Celibacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Ghosty:
That’s a polite way of saying that his view is downright heretical. Sex in marriage is not sinful, it’s a duty. Procreation is a holy thing, it is in fact the very first command God gave to humans in Genesis.

Inflyt’s view is not just non-Catholic, it is non-Biblical, bordering on outright evil. To say that procreation in marriage, and the desire to do so, is sinful is to say that God order’s humans to sin. Not a good position to hold, espescially for a self-proclaimed Christian.
Click to expand...
Well, I was trying to be polite…

This is the kind of twisted garbage that atheists, etc. like to think that all Christians believe----matter is EVIL! Sex is EVIL!
Shzeesh…
 
Sex entered into the picture after the fall of Adam and Eve. Jesus who is the source of holiness can make sex between Christians holy only through a recognition that the hunger for it is from our base natures, our fallen nature, our sin nature. Jesus did not hunger for sex. That is the biblical position.
 
Sex entered into the picture after the fall of Adam and Eve. Jesus who is the source of holiness can make sex between Christians holy only through a recognition that the hunger for it is from our base natures, our fallen nature, our sin nature. Jesus did not hunger for sex. That is the biblical position.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not.

Genesis 1:

27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.”

This was before the Fall. Your position is not Biblical. Sex was the first command of God after creating humanity; not a base desire, a divine command.

Show me where in the Bible it says that a desire for sexual reproduction with one’s wife is a fallen thing.
 
A desire to be close to a fellow Christian is obviously the fulfillment of the greatest commandment of God. In as much as that pure love is present in sex, it is a pure thing. The fact remains that because of the fall, sex also involves base things of the nature which must be recognized as well. No one is without their fallen nature to some extent. This fallen nature is especially aroused in sex and the desire for sex. That is why Paul encourages those who can refrain from marriage to do so,i.e., “It is good for a man, not to touch a woman.” Considering the subversive pressures in the world today, very few can “contain” as Paul recommends without the fallen nature asserting itself in more subversive ways. Therefore, I personally believe that if one can find a Christian partner that can recognize the vulnerability of sex to the fallen nature and yet be a close lover in fellowship, that this is the ideal (in the last days).
 
The fact remains that because of the fall, sex also involves base things of the nature which must be recognized as well.
Click to expand...
So? The same can be said of charity (it makes me feel good) and even worship of God (I’m scared of Hell), both of which can be said to possess selfish implications due to our fallen nature. The fact that we have a fallen nature is not a reason to abandon Holy things, it’s all the more reason to embrace them. Yes, people can have sex selfishly, and people can give to charity selfishly, and people can even worship selfishly. That does not negate the basic holiness of those acts.
That is why Paul encourages those who can refrain from marriage to do so,i.e., “It is good for a man, not to touch a woman.”
Click to expand...
You realize that Paul isn’t actually saying that, right? He’s addressing an argument that has been presented to him by others, and quoting it. Those are emphatically not his words; he’s correcting a false teaching that was circulating in Corinth.
 
A little later in the passage Paul re-emphasizes his starting point, i.e.: “It is good for them if they abide even as I do. But and if they cannot abstain, let them marry.” Holiness exists in sex only through Christ, i.e. between believers who recognize the unavoidable presense of the sin nature and the great vulnerability sex has to it. The same vulnerability does not exist in the exercise of pure charity and worship which works to subdue the sin nature. True charity is through Christ and by definition isn’t selffish. To the extent that selffishness exists, charity does not exist.
 
inflyt: Paul is simply saying that there is nothing wrong with being celibate. Nothing in what he says indicates that sex within marriage is any more sinful than remaining celibate. All Paul is saying is that it’s fine for the unmarried to remain unmarried, as Paul does, but if they can’t control their lust they’d better get married. He is not saying that sex in marriage necessarily involves lust, not at all. He indicates a personal preference, but admits that different people are granted different gifts: some for celibacy and some for pure marriage. He even indicates that his discourse is not one of command at all.
The same vulnerability does not exist in the exercise of pure charity and worship which works to subdue the sin nature.
Click to expand...
Pure sex is the same as pure charity: a good and holy thing commanded directly by God and designed for giving to others. The fact that some people have sex for the wrong reasons, and some people donate to charity for the wrong reasons (and you can’t rightly deny that they do) does not indicate a sinful nature in the act itself.

The fact that you can’t imagine sex without lust says more about your faith and weaknesses than it does about the act itself. I still challenge you to point out anywhere in Scripture that says that sex within marriage is sinful in nature, with or without the Sacrifice of Christ.

BTW, what about the Song of Solomon? That is Scripture that explicitely describes the love act between a married couple.

Here’s an excerpt straight from the Bible, NIV:
6 How beautiful you are and how pleasing,
O love, with your delights!

7 Your stature is like that of the palm,
and your breasts like clusters of fruit.

8 I said, “I will climb the palm tree;
I will take hold of its fruit.”
May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine,
the fragrance of your breath like apples,

9 and your mouth like the best wine.
Beloved

May the wine go straight to my lover,
flowing gently over lips and teeth.

10 I belong to my lover,
and his desire is for me.

11 Come, my lover, let us go to the countryside,
let us spend the night in the villages. 12 Let us go early to the vineyards
to see if the vines have budded,
if their blossoms have opened,
and if the pomegranates are in bloom—
there I will give you my love.
Click to expand...
That’s the inspired word of God, right there. That whole book is about a couple falling in love and making love, and that’s all it describes. If you don’t believe me, read it yourself. It’s practically right out of a modern romance novel, and it’s wrapped up right alongside the book of Exodus and the Gospels. Enjoy!
 
