Celibacy in spiritual lifestyle

[Trailblazer]

How do you know this is the case?

I know because of what my religion teaches and also because of other sources that validate what my religion teaches. Do you want to know what they are?

 

[Trailblazer]

Non-human animals are just as spiritual as humans. Do not be so arrogant. Ethnology is starting to make advances in our understanding of non-human behavior showing they have rituals, understand death and show grief. They demonstrate altruistic behaviors, the ability to think in the abstract, they have the ability to discover and create and the have just as much of a soul as humans have. Humans are animals only arrogant humans are blind enough not to see this.

I do not consider it arrogant to have a belief. If you have evidence that contradicts my beliefs I will be happy to look at it. I love animals.

What evidence do you have that animals are spiritual?
What animals understand death and show grief?
What animals demonstrate altruistic behaviors and how can we know they are altruistic?
What animals have the ability to think in the abstract?
What animals have the ability to discover and create what humans can discover and create?

Humans are animals but we are more than just animals. We are spiritual beings. To live like animals, solely for things of the flesh, is to deny the purpose for which we were created. Do you know any animals other than humans who can know and worship God?

 

[Deeje]

The one gospel which we can confidently say was written by the man whose name it bares is Mark: and it's based on the memories of Peter. So where does Mark mention Bethlehem or a virgin birth?

OK, so first of all, who is "we"? And second of all...who said that Mark's account was any more accurate than the others?
Is the Bible God's word or man's? If it is God's word them we can confidently accept all of it because there is no power in existence that can rival God's. He chose what he wants in his own book, and he has preserved it through thousands of years down to our day.

OTOH if it is the word of men, then we can confidently dismiss the whole thing. There is no such thing as God or Christ or anyone else mentioned in that book...it would be a work of fiction. We have to choose because you can't have a foot in both camps...sorry.

Two of the gospel writers were not apostles. One of them was Mark, and the other was Luke. So who confidently told you that you can't trust an apostle to write his own gospel account? They were eye witnesses to all of it....three and half years of constant companionship with Jesus, listening to his teachings and having his exclusive instruction. Who dares to say we should dismiss them...and on on what grounds?

Matthew and Luke have Jesus born in Bethlehem, but contradict each other on how this came about. John has Jesus coming from Nazareth.

There are no contradictions, just different accounts from different viewpoints using their own words.
When you have something to contest...at least provide back up for what you say....then at least we can credit you with some knowledge of the subject, which at present you don't seem to have. Did you copy these ideas from someone you read on the internet? Or have you actually studied the Bible yourself to come to these conclusions? How would we know? You speak like someone who has authority on this subject.....are you?

The letters of Paul are also (mostly) authentic and he says that Jesus was physically descended from David, which implies he was the son of Joseph.

Does it? You do understand that Joseph was always recognized as Jesus' father? (Luke 3:23) He and Mary had other siblings after all.
No one knew about the circumstances of Jesus' birth except Mary and Joseph....and of course the relative angelic bodies in the spirit realm, including the devil who sent astrologers to find Jesus so that Herod might want to kill him.

The interpretations of the OT as prophecies of Jesus are all contested by the Jews, who presumably know their own scriptures!

Are you serious? Jews are really going to testify that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophesies? Do you know what it means for them if they are wrong? The Pharisees were so convincing that Jesus was a fake Messiah, that the people cried out for Jesus to be executed, cursing themselves and their children with his blood. (Matthew 27:25) I believe that they got their wish.

Of course they know their own scripture, but like Christendom, it gets all bent out of shape when humans want to put their own spin on it to carry their beliefs. Its a minefield, but not one that God can't guide us out of.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Humans are an animal species but are more evolved than the others.

There is no hierarchy in evolution, so there is no such thing as "more" or "less" evolved. Adaptations happens as a result of environmental circumstances and those able to reproduce spread the adaptation around more than the others who didn't get to reproduce. That's it. Doesn't matter if that adaptation occurred 500 million years ago or yesterday. If that adaptation is conducive to survival, it stays because more members of a species will be passing it on to their offspring. But certainly humans are just animals. I despise any sort of worldview that tries to set humans against the natural world. It only induces alienation.

 

[Riders]

What is your understanding (not your view) on living in celibasy when living a spiritual life?

