Printable View
Yes, but I may decide to make a practice of not replying when people mentiion illicit sex with a goat as being better than celibacy - which is even itself a step or two beyond facetiousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
However, in reply to your question about Tolstoy, I did look it up and it wasn't in a fiction but it was a response to some people's questions about one of his works.
I don't think you have any right to assume it was illicit. For all you know, the goat may have been the initiating party.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
In any case, the salient point remains valid - that the situation of monks and condemned men is similar, so if it was the celibacy that was giving rise to the benefits you suggest one would expect that they'd accrue for murderers too.
However, if they don't, then we'd be forced to conclude that it's not the celibacy that's getting the monks to a higher plane, so it must be the soup or - and here's a bit of a thought - the fact that they don't have to deal with the stresses of a job, a mortgage, a family, keeping a roof over their heads, or any the other things that pretty much hold a society together and that also, incidentally, generate the money that becomes alms for the mendicant monks.
As it happens, I was stuck on a train today for three hours with nothing to occupy me - and I just stared out of the window looking at a tree, and I got some very satisfying thinking done. I cleared up some stuff that has been bugging me and I determined a course of action to deal with some other stuff, all of which had fallen into perspective, I'm pleased to say. I really wish I could do that more often. I'm pretty sure that most people, given the time to sit and contemplate the infinite, would take a few tottering steps towards oneness, even if they were to get laid once in a while.
But - all I'm saying is - that should not be a central policy of a well-lived and unselfish human life.
It's obscene as well as illegal. It's not appropriate. My point was you had already passed beyond facetiousness into obscenity.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
However the rest of your post is a normal one. I'm not trying to focus on that negative aspect.
Your point is not valid. I said before that being celibate does not make one a genius. Another absolutely essential point of my arguments which you ignored is that it is not simply celibacy in a void. Chastity is required as well, the goal is purity and spiritual life.
I believe anything is possible, and a murder could become enlightened, that is - know peace in his soul. However it is unlikely. Why? We train ourselves for different things, condition ourselves. The goal of spirituality, as according to Meher Baba, is to become free of the impressions of this life and innumerable past lives. If someone has spent a lifetime of evil, they are not going to simply become good for no reason.
Anger and hate have terrible effects on one's health. I am talking about a subtle difference between the life of someone who is already in the mode of goodness, and one who is then also celibate. That anger and hate, etc., have such negative effects is not just spiritual talk, it is scienticially proven. Surely you know this. Let's say one isn't living a brahmacari life in a spiritual asrama. Then it is probably still necessary, and for all the celibates I listed before this was true, that they have gotten their spiritual nourishment from other activities, such as pursuits in knowledge, art, etc. They were celibate so they would be able to focus better, because part of their life's work was dependent upon genius creative ability, which is not entirely separate from the ability to concentrate completely.
Yes, sir. Sorry, sirQuote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
That's exactly my valid point. Celibacy on its own is not going to do you any good.Quote:
Your point is not valid. I said before that being celibate does not make one a genius. Another absolutely essential point of my arguments which you ignored is that it is not simply celibacy in a void. Chastity is required as well, the goal is purity and spiritual life.
Even if I believed that, I don't think I'd sign up for it. In fact, if I have past lives I'd like to visit them on a regular basis rather then escape them. It would be better than the telly.Quote:
The goal of spirituality, as according to Meher Baba, is to become free of the impressions of this life and innumerable past lives.
Then we are making the same point...?Quote:
That's exactly my valid point. Celibacy on its own is not going to do you any good.
I guess my main point is that one can look beyond America, and life in America is not the only way. In America we are immersed or saturated with images, suggestions, expectations, and pressure about sex. Images which are meant to arouse lust are everywhere, on the television, in magazines, on billboards, in store windows. So we are pressured so much to be lustful and then to try to satisfy that lust all the time. But as I pointed out earlier, lust isn't ever "satisfied." When you gratify it, it is like putting fuel on a fire, or you are simply practicing or enforcing the habit.
But my main point is that it is not necessary to think this way, it is not the only way. In other cultures, India being the main one I am thinking of, it is not like this, or it didn't used to be. In fact in our culture it didn't use to be like this either. Anyway - if the environment, persons around one, and all of the influences one on are of a different nature, let's say, spiritual, then one's life is very different. If all of the influences are spiritual, then one develops a pure, developed, spiritual mode of consciousness instead of a lusty consciousness.
