A lot slow on this reply, but I would like to re-emphasize what I specifically wrote: "celibacy as a virtue for priests". Thus, my "hostility toward celibacy" is only directed at it when conceived as virtuous (and more specifically for catholic priests). If a person is celibate but does not view it as virtuous and sensuality in general as sinful or morally inferior / suspicious, then that person would not fall into the class of people who view "celibacy as a virtue" and thus my hypothesis would not relate to them. I suggest you read things I write in the future more carefully. Or is it your habit to judge people you don't understand?
Just to be clear: celibacy isn’t so much a virtue as it is a requirement for certain vocations. The virtue connected to mastering and/or properly directing sexual desires/urges would be chastity, which everyone, whatever their vocation, can and should strive for. And sensuality isn’t in and of itself sinful; like everything else in life, it has its proper place, but can become sinful when pursued in an improper context and without the desire for the good of the other.
Why would celibacy be a requirement for a vocation as a priest? Protestant pastors seem to do fine without that requirement.
"And sensuality isn’t in and of itself sinful"
The impression I get when reading the New Testament is that its authors think it is nobler for a person to be celibate than to satisfy their sexual desires. The notion sensuality being a vice / inferior in Christianity and celibacy being a virtue can be traced all the way back to Paul. And sexual desire has been viewed as a vice since the beginning of Christianity. While modernity has certainly tempered the views of many Christians, and I think that is a good thing, the perception of sexual desire as a vice is simply historically one of the basic evil fruits of Christian ideology.
The following passage from a letter from Paul, Paul calls his self-deprivation, "self-control" and a "gift"; and suggests that people should reject sex, but if people lack the "gift" Paul has, one should marry, not for things like, say "love", but simply to avoid "burning with passion". And in Paul's marriage, a woman is expected to have her body ruled by her husband, and man is expected to have his body ruled by her wife; which shares the same reasoning of customs and laws that contributed to marital rape and other atrocities. Furthermore, married couples are likewise encouraged to avoid sex at times so that they can dedicate themselves to "prayer." Right, because one cannot pray while having sex in the same "season"? In what world would that be a problem? Well, in a world where sex is in some way morally tainted.
"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. 6 I say this by way of concession, not of command. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." Corinthians 1:7
"like everything else in life, it has its proper place, but can become sinful when pursued in an improper context and without the desire for the good of the other."
Like everything else? Like masturbation and orgies?
It’s funny, because there are actually Catholic priests who do marry (in some Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, married men can become priests), and it’s possible that the RC Church could change the celibacy requirement for men discerning the priesthood in the future. Christ having been celibate is typically used to justify the celibacy requirement for priests who, in administering the sacraments, are in that sense filling Christ’s role. But then there are also all sorts of practical considerations that have led Church officials to want to keep the requirement.
It’s good to keep in mind when looking at the attitudes of early Christians to sexuality that the dominate culture (that of the Romans) was pretty depraved when it came to sexuality. The Romans had no conception that, say, a man who used a slave to satisfy his sexual desire was in any way committing any sort of violation of that person. Given how rampant sexual abuse was, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that huge portions of the earliest converts to Christianity in the Roman Empire were women and slaves. And while the idea that a wife belonged to her husband would have been accepted as true across many ancient cultures, the notion that a husband belonged exclusively to his wife was pretty novel. Yes, of course there have always been men who have abused their wives and manipulated Scripture to do bad things. But since marriage is supposed to be founded in love, it doesn’t make sense to interpret the language of wives and husbands belonging to each other as justifying rape, since rape is obviously antithetical to love. Louise Perry, who recently came out with a book that basically argues that the sexual revolution was a failure, has argued that Christian ideas about sexual ethics were what enabled the feminist movement to develop in the modern period (and I’m not so much referring to the more recent libertarian “choice” feminism so much as the movement that sought legal parity within marriage and protections for women’s sex-based rights). If you look at what [Catholic] Christian theologians have written about sex in last last several decades, I think you might be surprised to find that their take on the matter is nothing like the caricature that been popularized in our culture. I’d recommend “Love and Responsibility” as a good place to start.