When both people in a relationship live a spiritual life, and live in celibasy, what is your view on it?

I am using it but its not everyone.

I need it to at least have a spiritual for a time anyways. AT least a year maybe 2 or 3.Because of my sex addiciton past it is very useful to me. But I don't think its for everyone.

I;m not going to be able to do it without church.
I ahve 4 different spiritual groups I am interested in plus my self help step groups, I need my spiritual groups more then anything, I can not stay celebate with out it.

 

[Bear Wild]

I do not consider it arrogant to have a belief. If you have evidence that contradicts my beliefs I will be happy to look at it. I love animals.

What evidence do you have that animals are spiritual?
What animals understand death and show grief?
What animals demonstrate altruistic behaviors and how can we know they are altruistic?
What animals have the ability to think in the abstract?
What animals have the ability to discover and create what humans can discover and create?

Humans are animals but we are more than just animals. We are spiritual beings. To live like animals, solely for things of the flesh, is to deny the purpose for which we were created. Do you know any animals other than humans who can know and worship God?

No it is arrogant to believe that animals cannot be spiritual. At best we can only say we do not know as for examples. Read from Jane Goodall's observations. In the Gombe reserve when Flo the mother of Flint died, Flint showed clear evidence of grieving. He would return to the exact spot where she died long after her body was gone and showed depression symptoms and died much younger than he should. Elephants also show grief and an understanding of death as well as crows.
The have been show to put their lives in danger to save a species different then their own. Yes we do not have the capability to communicate to them and as why yet but placing their life in danger to save a different species has no direct survival benefit. Bernd Heinrich and his observations of ravens helping other ravens lessening their own chance of survival is another example. The observations of a bottle nose dolphins saving two beached whales by preventing sharks from taking advantage then guiding the whales back out to deeper waters in 2008 of the coast of New Zealand well observed and documented. There is also the witness event of a leopard caring for a baboon baby. Crow protecting a kitten from danger. The list goes on and on and they fit the concept of altruism which must relate to behavior that assists others where no possible perceived benefit could be gained. Animals show altruism!
As for abstract recent studies of corvids and parrots show the ability to solve multitask experiments where they have to have understanding of the components. There are ever increasing evidence of these birds understanding cause and effect. No they have not come up with quantum mechanics but just give them time. Our biggest limitation in understanding animal behavior is finding out how to measure it in the animals own environment. Long gone are the days of Skinner and his torture boxes with starved animals.
There is ample evidence that animals can discover and create. They have the genetic and neurologic pathways in the brain. Humans have taken this further but that does not separate us from animals. Do you have any Idea how much we have in common compared to different? It is clear we are created.
To live like animals in harmony with the rest of the natural world would be the greatest achievement of human kind. It would mean humans finally gained the wisdom to stop their arrogant behavior towards the rest of the natural world and gained the wisdom to live in harmony. We have not been able to do that yet. We cannot say that animals are not spiritual and again Goodall may have some observation of displays of chimpanzees that demonstrate this concept. I believe they have spirituality but if you have to feel superior the best you can say is that you do not know if they are spiritual.

 

[Trailblazer]

No it is arrogant to believe that animals cannot be spiritual. At best we can only say we do not know as for examples. Read from Jane Goodall's observations. In the Gombe reserve when Flo the mother of Flint died, Flint showed clear evidence of grieving. He would return to the exact spot where she died long after her body was gone and showed depression symptoms and died much younger than he should. Elephants also show grief and an understanding of death as well as crows.
The have been show to put their lives in danger to save a species different then their own. Yes we do not have the capability to communicate to them and as why yet but placing their life in danger to save a different species has no direct survival benefit. Bernd Heinrich and his observations of ravens helping other ravens lessening their own chance of survival is another example. The observations of a bottle nose dolphins saving two beached whales by preventing sharks from taking advantage then guiding the whales back out to deeper waters in 2008 of the coast of New Zealand well observed and documented. There is also the witness event of a leopard caring for a baboon baby. Crow protecting a kitten from danger. The list goes on and on and they fit the concept of altruism which must relate to behavior that assists others where no possible perceived benefit could be gained. Animals show altruism!
As for abstract recent studies of corvids and parrots show the ability to solve multitask experiments where they have to have understanding of the components. There are ever increasing evidence of these birds understanding cause and effect. No they have not come up with quantum mechanics but just give them time. Our biggest limitation in understanding animal behavior is finding out how to measure it in the animals own environment. Long gone are the days of Skinner and his torture boxes with starved animals.
There is ample evidence that animals can discover and create. They have the genetic and neurologic pathways in the brain. Humans have taken this further but that does not separate us from animals. Do you have any Idea how much we have in common compared to different? It is clear we are created.
To live like animals in harmony with the rest of the natural world would be the greatest achievement of human kind. It would mean humans finally gained the wisdom to stop their arrogant behavior towards the rest of the natural world and gained the wisdom to live in harmony. We have not been able to do that yet. We cannot say that animals are not spiritual and again Goodall may have some observation of displays of chimpanzees that demonstrate this concept. I believe they have spirituality but if you have to feel superior the best you can say is that you do not know if they are spiritual.