That is the main thing, consciousness. It is all about that. And we can have a pure consciousness, and it is rather necessary to attaining peace, actually. It is much healthier as well. That is my position.
If you think that physical intimacy is not pure by definition (ie. if you agree with the way it is often presented in the Western media), then, yes, the project of purifying one's consciousness might require chastity, celibacy, etc. If however, you are capable of experiencing physical intimacy without regarding it as any less pure than breathing, eating, hugging, or any other important life experience, then one can have a pure consciousness while not practicing celibacy.
People that I have shared experiences with, held, and loved have been extremely special to me. It is not very impressive to me when I hear philosophers, mystics, sages, etc. speak more highly of a general love that is everywhere. I don't mean to dismiss that love, but I don't want to be so wise that it's the only love I know.
Just my opinion--and I know it probably isn't right for everyone. Thank goodness we aren't all the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
Not quite, no.
It seems to me, from what you've said about celibacy as one element of a range of approaches, attitudes and practices, that it's more like Bran Flakes, as sold on TV.
The shoutline is Bran Flakes are good for you!
But the small print at the bottom of the screen says Bran Flakes may have beneficial effects as part of a healthy, balanced diet coupled with an active exercise regime.
..which may be true, but fails to make clear that if you have a healthy, balanced diet and an active exercise regime, you can skip the Bran Flakes.
I guess we'll agree to differ on that one.
Billl touches upon a much more important point - which is that you seem to have got the idea that spirituality is pure and that the physical is, well, less pure - dirty. Lusty, to use your word. Who told you that, and why do you believe them?
Yesterday after coming here I realize I wasted my time and probably yours. After realizing this I felt utterly miserable. Why does everything have to be an argument, a fight?
I have an urge to post but considering how miserable I felt yesterday after replying to you, Mark, I am not going to. I realized it was a waste of time to discuss with you, of mine and yours too, it was not productive. This is my last visit to this thread.
An argument is not a fight, nor is it a waste of time. It's engagement with other human beings - which is one of the joys of the physical, social, perceptible world.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
If it makes you miserable to have to put your opinions up against other opinions expressed by human beings who think you are mistaken, then I can kinda see why you might tend towards the contemplative and removed life.
Just to clear the Beethoven-discussion up:Quote:
Exactly, I don't recall her name either, but one in particular was definitely his lover for years. I don't think they just held hands or kissed.
There were 4 and a fifth one possibly, unidentified:
Giuglietta Giuccardi whom he asked for her hand in marriage when he was still young and her music teacher. He was refused on the grounds of being a poor artist (I think the father kicked himself later at the thought...). He wrote the Moonlight-Sonata in mourning of her.
Marie Erdödi, a slightly crippled woman of Hungarian descent. The relationship ended somehow, I can't recall why. I think it was because she did not believe her family would approve, although it was not clear why that was an issue, because after all she had her own fortune...
Josephine von Deym (I think née von Brunswick?), the widow of count (?) von Deym. He was considerably older tan she when they married, and she was left with three or four children. Like Marie Erdödi, her family(-in-law) would never approve of a marriage. So the relaionship was abandoned eventually, although the two were on very close terms.
Alledgedly, Beethoven would have been in love with his sister-in-law Johanna van Beethoven, wife of his brother Johann (?). He sent for the most expensive doctor of Vienna at some point when she was ill, although the two never had a good relationship, taking Johanna and Johann's son Karl away after the death of his father. Scholars have argued that Beethoven in fact wanted to marry her, but that his brother Johann usurped his place. Beethoven (Ludiwg that is) would have blamed her and his brother for ever.
And then there is his 'immortal beloved' whom he wrote two letters to from Karlsbad 'in pencil, [hers]'. Several women have been listed to be the one, but no-one has been able to come up with the definite answer.
You can see why my avatar is that mgnificent composer...
On topic:
There are definite advantages to sex, scientifically acknowledged (endorfines (against headache!), relaxing of the muscles amongst a lot of others) and I suppose there are people who find it rather boring and tiring.
I don't think that the greater artist/brain is the one who does it the most or the least. It is probably the one who feels selfconfident in what he does and as such, has sex when he feels like it (à la Shakespeare, Bach with his 8 or how many (?) children, Mozart (in love permanently with his wife), Beethoven with his mistresses, not to mention Goethe and Schiller).