I should have been more specific and said “like everything else in life that is good”. Masturbation and orgies obviously would not qualify.
"Yes, of course there have always been men who have abused their wives and manipulated Scripture to do bad things."
It isn't a manipulation of the bible, it is a rational consequence of the ideas and language. It isn't surprising that evil ideas generate evil behavior and customs.
"But since marriage is supposed to be founded in love, it doesn’t make sense to interpret the language of wives and husbands belonging to each other as justifying rape, since rape is obviously antithetical to love. "
The bible regularly equates love with obedience, thus it makes perfect sense that for thousands of years Christian men used the language of the bible to abuse their wives. The arguments people made for marital rape didn't view the behavior as rape. It viewed it as conjugal rights. The same logic was probably applied by the Romans you have so much contempt for. Slave masters had the right to their slaves' bodies, thus sexual behavior with the slaves wasn't rape. Its probably the same moral argument American slave owners made to justify their own atrocities. And they all had good support for their slave owning from the bible, given that the bible never explicitly condemns the sort of slavery that was practiced either by the Romans or eventually by Europeans and Americans, but rather just encourages masters to be "good masters."
Slavery is fundamental to the moral system of the bible. Humans are expected to be slaves to Jehovah. Jesus regularly uses slave metaphors to describe his relationship with his followers in the gospels. And Paul expresses pride about being a "slave to Christ".
Christian theology is perverse and evil, and its no surprise that it has created perverse and evil institutions and social systems.
"I should have been more specific and said “like everything else in life that is good”. Masturbation and orgies obviously would not qualify."
Masturbation and orgies would never qualify as good -- and obviously? Perhaps to people who take pride in being a slave to an imaginary psychopathic deity who is allegedly obsessed with blood sacrifices and masochism. To many others who are more wise -- I suspect there is a proper time and place for both. Masturbation? Typically don't go more than a month without it. I must admit though, its hard to find the right people for an orgy; certainly not Christians.
A critical difference between ancient Rome and the pre-Civil War period in the US is that there was no group of elite Romans advocating for the rights of the enslaved whereas a significant portion of the American elite were abolitionists whose motivation to end slavery largely came from their Christian faith. But yea, if you’re convinced that the foundational text of Western Civilization and/or the religion(s) that formed and were formed by it are perverse and evil, I don’t think any discussion we have here will be fruitful. If at any point you become curious enough to approach your study of Christianity from another perspective, I’d recommend you check out Tom Holland’s book, “Dominion.”
Abolitionism developed among some Christians and non-Christian’s, such as Thomas Paine, the writer of a text, Common Sense, much more foundational than the Christian Bible. Ignorant Christians like to fantasy that the Bible is a foundational text for the American Republic but if we juxtapose the American constitution with the Bible any sane person would realize that the scent of Christianity is pretty much undetectable except for by people hallucinating on the blood of Jesus. Even the Declaration of Independence, written by Jefferson, a heretic to Christianity by any reasonable measure of Christianity, may have a scent of *theism*, but it’s *Christianity*, that which makes Christianity ideologically distinct, has largely been wiped clean.
American slavery was abolished by a concerted effort of people, mostly Christian and some not, despite Christianity, not because of it. Given how much the Bible repeatedly condones or approves of slavery in various forms it is quite incredible that some Christians championed abolition. Yet It wouldn’t have taken around 1500 years of Christian dominion to have abolished slavery if Christianity had been fundamental to its abolition. In 100 years Christians will be singing the praises of Christianity for championing extending the right of marriage to gay people. It’s great that Christians are able to improve their morals even though their Bible stays the same evil muck it is. But it would be better if they also didn’t carry around the rotting corpse of their imaginary slave master, Jehovah, with them.
Like Jefferson who terrorized and abused slaves while simultaneously expressing his contempt for the practice, every Christian “abolitionist” spewed hypocrisy when they advocated for the liberty of black slaves while simultaneously glorifying a god of slavery. But people aren’t perfect. So I still say many of them deserve more honor than scorn. Jefferson deserves more scorn though.
As for my approach of my study of Christianity--it is the rational approach, which is the only valid perspective to take. I recommend you read Huckleberry Finn.