Thanks for the examples...

You are preaching to the choir because I love animals more than people. My entire life revolves around animals, domestic and wild. There is nothing I love more in this world.

Clearly, there is a lot we do not know about animals, there is much science has yet to learn.

It is the Abrahamic religions that teach this elevated human status, thus lowering animals, but that is not something I have to buy off on. I am my own person.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

OK, so first of all, who is "we"? And second of all...who said that Mark's account was any more accurate than the others?

"We" is anyone with a basic training in historical method. When Bishop Eusebius wrote his history, he looked for the earliest references he could find. Bishop Papias, writing about 120, only knew of one biography of Jesus, that by Mark.

Is the Bible God's word or man's? If it is God's word them we can confidently accept all of it because there is no power in existence that can rival God's. OTOH if it is the word of men, then we can confidently dismiss the whole thing.

If the Bible were literally the word of God, then it would contain fewer factual errors. But how can you dismiss the "word of men"? Are you saying that all the history books in the local library are "works of fiction"?

There are no contradictions, just different accounts from different viewpoints using their own words.

If one man says that Joseph was a resident of Nazareth and the other says he was a resident of Bethlehem, that sounds like a contradiction to me!

Or have you actually studied the Bible yourself to come to these conclusions? You speak like someone who has authority on this subject.....are you?

Of course I've studied the Bible, and the history of Christianity (have you read Eusebius whom I quoted above?), and historical method. Take Luke's nativity story. Jesus cannot have been born when Herod was King of Judea and Quirinius Governor of Syria, because Herod had been dead 9 years when Quirinius was appointed. If Joseph lived in Nazareth, then in the time of Herod the Great he would have been Herod's subject, and in the time of Quirinius he would have been a subject of Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee. Either way, he would not have been a Roman subject and not subject to Roman taxes or a Roman census.

 

[Deeje]

"We" is anyone with a basic training in historical method. When Bishop Eusebius wrote his history, he looked for the earliest references he could find. Bishop Papias, writing about 120, only knew of one biography of Jesus, that by Mark.

Calling someone by a title, especially a religious title, does not give them more credibility than an apostle.
Jesus said not to use religious titles. (Matt 23:9-12)

That aside, Papias was quoted by Eusebius but he did not agree with many of his conclusions....which is not surprising when you consider that Eusebius and his views were a product of the foretold apostasy, far removed from original Christianity and corrupted by centuries of unscriptural additions. (Matthew 13:36-43)

First Eusebius speaks of Papias as “well skilled in all manner of learning, and well acquainted with the Scriptures,” and then later describes him as a man “of limited understanding” and one who had gathered “certain strange parables of our Lord and his doctrine, and some other matters rather too fabulous.”
But the main reason why Eusebius disagreed with Papias was apparently that Papias believed in a millennial reign of Christ upon earth. This, however, was the prevailing view of those professing Christianity in the second century.

As for his works, these consisted chiefly of a five-book commentary (most likely five chapters, the books being more like the shorter “books” of the Christian Greek Scriptures than ordinary books), entitled “Exposition of the Lord’s Oracles.” It has been quoted by a number of writers, and copies of it were in existence as late as A.D. 1218, but since then it has disappeared entirely.

