an STD, no matter how wonderful they were, if their partner slipped up, even once. And even if they were committed and monogamous together, they still have a risk of STD, since some of those diseases can be acquired by other means and then spread sexually.

Click to expand...

Like all transmissible diseases, they are spread by someone doing the wrong thing. Even someone with the flu sneezing on public transport can kill someone.

If someone has acquired an STD that they then transmit to someone they love, it is a consequence of someone breaking God's law and creating an innocent victim. That one "slip up" means that they were exposed to every person their illicit partner ever slept with. This is the reality when sex is seen as a pursuit of pleasure...an act of lust, rather than a dedicated, faithful relationship to one mate for life. Anyone having sex with someone whose sexual history is unknown is playing Russian Roulette with their health.

Deeje said:

When you go against nature, or you break God's moral laws

Click to expand...

Thank you for your explanation

I just try to understand HOW std starts.

So not due to blood contact, but solely due to sin, correct?

Example 1: Husband of a virtuous woman watches porn movie 1 night and starts sleeping around. Virtuous woman does not know.

He gets aids. She will not get aids, because she is virtuous (24/7 thinks of God and performs marriage duty to have sex now and then). Do I understand correctly?

Example 2: Bible says that looking at someone with lust is the same as acting. My Master says same. So even when you never have physical sex, but now and then entertain sex thoughts (sinful ones) you can get std or aids etc. Do I understand correctly?

IF that is true then it seems that certain thoughts weaken your "system" which makes sense as we all know that certain emotions (thoughts, feelings) have immediate physical effect.

And on the positive side, if you have certain illness and discover where you went "off God's Plan" then you might be able to reverse things. Do I understand correctly?

Even medicine might not be needed, as "Sin is what creates all illness". And maybe if you keep sinning, medicine won't even work, correct?

Makes sense to me. In Holland we have "Iceman" who easily fights off many viruses injected into his body. Not sure if he tried HIV already. His trick is simple....just purify mind

Sin is not my favorite word. Because many say "Man is a sinner" which is incorrect IMO. In Hinduism I learned to say "you are a child of God who sins" never say "you are a sinner". God says "All are God's children".
[Adharma = unrighteousness, going against conscience or Divine Plan]

Click to expand...

Deeje said:

Since it is "sexually" transmitted, it stands to reason that breaking God's moral laws by having multiple sexual partners, will be the biological cause. When you break God's laws, there are consequences. He has warned us about them.

Click to expand...

How dare you say that disease is a consequence of sin. You obviously have no idea how offensive and deluded that is to say. That is the mentality that led to people treating people dying of AIDS like garbage and subhuman. You sound like a crank.

stvdv said:

Thank you for your explanation

I just try to understand HOW std starts.

So not due to blood contact, but solely due to sin, correct?

Click to expand...

Not that simply stated...NO.

"Sin", correctly understood simply means to fall short of the perfection of mind, body and spirit that was in our design in the beginning. The original word used in the scriptures was an archery term used to describe "missing the mark". That is what "sin" is....falling short of the mark.

By giving humans free will, it meant that they could choose to sin or not. They had intellectual ability and were able to analyze their behavior and its consider its consequences. Since there was no "sin" in their nature to blame for their decision, it was treated by God as a willful and deliberate action, warranting the stated penalty....death. The problem was that the imperfection in them was passed down to their children like a death dealing genetic disorder for which there was no cure. (Romans 5:12) The Bible says that God sent his Christ into the world to fix that problem, but the effects of that solution would not be immediate.

Since there was no reasonable excuse to disobey their God and keep their perfection, "sin" entered their lives and never left. Sin is the reason why we die.....death was never supposed to happen and is as foreign to the human psyche today as it ever was. We have no 'program' for death. We have no 'program' for aging and sickness either.

Example 1: Husband of a virtuous woman watches porn movie 1 night and starts sleeping around. Virtuous woman does not know.

He gets aids. She will not get aids, because she is virtuous (24/7 thinks of God and performs marriage duty to have sex now and then). Do I understand correctly?

Click to expand...

No...she is an innocent victim of his infidelity. He must accept responsibility for his actions and their consequences. Even the most virtuous person can become a victim of other people's actions.

Example 2: Bible says that looking at someone with lust is the same as acting. My Master says same. So even when you never have physical sex, but now and then entertain sex thoughts (sinful ones) you can get std or aids etc. Do I understand correctly?

Click to expand...

No...not at all. Neither example fits the Bible's assessment of sin. It has to be enacted deliberately.
Jesus said looking at a woman (who is not your marriage mate) with lust, is the first step in a chain reaction. Every action begins with a thought...if not dismissed immediately, that thought, if it is fed, can lead to action. The action, once accomplished is the sin. (James 1:13-15)

IF that is true then it seems that certain thoughts weaken your "system" which makes sense as we all know that certain emotions (thoughts, feelings) have immediate physical effect.

Click to expand...

Yes, we are all capable of sinful thoughts and feelings, but they do not necessarily have to lead to action. We are the captain of our own ship....we take it in whatever direction our heart dictates....but the heart is often a traitor...a partner in crime...so we must be careful to evaluate the consequences of our actions first.

And on the positive side, if you have certain illness and discover where you went "off God's Plan" then you might be able to reverse things. Do I understand correctly?