Other than that, I do believe it is possible t be celibate and chaste. I do not suppose theDalai Lama has a wife and yet he seems to be more than happy.
Hmm, why did you immediately take Scher's reference as being only about prostitution. Even consensual sex where you don't pay for the actual sex and it's "free", you still have to buy dinner, pay for some activity, and buy condoms. Or in the case of women paying, buy dinner, buy flowers, pay for some activity, and purchase a diaphragm or prescription birth control pills. Even if you go dutch, you still have to pay for your own meal presumably in a nicer restaurant you'd go to if you were alone. Sex generally costs money somewhere down the road.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximilianus
Of all sexual deviations, Celibacy is the most extreme.
I don't know about that, especially when you read up on sexual identity disorders, but I have come to believe that there is no real established sexual norm, or to use your word, all sex is a kind of deviation.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
The only excuse I have for posting this is I am on a serious sugar high but whatever, I read somthing in the quaran the other day about celibecy, now unless I completly misunderstood and the transaltion was faulty ( I did double read the arbic and english to be sure) the message was ( and it is adressed to people in a marraiage all sex outside marraiage being a major NO NO) don't take vows of celibcey. But if they had already taken them ( the quran was revealed in stages so it adressed things that were already happening) then they have to complete the vow, breaking a vow being a big deal, but if they had already discoverd that they are not able to then it isnt a mortal sin or the end of the world ( and I think maybe fast a few days as penalty for breaking a vowor making one you couldnt keep not sure on this I have trouble with all the technicall lawy bits.) .
Also in other parts there is something about sex being the right of both parteners in a marriage and a gift from God and being 'estranged' or constitatly refusing to have sex with your partner is more than grounds for either one to divorce the other.
Celibacy or chastity are indeed virtues all religions hold with importance.
In fact sex is a biological need and there are certain glands that make people sexually active. We must not deal with the issue with emotional and religious attributes.
Of course we can chastise ourselves and self-control can act as a way of life. But in the long run we will fail and popes have failed. We know they are indulging in homosexuality.
We must not be hypocrites. People who are oversexed of course live miserably but who are disciplined are better off in life.
I do not go against sex or nor go against chastity. Buddhism strikes the Middle Path. Extremity is what Buddhism goes against.
I think the problems with Catholic priests kind of prove the problems with celibacy-- the oath is willing but the flesh still has the desires...
And what with Bouddhist monks? As far as I know they are also celibate...
Paedophelia has nothing to do with being deprived of sexual desire, or at least not for adults. So those priest do not turn to abusing children because they are deprived of sex in generl, they turn to abusing children because they prefer children and they would have done that too if they had had a wife, children, nephews and nieces. The 'condition' is similar to homosexuality (the desire for the same sex), with the exception that homosexuality is accepted and paedophelia is not (and should never be because it harms the subject).
Oscar Wilde was still condemned to a prison sentence for his homosexuality, whereas now it is deemed natural.
There are people in the world who are perfectly able to live without sex, but it's not given too all of us.
And do not start slagging me off for putting homosexuality and paedophelia in the same sentence, because sexual preference is an objective thing, whether it is deemed morally wrong or not.
Yes, all the ones (3 or 4) I have known were!Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
I believe it is largely a matter of what we are taught, and what we are exposed to.Quote:
There are people in the world who are perfectly able to live without sex, but it's not given too all of us.
Bouddhist monks should all be, because in order to reach the nirvana (sublime state of well-being) they should undo themselves of all earthly feelings and goals. I.e.: no money, no clothing apart from their well-known orange-red dress, no food-gathering or earning money to buy it (they live on gifts, one meal a day sometimes), no family (feelings of love to earthly beings).
If they are detached like that, they reach a state of only praying, meditation and sublime happiness; time to reach their divine self. Or so is the theory.
There is something about it that in the past most men who did not marry there was something wrong with (read: gay and unwillig to have sex and children with a wife). Whether they were celibate is another matter. Some were because they did not want to risk going to prison, others just did their thing and hoped that their cover would never be blown.
I don't know if it is what we are taught or exposed to that teaches us to have incontrollable urges or not.
The debate around the mentally ill/handicapped (who live without partner, like Down-syndrome men and women for example) and sex (with prostitues or boy/girlfriends they meet), is a good indication that we would never teach them to have those urges, but that they do have them. So much that sometimes prostitutes are called in to solve the 'problem' (if it is one).