Nothing is holy without the spirit of God through Christ (the sacrifice of whom allows us to partake of his holiness). To believe otherwise is idolatry.
 
40.png
inflyt:
Nothing is holy without the spirit of God through Christ (the sacrifice of whom allows us to partake of his holiness). To believe otherwise is idolatry.
Click to expand...
No Catholic believes that holiness is something apart from God. This is basic—but doesn’t address the problems with your view that sex is evil and man’s true nature is evil.
 
40.png
montanaman:
…Of course, it’d be helpful if we weren’t losing TEN to Protestantism for every one we take in. I fear our apologetical descendants will have a lot of work to do… 😉
Click to expand...
This statement may “feel” correct but the evidence proves it wrong. Back when Luther road into the Vatican he “claimed” 9 out of ten preists praised him! If this were true then why did not 9 out of ten preists follow him? Perhaps he bragged and boasted a bit? Perhaps he had an active imagination and invented it like he did with “faith alone” while on the toilet, his own throne?

We live in a Protestant dominated country that is turning itself more over to Satan daily. We see so many Catholics turning their back on Jesus by turning their back on His Church and perhaps it ‘looks’ like Catholics are leaving in droves - and they are. But Catholics are the largest denomination in the US so you would naturally see them as the most numerous of any converts.

Look at the Protestants though (including Mormon, JW, and Anglicans for this point) and they church hop like it’s a ballet! They have no standard except to believe whatever meets their whim and fancey that day. Did Jesus tell us to church hop like that? Not in the Bible I use as proof - the AKJV of course. We just seem to overlook the Protestants drifting in the wind or the Catholics comming home in droves.

Check out adherents.com/

Also check out the Comming Home Network. Protestants are comming home in great numbers and in Europe, the birth place of the Protestant heresy, Protestants are shrinking and Catholics will soon outnumber them again, if not allready.

PS, My preist and I are both “EX”-Baptists! Praise God!
 
Man’s fallen nature is evil. That is why every man needs Christ. Sex, peculiarly sex, can not be entirely removed from man’s fallen nature. To the degree that sex isn’t removed from our fallen nature, we need Christ’s cleansing spirit to be holy.
 
40.png
inflyt:
Man’s fallen nature is evil. That is why every man needs Christ. Sex, peculiarly sex, can not be entirely removed from man’s fallen nature. To the degree that sex isn’t removed from our fallen nature, we need Christ’s cleansing spirit to be holy.
Click to expand...
I’ll agree with you that every man needs Christ. To be perfectly frank, I’m not just terribly interested in debating your views on sex and man’s nature. Maybe someone else is…or perhaps this would be best taken to another thread. Mostly, I had just wanted to point out, for other readers, that you were not Catholic and your positions do not reflect Catholic teaching.
 
inflyt: I’m not particularily interested in debating you on this thread about sex either. Besides, at this point you’re just making up theological arguments without basis, and repeating heresies that were shot down in the year 150 AD.

Your view on sex has no Scriptural support, and Scripture itself devotes an entire book to sexual union. Unless a new thread is started, that’s the last I have to say on this topic.
 
This thread was split off from the other because, though it is a good discussion…it was far off-topic to the Bible origins thread. I edited all the titles to avoid confusion
 
40.png
inflyt:
Sex entered into the picture after the fall of Adam and Eve. Jesus who is the source of holiness can make sex between Christians holy only through a recognition that the hunger for it is from our base natures, our fallen nature, our sin nature. Jesus did not hunger for sex. That is the biblical position.
Click to expand...
Do you posit that Adam and Eve had no marital relations before the fall?

I encourage you to pick up a copy of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body and read just the first few chapters. You will come away with a clearer understanding of the beauty and gift of sexuality God has given us.
 
Church Militant:
This is not accurate at all… Celibacy was not “added” later, it’s there from the get go with Christ Himself and then St. Paul as well.

Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

1st Corinthians 7:6-9
“6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.” (Emphasis mine)

Just because non-Catholics don’t like to admit it doesn’t make it something that was supposedly “added”. That’s just not so at all…
Pax vobiscum,
Click to expand...
Canon 3 of the council of Nicea declares that Bishops, preists, and deacons may not live withany woman except a sister or a mother or anyone else beyond suspision. In effect, it declared the celibacy of the preisthood.
 
40.png
Wormwood:
It was not official church doctrine from the get go. There were many who had children in the church. Those verses you quoted only point to a suggestion not doctrine. And there is no proof that Jesus himself was not married. After all there is no mention of Jesus when he was 20, which was around the traditional age for a jew to marry.
Click to expand...
This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion. [Canon 3 http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm”]Council of Nicea]

You are quite wrong. Read canon 3 of the council of Nicea in, I believe, AD 325. That is 700 years before you claim it to be in effect. They took a vote of 125 bishops and voted on this. That means that it was pretty well spread through Christiandom by that time. Also, if you read Jerome, Ambrose, or Augustine, you can see that they are very firm on their support of Virginity. Jerome talks a little about it to Helvidius. Ambrose writes epistles about virginity and so does Augustine.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
For all who think Jesus was married, answer me this:

How many 30 year old guys who live with their mother are married?
Click to expand...
You have caught my interest. Not about Jesus being married, but about Jesus living with his mother.

Did he? I never heard that before.
 
I don’t know anything about when celibacy started, but I do know what Paul wrote to Timothy:

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer - 1 Timothy 4:1-5
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top