In his preface or introduction Papias explained his method. He carefully gathered information from those who had personally known such apostles as Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John and Matthew. He also noted that he did not take pleasure in those who spoke much but in those who taught the truth and that he preferred getting his information firsthand from living witnesses rather than from written sources. Most important of the fragments of his work that have come down to us is the one relating to the writing of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.

In other places Papias quotes from the first letters of both Peter and John, showing that they were used in his day. His testimony in favor of the book of Revelation is particularly noteworthy, he thereby being one of the oldest witnesses to its inspiration and creditability. He also mentions the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which, according to some, was Matthew’s Gospel in its original tongue."

Excerpts from Papias—and the Gospels of Matthew and Mark — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

If the Bible were literally the word of God, then it would contain fewer factual errors. But how can you dismiss the "word of men"? Are you saying that all the history books in the local library are "works of fiction"?

What factual errors? Name them and discuss them.

Consider.....
1) History books are not inspired by God, but written by men with loyalties that would alter their perceptions of various events.

2) History has a habit of being distorted by those with an agenda.
e.g. The history of the American or Australian white conquest of land stolen from native peoples would be a very different story told by the other side. Whose historical account would be more accurate?

If one man says that Joseph was a resident of Nazareth and the other says he was a resident of Bethlehem, that sounds like a contradiction to me!

Please quote the scripture and we'll see. You can't make blanket statements with no backup. Provide your details.

Of course I've studied the Bible, and the history of Christianity (have you read Eusebius whom I quoted above?), and historical method. Take Luke's nativity story. Jesus cannot have been born when Herod was King of Judea and Quirinius Governor of Syria, because Herod had been dead 9 years when Quirinius was appointed. If Joseph lived in Nazareth, then in the time of Herod the Great he would have been Herod's subject, and in the time of Quirinius he would have been a subject of Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee. Either way, he would not have been a Roman subject and not subject to Roman taxes or a Roman census.

This is what our "historical method" reveals....

Herod — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What is your understanding (not your view) on living in celibasy when living a spiritual life?

When both people in a relationship live a spiritual life, and live in celibasy, what is your view on it?

It certainly doesn't hurt to be celibate. I've been celibate for the last 19 years and I'm healthy and happy and life is full of love and meaning.

I do think there is something a little out of whack if a married couple are not having sex. But if it works for them, I'm not going to tell them they have to! LOL

 

[IndigoChild5559]

"We" is anyone with a basic training in historical method. When Bishop Eusebius wrote his history, he looked for the earliest references he could find. Bishop Papias, writing about 120, only knew of one biography of Jesus, that by Mark.

Your saying he didn't write until he was 60?

You know, we only have a few bits and pieces of his writing, that which is quoted in Irenaeus and Eusebius. I wouldn't make such a generalization about his familiarity with the gospels based on such a small sampling of his writings.

 

[Trailblazer]

It certainly doesn't hurt to be celibate. I've been celibate for the last 19 years and I'm healthy and happy and life is full of love and meaning.

I do think there is something a little out of whack if a married couple are not having sex. But if it works for them, I'm not going to tell them they have to! LOL

I suppose you remain celibate because of your religious laws regarding sex out of wedlock.... Baha'is have the same laws.

Why do you think married people need to have sex? Is it a teaching of your religion? Do you think that married couples at any age need to be having sex? Just curious.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It certainly doesn't hurt to be celibate. I've been celibate for the last 19 years and I'm healthy and happy and life is full of love and meaning.

I do think there is something a little out of whack if a married couple are not having sex. But if it works for them, I'm not going to tell them they have to! LOL

As long both are on the same path it does work very well (my experiance)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I suppose you remain celibate because of your religious laws regarding sex out of wedlock.... Baha'is have the same laws.

Why do you think married people need to have sex? Is it a teaching of your religion? Do you think that married couples at any age need to be having sex? Just curious.

Okay this is just my less than two cents worth, which you can take or leave. I think God had two reasons for establishing a committed pair bonding, that which we call marriage.

The first is the commitment provides a safe place for sex to happen. Sex is a volatile, explosive kind of thing. In hunter gatherer societies, it's what you go to war for, what you murder for. OMGosh, remember Shechem. Dinah gets raped (or at the very least, something less than conventional marital sex). For this her brothers massacre an entire city. On the flip side, science has proven that every time a man has sex with the same woman, his body produces oxytocin and he bonds to her more, and the more he bonds, the better the sex.