I think rather the 'teaching' lies in te fact that we are taught that, biologically, it is impossible to live without sex or urges (chastity). I don't think it is totally impossible, as is illustrated with those thousands of Bouddhist monks. I cannot imagine them having gay orgies inside the convent.
So here is the paradox: mentally ill/handicapped people are not supposed to have any urges whatsoever (are supposed to be chaste and celibate), while the rest of us is supposed to have urges that are incontrollable because otherise is not natural. Yet we are all people... :confused: I suppose it is a matter of willing to be celibate or not and getting detatched from that kind of feelings or not.
This is true, I read a report on a study a while back anbout hormones and chemical balances and how they affect sexual prefeances ( not sure of the accuracy or whatever) but the jist of it was I think something along the lines of if you have a bit more of this or that decides your sexual perferance and lack or extra of something or other leads to people being Asexual.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Sex isn't a necessary thing, we don't die if we don't have sex, but we don't die if we cease to read or speak. Celibacy/Chastity does come with its benefits, the concepts of cleanliness and all the like, however in this way it can be seen as a vice, a similar one to smoking, drinking, etc. The thing is, its fun, shockingly so, because if it weren't we wouldn't do it all and where would the human race be? As for draining creativity, the best work of many have been derived from their worst moments in life. Misery breeds creativity.
I have no intentions of "slagging you off", but allow me to disagree with you. Lack of normal sexual relations has been show to cause mass hysteria, where almost anything can and does happen. Medical fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Causality is almost never a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Point taken about the slagging off. I was just afraid about people not getting my point of comparison... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
But I disagree. I refuse to believe that all celibate people end up mad because they have been deprived of sex.
To me it is a question of mental strength. Not that I totally disagree with your point: someone who absolutely wants sex (has incontrollable urges) and who does not see the personal need for celibacy should not be forced to be celibate. I can see how that makes one unhappy, brings one into a depression with all nasty concequences. (There are enough homosexuals who used to have that problem when gayness was not accepted yet: they were not allowed to express themselves).
On the other hand, someone who chooses to be celibate and to keep that vow is objectively completely able to stay sane.
The problem with the priests is that at least a large portion of them was forced into it: because parents thought it was a nice idea, it was fashionable; because they were homosexual and did not want people to know (true at least in Europe); because it was a family tradition (second son becomes priest); they couldnot deal with women (afraid of them, so never dared to ask for a hand in marriage)... so all petty reasons, the same as why there were so many nuns about.
It was a joke, at least in Belgium, that the maid of the priest and the priest himself usually had a relationship, but given the social pressure (hence the many 'calings') to become one, I can really believe that the maid of the priest became a kind of mistress... Although I think now, callings are much more serious and young priests now do not so much manipulate the system (I'd like to believe).
Oh, my God. It's like I'm obsessed with gays here. I am sorry about it, but it is a good way of differentiating between forced celibacy and voluntary celibacy and it is not so long ago that it was still frowned upon or was even a crime (in Britain until 1967).
But allow me to say that I don't consider Bouddhist monks as hysteric.
Buddhist monks are definitely not hysteric.. Hindu monks also are celibate. Vaisnavas are celibate... Caitanya Mahaprabhu was celibate. As far as I know, all the most revered saints of both Hinduism and Buddhism were celibate. Milarepa was one of the greatest Buddhas I have ever known. One of the main things in Buddhism in regard to this is to be one's own master. No one can take that away from you, if you can attain self-mastery. Buddhism (and Hinduism, and any pure Christian) teaches this: not to try to master others, but to master oneself.
And Dale, I don't know what facts you have, I am not sure exactly what you are precisely saying. As I said, causality is almost impossible to be certain of, and it is virtually never a "fact." All I can do is encourage you to spend time with some pure devotees, or Hindus, meet with some Indians and get to know them, discuss all of these things.
As far as I can tell it's really about consciousness. As William James said, It's a fact that this life is worth living, because it's what you make it. Also, celibacy or chastity or the lack thereof is what you make of it. But since we are also brought up by our parents and our peers and society, not to mention television and other media, we have to watch what our influences are, because they will have their influence, for good or ill. Of course I may have some pride in that I feel I understand psychology and ontology very well. Happiness is the main goal, as Krishnamurti say. And the most important thing involved is perhaps to know oneself, one's motives, one's desires, limitations, needs, etc.