A lot slow on this reply, but I would like to re-emphasize what I specifically wrote: "celibacy as a virtue for priests". Thus, my "hostility toward celibacy" is only directed at it when conceived as virtuous (and more specifically for catholic priests). If a person is celibate but does not view it as virtuous and sensuality in general as sinful or morally inferior / suspicious, then that person would not fall into the class of people who view "celibacy as a virtue" and thus my hypothesis would not relate to them. I suggest you read things I write in the future more carefully. Or is it your habit to judge people you don't understand?
Just to be clear: celibacy isn’t so much a virtue as it is a requirement for certain vocations. The virtue connected to mastering and/or properly directing sexual desires/urges would be chastity, which everyone, whatever their vocation, can and should strive for. And sensuality isn’t in and of itself sinful; like everything else in life, it has its proper place, but can become sinful when pursued in an improper context and without the desire for the good of the other.
Why would celibacy be a requirement for a vocation as a priest? Protestant pastors seem to do fine without that requirement.
"And sensuality isn’t in and of itself sinful"
The impression I get when reading the New Testament is that its authors think it is nobler for a person to be celibate than to satisfy their sexual desires. The notion sensuality being a vice / inferior in Christianity and celibacy being a virtue can be traced all the way back to Paul. And sexual desire has been viewed as a vice since the beginning of Christianity. While modernity has certainly tempered the views of many Christians, and I think that is a good thing, the perception of sexual desire as a vice is simply historically one of the basic evil fruits of Christian ideology.
The following passage from a letter from Paul, Paul calls his self-deprivation, "self-control" and a "gift"; and suggests that people should reject sex, but if people lack the "gift" Paul has, one should marry, not for things like, say "love", but simply to avoid "burning with passion". And in Paul's marriage, a woman is expected to have her body ruled by her husband, and man is expected to have his body ruled by her wife; which shares the same reasoning of customs and laws that contributed to marital rape and other atrocities. Furthermore, married couples are likewise encouraged to avoid sex at times so that they can dedicate themselves to "prayer." Right, because one cannot pray while having sex in the same "season"? In what world would that be a problem? Well, in a world where sex is in some way morally tainted.
"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. 6 I say this by way of concession, not of command. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." Corinthians 1:7
"like everything else in life, it has its proper place, but can become sinful when pursued in an improper context and without the desire for the good of the other."
Like everything else? Like masturbation and orgies?
It’s funny, because there are actually Catholic priests who do marry (in some Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, married men can become priests), and it’s possible that the RC Church could change the celibacy requirement for men discerning the priesthood in the future. Christ having been celibate is typically used to justify the celibacy requirement for priests who, in administering the sacraments, are in that sense filling Christ’s role. But then there are also all sorts of practical considerations that have led Church officials to want to keep the requirement.
It’s good to keep in mind when looking at the attitudes of early Christians to sexuality that the dominate culture (that of the Romans) was pretty depraved when it came to sexuality. The Romans had no conception that, say, a man who used a slave to satisfy his sexual desire was in any way committing any sort of violation of that person. Given how rampant sexual abuse was, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that huge portions of the earliest converts to Christianity in the Roman Empire were women and slaves. And while the idea that a wife belonged to her husband would have been accepted as true across many ancient cultures, the notion that a husband belonged exclusively to his wife was pretty novel. Yes, of course there have always been men who have abused their wives and manipulated Scripture to do bad things. But since marriage is supposed to be founded in love, it doesn’t make sense to interpret the language of wives and husbands belonging to each other as justifying rape, since rape is obviously antithetical to love. Louise Perry, who recently came out with a book that basically argues that the sexual revolution was a failure, has argued that Christian ideas about sexual ethics were what enabled the feminist movement to develop in the modern period (and I’m not so much referring to the more recent libertarian “choice” feminism so much as the movement that sought legal parity within marriage and protections for women’s sex-based rights). If you look at what [Catholic] Christian theologians have written about sex in last last several decades, I think you might be surprised to find that their take on the matter is nothing like the caricature that been popularized in our culture. I’d recommend “Love and Responsibility” as a good place to start.
I should have been more specific and said “like everything else in life that is good”. Masturbation and orgies obviously would not qualify.