The second reason is that a marriage provides the safest and most secure environment for the raising of children. Now you will say, a celibate couple are obviously not going to have children. To which I reply, that's why I say it's odd. One of the primary reasons for marriage is for the best environment to raise kids. If you aren't going to have kids, why are you going to get married? But there IS an answer to that question, and it's companionship. People are still drawn to the pair bond, even in the absence of children. That why widows who are past child bearing age will still remarry. You might simply have two people with exceptionally low levels of testosterone, which would result in especially low libidos -- they are happier not having sex.

What I'm definitely opposed to are those sects that prohibit husbands and wives from having sex. That's one of the marks of a cult.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay this is just my less than two cents worth, which you can take or leave. I think God had two reasons for establishing a committed pair bonding, that which we call marriage.

The first is the commitment provides a safe place for sex to happen. Sex is a volatile, explosive kind of thing. In hunter gatherer societies, it's what you go to war for, what you murder for. OMGosh, remember Shechem. Dinah gets raped (or at the very least, something less than conventional marital sex). For this her brothers massacre an entire city. On the flip side, science has proven that every time a man has sex with the same woman, his body produces oxytocin and he bonds to her more, and the more he bonds, the better the sex.

The second reason is that a marriage provides the safest and most secure environment for the raising of children. Now you will say, a celibate couple are obviously not going to have children. To which I reply, that's why I say it's odd. One of the primary reasons for marriage is for the best environment to raise kids. If you aren't going to have kids, why are you going to get married? But there IS an answer to that question, and it's companionship. People are still drawn to the pair bond, even in the absence of children. That why widows who are past child bearing age will still remarry. You might simply have two people with exceptionally low levels of testosterone, which would result in especially low libidos -- they are happier not having sex.

What I'm definitely opposed to are those sects that prohibit husbands and wives from having sex. That's one of the marks of a cult.

In a nutshell, the Bahai belief is that the primary purpose of marriage is to raise up children who will know and worship God, and the belief on sex is that the proper use of the sex instinct is the right of every individual, for which the institution of marriage has been established.

All that said, my personal views have changed over the years. I used to think that sex was necessary and even very important in marriage, but since I started to get serious about God and the Baha'i Faith I lost interest. Part of the reason could be age because hormones do change after menopause. I do not think going against nature by women taking hormones and men taking pills is what God intended. God did not create humans to worship sex, but to worship Him. We are essentially spiritual beings, not physical bodies. That does not mean people cannot enjoy sex if they want to, but I think far too much importance is placed on sex and it makes other people feel like there is something wrong with them because they are not on board. Sorry, but I have jumped ship... I have much more important things to do nowadays.

 

[Vinayaka]

In a nutshell, the Bahai belief is that the primary purpose of marriage is to raise up children who will know and worship God, and the belief on sex is that the proper use of the sex instinct is the right of every individual, for which the institution of marriage has been established.

All that said, my personal views have changed over the years. I used to think that sex was necessary and even very important in marriage, but since I started to get serious about God and the Baha'i Faith I lost interest. Part of the reason could be age because hormones do change after menopause. I do not think going against nature by women taking hormones and men taking pills is what God intended. God did not create humans to worship sex, but to worship Him. We are essentially spiritual beings, not physical bodies. That does not mean people cannot enjoy sex if they want to, but I think far too much importance is placed on sex and it makes other people feel like there is something wrong with them because they are not on board. Sorry, but I have jumped ship... I have much more important things to do nowadays.

A sample size of one isn't statistically significant.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

You know, we only have a few bits and pieces of [Papias'] writing, that which is quoted in Irenaeus and Eusebius. I wouldn't make such a generalization about his familiarity with the gospels based on such a small sampling of his writings.

But Eusebius must surely have had a lot. If he only quotes Papias as mentioning Mark's gospel and Matthew's collection of the saying of Jesus, it's a reasonable assumption that Papias didn't mention the other gospels.

But, as I said, this is off-topic in this thread.

 

[Trailblazer]

A sample size of one isn't statistically significant.

I did not say anything about statistical significance.