Buddhist monks, and Hindu brahmanas, are definitely living different lives from normal society in today's day and age. They undergo what we think of as austerity, such as no more Sitcoms (but also no more commercials!), no more soda, no more chewing gum, alcohol, and so on; further, they engage their whole lives in spiritual practice. But often they are manifesting all good qualities, and so they are the most warm, attractive people. They have Shakti. Shakti means power. So you will find these people imbued with warmth, love, and what might be called a spiritual aura.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Hm, First I would like to say that I am not a satanist and that I read the book out of curiosity. Many of the philosophical ideas are pretty good, and there are influences from many philosophers I consider great on the work. However I also disagree with some of the points of Satanism, But hey you don't have to accept an idea to entertain it. That being said, I found the article on sexuality in the Satanic Bible rather interesting and relevant to this topic.
I agree with with this. I believe whether or not you are asexual by nature, or live an asexual life by choice, your focuses that might otherwise be centered on sexuality would be focused elsewhere. It's unbelievable the amount of emphasis people put on dating, sex, and relationships. In the end, if you live a chaste & celibate life you will not have these distractions. That being said, I agree with the poster I quoted that, people who do not want to remain celibate and / or chaste should not be forced to be celibate.Quote:
Satanism condones any type of sexual activity which properly satisfies your individual desires
- be it heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or even asexual, if you choose. Satanism also sanctions Even the asexual has a deviation - his asexuality. It is far more abnormal to have a lack of sexual desire (unless illness or old-age, or another valid reason has caused the wane) than it is to be sexually promiscuous. However, if a Satanist chooses sexual sublimination above overt
sexual expression, that is entirely his own affair. In many cases of sexual sublimination (or asexuality), any attempt to emancipate himself sexually would prove devastating to the asexual. Asexuals are invariably sexually sublimated by their jobs or hobbies. All the energy and driving interest which would normally be devoted to sexual activity is channeled into other pastimes or into their chosen occupations. If a person favors other interests over sexual activity, it is his right, and no one is justified in condemning him for it. However, the person should at least recognize the fact that this is a sexual sublimation...... The true Satanist is not mastered by sex any more than he is mastered by any of his other desires. As with all other pleasurable things, the Satanist is master of, rather than mastered by sex. He is not the perverted fiend who is just waiting for the opportunity to deflower every
young virgin, nor is he the skulking degenerate who furtively hangs around in the "dirty" bookstores, slavering over the "nasty" pictures. If pornography fills his needs for the moment, he unashamedly buys some "choice items" and guiltlessly peruses them at his leisure.... The watchword of Satanism is INDULGENCE instead of "abstinence" . . . BUT - it is not
“compulsion“.
As you will often see me do, I'd like to reference Nietzsche. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra in the first part there is a section called "On Chastity" which can be found at this link though it is a different translation from the book I am using. http://www.geocities.com/thenietzsch...rapt1.htm#chas
Quote:
Do I exhort to you chastity? Chastity is a virtue with some, but with many almost a vice. These people abstain, to be sure: but the bi*tch sensuality leers enviously out of all that they do.... And how nicely the bi*tch sensuality knows how to beg for a piece of spirit, when a piece of flesh is denied her! You love tragedies and all that breaks the heart? But I am distrustful of your bi*tch sensuality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nietzsche
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nietzsche
A non-sense that exhorts an abstract concept of freedom seeking to corrupt the society. Burn down this heretic.
:lol::lol:
You know, it wasn't always required for Christian priests to be celibate. Heck, Peter was said to be the First Pope, and the Bible records that he was married. For people who claim to be founded on Peter, they seem to have went with Paul, who was celibate, yet he encouraged marriage to avoid adultery. Go figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Many of the early Popes had families, and at least one Pope was the son of another. Read Peter Tremayne's historical novels of Ireland, circa 600, where he deals with Rome becoming the center of Christianity, and enforcing celibacy.
God bless
Pen
Well, they claim that the reason the people went off in the Salem Witch Trials were in mass hysteria, founded on the Puritan's lack of any sort of reason when it came to sex outside of marriage, and even during marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
The Shakers would often go off into what they termed some sort of glorification in which sex was involved despite the fact they their religion was based on a lack of sex. But what do I know, eh?
God bless
Pen.