"Yes, of course there have always been men who have abused their wives and manipulated Scripture to do bad things."
It isn't a manipulation of the bible, it is a rational consequence of the ideas and language. It isn't surprising that evil ideas generate evil behavior and customs.
"But since marriage is supposed to be founded in love, it doesn’t make sense to interpret the language of wives and husbands belonging to each other as justifying rape, since rape is obviously antithetical to love. "
The bible regularly equates love with obedience, thus it makes perfect sense that for thousands of years Christian men used the language of the bible to abuse their wives. The arguments people made for marital rape didn't view the behavior as rape. It viewed it as conjugal rights. The same logic was probably applied by the Romans you have so much contempt for. Slave masters had the right to their slaves' bodies, thus sexual behavior with the slaves wasn't rape. Its probably the same moral argument American slave owners made to justify their own atrocities. And they all had good support for their slave owning from the bible, given that the bible never explicitly condemns the sort of slavery that was practiced either by the Romans or eventually by Europeans and Americans, but rather just encourages masters to be "good masters."
Slavery is fundamental to the moral system of the bible. Humans are expected to be slaves to Jehovah. Jesus regularly uses slave metaphors to describe his relationship with his followers in the gospels. And Paul expresses pride about being a "slave to Christ".
Christian theology is perverse and evil, and its no surprise that it has created perverse and evil institutions and social systems.
"I should have been more specific and said “like everything else in life that is good”. Masturbation and orgies obviously would not qualify."
Masturbation and orgies would never qualify as good -- and obviously? Perhaps to people who take pride in being a slave to an imaginary psychopathic deity who is allegedly obsessed with blood sacrifices and masochism. To many others who are more wise -- I suspect there is a proper time and place for both. Masturbation? Typically don't go more than a month without it. I must admit though, its hard to find the right people for an orgy; certainly not Christians.
A critical difference between ancient Rome and the pre-Civil War period in the US is that there was no group of elite Romans advocating for the rights of the enslaved whereas a significant portion of the American elite were abolitionists whose motivation to end slavery largely came from their Christian faith. But yea, if you’re convinced that the foundational text of Western Civilization and/or the religion(s) that formed and were formed by it are perverse and evil, I don’t think any discussion we have here will be fruitful. If at any point you become curious enough to approach your study of Christianity from another perspective, I’d recommend you check out Tom Holland’s book, “Dominion.”
Cheers.
Abolitionism developed among some Christians and non-Christian’s, such as Thomas Paine, the writer of a text, Common Sense, much more foundational than the Christian Bible. Ignorant Christians like to fantasy that the Bible is a foundational text for the American Republic but if we juxtapose the American constitution with the Bible any sane person would realize that the scent of Christianity is pretty much undetectable except for by people hallucinating on the blood of Jesus. Even the Declaration of Independence, written by Jefferson, a heretic to Christianity by any reasonable measure of Christianity, may have a scent of *theism*, but it’s *Christianity*, that which makes Christianity ideologically distinct, has largely been wiped clean.
American slavery was abolished by a concerted effort of people, mostly Christian and some not, despite Christianity, not because of it. Given how much the Bible repeatedly condones or approves of slavery in various forms it is quite incredible that some Christians championed abolition. Yet It wouldn’t have taken around 1500 years of Christian dominion to have abolished slavery if Christianity had been fundamental to its abolition. In 100 years Christians will be singing the praises of Christianity for championing extending the right of marriage to gay people. It’s great that Christians are able to improve their morals even though their Bible stays the same evil muck it is. But it would be better if they also didn’t carry around the rotting corpse of their imaginary slave master, Jehovah, with them.
Like Jefferson who terrorized and abused slaves while simultaneously expressing his contempt for the practice, every Christian “abolitionist” spewed hypocrisy when they advocated for the liberty of black slaves while simultaneously glorifying a god of slavery. But people aren’t perfect. So I still say many of them deserve more honor than scorn. Jefferson deserves more scorn though.
As for my approach of my study of Christianity--it is the rational approach, which is the only valid perspective to take. I recommend you read Huckleberry Finn.
Cheers.