Even medicine might not be needed, as "Sin is what creates all illness". And maybe if you keep sinning, medicine won't even work, correct?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far, but there is always hope if one follows God's directions for living a clean moral life.
Solomon wrote....
"I have seen something further under the sun, that the swift do not always win the race, nor do the mighty win the battle, nor do the wise always have the food, nor do the intelligent always have the riches, nor do those with knowledge always have success, because time and unexpected events overtake them all." (Ecclesiastes 9:11)

No one is responsible for their imperfections....just their actions. That is the two kinds of sin....one we choose...the other we don't.

Makes sense to me. In Holland we have "Iceman" who easily fights off many viruses injected into his body. Not sure if he tried HIV already. His trick is simple....just purify mind

Click to expand...

The human immune system is not fully understood...so there may well be those who can ward off diseases to which others succumb. It simply demonstrates that it is possible. This is also true of autistic savants. They are often intellectually impaired in many areas, but are gifted in just one to the point of genius. It just shows us what the human brain is capable of....perhaps a throwback to our original perfection?

But I have faith in God that he doesn't create junk.....we can make ourselves "junk" by our own choices.

Saint Frankenstein said:

How dare you say that disease is a consequence of sin. You obviously have no idea how offensive and deluded that is to say. That is the mentality that led to people treating people dying of AIDS like garbage and subhuman. You sound like a crank.

Click to expand...

Seriously Frank...that was a bit of a knee jerk. It was the churches who reacted like that about AIDS. It just created more hate and misunderstanding.
See my last post....."sin" is imperfection. We are all imperfect.

In truth, it was the gay community that was hardest hit by AIDS. By their own practices, after it was discovered how it was spread, they invited it on themselves...some even choosing to die with a partner rather than to seek treatment, making it a form of martyrdom.
If you choose the behavior, you also choose the consequences. No one dies from not having sex.

If you understand what "sin" is.....it is a reasonable explanation for why we have so much imperfection in this world...and why people respond to it the way they do.

Deeje said:

Seriously Frank...that was a bit of a knee jerk. It was the churches who reacted like that about AIDS. It just created more hate and misunderstanding.
See my last post....."sin" is imperfection. We are all imperfect.

In truth, it was the gay community that was hardest hit by AIDS. By their own practices, after it was discovered how it was spread, they invited it on themselves...some even choosing to die with a partner rather than to seek treatment, making it a form of martyrdom.
If you choose the behavior, you also choose the consequences. No one dies from not having sex.

If you understand what "sin" is.....it is a reasonable explanation for why we have so much imperfection in this world...and why people respond to it the way they do.

Click to expand...

Little children get HIV through transfusions or being born to a mother with HIV who isn't on medication to suppress it, people get STDs through ignorance simply because they weren't taught the facts and how to protect themselves, you can get them from being raped, etc. Also, the majority of people with HIV are heterosexual.

Deeje said:

Sin is the reason why we die.....death was never supposed to happen and is as foreign to the human psyche today as it ever was. We have no 'program' for death. We have no 'program' for aging and sickness either.

Click to expand...

Quite some Master Plan.

Deeje said:

This is also true of autistic savants. They are often intellectually impaired in many areas, but are gifted in just one to the point of genius. It just shows us what the human brain is capable of....perhaps a throwback to our original perfection?

Click to expand...

That to me is proof that much more is possible then science can ever prove. And if scientists can't proof certain spiritual things only shows their incapability and immaturity on spiritual level.

Deeje said:

The human immune system is not fully understood...so there may well be those who can ward off diseases to which others succumb. It simply demonstrates that it is possible. This is also true of autistic savants

Click to expand...

They are reminders to keep scientists humble, that there is more "under the sun" even if they can't prove a thing

Deeje said:

You cannot get STD's if you are celibate. You can get all manner of other illnesses however.

Click to expand...

ROFL!
Silly pelican. I daresay celibate people get more STDs than married people, as they tend to have more sexual partners.

Saint Frankenstein said:

How dare you say that disease is a consequence of sin. You obviously have no idea how offensive and deluded that is to say. That is the mentality that led to people treating people dying of AIDS like garbage and subhuman. You sound like a crank.

Click to expand...

I fully agree that the use of the word sin creates lot's of pain in others. Better never use it IMO.

Religious people should be very careful when using the word sin (I never say it) and worse is when they call someone a sinner or even imply this or even if their words generate this feeling in the other.

If a Christian calls someone a "sinner" he better contemplates if this does not make himself the "sinner" and when meditating he will even realize the other is not even a "sinner". I'm glad my Master told me that nobody is a sinner.

If you disapprove of an action it's much better to just say that.
Why say to someone he is a sinner, or it's a sin what he is doing?
I don't understand why some use the word sin
(esp. knowing the deep emotional, voodoo like impact this word has. Or maybe that is the reason they use it)

Saint Frankenstein said:

Little children get HIV through transfusions or being born to a mother with HIV who isn't on medication to suppress it, people get STDs through ignorance simply because they weren't taught the facts and how to protect themselves, you can get them from being raped, etc. Also, the majority of people with HIV are heterosexual.

Click to expand...

I think those are good examples to not call it sin

Calling it sin will generate guiltfeeling making them more sick (that extra disease due to the word sin being used for sure is not because of their "sin" but....)