I certainly will agree with you here.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
Or as Alestiar Crowley said, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."Quote:
Originally Posted by Nietzsche
I mean no offence to anyone, but every time I've seen or heard this argument (lots of times) it's always people who aren't having sex who expound the joys of not having any.
Sex is one of the greatest pleasures of humankind. There appear to only be a few species which are able to achieve similar joy levels to us from sex, and failing to enjoy that by thinking something can be gained by going without it is just plain silliness, in my opinion.
Damn, those preachers, bible-bangers, Buddhas, Yogis and Imams have something to be proud of - denying ecstasy to billions of people.
And for what point? Even in the extremely unlikely event that there really was some physical benefit from going without, it would have to be something pretty damned amazing to make up for not having any sex.
In fact I do not subscribe to the fact one can be totally celeibate; and those who claim to have complete control over it are hypocrites. We cannot have complete control over humger, thirst and all the rest. In the same vein to think that we can have complete control over it and think that we can be celebrate we simply hypocrats.
It's not that being celibate gives joy. Spiritual life gives joy. But I know better than to "argue" that with an atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
And it's not just physical benefit, but also mental and spiritual - our physical health, well-being is not separate from our mental and spiritual well being. You know this. And it's not so much a benefit, again it's spiritual life which is necessary, and to practice some austerity is necessary for that. The alternative is to always seek one's pleasure and comfort. There must be balance in life.
And I am not against sex - just perhaps that it should be used for what it is obviously designed or evolved for - having children.
It is not that sex is wrong, Atheist. I do not believe I ever said that it was. And again, and this is quite fundamental, it's not that being celibate in a vacuum, if one still lives a materialistic life in every other way, will do any good, nor even be possible. Spiritual life gives us strength, as well as bliss - which is possible. It's possible to attain the state of sac-cid-ananda, which is basically infinite bliss and peace, not based on the senses.
But here is the simple thing, Atheist. Temporary pleasures, including sex, alcohol, TV, even more substantial but still temporary things such as house, nice clothes, car, nice toys (or gadgets), they do not satisfy permanently. If you have not, you should really read Siddhartha. This is my recommendation.
...the term I gave, sac-cid-ananda, is from Hinduism. But in Buddhism it is called enlightenment, realization of one's buddha-nature. The purpose of human life is self-realization. We have this unique opportunity. Buddhists, as well as Advaitins, achieve non-duality, and this is infinitely beyond all temoprary pleasures. There is no comparison.
Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. That is very dubious and most certainly not factual. If you study philosophy a lot you'll learn that causality is nearly impossible to prove. We can have indications sometimes but even then it's not considered "proven." But in that particular case, that is very far-fetched to say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Instead of replying to anyone specific (so much has been said) I'd rather just give my opinion on the matter...
I think it all comes down to why people prefer to be celibate or sexually active. It doesn't have to be so complicated! If I choose to be celibate because I want to be, then that's okay.
The priest debate: I think the priests who broke the vow were probably never that serious about it to begin with. Maybe they became priets because they thought it would 'heal' them, or not expose them to temptation as much, or they became preists (as was mentioned on this thread) because it was expected by their families. Or maybe they wanted to be priests, and celibacy came with the job...it wasn't so much a choice for them. It could be anything, so I wouldn't say the reason they broke their vows was because celibacy is wrong or unnatural. That would make it an excuse and people really can't blame their choices on nature, we were blessed with free will and reasoning. So just because you want to have sex doesn't mean you have to have it.
I also don't agree that not having sex would be spiritually enhancing. If your sole focus in life is sex and anything related to it, I can see how that could hinder you spiritually. But then too much of anything could hinder you spiritually. So, the key is to live a balanced life...in my opinion that could include having sex or being celibate or chaste.
All of this is not about what we were taught or exposed to, or even what 'abilities' we were blessed with (I'm refering to kiki's statement), but on what we choose and why.
Celibacy is like giving up smoking (although I'm not comparing smoking to having sex), some people can just throw away the ciggies, and they are done, and for some it takes more effort for whatever reason. Some convince themselves that they will never be able to give it up. So to repeat myself, it's about what we choose and why. Please don't try to nit-pick my 'giving up smoking' comparison...it was just a simple way to explain what I think about the topic.
