|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is it wrong to give honor to virginity and celibacy?
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So only very unusual things are divine in your book?
If everything is divine, then "divine" just means "everything." Not everything is divine. God told Moses to take his sandals off when he was on the mountain. He didn't tell him to take his sandals off when he was in Egypt. Because the one was holy in a shoe-removal sort of way, and the other less so. If you don't believe that some things can be holier than others, you aren't giving the Incarnation its full due. Jesus was Divine in a way that Paul and Peter were not. Denying this is denying the incarnation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Oh some things can certainly be holier than others. Marriage vs the monastic or hermetic life just aint one of them.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh some things can certainly be holier than others. Marriage vs the monastic or hermetic life just aint one of them.
On what do you base this?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
On the divine call to marriage as a sacraemnt. On it's kenotic activity (as you previously mentioned). On it's profound ability to transform or destroy lives and effect the world more singularly than most things.
You on the other hand seem to not see it as holy because it is common.
That is a poor basis of holiness.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You on the other hand seem to not see it as holy because it is common.
I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth.
It is a holy thing to forgo something good for the sake of the Lord. Fasting is a similar case.
As for marriage vs. monasticism, St. Paul himself seems to say the latter is preferable to the former, although the former is acceptable if you just can't be continent without it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
The honor given to it certainly seems to be born out of a view of human sexuality as sinful.
In fact, the opposite - the giving up of something which can be joyful and pleasurable for the sake of service to God.
John of Damascus for instance believed that Adam and Eve were created in a state of innocence that did not include sexual intercourse. The fall of man and Original Sin carry with it sexual intercourse as a form of retribution; i.e. not a good or enjoyable thing. I believe this was a step further than Augustine who thought that sexual intercourse (within marriage and strictly for procreation of course) was in and of itself not sinful, but enjoyment of the act certainly was. I'm sure you could dig up multiple other tidbits like this. I believe it was this viewpoint that underlies the adulation for virginity and celibacy.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I believe it was this viewpoint that underlies the adulation for virginity and celibacy.
I think you've got the timing wrong. The admiration for celibacy starts early -- the Nazirites for example, were sworn virgins. Paul was a big fan of not marrying. Augustine et al. are a sad example of "too much of a good thing." They did not give rise to the cult of celibacy. They were a perversion of something that predated them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You on the other hand seem to not see it as holy because it is common.
I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth.
I didn't. You said it here:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So what if its ordinary?
Then it's not divine. Unless, again, everything is divine except sin.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is a holy thing to forgo something good for the sake of the Lord. Fasting is a similar case.
So now you're equating marriage with food. Even more odd.
I don't see the logic that forgoing something good is good. Foregoing something good for a greater good makes sense (self-sacrifice) but not simply foregoing something good for its own sake. There is no wisdom in cutting off your nose to spite your face.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As for marriage vs. monasticism, St. Paul himself seems to say the latter is preferable to the former, although the former is acceptable if you just can't be continent without it.
Paul does seem to see marriage as a concession to lust in 1Cor rather than a divine call to union of souls as described in Genesis and the stability of society. But he thought the world was about to end and he was trying to tamp down the sexual immorality of the non-jewish pagan society of Corinth so his weird ideas are somewhat understandable in the context. Does't apply anymore though. Marriage is a hell of a lot more than simply controlling lust.
[ 09. February 2015, 00:19: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Ah, I see. You equate "divine" and "holy." I do not.
I'm not sure how it's admirable to give up something good for something better. Anybody with a shred of intelligence would do that. It's hardly self-sacrifice to trade in your cruddy old car for a shiny new one.
No, I do not equate marriage with food. It's a fucking METAPHOR. Look it up.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Thanks for your responses mousethief but I don't think we're getting anywhere. I've never understood the value of fasting either except for exercising a bit of self control ( if food is a problem) and a bit of solidarity with the poor. I don't see why God would value deprivation for deprivation's sake. Jesus came so that we might have life abundantly after all.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
if God is accurately described by the big writing* on the tin, nothing Christians do is for God, but for themselves. You do what you do to better receive God's message and be better. Still a whole lot of room for argument on what accomplishes this, though.
* the fine print is hopelessly whacky. IMO.
[ 10. February 2015, 14:48: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
if God is accurately described by the big writing* on the tin, nothing Christians do is for God, but for themselves.
Or, hopefully, for others.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
The expectations & external involvement inherent in Christian marriage - sacramental as distinct from natural - are conventionally so high that virginity & celibacy seemingly should be considered the norm, from which one is called.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
The expectations & external involvement inherent in Christian marriage - sacramental as distinct from natural - are conventionally so high that virginity & celibacy seemingly should be considered the norm, from which one is called.
You do realise that stated this way, you make a strong case against Christianity and God?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
In questioning marriage as the default setting for Christian life?
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
In questioning marriage as the default setting for Christian life?
Well, yes. The church did not get too excited about marriage for at least a couple of hundred years. Paul thought it a second best option. The bible has many examples of marriage which does not conform to "Christian" standard, etc.
But I was speaking to virginity and celibacy as being the default unless otherwise "called". Human sex drive is natural and massive. Being "called" to marriage is rubbish. We are naturally driven to find a partner(s), sexuality is not merely AB, but AA and BB and A and/or B or none of the above and it does not just get engaged when God flicks a switch. Pretending otherwise is futile.
Now, if you wish to say that humans are instructed to transcend this, fair enough. But to pretend that it is the default? Not so much.
Christians do themselves no favours behaving so.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Christianity has a very high doctrine of marriage, as being a specific and particular way of discipleship, & yet this state of is life is simultaneously almost universally encouraged & expected. You can't have both, can you?
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Christianity has a very high doctrine of marriage, as being a specific and particular way of discipleship, & yet this state of is life is simultaneously almost universally encouraged & expected. You can't have both, can you?
Well, I'm not so sure about that. You could say, "Paris-trained professional chefs have a very high understanding of cuisine, yet nearly everybody eats."
Christians are called to make of marriage something more than mere mating -- to take common raw materials and sculpt them into something uncommon.
[ 12. February 2015, 00:27: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Right, but I'm talking about how Church discipline operates regarding marriage. All our called in - open door policy - but further down the line, significant penalties may be brought to bear in the event of difficulty.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No, I do not equate marriage with food. It's a fucking METAPHOR. Look it up.
Some pedant, hung up on minutiae, is going to come along and say that technically it was a simile.
And now some pedant has.
A simile is even less like equating than a metaphor is.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I believe this was a step further than Augustine who thought that sexual intercourse (within marriage and strictly for procreation of course) was in and of itself not sinful, but enjoyment of the act certainly was.
As I understand it, Augustine objected not to the pleasure but to letting the desire take control of you. If you can have sex while discussing the finer points of patristic theology with your partner Augustine would say you're alright.
I think in many ways Augustine is an advance upon older justifications for celibacy. He's just not all the way there yet.
[ 12. February 2015, 10:20: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No, I do not equate marriage with food. It's a fucking METAPHOR. Look it up.
Some pedant, hung up on minutiae, is going to come along and say that technically it was a simile.
And now some pedant has.
A simile is even less like equating than a metaphor is.
I would say on second thought it's an analogy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you can have sex while discussing the finer points of patristic theology with your partner Augustine would say you're alright.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