And I find, it is always the people who are having sex who expound the joys of sex. Obviously, if you have chosen or experience a certain life style and it woks for you, you are going to advertise the joys of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I too am an atheist, I have no religious creed per se nor do I believe in a God, but some people just don't care for sex or relationships. It is not denial of ecstasy, if you find these things just to be a distraction there is no sense in pressuring someone who is asexual or has chosen an asexual life into sexuality. Don't forget, my fellow non-believer, that in the absence of a God, there is no absolute moral convictions exist as there is no supreme deity to force them onto us. Thsly, all morality is man made. Morals are formed on personal perception of life, emotion, and right and wrong. Whether you want to see the world as Anton LaVey, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, or whoever... it's irrelevant, the important thing is to have some sort of system on deciding what is right or wrong to you. For you, you like sex, and crave it. You obviously find it enjoyable and necessary. But don't forget, sexuality exists for one thing, and by proxy, love also exists for this, finding a suitable mate to raise children with. Purely based on that, there is no reason for sexuality if one does not desire children, or does not want to be married, why should that individual be pressured or be made to feel wrong for not pursuing such herd instincts? Sexuality is an important part in psychological development yes, but if one does not feel it necessary one should not be made to take part in it.
Those who would like to reap the absolute benefits of celibacy should give married life a try!
I hear it is the sure path to "Celibate Town".
:lol::lol: You are definitely spot on!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Probably a fair bet. I'm not an atheist, of course, and spiritual life can be found without denying natural impulse.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
Don't you think I would have researched this BEFORE I posted it? Facts are what is left after people can no longer deny the truth. Perhaps you are still in denial...Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Haha, funny.
Stands to reason, doesn't it? Celibate people clearly aren't going to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nietzsche
I don't think that works in this case. I've never seen anyone expounding the joys of sex in effort to make others partake, but I do see celibates advertising and promoting their life choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nietzsche
I'm not sure what this is all about as I see no connection between sex and morality and even less between sex and child bearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nietzsche
Sex is about enjoyment.
I certainly wouldn't try to force someone to break their vows; I just think it's a bit cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
Deprivation never works and to justify a deprivation with a yet unknown or understood goal sets one on the never ending question of “Am I truly doing what is best for me” while trying to get justification for ones actions by others opinions or putting together a list of data, (one sided I may add) to justify that position, espousing it and then looking for support to strengthen what one is unsure of but wants to believe while ignoring or closing ones mind to a counter position because it once again goes against ones ideal that hasn’t truly been tested. If one is truly convinced in their decision of celibacy as a way of life in a spiritual quest and they knew it in their soul of souls, they wouldn’t be here asking, they wouldn’t need our opinion.
There is a value in celibacy, that value being compared to not being celibate by the individual and while true, one could argue the fact that I don’t have to know how to murder someone to know it’s not for me, there is certain amount of freedom in being able to choose because one has experienced both sides. To pit spirituality against sexuality automatically sets up a dualism, “this is good and that is bad”, one is keeping me from the other and that is not seeing the inherent value of either.
Sex is far from the banal bump and grind, lust filled social representation portrayed in our current society and the majority never get past that image, The amount of people in their later years who continually try and recapture the loss of that image can attest to, they have never gotten beyond the idea either, and, consumerism loves portraying an image that can be profited from. For those of you who haven’t yet experienced a true connection with another person that goes beyond the basic and banal lustful drive, I would ask, why? before I throw the baby out with the bath water and assume it’s all not for me. Not to sound like an old codger but, if your in your early 20’s trying to decide if it’s worth it, you haven’t yet reached a point where you can make a life long decision yet, you are still to attached to others ideas.
Best of luck to those who hard-line celibacy as a way to spiritual enlightenment and to those who argue sex is the only way, you are both missing the point. There is value in both as a whole and as an individual experience, for we are nothing more than our experiences up and above anatomy.
Not everybody will see it as deprivation...Quote:
Originally Posted by grotto
Are you saying that everyone who chooses celibacy are still virgins? That's not necessarily the case. They could've been sexually active for years and years, before becoming celibate. Celibacy and chastity do not necessarily go hand in hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by grotto
You can't say everyone who chooses celibacy or chastity are closed minded (unless I misunderstood what you were saying), because you don't know their reasons for choosing what they did.Quote:
Originally Posted by grotto
I think this is unfair. For many people this decision involves a lot consideration for various reasons. That doesn't make them incapable of making "life long decisions" or attached to other's ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by grotto